Introducing Characters

Have them doing something. That's it. Their reactions and their feelings toward/about whatever it is they're in the middle of shows us who they are. So, whether they're sitting on the toilet, cleaning the house, or having a morning quicky, whatever, just have them doing something.

Get it?

Dwayne, I think i saw Icecream Empress mention somewhere that you're taking a correspondence course in writing. You better not be having AW members do your work for you. How are you going to learn anything if you just copy what other people say?

DwayneA said:

How and what's the best way to introduce a character for the first time in a story? The protagonist? The antagonist?

Click to expand...

That's another small question with a big answer.

Depends on the story, the genre, the style, and the character. And only you know these.

Can't you find a short story collection and read the opening paragraphs so you can see for yourself how authors introduce their characters?

-Derek

DwayneA said:

How and what's the best way to introduce a character for the first time in a story? The protagonist? The antagonist?

Click to expand...

Is there a "best" way? I know there are different ways, but I doubt there is a consensus out there as to which is the best.

I'd imagine a story would be strongest if either the protagonist or the antagonist were introduced at the beginning of the first chapter. But I bet there are interesting ways to get around this.

As mentioned earlier, action is a way to go to quickly get an idea about what your character does, and why he/she does it. But again, you don't want them to be doing any old thing.

Starting a mystery with having your protagonist sitting on the toilet might build the wrong type of suspense...

abctriplets said:

you don't want them to be doing any old thing.

Starting a mystery with having your protagonist sitting on the toilet might build the wrong type of suspense...

Click to expand...

Unquestioningly, disagree. If done well...etc.

Let's say the protag is the U.S. President. Same-old-same-old would start with him in the middle of an intense staff meeting, consulting about some world-changing event. I'd much prefer the image of him humbled, rocking back and forth trying to pinch off a hanger.

But that's me.

Dwayne.

Open a book. Read it. How were characters introduced there?

Open another book. Read that one. How were characters introduced there?

Repeat until you have your answer.

Do a lot of crits of first chapters in Share Your Work. You'll run into stories where characters are introduced well and ones where they aren't. Then think about what worked for you and why, as well as what didn't work and why.

Lyxdeslic said:

Unquestioningly, disagree. If done well...etc.

Let's say the protag is the U.S. President. Same-old-same-old would start with him in the middle of an intense staff meeting, consulting about some world-changing event. I'd much prefer the image of him humbled, rocking back and forth trying to pinch off a hanger.

But that's me.

Click to expand...

If this truly is the best way to introduce a character, then it must still be undiscovered in print. Can you show me a book that starts this way? I would love to see it pulled off, without it seeming trite or gimicky.

DwayneA,

Being a plotter rather than a pantser, I would first outline all the "action" I see in my head as parts of the story. Doing my best to put them into chronological order, I then rate them. You'll see how this helps introduce characters when I start to explain the process.

Here's my order:

1. Backstory, character development, bridging action
2. Important clues embedded, but no real action
3. Emotional or psychological conflict
4. Rising action conflict, but not main event
5. Main event conflict

OK. Once this is done, I re-work the timeline. Why?

So everything builds up into a three-act system and the tension never lets down. Here's an example,

1. one of the protagonists is meeting with the boss, there is another person present. During the meeting, the protagonist's next actions are defined. Rating: 1-2
2. protagonist leaves, we discover that the boss and the other person are not the protagonist's friends, in fact, they are plotting his demise. Rating: 1-2-3
3. The boss and antagonist (the other person in the room) meet with someone who can help them with information how to generate the protagonist's downfall. Rating 2-1
4. They leave the helpful person and do more plotting. (small scene/transistional) 1
4. The boss leaves, the person left (the antagonist) is also plotting the boss's demise. Rating: 2-3-4
5. (Cut scene) to the helpful person, has information they didn't share with the antagonist, they leave to find the protag to help them. 3-4 (emotional conflict and climax of the first act.

I'll leave off here with hopes you see the point.

