Visual inspiration for you, um, your character

Wow, it's so nice to see a thread full of other non-visual authors. I'd been firmly convinced that I was abnormal because of it.

I honestly don't really care what my characters look like. I decide a few things as it becomes important in the story and toss it in and make it consistent, but leave it up to the reader to form any picture they want. The most I do with actors and my characters has nothing to do with looks, it's all about prescence. So-and-so or Such-and-such would be able to portray this character--but with modern make-up and prostetics, it doesn't matter what the actor looks like anymore, as long as s/he can pull off the role.

I've been horrified more than once to see what Hollywood thought a character I had visualized from a story looked like. One of the worst was a MC described as having red hair - Hollywood cast a tall, dark, and handsome for the role. Totally different image. Puma

Or a cover artist that obviously hasn't a clue what descriptions have been given.

Puma said:

I've been horrified more than once to see what Hollywood thought a character I had visualized from a story looked like. One of the worst was a MC described as having red hair - Hollywood cast a tall, dark, and handsome for the role. Totally different image. Puma

Click to expand...

You know, that's one place where I have to give serious kudos to the Harry Potter films. The casting has been spot-on perfect, especially with the secondary characters.

Especially Snape. There could be nobody else to play that part.

BardSkye said:

Or a cover artist that obviously hasn't a clue what descriptions have been given.

Click to expand...

That's because (at least in most publishing houses that I've heard about/from) the cover artist is lucky to get the synopsis of the book. One friend (SF/F cover artist) just gets maybe a 5 minute phone discussion with the art director which includes what the cover needs to contain, how much space to leave for name and title, a general "feel" for the coloring (dark, light, comic, etc) and the deadline that's always too tight. That's it.

My understanding is that cover art is all about marketing and getting people's attention, not about accurately portraying what the story's actually about.

Suse said:

I agree. I'd add that I think it would be nice to have a consistent picture in my own head as a writer, but for the reader I don't see that it matters too much, unless looks are important for a specific reason. As they are with my Helen of Troy. Can't deny looks form a part of her story. The thing is, I don't like describing her in much detail because I'm sure everyone has their own idea on what the most beautiful woman imaginable should look like.

I really, really don't like being told about a character's appearance beyond basics like height, build and hair colour. There's nothing worse than building up a picture in your head, only for the writer to throw in a moustache along the way. I block out descriptions when I don't like them.

Click to expand...

I agree. If I happen to equate a character's appearance to an actor, it's more for me to use as a placeholder. Almost a visual shorthand, if you will, when I'm developing character profiles ahead of the actual writing.

I try to avoid playing the whole "if I were casting my novel" game...my main characters especially exist wholly in my imagination, and usually not fully visualized.

The "Alaric as Donal Logue" thing somewhat different, and stems, I think, from a documentary the History Channel did on the Visigoths awhile back. The actor they hired to play Alaric bore an uncanny resemblance to Donal Logue...and for some reason that image stuck in my head.

I have to make my characters up. 16th Century Russia had very little in the way of secular art, and no portraiture was in existence - not even of the ruler. There is not a single authenticated portrait of any of the figures of that country in that century - though we do have the odd description given by foreign ambassadors - but only of members of the ruling families, and on one occasion of one non-princely person: an envoi described the notorious favourite of Ivan IV as "the most beautiful young man in Europe".

There is a lot of historical art executed in the 19th and 20th centuries - Russian art had a big fad for historical themes. These are useful in getting a visual set of places, but any historical figures so depicted must be considered with caution. Appollinary Vasnetsov did some wonderful reconstructions of cities and landscapes.

The only other clue to what people looked like is that Russian scientists have carried out a number of intriguing autopsy tests on royal remains - giving us proof that Ivan the Terrible was very tall, and may have stooped from probable ankylosing spondilitis - this was deduced from spinal formations. The other findings suggest (possibly - historians argue over this) that a great many royal figures of the 16th Century were murdered by poison (though the arsenic present in their bones may be the by-product of medicines taken).

There is one other visual set that needs to be ignored and it's the Eisenstein film. He used particularly sylised makeup and acting styles for the characters and therefore needs a cautious approach. I'm still not what on earth posessed me to get into this period, given that it's so wreathed in maybes.

Perhaps because I get to play the detective, but unlike academics can come firmly on one side or the other, or can even rehabilitate someone who's notorious!

BardSkye said:

Or a cover artist that obviously hasn't a clue what descriptions have been given.

Click to expand...

It's ridiculous on many levels, but I would LOVE to be the artist of my own cover. Or at least have them use something I drew/painted as the basis. But Hell hasn't frozen over yet so I'll be waiting a while.

I know the artists aren't to blame. It's a pet peeve. I'd think "Brunet girl, petite, and redheaded man," wouldn't be too much for the publisher to give them to go on.

