From: mbottorff@lshelby.com
William Vetter wrote:
> > > I think the most severe situation is to make secondary or tertiary
> > > characters' dialog seem distinct, when they have the same rank or place
> > > in society, same gender and age, same ethnic speech pattern, and so on.
> > > Probably, their personality traits need to be chosen specifically to
> > > make their dialog distinct,
> >
> > But that in and of itself tends to feel contrived after a bit, doesn't
> > it?
> >
> > I would like to put forward the possibility that there may not actually
> > be a reason to make two tertiary characters of similar rank, place in
> > society, gender, age, etc, sound different. (Emphasizing that we are
> > talking about "tertiary" characters.,so, by definition, they're not
> > important to the story.)
>
> That is what Prof Friedman was getting criticized for, I think. Maybe
> that's only my perception.
I thought the complaint was that all his characters but one sounded the
same.
"All characters but one sound the same" is a wayyyy different thing than
"two tertiary characters sound the same".
The first one is a very serious characterization problem.
The second one doens't look to me like its necessarily a problem at
all.
> You could argue that, in the Medieval world, the only thing important was
> who a person served, so only the nobles ought to be characterized.
?!?!
No. I don't think I could argue that. Frankly, it sounds nuts.
> People write books where the soldiers' purpose is to beam down in a red
> shirt, and they still get published.
...
Aha! I think I've figured out where you're coming from.
You appear to have got the impression that when I said, "does it matter
if anyone can tell all ten apart?" that I hadn't bothered to
differentiated *any* of them.
The actual situation is more like this:
Two of the guards stand out really well as people.
Another couple are less well defined, but still distinct personalities.
About another three have unique characteristics, but maybe the reader
can't remember which one is who.
And the final three are essentially blank slates.
It is possible to look at that and say, "you need to spend more time
giving the final three a distinct voice."
What I'm trying to say is that I think that's not true. I think the
various levels of characterization are a good thing. That they're all
about giving the readers a focus, so that they don't feel bombarded with
information that is difficult to prioritize. Descriptions seem to work
that same way also.
I don't think this applies to your cat flyers, though.
Dealing with the ten guards is a group management issue. (I deal in a
similar way with hordes of noble courtiers, with a group of school
girls, with a nomadic tribe, etc.) Your cat flyers aren't really a
group, they're a sequence. As you say, there is a story need for them
to create a sense of increasing emotional distress. That's a very
different situation.
I wasn't trying to respond to the cat flyers. I was trying to respond
to the complaining sentry.
I sort of instinctively cringe at the notion. Which isn't to say I
think it wouldn't work. But I worry about why the sentry is talking
that much. Lots of tertiary characters have very little of story
importance to say. Giving them lines just so you can differentiate
their voices sounds to me like a bad plan.
If the sentry would have had a bunch of lines anyway, then I don't have
a problem with it. But if he wouldn't have otherwise had many lines,
then he really doesn't need to have a unique voice.
IMHO. YMMV. Other disclaimers as required.
--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
