|
Lestat
|
|
|
|
I watched a film the other night called Things We Lost in the Fire. Very good. But what hooked me from the start was a piece of subtle characterisation and show not tell.
The scene is a funeral wake. A suited Benicio Del Toro is smoking a cigarette on the patio. Another suited gent goes to him and asks for a cigarette – Benicio obliges. The guy takes one drag and spots his wife looking at him, ‘Oops. Busted.’. He drops the cigarette and heads back in. Benicio surreptitiously bends down, outs the gent’s cigarette and puts it back in his suit pocket.
Benicio’s shabby suit isn’t apparent until later, so you’re seeing these two guy’s as equals. The only thing separating them is characterisation. The top layer shows Benicio as desperately broke (later you find out he’s an addict, too), but the layer beneath is even more subtle. As broke and desperate as he is, he still gives the man his last cigarette. He could have lied and said he had none left, but he lights the guy up anyway – he didn’t even think about it. He understands social etiquette, he doesn’t want to stand out, he’s embarrassed of his decline into the gutter, he’s a good guy. What more can you ask of a scene? The ultimate ‘Show’ not ‘Tell’.
As writers, how deep do you go before the reader just doesn’t get it? Do you think an agent looks for that stuff, especially if you’re writing genre fiction? Why do we bother, when every book I pick up in Tesco says: Benicio was down on his luck. He couldn’t afford to give this guy a ciggy but he didn’t want to look like a chump.
Your thoughts.
Lestat
|
|
sophiemp
|
|
|
|
Lestat,
My first thought is that you've chosen an excellent example to illustrate the subtlety of good characterization.
Perhaps some people over-explain because they're afraid the audience won't get it--and it does seem that a large part of the audience prefers and expects to be spoon-fed--but I'd bet that people also do it because they're writing so close to the character's pov that they feel they must filter every rationale for every action through the character's mind, as if we never do things without thinking about them.
Whatever's selling at Tesco, it's good to know that there are writers striving to do better.
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
Quote: Lestat, Sunday, 10 Jan 2010 09:58I watched a film the other night called Things We Lost in the Fire. Very good. But what hooked me from the start was a piece of subtle characterisation and show not tell. The scene is a funeral wake. A suited Benicio Del Toro is smoking a cigarette on the patio. Another suited gent goes to him and asks for a cigarette – Benicio obliges. The guy takes one drag and spots his wife looking at him, ‘Oops. Busted.’. He drops the cigarette and heads back in. Benicio surreptitiously bends down, outs the gent’s cigarette and puts it back in his suit pocket. Benicio’s shabby suit isn’t apparent until later, so you’re seeing these two guy’s as equals. The only thing separating them is characterisation. The top layer shows Benicio as desperately broke (later you find out he’s an addict, too), but the layer beneath is even more subtle. As broke and desperate as he is, he still gives the man his last cigarette. He could have lied and said he had none left, but he lights the guy up anyway – he didn’t even think about it. He understands social etiquette, he doesn’t want to stand out, he’s embarrassed of his decline into the gutter, he’s a good guy. What more can you ask of a scene? The ultimate ‘Show’ not ‘Tell’. As writers, how deep do you go before the reader just doesn’t get it? Do you think an agent looks for that stuff, especially if you’re writing genre fiction? Why do we bother, when every book I pick up in Tesco says: Benicio was down on his luck. He couldn’t afford to give this guy a ciggy but he didn’t want to look like a chump. Your thoughts. Lestat Good point well made. For me gesture over dialogue every time. And metaphor to suggest the state of somebody's mind, or how they see someone/something else. Not sure about 'how deep do you go before the reader doesn't get it?' Never underestimate your reader's abilities. After all, they have browsed your book and chosen it from thousands...
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
Keel
|
|
|
|
Mentioning a film puts in mind one of the best visual characterisations I have ever seen. Slum Dog Millionaire, the scene where the boys are running from a rival group attacking their home, their world, their tenuous existence. Their mother has just been killed. They run down an ally where a curled up dog lifts its head as they pass by. The expression of disinterest on the scrawny animal is staggeringly suggestive. It is a moment of pure brilliance which will forever remain in my mind.
Hey saucy, that's the best offer I've had all night.
|
|
joyamykita
|
|
|
|
I stumbled across this topic and, though I rarely post anything, wanted to add my thoughts. I write assuming my readers are highly intelligent. I abhor books that tell me things I already understand. Let us strive for perfect characterization and continually raise the bar of fiction.
|
Characterisation.
10 Jan 2010, 09:58
