MC's first appearance

BethS said:

I answered this elsewhere, but I'll reiterate: in close third, there is no separate narrator. The narration represents the thoughts and perceptions of the POV character, same as in first-person. Otherwise, if you have a separate narrator, you're writing omniscient.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely correct. One could argue that there are two types of Third person close (or rather, limited) POV: light penetration and deep penetration. Though that goes back to my point earlier that the more you go into the character's head the less you can comment about them from 'outside' and vice versa.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-je...hird person limited light penetration&f=false

If the link doesn't work the source I've recommended is: Elements of Fiction Writing - Characters & Viewpoint By Orson Scott Card

WillSauger said:

The problem about not describing them early is that when you eventually do describe them, you're working against what the reader made up. It also limits characterization a bit.

Just point out some highlights. The little, striking features. You can either lodge them in a block, or lace them throughout the actions.

Click to expand...

This.

Make sure you point out the features important to the story early. Lee Child's Jack Reacher novels are a good example of that. Reacher was made refrigerator-sized because he has a tendency to fix problems with his fists. This feature is made explicit in the first five pages of every novel in the series.

-cb

Wilde_at_heart said:

That's not entirely correct. One could argue that there are two types of Third person close (or rather, limited) POV: light penetration and deep penetration. Though that goes back to my point earlier that the more you go into the character's head the less you can comment about them from 'outside' and vice versa.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if I'm going to comment about them from the outside, I'll write omniscient.

If the link doesn't work the source I've recommended is: Elements of Fiction Writing - Characters & Viewpoint By Orson Scott Card

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have that book. And I've read it, too.

Note that I've been referring throughout to "close" third-person POV. To me, this is what you call deep penetration POV.

For me, the lighter penetration style does not work at all. It's not quite omniscient and it's not quite intimate. Lukewarm, as opposed to hot or cold. Blech.

You know what you look like without a mirror in your hand, right? So does your character.

Wilde_at_heart said:

That's not entirely correct. One could argue that there are two types of Third person close (or rather, limited) POV: light penetration and deep penetration. Though that goes back to my point earlier that the more you go into the character's head the less you can comment about them from 'outside' and vice versa.

Click to expand...

And one might also move the camera focus in and out, from wide-angle to tight-focus, as the scene demands.

Wilde_at_heart said:

If the link doesn't work the source I've recommended is: Elements of Fiction Writing - Characters & Viewpoint By Orson Scott Card

Click to expand...

Card's books on writing are excellent. They put in plain language a bunch of stuff that will make you go, "Oh, that's obvious!" but nonetheless are good to reinforce.

I'm probably really guilty of describing my MC when he first shows up... sometimes in the "bad way". I don't know, I'm a big visual person, I like to read what these characters look like because when I read, it plays out like a movie or anime/cartoon in my head.

For my last novel, I described my main character early in the first chapter. The story is told from her POV so it was a little tricky.
I tried to describe her a little but I made the choice to let some parts to the imagination of the readers. Hair, eyes, lips, height and clothes are described using the environment - weather, how she moves... In the end I think it works because it flows and is not breaking the rhythm of the first chapter.

Stephanie Witter said:

For my last novel, I described my main character early in the first chapter. The story is told from her POV so it was a little tricky.
I tried to describe her a little but I made the choice to let some parts to the imagination of the readers. Hair, eyes, lips, height and clothes are described using the environment - weather, how she moves... In the end I think it works because it flows and is not breaking the rhythm of the first chapter.

Click to expand...

I'm really curious how you managed to describe her lips and eyes using the environment.

Reziac said:

And one might also move the camera focus in and out, from wide-angle to tight-focus, as the scene demands.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's a different thing from actually moving the camera to look at the character from the outside. Focal distance in narrative can range from close (lots of internals and you-are-there sensual descriptions) to medium (still real-time action, but few internals. Dialogue scenes are often medium focus) to wide or zoomed out (backstory exposition, summaries of time passage or journeys).

Ideally, any given novel will use all three, because to be stuck in only one focal distance becomes monotonous. In particular, in books written primarily at medium focus, the prose, and indeed the story, will begin to seem flat.

BethS said:

Yeah, I've seen that, too, but if the POV camera is parked inside the character's head (where it should be in close-third) it's jarring to suddenly be standing outside the character while the author describes him. That's why (to me) it feels like a violation of POV, not to mention authorial intrusion.

Click to expand...

I think it depends... did the camera move gently from behind-his-eyes to upon-his-shoulder, or did it jerk over there and almost fall off??

if you want to know why folks are advising against mirror scenes and the like, read an Anita Blake book, where you get to hear about her black hair, pretty eyes, mixed ancestry, and small figure ad nauseum. The end result varies from what looks like very blatant author intrusion to Anita just being the most self-absorbed, petty little twat the world has ever known. And this only amplifies when she's got vampires trying to kill her and were-rats threatening to rape her, and she's still waxing on her looks.

Now, to be fair, a lot of folks hate Anita Blake, but a lot like her too....enough I believe Hamilton is doing pretty well financially. But I sincerely doubt her success is in any way, shape, or form due to making sure we all know what Anita looks like, even those of us with severe head trauma and no long-term memory beyond say fifteen pages. It comes despite her constant referencing.

