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

[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?)