I've been reading a good bit over the last few months, so I will start with first thoughts:
1. I have noticed that the protagonist in novels is often not described at all. Not physically, anyhow. It seems that protagonists are a good example of showing rather than telling, since it is their reactions to events that inform us of what they're made of. Occasionally we learn why they do or don't like rocky road ice cream, you learn what kind of car they have and what, if any, credit cards, and I wonder whether this absence of physical description is designed to make the character more accessible, or whether it is simply a case of showing rather than telling.
2. I read Chuck Palanwhatsits "Pigmy" a couple of months ago and noticed that the most immediate way he describes a character is by the inner monologue, which is in broken english. It is often short, sharp, stocatto, full of references to obscure and fantastically named kung fu moves, and has a militant brevity to it. You get the sense of someone in the thick of a mission from page one, someone who is thinking as they have been trained to think.
3. I began a novel called "Jeremiah 8:20" and it is one of the few over the last few months where the protagonist is described; fat, insecure. I found it boring. The character was sort of one-dimensional.
4. In the 'Anansi Boys' by Neil Gaiman, the protagonist is called "Fat Charlie". Thats one way of describing a character. We learn that he is no longer fact, and wasn't fat for very long, through a brief sojourn into history. Refreshingly, its narrated in the third person - I keep finding new books written in the 1st person, and wonder whether its a trend or fashion in vogue at the moment, or whether its always been that way.
Fat Charlies Father is the god Anansi, and is described quite colourfully, from his leprechaunesque clothes to his death by karaoke and flirtation with the young women at the karaoke band. He appears in a hospital with a full brass band, but isn't playing anything. It's not so much his dress, which is briefly mentioned, but what he does that defines him.
5. In Buchanan's "The 39 Steps", which I've just started, there is an element of history again. A brief account of the protagonists time in London (I guess..) is coloured by his listless and sickened response to it, which is simply described as "I was sick of it". That interested me - the introduction really tells a lot, in the first person, rather than showing it. It is as if Buchanan has a lot of ideas he wants to get off the ground, and is giving the reader a briefing. It works because it isn't drawn out, and again a lot happens.
Having said that, the character is outstaged by the vagrant that visits him in the first chapter - a character who gets much more description. What sticks in my mind is the description of his nervous movements, his ticks, his looking over his shoulder, and his hiding away in a study. Perhaps this being outstaged is part of the authors wider plan, since the protagonist is, after all, rather despondent when first met.
In Conclusion: it seems that what a character DOES, and how they RESPOND to events, is what really gets a character colourful - often there is something that happens immediately that draws you into the character. In the case of "Pygmy" its the broken english and threat of kung fu around every corner - from the first secondary character we meet, the airport guard, Pygmy is planning a way to kill him. This happens with every single character, and - while at times I got bored - I couldn't help wondering who he would eventually kill, and how.
In Anansi, Fat Charlies Dad dies within a couple of pages. Even during this time there is a dog that has an unfortunate reputation established with amusing consequences, the scene in the hospital with the band - by the by, Fat Charlie isn't fat, and you don't often get bands, so there is a continuity here where the action is mirrored in the characters responses, and the responses are mirrored in the action, and there is a harmony of themes within these elements that I have yet to adequately define. I digress ---
In "The End of Mr. Y" (which I read on recommendation) the very first thing that happens is that the university where Mrs. Y works sinks into the ground. You then learn about how curious she is as to what happened, what shes does when it does happen, what she does after; within all of this a routine is established - the drinking of coffee with the neighbour - and interests and motivations are introduced. No where is there a physical description, as far as I can remember.
In short, the creation of a character is a complex thing. The character is not just your response to them, but their response to the world they inhabit. Its what they look like, but its also how they feel, what their history is. I think in every book I've read there has been a brief history of the character right at the start, entwined with or followed by - but rarely pre-empted by - a series of events that illustrate the characters interests and motivations. Within this there is a description of the world through the characters eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment