Characterization through Objects / Possessions

[Stella_Omega]

Excerpt?

The story I linked is kind of like that too.

Here's the retrieval-- kinda bare bones yet;

“Oh dammit, I forgot! The main reason we came over here!”

Astro pulled to the curb. “You want to turn around?”

Lenore’s hennaed hair swung in an arc around her head as she turned. “Oh, god, Sweetie, I’m sorry to put you through all of this.” Behind them, the back seat was full of boxes, rattling and clinking musically, that Lenore had retrieved from her sister’s garage. or rather, that Astro had scavenged, clambering over shrouded furniture, ducking ancient cobwebs, pulling half-disintegrated cardboard boxes off high shelves and out of the centers of stacks.

“It’s better to go back while we're here,” Astro said. She watched in the rear veiw mirror while the heavy traffic streamed past. She gunned the SUV, and pulled it smoothly around, from the curb to the opposite side, melding perfectly into a gap in the north-bound traffic. “What, and where?”

“There’s my brass lion bookends, Dinnie said she’s been using them on her desk. And this beautiful old mirror. You know the breakfront in the dining room? That came from old family friends, when the mother passed away. Her kids were selling the estate. I bought the breakfront, and this mirror was in the same room. I think it’s Biedermier… “

“Uh huh,” Astro said absently as she pulled into the driveway once more. Now that Dinnie’s car was in place, the SUV perforce halted at a point where there was a great deal of overgrowth on the right. “I’ll go get them,” Astro said hurredly, and fought her way to the front walk.

“What did she forget?” Dinnie said in answer to Astro’s knock. But her face lost its smile when Astro named the brass lions. “Fine,” Dinnie said, and led the way to her study...

 

[damppanties]

Here's the retrieval-- kinda bare bones yet;

And what does it say?

 

[Stella_Omega]

And what does it say?

I don't know yet.

 

[damppanties]

I don't know yet.

If you're into waving that tongue around, come here and do it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you're into waving that tongue around, come here and do it.

Nu-uh, you come here and get it.

Here on this nice soft fainting couch, with ebonised roccoco floral carving and the yellow shantung silk upholstery that makes your skin glow... And this solid back that you can throw your leg over... Just the one leg, for now.

 

[damppanties]

Nu-uh, you come here and get it.

Here on this nice soft fainting couch, with ebonised roccoco floral carving and the yellow shantung silk upholstery that makes your skin glow... And this solid back that you can throw your leg over... Just the one leg, for now.

I like yellow, dammit! What does that say about me?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I like yellow, dammit! What does that say about me?

It says you should let me put your other leg over my shoulder...

 

[Weird Harold]

Many of the suggestions in this thread would mean nothing at all in the United Kingdom, or if they do, they mean something very different.

I think that characterization by associations works best when it's filtered through the eyes of another character, who can impose their assumptions about what the associations mean.

The other thing that minimizes the cross-cultural misunderstandings is to avoid brand names or even general categories and describe the possessions in a way that gets the author's or observing character's opinions clear -- "a gas-guzzling 4WD SUV that would cause him a heart-attack if it ever got dusty, let alone muddy" AKA "all hat and no cattle."

 

[xssve]

I think that characterization by associations works best when it's filtered through the eyes of another character, who can impose their assumptions about what the associations mean.

The other thing that minimizes the cross-cultural misunderstandings is to avoid brand names or even general categories and describe the possessions in a way that gets the author's or observing character's opinions clear -- "a gas-guzzling 4WD SUV that would cause him a heart-attack if it ever got dusty, let alone muddy" AKA "all hat and no cattle."

Both good suggestions, you can tell a lot about a character by their prejudices/assumptions/perceptions and a lot about an author by theirs.

 

[damppanties]

Both good suggestions, you can tell a lot about a character by their prejudices/assumptions/perceptions and a lot about an author by theirs.

Oh, but are they the author's prejudices or the characters'?

 

[xssve]

Well, they're usually labeled, aren't they? i.e, the difference between dialogue or introspection ascribed to the character, and the narrative voice itself?

I can spot underlying Randist memes a mile away for example, following Rands precedent of preaching via fiction.

It's usually characterized by cartoonish, one dimensional characters, as opposed to what I've previously described as archetypal, but more balanced characterizations.