A writer I know had a trilogy of books, set during the 17th century (in England/Scotland) published back in the 80s. She once showed me the US cover for one of the paperbacks ........... a Victorian Wedding scene

BardSkye said:

I know the artists aren't to blame. It's a pet peeve. I'd think "Brunet girl, petite, and redheaded man," wouldn't be too much for the publisher to give them to go on.

Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me a bit. But then I work in marketing, and I know the kind of supporting materials that can roll downhill from clients.

Puma said:

I've been horrified more than once to see what Hollywood thought a character I had visualized from a story looked like. One of the worst was a MC described as having red hair - Hollywood cast a tall, dark, and handsome for the role. Totally different image. Puma

Click to expand...

I like watching movies with subtitles from around the world. Their charachters normally look and act like real people.

I have a general idea of what they look like, although there are a few actors and actresses that look *close* to my character.

BardSkye said:

I know the artists aren't to blame. It's a pet peeve. I'd think "Brunet girl, petite, and redheaded man," wouldn't be too much for the publisher to give them to go on.

Click to expand...

See, the thing is (from what I understand) only the editor and copy editor (if there is one) gets to see the entire book. Everyone else works off the synopsis, at best. Since you can't really put that kind of detail into the synopsis, most people won't ever see it.

A lovely catch 22, isn't it?

This is why I don't think much about cover art. It's just not worth the stress.

Puma said:

One of the worst was a MC described as having red hair - Hollywood cast a tall, dark, and handsome for the role. Totally different image. Puma

Click to expand...

Frightening thing is, this could happen to my short pock-marked redhead.

I've told elsewhere about how I was inspired to write pirate fiction after doing some pixel dolls. Where'd I get the inspiration for their scurvy looks? Here.

Awesome pix. I've always taken a cinematic approach but one little problem I have is that the more vividly I can picture a MC, the more I can see them enacting the story, but the thing is I'm supposed to be writing their POV so I can see what they're seeing not how they look while they're seeing it. Some writers do this anyway but unless it's really skillfully done it comes off as hack-written. It's not an overwhelming problem, just one of which I'm aware.

I definitely use photos of models/actors to get started, because I am terrible with faces and tend to make all the women redheads and all the men with salt and pepper hair. Sort of like Jordan making every single one of his characters start with the description: in his/her middle years. Every one. So I use someone who looks sorta like who my character might look like, then add my imagination.

My characters tend to develop very early on with my head with a general sense of what their looks are, and then throughout my day to day life if I see an actor, musician, model or whatever with a facial structure, body type (or occasionally hair style) I'll write them down and build up a file of images of them which form visual references for my characters.

I'm studying to be a professional illustrator so yes I do illustrate my own characters and illustrating them for me is an integral part of my creating a story with them - I feel very strongly that I have to be sure their visual aesthetics actually suit them and all the way through seem plausible for their characters. Plus I'd love to do what great creators like James Gurney have done and be able to actually be the illustrator of my own characters - that would totally be my dream, and if I one day finish a MS I won't even query until I feel like my illustration skills are competitive enough that I WILL do a better job than anyone else they could get to do it of illustrating the cover and internal illustrations.

Though obviously I wouldn't send any of my illustrations in with my MS, just like my design skills need to be competitive enough to be a better choice than other illustrators, my manuscripts needs to (one day) be able to stand and compete on their own merits as pieces of literature.

Not usually. Sometimes a painting will inspire me, but I never really use those things for a character. Most of the time, I don't fully visualize them until I've done a character sketch. Their "innards" help complete their "outards" LOL

I found pics of every one of the characters in my novel, and put them on a bulletin board on my writing desk.

3 months after I wrote the 1st 100 pages of the novel, a waitress in a coffee shop that i'd never been to before, appeared, and her name was the exact same name as my character, and she looked exactly like her too, and had the same interests etc....it really freaked me out.

so, yes, pics do help. for me anyway

firedrake said:

A writer I know had a trilogy of books, set during the 17th century (in England/Scotland) published back in the 80s. She once showed me the US cover for one of the paperbacks ........... a Victorian Wedding scene

Click to expand...

I'm convinced my copy of Wuthering Heights has Little Kathy and Hareton on the cover because of their clothing.

I'm a semi-visual writer; I'm an artist as well, so I enjoy drawing my characters. As for various people they look like, on occasion one will look like an actor (somehow my MC of the long-running, never finished fantasy went from looking like Jamie Bamber to Peter Wingfield. No idea how that happened). More often, a character might look like someone in a painting or photograph.

I do enjoy looking at paintings, photographs, etc. from the period I'm writing about. Thankfully, there's a decent amount of WWII images out there!

As for physical descriptions, I drop hints. I don't flat out describe what my character looks like, but if its important, then I'll mention it (such as if my MC is missing an eye).

I can't draw a lick. So I look at photos and some various screen grabs n stuff

BardSkye said:

Especially Snape. There could be nobody else to play that part.

Click to expand...

Yes, he was an inspired choice. And I have to say I'm super impressed with Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall