|
|
Joined: 3/3/2011
Posts: 68
|
Without dynamic characters, we're just pushing playing pieces around a board of plot, so making characters stand out is critical.
As an action-oriented author, I've been thinking a lot about how characterization through action works. I feel like I learn a lot about a character through how they navigate through action scenes, be they chases, fights, or disaster scenes. Here you can show training, discipline, instinct (killer or not) and temperment.
An example here is the most recent Sherlock Holmes movie, where Holmes does lightning-fast fight analysis to determine how to navigate a battle. Holmes talks through all the details, then when we go back to full-speed, we watch his plan unfold.
As a reader, do you find you can latch onto or become invested in a character through action? As a writer, how do you characterize through action?
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 222
|
For me, it is a very fine balance. When I read, I want a character who is *capable* of action, but uses his (or her) brain to get out of it... if necessary. I like the suspense of a character struggling with inner turmoils and trying to decide the best route.
I also enjoy when a character *can* handle things. However, if all the character does is a string of actions, I get bored. It has to be a good mix. That said, there is often more humor and interest in a character that isn't really all that good at action.
I really rather like it best when they are a coward who is indecisive but makes the choice to dive into the action anyway. These people often don't have the training OR discipline, though. To me, that is where the real candy is at. That hesitation, that sense of uncertainty. That is what makes me care for a character that gets thrust into the action.
Someone more perfect at these things isn't as entertaining for me to read.
Now, that said, there are days where all I want to see is blood fly and I really want a character who can deliver the carnage.
So, yes and no. I think a character is capable of fully developing without ever touching an action scene. I don't think I could see anything but certain facets of a character if all they did was action scenes. It is the quiet, introspective moments of a character that really bring them to life for me.
There is no short answer to this, but I will say "yes and yes" and "no and no".
When I write a character in the midst of action, their actions are based on all facets of their personality. But, I can't show all of the important facets of their personality through their actions (Well, in a tense action scene). I can show key points, but when a character doesn't have time to think, you see their training and that, I feel, is that.
Hope that makes sense. The more I think about it, the more it confuses me trying to write it out.
|
|
Joined: 3/11/2011
Posts: 15
|
You can certainly learn a lot about a character through action. Running for his life and a stray cat wanders into his path--does he kick the cat away, or nearly break his neck trying to avoid it? I'm going to like him a ton better if he doesn't kick that cat.
I'm confused by your example, though, as it sounds more like explanation (though no doubt put well) than action showing Holmes' character (and then the action showing he was right, maybe?)
I love to take an action-oriented character and toss him in unfamiliar settings. The martial artist in love. The flamboyant (and flaming) mob thug protecting a twelve-year-old girl. A stone-hearted vigilante drafted as a father figure.
Short answer: Action? Yes, please! I can fall for your character through action.
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 412
|
Agreed with the original post, I love learning about a character though what they do. On the same note, I love making my characters learn about THEMSELVES through what they do. A dark urban sf story I have has a character who finds himself switched with an evil world version of himself. In this world, life is brutish and violent. When pressed, he suddenly finds himself really good at violence, and that he enjoys it. A lot! It leads him to think more about himself.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
As a reader, I become invested in a character when they become 'real' to me, whether that depth is expressed via action, dialogue or introspection. I've even had characters become 'real' via description, although that's rarer.
Two of the better examples of characterization through action I've seen are Mike O'Neil (Ringo, Legacy of the Aldenata) and Samuel Vimes (Pratchett, Discworld). There are a lot of parallels between the two. In both cases, the men are soft spoken, yet often blunt to the point of tactlessness. They both come across as people reluctant to engage in violence. But when pushed past the point they can tolerate (a less-than-once-a-book occurrence), both become engines of destruction. That little glimpse lets a reader see the reason for their restraint; it's neither cowardice nor lack of ability, but a knowledge that some part of them does revel and excel in that dark side.
As a writer, I use the character's reaction to action as a characterization tool. In one case, where I'm deliberately avoiding one major character as a POV character, I get to illustrate her personality in action scenes. In another WIP(Crowbar Girl - I posted sections), I've got three major POV characters; I can illustrate their personality by how they deal with action scenes. One is a sharp, staccato blow-by-blow, constantly in the moment. Another sees things in flashbacks and static images. The third, much like the recent movie version of Holmes, is constantly introspective and planning, even in the middle of a disaster.
|
|
Joined: 3/14/2011
Posts: 15
|
Ahh, but character development needs to start before that action scene, right? My favorite characters are favorites because I have come to know them through the course of the novel.
Don't get me wrong I love my action scenes- that's when we learn exactrly what are characters are made of when thier back is to the wall (forgive the cliche- not enough coffee yet) But that character better be developed in my mind before I see that blood fly- or why would I care?
One of my favs and one of the best examples I can give of what I mean is Robert Crais's character Elvis Cole. Cole has his share of action but first we got to know his past, his quirky sense of humor, why his friendship with his partner Joe Pike is so strong and why he constantly chooses Pike over other relationships in his life- even if he doesn't want to- Now when Cole pulls that gun and the bad guy tries to kill him- we are vested- we are afraid for him and when he is forced to do something against his moral grain- we know what it cost him and why he did it-
So I guess what all this is trying to say is that we develope our characters by thier thoughts, thier beliefs, thier past, and the choices they make- that way we can better understand why they do the things they do when action is called for.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@sheadakota - what about a novel that *starts* with an action scene? Typically I don't like starting with an explosion, but some stories call for it.