Tom Clancy's character Jack Ryan is an archetypal character: family man, patriotic, honest to a fault, occasionally to the point of naivete - a thinker, not a doer, who nevertheless finds himself in situations where he is required to act and take physical risks, etc. This makes him admirable, but still fallible and human, and thus easy to identify with in an ordinary way, while thrilling to his exploits.

Contrasted to Rand's characters, Rourk and Galt, are the embodiment of philosophical concepts, symbols of a very specific worldview, and their actions, and indeed, the story itself, obeys the restraints of this philosophy and worldview, even when the story has to be twisted in implausible ways to fit the model.

Her characters appeal to the superego, specifically, Narcissistic self aggrandizement, channeling feelings of inadequacy into feeding the martyr complex.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

Well, the flipside of Ayn Rand is W.E.B Griffin. Virtually every protagonist is the poor & proud All American Boy who excels at sports but enlists in the Marine Corps rather than accept a football scholarship. Then joins the cops rather than sign up with the NFL. He rescues the Mayor's daughter from terrorists and they fall in love, though Mommy & Poppy disapprove of the Irish, Jewish, Italian, Southern boy from nowhere. He lives in an old Chris-Craft cabin cruiser docked on the river, and Miss America grills steaks for him and his buds.

The 22 year old rookie becomes Chief of Detectives by the end of the book. Even his shit has strange powers to heal, and improves the flavor of the city drinking water.

 

[xssve]

Lol, absolutely. The other distinction to be made here is between plot and character driven narratives - Clancys books are plot driven, the character adapts to the requirements of the plot, while it sounds like Griffin's stories are character driven - the character controls the plot to a greater extent.

All characters affect the plot through their choices, and the difference is largely a difference in narrative voice - Dostoevsky's characters, or Kafka's are often "victims of fate", i.e., they are helpless against the inexorable grinding of the wheels, but the stories are about the characters, not the wheels.

While Rands stories are superficially character driven, the story is more about the wheels, the characters are merely devices to illustrate a certain worldview, and her stories are really almost exclusively plot driven - which is why she has to make her characters do things completely out of character in order to serve her purpose.

Ideally, there is a middle ground were the story takes place, somewhere between fatalism and preaching.

Anyway, this is far off topic, but the same dynamic applies to possessions, i.e., objects that have some relationship with the character - they may be background or figures in themselves, almost like separate characters, and either may used to help define a character: in Star Trek, the Enterprise is the background, but it's also like a character: Kirk's character is in love with it, and often expresses his affection for "her" with loverlike sentimentality, while to McCoy it's just a damned ship.

 

[Recidiva]

Lol, absolutely. The other distinction to be made here is between plot and character driven narratives - Clancys books are plot driven, the character adapts to the requirements of the plot, while it sounds like Griffin's stories are character driven - the character controls the plot to a greater extent.

All characters affect the plot through their choices, and the difference is largely a difference in narrative voice - Dostoevsky's characters, or Kafka's are often "victims of fate", i.e., they are helpless against the inexorable grinding of the wheels, but the stories are about the characters, not the wheels.

While Rands stories are superficially character driven, the story is more about the wheels, the characters are merely devices to illustrate a certain worldview, and her stories are really almost exclusively plot driven - which is why she has to make her characters do things completely out of character in order to serve her purpose.

Ideally, there is a middle ground were the story takes place, somewhere between fatalism and preaching.

Anyway, this is far off topic, but the same dynamic applies to possessions, i.e., objects that have some relationship with the character - they may be background or figures in themselves, almost like separate characters, and either may used to help define a character: in Star Trek, the Enterprise is the background, but it's also like a character: Kirk's character is in love with it, and often expresses his affection for "her" with loverlike sentimentality, while to McCoy it's just a damned ship.

I have a tendency to genderize and name things like cars. Every car I owned to me had a personality and a name.

Our little blue Saturn is Jake from the Blues Brothers. I always call him Jake, pat him on the dashboard and thank him for being so reliable. I cover his air vents (ears) if someone insults him and asks him to forgive them.

When he got in an accident and ended up having to have the car horn changed to something that sounded more feminine I refer to it as "the sex change" and started calling "Her" Jacqueline.

