From: mdhangton@gmail.com
On Friday, April 25, 2014 5:15:06 PM UTC-4, Michelle Bottorff wrote:
> 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.
>
It's an aspect of skill level. If you can control the voice of minor
characters, then you can control the central characters. Not that I'm
specifically criticizing Friedman -- this is my approach to this kind of
problem.
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
It's a fundamental difference between minor figures in the Middle Ages and in
the Renaissance, like Leonardo being important because he's Leonardo, or being
important for which noble he's sculpting for. That is the way I meant it.
>
>
> > 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.
>
Yes, that's what it appeared to me that you wrote.
>
>
> 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.
>
Um, I never name minor characters in the story opening. In a long ago
critique, somebody told me readers going to memorize the first few names they
see, think they must be major characters. I dunno if it's true.
>
>
>
>
> 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.)
That's a separate problem also. They aren't individuals; they're a collective
organism that responds to its environment, like a platoon of soldiers on
patrol, or the crew of a ship.
>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 brought up cat flyer people, only to say what I call "tertiary character",
to say that it's not the same as "spear carrier." I wasn't sure what _you_
were calling tertiary. I meant it as a lower level than secondary.
>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.
That is for the author to decide, whether they have something important to
say. If they don't say anything, then your critics can't tell you they sound
alike.
> Giving them lines just so you can differentiate
>
> their voices sounds to me like a bad plan.
>
Shakespeare had tertiary characters who talked about the politics, told puns
for the penny stinkards. They were always distinct.
I see why you're reacting like this...when a character's position demands that
he has an entourage, then you're obligated to show the presence of one. But
that's not necessarily what I meant.
>
>
> 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.
>
An argument between characters is better than an as you know Bob.
If somebody has no purpose, then you should delete him.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