The structure "tells" you when you have a weak scene/character that isn't important. By building tension to a peaks, then going on to find out how the characters deal with the developments, is how you tell the story.

so the story line looks like this:

Act One Rising action = > Act One climax = > Act Two...action peak = > Act Three ...Climax = > Falling action

Scene ratings (with arrows denoting where they fall in the story):

1-2, 1-2-3, 2-3 = > 3-4 = > 2, 2-3, 3-4 = > 3, 3-4, 4-5 = > 3, 2, 1

Note: until the end, the tension/plot ratings don't go back to a "1."

BTW, most if not all of the characters you run into in the book should be introduced in the first act.

Example: The Hobbit (Act one - ends with capture by the goblins...Bilbo, Gandalf, dwarves, Smaug-note, Smaug isn't a physical character at this point, but we know he is the "big bad") These are the "main" characters of the story. Other characters, Trolls, Goblins, etc. are important, but not that important.

Act Two has the introduction of the Ring, which is actually a subplot that affects the outcome of the "real" story. And deals with the "quest" being outed to various races which will meet up again in the final act. It ends with the party being caught by the elves in Mirkwood.

The theft of the Arkenstone, Smaug, the war, etc. is part of Act three's conflict action to climax. Falling action involves Bilbo coming home to find out his household is being sold off at auction. (But he still has the ring... so can you say "sequel?")

Hopefully, you can see that the important characters were all introduced in the first act. All the other action/sub climaxes built upon each other until the final conflict. (which also had emotional conflict underlying it - Bilbo's theft of the stone and remorse when Thorin dies.)

Amy

DwayneA said:

I finished the correspondance writing course a very long time ago

Click to expand...

obviously it wasn't very useful.

I'd ask for your money back.

Holy crap. That is way too complicated for me. I just introduce characters the way I would if I were telling the story to someone in person.

Sheryl Nantus said:

obviously it wasn't very useful.

I'd ask for your money back.

Click to expand...

Ouch

> How and what's the best way to introduce a character for the first
> time in a story? The protagonist? The antagonist?

What's the best color in the world?

Same concept. Unfortunately, there are no fast answer to either one. That what makes story writing an art and not a science.

Maybe you should describe what it is you want to achieve. Some synopsis or even a vague description of your story would be a good thread starting point.

-cb

semilargeintestine said:

Holy crap. That is way too complicated for me. I just introduce characters the way I would if I were telling the story to someone in person.

Click to expand...

So you're a pantser. Congratulations! you have found your writing style.

The point I was attempting to make with my "detailed" instructions was this:

When introducing a character, FIRST determine if they are necessary.

Why?

Have you ever listened to a teenager tell you about a movie they just saw?

It's excrutiating. Why? because they ramble. They can't (well, most of them can't) tell you the synopsis of the story, the main characters, events, etc. in an order that relates the tension of what they witnessed.

Some newbie writers are guilty of this as well because they haven't learned to think through things and boil it down to the important points.

Another example: Stephen King. He boils his stories down to a "what if" statement. (This is just another name for.... the main plot point YIKES, SK is a plotter!)

What if the family dog gets rabies and turns on the family?
What if the patriarch of a family gets possessed by evil ghosts, goes nuts and tries to kill everyone around him?
What if the class troll has magical powers and uses them to get back at everyone who mistreated her?



Don't get me wrong, characters are the driving force of your story, however, without knowing why they are doing what they do, why they are on the toilet - so to speak - you can't build an effective story.

So, when introducing your character, you decide where they are. Why are they there? What are they doing that impacts the story?

Personal example: I begin a story with my MC waiting for his brother to pick him up from his flight home.

The story revolves around him finding out he has a daughter he never knew, and the fact that she shouldn't exist because his mother experimented with his DNA to make him immune to a disease (this is set in the future) that causes early death. The treatment should have rendered him sterile.

OK, why start with the bus stop scene? Because it introduces the MC, his brother (who ends up kidnapping the MC's daughter - although you don't know this until Act 3), and the mom who created this problem in the first place.