I do think anthropomorphizing has the benefit of drawing your attention in a way that you're more aware of when something changes. When something's going to give out, when something's going to stop working, when something you need isn't there any more because you paid it no attention whatsoever in terms of thought or maintenance. You can do that without the anthropomorphizing, but it's more fun for me with it.

Which is very much why Scotty wanted to beat Klingons up for calling "Her" a garbage scow, because he was her protector. Whereas Kirk didn't deserve protection because he could take care of himself.

 

[xssve]

Whoops!

Star Trek, lol, it's very character driven, Kirk and Scotty always defending her honor. McCoy was more comfortable with his Saurian Brandy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

I'm not an Ayn Rand fiction fan. The first 600 pages of ATLAS SHRUGGED is a great story, but then she exhorts to the choir. But she offers excellent writing advice.

Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings is my favorite author. Every tale of her's is a great story, in and of itself. No preaching, just interesting story.

In my horror tales I use objects to create crisis. In the latests stories the objects are an artifical chocolate and a magic wand a man finds in an antique store. In other stories the objects are cotton balls, defective cars, a cast-iron cauldron, etc.

But there must be a story, and characters and stuff are incedental to the story.

 

[Recidiva]

Understandable, but this is where Stella and I relate: we don't like it when the narrative takes on a life of it's own and get's out of control - trying to grind up our unique individuality in it's mindless maw - whether it's misogynistic reproductive politics or conspiratorial economics, it often displaces and substitutes individual identity in those who allow themselves to become possessed by what is, after all, an almost purely abstract construct.

I call that the "Salinger Effect"

If an author just wants me to run through their custom-built rat race and try to get me to believe that the rat race is the world, I get more and more antagonized and disinterested. Particularly things regarding how it's impossible to change your fate or go against your nature or society always wins. These things aren't true in my experience and it's like reading a book that wants to insist the sky is chartreuse with orange stripes. Why are you doing this?

 

[xssve]

That post was out of place, I'm losing it - but yes, you're right, it's a common theme in modern fiction, alienation, almost disembodiment - Catch 22 takes it to surreal lengths.

 

[Recidiva]

That post was out of place, I'm losing it - but yes, you're right, it's a common theme in modern fiction, alienation. almost disembodiment - Catch 22 takes it to surreal lengths.

That's another example of a modern classic I couldn't make it through for that reason.

It starts to feel like I'm sitting in someone's personal church and the walls are closing in and the doors are disappearing.

Somewhere a few chapters in I climb out a window and count myself lucky.

 

[xssve]

I love that book, it makes the point that sanity is often a relative thing.

 

[xssve]

Yossarians bomber has character status in that book, he hates it, but needs it to survive - when he isn't flying in it, he tries to pretend it doesn't exist, but it's always looming over him, casting a pall over his psyche - he's locked into a love/hate relationship with it.

His epiphany comes when Orr crashes his bomber into the sea and escapes, and all of Orr's previous, seemingly irrational behavior suddenly becomes the pinnacle of sanity.

 

[Weird Harold]

Both good suggestions, you can tell a lot about a character by their prejudices/assumptions/perceptions and a lot about an author by theirs.

Oh, but are they the author's prejudices or the characters'?

Ultimately, everything is the author's prejudices -- or at least the authors prejudices about other people's prejudices.

I think the best authors can distance themselves from their own prejudices and agendas and write characters that are uniques individuals who have prejudices and attitudes that are opposed to the author's own inclinations. If you can't tell which character is the author's alter-ego/spokesperson, then the author has managed the difficult task of letting the characters tell the story -- and espouse the moral if applicable.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Talk about mind-fucking.

Everything on the page is the author's creature.

What WH means to say is, you forget about the author when the writing expresses something you already know and you connect with yourself.

 

[xssve]

Ultimately, everything is the author's prejudices -- or at least the authors prejudices about other people's prejudices.

I think the best authors can distance themselves from their own prejudices and agendas and write characters that are uniques individuals who have prejudices and attitudes that are opposed to the author's own inclinations. If you can't tell which character is the author's alter-ego/spokesperson, then the author has managed the difficult task of letting the characters tell the story -- and espouse the moral if applicable.

There ya go.

 

[xssve]

Talk about mind-fucking.

Everything on the page is the author's creature.

What WH means to say is, you forget about the author when the writing expresses something you already know and you connect with yourself.

Also true, suspension of disbelief.