Reziac said:

I think it depends... did the camera move gently from behind-his-eyes to upon-his-shoulder,

Click to expand...

I have no idea what that would look like. Got an example?

BethS said:

I have no idea what that would look like. Got an example?

Click to expand...

Yeah, bunches, in my own work Initial description of something, then zoom in to view whatever with the character's eyes or thoughts, that sort of thing. Wide angle, then narrow. Or v.v. I prefer this to straining to keep POV strictly behind someone's eyes.

We writerly types obsess over POV, but truth to the reader is... so long as they're not jerked hither and thither, and always know where the camera IS, they're good with it.

Reziac said:

Yeah, bunches, in my own work Initial description of something, then zoom in to view whatever with the character's eyes or thoughts, that sort of thing. Wide angle, then narrow. Or v.v..

Click to expand...

Well, I can see the wide angle to narrow--starting from the outside and zooming in to the up-close-and-personal. That can work well at the beginning of a scene.

But doing the reverse--that would seem strange to me, unless you're writing omniscient. In omniscient, the only POV is that of the narrator and s/he has the power to be anywhere and see anything that pertains to the story.


If it's not omniscient, I don't see how being inside a character's thoughts one minute and looking at him from the outside the next is going to work out well, no matter how gently it's done.

I know that readers are nowhere near as aware of POV as we writers are. But I do think that poorly handled POV results in poor reader engagement.

BethS said:

I know that readers are nowhere near as aware of POV as we writers are. But I do think that poorly handled POV results in poor reader engagement.

Click to expand...

this is important. most readers may not know what head-hopping is by definition, for example, but you also see a lot of "I just didn't like it" or "it just didn't grab me" or "if didn't feel well-written" where even when they can't define a flaw, they are aware of it.

Not always, but something to consider when you get into the whole "does a reader even know?" discussion.

BethS said:

If it's not omniscient, I don't see how being inside a character's thoughts one minute and looking at him from the outside the next is going to work out well, no matter how gently it's done.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily looking back at the former POV character -- tho it's possible to swing the camera around and wind up in someone else's head, too, as the focus of the scene changes. If that's what the scene wants to do, that's what I let it do. I think this is better than having a scene break so you can switch heads even tho there's no sensible place to break the scene. A needless scene break would indeed disengage the reader...

What was the question?

Things like height can be implied by whether the character has to crane his or her neck upwards or downwards to make eye contact with someone else, or has to stand on tip toes to reach something that's up on a shelf etc. But it depends on the scene the character is in. Things like eye color and hair color can be a lot harder, unless you can ostensibly think of a reason why the character might be thinking about them. If the person has unusual coloring, he or she may feel self conscious enough about it to be thinking about it or to notice another character's reaction to it. It can be harder, though, if your story takes place in a fairly diverse society.

I don't really get to describe my protagonist in my novel until chapter 3, which is the first time we have another pov character seeing him. The first two chapters are quite short, though. He's enlisting in the city guard in chapter 2, so he does think about the fact that he's tall and strong enough to be able to hold his own in most fights.

I don't really know how to get a description in in the first chapter, as he is in a library with a friend (who I do describe as being pale and blond) and in a situation where he just wouldn't be thinking about his own hair color. I can't think of a way to have a 21 or so year old male interacting with his friend and thinking about how much more "ordinary" his own coloring is, for instance, and have it feel anything but forced.

None of my readers have complained that they had a mental picture of my protag that was at odds with his actual appearance when it's finally described. So I don't know how much of an issue it is.

srgalactica said:

I was reading some of the crits of other people's work in SYW and one of the crits I noticed was in reference to describing the MC in the first scene. Since it's bad form to do the 'looking-in-the-mirror, pond, window, etc' for visual descrption, how do you go about describing your MC in chapter one, when the MC is the POV character?

In my first scenes, I don't describe my MC's appearance at all (I'm not big on lots of physical character description anyway) because my MC has always been my POV character for the first scene.

I know readers tend to form a visual of a character pretty quickly, so by waiting to describe my MC until a scene where another character has the POV, I risk changing my readers original visual of my MC.


I'm just wondering how you all handle this, especially when applied to close third person.

Thank in advance. I always enjoy reading how you all handle these things. Very insightful.

Click to expand...

I used to be a big fan of describing a character's appearance but then I posted some work on here for critique and someone said "Why would your character be thinking about the colour of her hair?"

And it was a good point. How many times a day do you stop and think "My shoulder length chest nut brown hair is very frizzy today!"

You don't. Appearances should not be that important unless they contribute to the story. For example my characters who are gods/goddesses or mortal descendants of them will have brightly coloured hair and eyes. It sets them apart from mortals. Plus I think it's cool.

Sadly, the cover of the book will influence my mind's eye picture of the protagonist. If the protagonist has blond hair on the cover, I many have trouble imagining him as dark-haired, even if the first paragraph of the first chapter describes him as dark-haired. Ugh. I hate it when covers grossly misrepresent something from the book.

