does anyone re-use the same character from book to book? i tend to have a side character who, when used (sometimes he's not), is pretty much the same person time and time again. i'm wondering now if that's wise or if that could be one of my 'things'. i doubt anyone would ever notice unless i somehow miraculously got everything i ever wrote published, i was curious if anyone else re-cycled characters.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Writing Again
Many great writers have done this, some more openly than others.
Heinlein's most famous was Lazarus Long.
Ed McBain has these same two cops sitting in a coffee shop talking about nothing in every novel. That is all they ever do.
Some romance writers have admitted recycling the same characters through different novels giving them different names and descriptions.
The key point is that everything should contribute to the story in some way. If you find yourself putting a character in because they fit, I would not worry about it. If you find yourself putting a character in just to put that character in the story, then I'd sit down and do some serious evaluation.
Heinlein's most famous was Lazarus Long.
Ed McBain has these same two cops sitting in a coffee shop talking about nothing in every novel. That is all they ever do.
Some romance writers have admitted recycling the same characters through different novels giving them different names and descriptions.
The key point is that everything should contribute to the story in some way. If you find yourself putting a character in because they fit, I would not worry about it. If you find yourself putting a character in just to put that character in the story, then I'd sit down and do some serious evaluation.
Writing Again
A note on "side characters."
Every character, no matter how small a part, should have their own problem.
I learned this way way way back when writing mysteries.
See the difference here:
Detective, "Ma'am, can I talk to you a few minutes?"
Lady of the house, "Sure."
As opposed to this:
Detective, "Ma'am, can I talk to you a few minutes?"
Lady of the house, "If you do you're going to have to follow me out to the back yard. I have to get these clothes hung up so they'll dry."
Detective, "Oh... Okay."
Lady of the house, "Don't just follow along behind me like a duck. Grab that other hamper and bring it with you."
As you can see, this second version, this tiny tiny, mundane problem, gives the lady of the house a full bodied character that every reader can understand.
Every character, no matter how small a part, should have their own problem.
I learned this way way way back when writing mysteries.
See the difference here:
Detective, "Ma'am, can I talk to you a few minutes?"
Lady of the house, "Sure."
As opposed to this:
Detective, "Ma'am, can I talk to you a few minutes?"
Lady of the house, "If you do you're going to have to follow me out to the back yard. I have to get these clothes hung up so they'll dry."
Detective, "Oh... Okay."
Lady of the house, "Don't just follow along behind me like a duck. Grab that other hamper and bring it with you."
As you can see, this second version, this tiny tiny, mundane problem, gives the lady of the house a full bodied character that every reader can understand.
dannyne330
Writing Again answered your question in spades, and then some.
A relevant quote to the thread by a Robert Duvall character: "There is nothing 'stock' about a stock car."
Every little piece should enhance the overall performance of the novel; otherwise leave it in the pit.
Cheers.
A relevant quote to the thread by a Robert Duvall character: "There is nothing 'stock' about a stock car."
Every little piece should enhance the overall performance of the novel; otherwise leave it in the pit.
Cheers.
katdad
I'm writing a series of private detective novels, so I therefore have several continuing characters in addition to the private eye protagonist.
My principal characters are the Homicide Lieutenant who's old school experienced and rough, but honest. A younger Homicide Detective, my private eye's best pal, and a big tough borderline-criminal muscleman who helps out my 'eye' at times.
There's also the attorney friend for my protag, and so on.
I have about a half dozen in novel #1, add 2-3 in novel #2, and in my preliminary for #3, add a couple more. My continuing characters don't all appear in all subsequent novels, of course. I plan to rotate them and add a few more as needed for variety.
My principal characters are the Homicide Lieutenant who's old school experienced and rough, but honest. A younger Homicide Detective, my private eye's best pal, and a big tough borderline-criminal muscleman who helps out my 'eye' at times.
There's also the attorney friend for my protag, and so on.
I have about a half dozen in novel #1, add 2-3 in novel #2, and in my preliminary for #3, add a couple more. My continuing characters don't all appear in all subsequent novels, of course. I plan to rotate them and add a few more as needed for variety.
pianoman5
Some quite-good writers get away with stock characters. Falstaff turned up in three of Shakespeare's plays, and he was so popular that other writers purloined him to use in their own plays after Will's death. Verdi even gave him his own opera.
(But then, it's possible that Shakespeare didn't write the plays at all, and that they were written by another playwright of the same name.)
(But then, it's possible that Shakespeare didn't write the plays at all, and that they were written by another playwright of the same name.)
preyer
this is good stuff to know. i sometimes feel more comfortable with the stock characters because i know them better. i think what i have to watch out for is re-introducing them in every story.
about shakespeare, i find the centuries old debate to lean heavily in edward de vere's favour, though i'm hardly an expert in it. he's just the most logical candidate. when people start arguing for the queen, well, that's where i think straws are being grasped for. i find it very ironic that shakespeare was 'discovered' long after his death. i've started the story of breaking into de vere's crypt at westminster abbey to find the supposedly lost shakespeare ms many times, but it's always bogged down.
just a side story i think is interesting: bacon, the other main contender for the title of 'the bard,' did not have enough money to purchase crypt space for himself in westminster. but he did have enough for an area just enough to stand up in. that's the legend.
the story goes that, oh, i guess about twenty years or so ago (not sure when), construction crews renovating westminster found the upright skeleton of a man encased in a pillar, presumed to be bacon. not sure how much, if any, of these stories are true, any more than i necessarily believe the urban legend that prince charles refuses repeated petitions to open de vere's crypt, as if he's hiding something or afraid what might be inside. i think it's probably best the dead remain undisturbed: people are comfortable in their fantasies.
about shakespeare, i find the centuries old debate to lean heavily in edward de vere's favour, though i'm hardly an expert in it. he's just the most logical candidate. when people start arguing for the queen, well, that's where i think straws are being grasped for. i find it very ironic that shakespeare was 'discovered' long after his death. i've started the story of breaking into de vere's crypt at westminster abbey to find the supposedly lost shakespeare ms many times, but it's always bogged down.
just a side story i think is interesting: bacon, the other main contender for the title of 'the bard,' did not have enough money to purchase crypt space for himself in westminster. but he did have enough for an area just enough to stand up in. that's the legend.
the story goes that, oh, i guess about twenty years or so ago (not sure when), construction crews renovating westminster found the upright skeleton of a man encased in a pillar, presumed to be bacon. not sure how much, if any, of these stories are true, any more than i necessarily believe the urban legend that prince charles refuses repeated petitions to open de vere's crypt, as if he's hiding something or afraid what might be inside. i think it's probably best the dead remain undisturbed: people are comfortable in their fantasies.
pianoman5
I prefer the Christopher Marlowe theory rather than Oxford, or Bacon.
Anyway, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, has had his share of immortality for another equally worthy reason. Apparently, while bowing low in obeisance to Queen Elizabeth 1, he broke wind. He was so embarrassed about his faux pas that he went travelling, in virtual exile. When he plucked up the courage to return to Court some seven years later the Queen said, "My lord, I had forgot the fart."
Anyway, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, has had his share of immortality for another equally worthy reason. Apparently, while bowing low in obeisance to Queen Elizabeth 1, he broke wind. He was so embarrassed about his faux pas that he went travelling, in virtual exile. When he plucked up the courage to return to Court some seven years later the Queen said, "My lord, I had forgot the fart."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.