Honestly, if the scene doesn't show something about the characters, or at least *set up* a scene that does, I don't see a reason to involve it in the book. If an action scene is the way a non-character in-story conflict is resolved, I suppose it needs to be in there, but if you're not talking about the characters, I often find it difficult to care about the scene at all.
With that said, couldn't a character's reaction to being 'dropped in the deep end' show quite a lot about who they are?
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 18
|
Generally, most stories will have a mix of characters. Some are indecisive while others are more direct in their actions. Some character are there by pure chance, others for comedic relief, or as a love interest, or to guide the hero on his journey. They all have their roles to play and so long as the writer plays them well, I am happy.
For me, the antagonist can not always be doing bad things. Most of the time, the antagonist believes he is right in what he is doing. He is the hero in his world and no matter how evil his actions are, he can justify them. This is no less than what the protagonist believes, even a reluctant protagonist.
I love stories with a mix of characters. Otherwise, it would be boring if they all acted and thought alike...
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 6
|
I love revealing my characters through a lack of action. When you expect them to respond in a certain fashion and they do the exact opposite. I believe it was Donald Maass who said to do that. To underplay a moment is powerful stuff - and it's fun to write.
|
|
|
|
This is a great discussion topic!
I agree with, sheadakota--that while it's very important that your character behaves appropriately for who he/she is and his/her personality comes through in that action, the character needs to have some sort of foundation already for us to take those actions and choices to heart. A character needs to be developed in a variety of ways in order to come off as believable and well-rounded. There is never just one thing that will do it.
This isn't to say you can't start a novel with action, Robert! Of course you can toss the reader right in there with the character and let us see how he/she reacts. It will definitely teach us something about the character. However, much more needs to happen outside the action sequences to fully develop that character. How he/she reacts to action will tell you a lot about the character, but you need to show in other ways how he/she got from reaction A in the beginning of the story to reaction B at the end that shows his/her growth and development over the course of the story.
Does that make sense? I feel like I just talked myself in a circle LOL!
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 244
|
There's nothing wrong with starting with action. Just as there is nothing wrong with starting a little slower. Some stories call for a little character set up in order for status quo-upsetting events to make sense. Or to get the reader to care about what's going to turn the MC's world on its end.
The goal with either opening, in my opinion, is to show the character enough through either the heavy action or the lack of action, that readers care about the characters and what they'll do throughout the story. Revealing character through action or inaction is a balancing act and one on which a work can crash or soar.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@Danielle, Steph - Thanks for the feedback. One of the WIPs I've got up starts with an action scene from three different perspectives. I've had a little trouble with continuity, because the three different characters see the scene so differently that most readers think it's three different scenes.
Thing is, that means I'm getting the characterization just about right. Now my challenge is how to fix the one without breaking the other.
|
|
Joined: 2/9/2012
Posts: 427
|
Love this discussion topic!
I think that revealing character through action is super important, especially when you want to demonstrate character growth. The protagonist's actions, toward the end of a novel in particular, show that he/she has overcome (or not) an obstacle (either psychological or real), which then often leads to the resolution of the story problem.
Just think about all the times a character is placed in the same situation for a second time (e.g. trying to slay a dragon). Traditionally, the second time around, he/she is more successful than previously, which proves that the character has grown over time.
My 2 cents.
Nevena
|
|
Joined: 6/14/2012
Posts: 194
|
I write military SF and epic fantasy for the most part, so there's a lot of action--but in fact, everything a character does is "action" and it had better reveal character. Two characters, the night before battle: one carefully field-strips his weapon, even though it's clean, checks every piece of equipment he checked early that afternoon, makes sure his socks aren't wrinkled in his boots, makes sure everything is exactly where it should be. The other--who did the same early afternoon checks--is sleeping peacefully, knowing that the sleep will do him good.
One person taps the table idly, while waiting. Another sits rigid, hands fisted in his lap. One person slumps into a chair and dozes. Three different characters, all shown by behavior, by action.
When it comes to arguments, fights, and explosions, the character you want to reveal should most often have been hinted through earlier storytelling. But not always. Some of my books and stories start with a confrontation and some don't. The military SF novellas usually start in the middle of something ("Politics" with a troop shuttle under attack; "In Suspect Terrain" with an outnumbered defensive force being attacked in their trenches) but "Tradition" starts with the day before the war--a sunny morning in port with the clouds of war not apparent until the future enemy ship leaves without warning. Most of the books set up with the psychological conflicts first (but not always--one starts with an assassination of the head of state.)
Even if I don't offer the reader the background of the character in conflict, I have to know it...and it has to fit not just their personality but their experience and training, and relate to the cultural expectations that formed them. What will it mean to that character to be taken prisoner and witness what he witnesses? What will it mean to this character that--when young and weaker--he cooperated with a monster and sold his future for present safety? What will it mean to yet another character that she discovered -- out of necessity--that she enjoyed killing?
And what does it mean to the story itself--that is, to the reader? Does the reader care about the characters enough to stick with them in the hard times that violence will bring them? Or does the violence push the reader back out to the surface of the story, where he's just an observer, like someone watching fireworks and not realizing it's "real"--a war, not a holiday entertainment? That's a different line for different readers. Some just want the surface--let's have battles as in a game, where it's all fantasy, and the reader doesn't have to care--and some want to move in closer--to care--but not too much, not enough to hurt--and some want to go all the way in, and find out what it's like (without getting killed themselves.)
There's no one right way, but making sure the action reveals something more than "Really big strong hero-person kicks butt" is always a good idea.
|
|
|
|