I do think there are just style differences there. I can think of a lot of books where the protagonist was only described with a few brush strokes, if that. Most of these novels seem to be ones that have been written more recently. I still had a mental image of the person, as I tend to fill in the blanks when given a few generalities.

I saw a writing tip once: no one cares what your character looks like. This may be a bit of an over generalization, but I do think that some writers get very "attached" to the notion of their protagonist having red hair, or brilliant green eyes the precise color of new, spring leaves or whatever. But that's not what's going to make the character memorable for me as a reader. At least, I hope it isn't.


People probably differ on this, though.

Roxxsmom said:

I saw a writing tip once: no one cares what your character looks like.

Click to expand...

I care.

Look, writers describe all kinds of things in their stories. Why should characters be any different? Why should the setting be described but not the people in the setting?

I'm not talking about lengthy, detailed descriptions (of anything, not just characters), but sketches, yes. A few telling details that will pull together an image for the reader. The characters are as much a part of the mental movie I'm watching as the sparkling lake or the shadowy alley.

And obviously, this must be done with subtlety and sophistication when it concerns the POV character. You make a good point about writers becoming attached to certain characteristics and getting repetitive in describing them. OTOH, it doesn't hurt to have occasional reminders; they just don't have to be the same reminders every time.

Anyway (for me), it comes down to this: we interact with people every day. We are aware of their hair color and their body type and the way they dress. We may or may not care about any of those external features, but we certainly see them. We're also aware of our surroundings, even if we don't take special note of them. Our sight is our primary sense by which we process information about our world.

Why, then, should characters in a story--a story which the author is presumably using every possible technique to bring to life--be deliberately blurred out?

Seems to me at the very outset, when you introduce your character, you can get away with an outside point of view. Then you move into the tight third-person, and after that, he doesn't think much about his looks.

In first person, she can contrast herself with someone else.

My best friend Jane is the long and leggy type. Me? Not so much. And her hair is all those short curls close to her scalp, and her skin is brown with gold undertones. My hair is hair-colored and bushy, and I have to use a lot of mascara or my eyelashes are invisible. In a high school, she'd be at the popular table, and I'd be gulping my lunch down and going to volunteer at the library. But she's the sister I never had. Or I'm the sister she never had. Or something.

I looked up. And up. The guy was a foot taller than I--no kidding, he must have been seven feet tall. He was looking right down on my bald patch. He had muscles, too. Damn, why did I give up that gym membership?

And you don't need to rate the person's looks. The reader assumes the character's fairly good-looking, unless told otherwise.

Aggy B. said:

Personally, I think describing characters is kind of like describing setting. And for that I tend to follow Gaimans (?) suggestion of describing what is different/unusual, not what is the same.

FREX: A chair is a chair. You don't need to tell us that it has four legs and a seat and is made of wood. You might need to tell us it's especially large or small or intricately carved. You would definitely want to tell us if it's covered in blood or it walks on its own.

With people it's the same way. We have a general idea of what a man or woman looks like so you don't need to tell us they have two arms and legs and two eyes, etc. You might need to tell us if they have brown eyes or blue or scarlet IF THAT'S something unusual from everyone around them. (I.E. In Pathfinder the Norseman is distinct from his adopted Native American family.) You would definitely want to mention if your character is missing a limb or an eye or is a dragon in a human society, etc.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant if you don't care how readers imagine your character. And with some stories, that's the case: there isn't any reason why one person might visualize a blonde with blue eyes and a different reader would think brunette with green eyes.

If the character's appearance is important, then try and work it in through action and other characters reaction.

Click to expand...

I think this is well said. Something to think on, also, is that you can reveal something about the pov character's appearance or "norm" if he or she is focused on a "difference" about someone he or she is interacting with.

For instance, your pov character has dark hair and skin, but she's talking to some people who are very blond and light-skinned. She may very well be noticing how bleached out and pale they look compared to her perceived norm.

Likewise, a human's two arms and two legs are too mundane to describe, unless you are in the pov of an alien being with six limbs.

This technique only works in some contexts, of course, but it can be handy.

BethS said:

I'm not talking about lengthy, detailed descriptions (of anything, not just characters), but sketches, yes. A few telling details that will pull together an image for the reader.

Click to expand...

This is what I meant by a few brush strokes that give the important stuff allow the reader to fill in the less important details.

What is important, of course, depends on context and the personality of the pov character.

BethS said:

I answered this elsewhere, but I'll reiterate: in close third, there is no separate narrator. The narration represents the thoughts and perceptions of the POV character, same as in first-person. Otherwise, if you have a separate narrator, you're writing omniscient.

Click to expand...

Have to disagree with this. POV is a tricky thing to master, and like many things in life and in literary works, it exists on a continuim. It's inconsiderate to say that POV can only be this or that, and that it cannot shift from one character to another, or change tense. I've seen it done, and love to see it done.

Concerning character details, I think you should only describe what's necessary. Usually I don't add muh description myself.

My MC doesn't have much physical description. Most of the description I have is when my MC is looking at a picture of her dad and noticing the similarities (it's the first time she's ever seen what her dad looks like.)