Position:Home>Books & Authors> Do you tell it like it is or like it's not? Details inside...?
Question: Do you tell it like it is or like it's not!? Details inside!.!.!.!?
Some writers describe characters by telling you what they are:
i!.e!. "she was gorgeous, talented, and!.!.!.!."
Other writers describe characters by telling you what they are not:
i!.e!. "He was not handsome or well-mannered and he lacked!.!.!.!."
***Question: As writers, is it more effective to describe characters by emphasizing their attributes or by emphasizing the attributes they lack!? Should you choose one or the other or a little of both!?
I say this having recently read a few Henry James novels!. James has an affinity for describing characters by emphasizing their physical and psychological shortcomings!.
As always, any thoughts and opinions are welcome!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Well, first off, revisiting the ages old writing mantra: show, don't tell!. So the question is really "do you show it like it is or like it's not!?"
I think it's a mix of both!. By telling--ahh, showing--what characters are like, the writer gives the impression of positiveness (if traits are positive, as in your above example)!. Conversely, saying what people are not develops negative connotations (psychological shortcomings, in your example)!.
It's probably more effective to say what people ARE, because when you say what they're not we still don't know just who they are!. But weaving the two deftly into one another, like a skilled writer (like Henry James) can do, works even better!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It depends on the novel and the writer!. Some authors have a the ability to draw you in by making you imagine or try to envision characters, others are better at imagery or dialog!.
I like authors that use a little of both, usually when they are contrasting characters so I as the reader can better understand the story!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
This is something that would depend entirely on your style of writing !.!.!. How do you prefer to describe a character !.!.!. stick with what feels right for you!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
if the character has a certain respect for the person he or she is talking about usually they use the lack of tecnique i!.e
" he was not handsome or very talented, but his confidence radiated throughout the room"
however, if the speaker has a definite love or hate for the person being described they will use direct adjectives i!.e
" he was vulgar and obnoxious and the sight of him made me turn away"
instead of
" i turned away because he was not well-mannered"
so a mix of both is beter, it just depends on the force of the description, if that makes sense!. good luck!!Www@QuestionHome@Com
There's a technique called 'praising with faint damns!.' Ie, if I tell you that this guy, let's call him Tom Cruise, is not the tallest of guys, but he's decent-looking--you immediately make him more attractive than he is!. Or if I say that Julia Roberts is not the prettiest of women, but she has a smile that lights up the room--you automatically warm to them because you can identify with them!.
I agree with the others thus that a mixture is probably the best thing!. Frequently writers will emphasize shortcomings that most of us have ('Jack is easily upset at rush-hour traffic') while stressing with an extraordinarily positive adjective to the average reader ('But Jack is a brilliant guy, Dear Reader!.') I'd say that's easier to pull off than the reverse, emphasizing a negative quality that most of us don't have and a positive quality that most of us _do_ ('Jack has a 70 IQ, but he really likes dogs!.')
Stressing 'She is gorgeous, talented, and funny' will only make the reader disbelieve it, though!. Tell me that, and I'm thinking she's ugly, useless, and has the sense of humor of a block of wood!.Www@QuestionHome@Com