Interchangeable characters, or casting stock extras

[pbray]

At Boskone last weekend I was on a panel where we discussed minor characters, and how to make them memorable.

I was reminded of the panel when I was reading a book earlier this week, as the protagonist encounters yet another former acquaintance with whom he no longer associates due to his recent disgrace. And I realized that I couldn't tell this person from the other similar characters that had already been introduced. The character didn't have a unique voice, and the few personal details used to describe him share too much in common with other characters. The next time he shows up, I'm going to have a hard time remembering which one he is.

I can't figure out if the problem is that so many of the minor characters all have the same stock feel, or if there are actually too many minor characters to keep track of. Sometimes less is more--a handful of richly drawn minor characters would serve the story far better than a constantly proliferating cast of cardboard cut-outs. As it is, I reached the stage where I needed a scorecard to keep track of who is who, so I've set it aside and moved on to something else.

Comments

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

I get tired of books like that, too. (This is one of the things I love about the Harry Potters, while admitting that they have some issues: apart from a few stock Slytherins, I have no trouble at all remembering who people are. Which is a huge achievement, IMO, over the course of a sprawling seven-volume series.) I also have trouble when such characters are differentiated solely or almost solely by means of their appearance, because I'm just not good at that. Not that I don't remember those details at all; but I'm a lot more likely to notice if you say Mr X's voice was deep and husky on page 7 and then describe him as a tenor on page 325, for example, than if you forget halfway through the book what colour his eyes are. (Which, let's be honest, could happen to anyone.)

Maybe sometimes minor walk-ons end up cardboard because the author didn't want to waste a lot of space on description, but in fact s/he could have got a lot of information into a few lines by concentrating on something other than outward appearance.

But what do I know? I've got minor characters whose personalities I know perfectly well, without having more than the vaguest idea what they look like, and I'm not sure that's a very good idea either :P

[pbray.livejournal.com]

Yeah, physical appearances don't do much to differentiate characters for me when they're at the level of hair or eye color.

But the more I think about it, the more I think this book simply suffered from a proliferation of characters, perhaps because the author thought this added a touch of realism to the book, which can be a trap. Yes it's more realistic to have multiple people, but we sacrifice realism for storytelling.

It's the reason why on shows like CSI the recurring characters each have a wide variety of skills, often far more than is plausible. Viewers would lose interest if the producers tried to show us how many people are required to work on a case in the real world. We simply couldn't get to know or care about all those people, so instead we get lab techs who also go into the field as photographers and evidence collectors, then return to the lab and perform chemical, ballistics and fingerprint analysis, etc.

At the panel last week, someone asked me "How many minor characters do you need?" My answer was "Each story has its own requirements, you need as many as you need to tell the story." Which I freely admitted was a crap answer, but there are no hard & fast rules. It either works or it doesn't.

Obviously this book worked for some people. But it didn't work for me.

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

Yes it's more realistic to have multiple people, but we sacrifice realism for storytelling.

Indeed. Otherwise books would be (a) very boring and (b) 20,000 pages long.

DH read a book recently that drove him crazy -- the plot was so flimsy and implausible that he kept phoning me up to tell me about the latest absurdity and mock the author. "Nu? So read something else, already," I'd say. "But it might get better," DH would reply; "and besides, it's hilarious."

Different people have different triggers for quitting a book. One of mine is garlands of indistinguishable characters (another, obviously, is bad writing, or writing that annoys me for some reason), but no doubt there are other readers out there who are less interested in the characters than in some other aspect of the book, and they read right past that problem just as I might read right past a big plot hole because I'm so involved with the people in the book ...

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

One of the things I learned in my first book is to combine minor characters whenever possible. That way, instead of three unmemorable people, you have one you can spend a little time on and who the reader will remember.

The other trick I learned is to describe a character as little as possible if you're never going to see him/her again. That will clue the reader in to the fact this person isn't worth paying a whole lot of attention to. It drives me crazy when I get a page of detail about someone who's basically irrelevant to the story. As writers, we have to focus on what's important.

[pbray.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

It drives me crazy when I get a page of detail about someone who's basically irrelevant to the story.

Totally.

And also when Thomas Hardyan author devotes a full two pages to describing in loving detail how a turnip field looks in winter, yet can't be bothered to portray the alleged heroine of the book in more than two dimensions.

[pbray.livejournal.com]

But I *like* turnips! :-) Though even I admit that two pages is a bit too long.

There are a number of books where I've skipped completely over the lush paragraphs of description, my eyes tracking for the next bit of dialogue or character name that will, ya know, actually move the plot a long.

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

I've done that too. And the trouble is, sometimes you miss something important that way, and then spend pages being confused. At least, I do...

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

Two pages is a bit much, but I think a lot of fantasy demands a certain amount of description. Some fantasy is about place as much as the characters, in which case you have to sometimes give a little extra description.

I once heard a couple fans talk about how they really hadn't liked Tolkien very much after recently rereading LOTR. As one guy said, "You have to wade through 30 pages of descriptions of grass to get to the good stuff!" (ie, fight scenes.)

Me, I like both the descriptions and the fight scenes. The fight scenes would have no meaning without the descriptions!

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

I have no objection to thick description in addition to good characters and enthralling plot. I do like to know things about the landscape in which the story is taking place, and what the climate's like, and how the places look and feel and smell and sound. It's thick description in the absence of characters and a story I can care about that turns me off.

With specific application to Tolkien, yes, I do find some parts harder going than others, and yes, LOTR is as much a setting-driven as a character-driven story (IMO). But somehow it works, and I think it's because in addition to waxing eloquent about the landscape of the Shire, for instance, or the destruction around Saruman's Tower, he also gives us of people who (even if not actually human) are sufficiently well portrayed to feel real, and the plot is driven by the most compelling of all questions: will the little guy, against all odds, succeed in saving the world?

I have trouble with fight scenes, myself. I don't know enough about fighting (except, oddly, WWII-style aerial warfare) to keep all the details straight in my head, and I get confused. But you're right, the battles in Tolkien would be completely meaningless, and the descriptions thereof completely impossible to follow, if we didn't have all that background knowledge about who's fighting, and where, and in what circumstances, and why -- and the loving portrait of Middle Earth, its landscapes as well as its inhabitants, is a big part of that.

You can't make me like Tess of the D'Urbervilles, though :P

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

I think I liked The Mayor of Casterbridge when I read it in high school. I also think I was at my most pretentious in high school. Tried and failed to read something else by Hardy a few years ago - and I love Victorian novels.

But I'm thinking we've wondered off topic. (Though I do want to know about the WWII dogfights. How about a post?)

[dynastic-queen.livejournal.com]

*utter relief*

Thank you, THANK you, for saying this! Makes me feel like celebrating. :)

[pbray.livejournal.com]

:-) All part of our friendly service!

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

I find most of my minor characters have there own environments and situations. A character will show up as an innkeeper, or a starship pilot, or what-have-you, but he will not then trail along after our Hero. (Usually, of course, this is because he is dead. Not that that would stop him in one of my novels.)

In re the descriptions in LOTR, yes, they can be long and sometimes tedious, but have you noticed how there is such a consensus how Middle Earth "looks" that no one I've encountered looked at Peter Jackson's interpretation and said, "No! That's not how it looks at all!" So, lots of description can be a Good Thing.

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's very true. I have plenty of other objections to the LOTR films, but almost everything looked almost exactly the way I expected it to.

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

Yup. I've heard complaints about casting, what got cut and what didn't, etc. But not about the appearanc

thanks much

[(Anonymous)]

i am gonna show this to my friend, bro

Interesting post..

[(Anonymous)]

well done, man