All the major players are there. We get to witness their interaction just before the shoe drops. (It's a family with issues, so not pretty.) and it has a direct correlation to the climax through introduction of the brother who is the villian.

This was an intentional choice. I could have started it years before when the MC was in prison, or later, when he first discovers he has a daughter, but by picking that particular moment in time, I set up both external and internal conflict for the MC. I gave him issues he's trying to overcome to be a better person than he was, and gave him a nemesis who will make him choose between being a good person and being a not good person.

Amy

I've never heard the term pantser before, but that's definitely me. I find that when I try to plot things out, I lose focus and things become confusing. Basically, I ramble like your teenage movie aficionados. It probably comes from my academic writing background, but I summarize and cut the fluff in my head during the time it takes my brain to move my mouth and vocal cords. My main problem in writing book-length works is that I tend to cut straight to the meat of the story, and everything is so concise that reaching the necessary length is problematic.

By the way, I wasn't trying to insult your method, I was just shocked by how scientific it seemed. If that's what works for you, more power to you. I would get so lost trying to do that and still be creative.

semilargeintestine said:

...but I summarize and cut the fluff in my head during the time it takes my brain to move my mouth and vocal cords. My main problem in writing book-length works is that I tend to cut straight to the meat of the story, and everything is so concise that reaching the necessary length is problematic.

By the way, I wasn't trying to insult your method, I was just shocked by how scientific it seemed. If that's what works for you, more power to you. I would get so lost trying to do that and still be creative.

Click to expand...

No insult taken, I have had enough time to develop a thick skin when it comes to anything said here/on message boards in general, AND you were just making an observation. No harm, no foul.

You summarize and cut the fluff - good! And you want a less scientific method, even better not everyone enjoys the science of writing (I'm an Aquarius...can you tell?).

Think about plays for a moment. Shakespeare's stories introduced characters, an issue, conflict, death, or a bet between major players... That all happens in Act one.

Then someone hops into the story to monkey with the outcome. (Think Puck mistaking the two lover sets) with hilarity ensuing.. or someone finds out the object of their obsession is unobtainable (Romeo & Juliet) yet they struggle to obtain it. (Act Two)

Act three deals with all the fall out of prior chapters.

It's an artistic approach this way. Ask yourself how your stories can be divided into three parts. You'll quickly see whether or not they can or can't, and may find that if you do, they are stronger/think up new developments to make them stronger.

It is one way to get a troublesome story out of writer's block, because you cut out all those silly scenes that really don't "do" anything.

You have the meat of the story and are having trouble filling out pages.

That happened with my first book. Why? because I forgot to include the sub plot. The thing/or enemy is working toward which is a different goal than the protagonist. It tangles into the main issue and creates conflict, driving the story to more tension, and more pages...

Revisiting King, in the Shining, there is the psychic old man and the child who are trying to keep the father from going off the deep end. And there is the personal struggle by Jack (the dad) to write his book. These two sub-plots work to prolong/increase the intertwining of the main issue.

One side is trying to keep him from going nuts, the other side is helping him slide down the slippery slope (and increasing the level of mayhem in the process)

At least that's how I see it.

I guess the difference lies in when we think about all that. I don't really think about that stuff before I write. I just start putting ink to paper and see where it takes me. I usually don't know much about what's going to happen, and I find that when I am writing really well, it is almost as if I am being told a story as I write it down. After it's all done, I think about that stuff and revise.

semilargeintestine said:

I've never heard the term pantser before, but that's definitely me.

Click to expand...

Pantser. n.
1. Someone who flies by the seat of their pants.
2. The bully in middle school you avoid if you don't want your trousers to end up around your ankles.


I think we're using the former definition here, but I could be mistaken...

Well, I'm both, so there you go.

abctriplets said:

If this truly is the best way to introduce a character, then it must still be undiscovered in print. Can you show me a book that starts this way? I would love to see it pulled off, without it seeming trite or gimicky.

Click to expand...

I guess the closest thing would be Leopold Bloom in the outhouse at the end of the first chapter in which he appears (not the first chapter of the book).