Writers question

[Colleen Thomas]

Hey all. I've tried writing very little since I got sick, but what I have written is very bland and 2-d. Not really upset with that, when you feel like crap it stands to reason your writing isn't gonna be particularly sharp. One thing I did notice was that my secondary characters are paper thin. I mean cardboard cutout quality.

That's unusual in the extreme for me and it got me to thinking. How much importance do you guys place on secondary characters? Iput a lot into mine, trying to give them life and make them interesting. i think I picked that up from Louis LaAmour. He is a master at making a barkeep, random cowboy a character meets onthe street or sporting lady into someone you really want to know more about. He does it in a few lines, with a few well chosen words.

I try to emulate that with my characters and on the whole think I have been pretty successful with it.

My question then is how much emphasis do you guys put on your secondary characters? Do you sweat them or are you content with them just fulfiling their role, whatever it may be?

 

[neonlyte]

I often include characters on a first write that don't survive the re-write. For me it's something to do with building background, resolving elements of the story structure, finding other ways to give the same information the peripheral character introduced.

I read somewhere from a learned scribe that a character has no right to be in a story unless fully developed so I tend to adopt that approach. Have a real problem with a story reviewed on SDC where most reviewers couldn't see the point of introducing a specific character, she's still there and I still haven't figured out why.

Not sure how that helps - if at all.

PS Hope the recovery proceeds at pace

 

[oggbashan]

Louis L'Amour can do it. Most of us can't.

I define my characters as round or flat. The round characters are the ones who carry the story, who I hope develop and change as the plot progresses. The flats are the walk-on parts, his boss, her girlfriend etc. They may be necessary for the plot but the real action is between the two or three main characters.

If you are writing short stories and NOT a novel, you cannot afford to let the reader's attention stray to the minor characters. It it does, you have lost the reader and the story does not work.

There needs to be a balance between making the flat characters recognisable and not allowing them to distract. If they do - you are writing a novel and the flats should become round in a sub-plot.

It may be that a character who is flat in one story interests YOU so much that you make them round in their own story. That is a better way to deal with characters who come to life when they shouldn't.

Unfortunately you can end up with dozens on formerly flat characters all wanting their own stories and the series goes on and on and on... just like Og.

Edited for PS: In one story 'Minibus' I had five nurses in the first draft. I kept confusing nurses #4 and #5 so I eliminated one. If you can do without a character - delete him or her.

 

[cantdog]

Another point I never considered. Cripe.

I'm imagining Nan, the almost-girlfriend, in my Weasel story. She's needed to oil the meeting between Our Hero the weasel and his (ahem) true love, and you see her vituperative virginal style in the girls' on the English wing. I know that girl, now, even though the readers may still be a bit hazy. I took pains to make her real to me, but I felt free to pare away details (in rewrite) about her if they seemed excessive, just as though it never mattered if she was real or not.

Now I have to reread to see if she survived the blue pencil well enough to be called anything like "fully developed."

cantdog

 

[cheerful_deviant]

I try to put life into all my characters. Just a few word of description about a secondary character can add a lot of flavor to a sceen.

Consider the differeces:

1. "She looked over at the truckdriver and asked, 'What'll it be sweetie?'"

2. "As she looked over at the truckdriver, her gaze took in the faded, ripped overalls, threadbare flanel shirt and the John Deere hat that looked as if it had been used to clean the trucks engine a thousand times. His face was drawn and haggared and looked not to have seen a razor in days. As his eyes rolled slowly up to her she saw that they were bloodshot with dark rings underneath. This guy had clearly been on the go for days without sleep, she felt sorry for him as she asked 'What'll it be sweetie?'"

THe first could be anybody. We have no idea about him (or her). Young/old, black/white/hispanic, clean/dirty, mean/kind. With no details, he adds nothing to the scene.

But when some details are added, now he adds life to the sceene. We get the picture of a tired guy sitting in a diner after a long haul. You can start to picture the scene more because you have an idea of the man and can picture what kind of scene he would be in.

 

[cloudy]

I try, very hard, to breathe life into all my characters, secondary or not. In fact, there's one in my NaNo novel, and in the story that I'm working on for the Magic in America chain (used the same two characters in both), that I've become very fond of.....he's the partner to my main character, Sherry, and the more I write of him, the better I like him. In fact, I may do several stories featuring Sherry and Joseph.....I like them that much.

And, in my NaNo novel, there are two elderly women that I've just become enamored with, and I find myself inserting them into the story where I hadn't planned on their characters, simply because I enjoy their presence, if that makes any sense.

 

[matriarch]

I rarely have secondary characters in my stories. The whole action centres on the two mains.

There are 'walk-ons' such as the boat man in 'Summer Outing', the other members of the writing class in 'Chocolate Sauce and Handcuffs'; in Heather's Baptism, all the other people attending the music festival....apart from that.....niet; in Wedding Night, the other people at the wedding reception....no names, rarely a description, just the awareness of other people around.

I have my work cut out enough focussing on the two main proponents, that to introduce others would severely distract me from the main story.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I rarely *have* secondary characters.

All I can really say is that everyone is there for a reason, and whatever that reason is, is pretty much what I include. (anal pet has a bitchy neighbor. she's barely mentioned except for in regards to the purpose I needed her for. (does that make sence.)

In my own stories, secondary characters are so rare, I barely know how to answer this. I can only say that it depends on the needs of your story. Maybe if you are struggling with certain characters being too flat, you don't need them, or don't need them to play as big a roll as you thought. (just a suggestion)

 

[gauchecritic]

In my Valentine story (which probably won't meet the deadline) I suddenly felt the urge to add a comic character, a clumsy secretary and the only reason she is there is to provide a) relief and b) contrast. The only thing that you know about her is that she wears glasses.

The second secondary character (cafe owner) earns no description at all and is there as a descriptive prop.

Instead of: She was tired, tired of hiding her sexuality, tired of alternative medicine, tired of being tired.

a cardboard character says: "You look tired my love. Going to see that quack again? or has he been keeping you up has he... or is it a she? eh?"

 

[Guest]

Hey Colly, you do very well with 'secondary characters', keep it up. Yeah, they need to be fleshed out too, even if only with a brief but telling line or two. I go with what my lit. prof. friend once said in class, "There are no minor characters in Shakespeare", i.e., they're part of the whole. You can cut them out in a production but if you want to understand the work fully you need what they say, do, represent, add to another character's image, etc.

I was really pleased that in my contest story (Drunk on Wednesdays), so many people liked Mrs. Batty. She has very few lines and isn't central to the 'story' but she adds to the whole atmosphere and setting. I even had a couple people ask that I write more about her. I think some of your 'minor' characters are like that too.

Think about "character actors" in film. Often many of them are much better than the leads and contribute more to the whole work.

Hope this helps,

Perdita

 

[cloudy]

Hey Colly, you do very well with 'secondary characters', keep it up. Yeah, they need to be fleshed out too, even if only with a brief but telling line or two. I go with what my lit. prof. friend once said in class, "There are no minor characters in Shakespeare", i.e., they're part of the whole. You can cut them out in a production but if you want to understand the work fully you need what they say, do, represent, add to another character's image, etc.

Why does everyone say what I mean so much better than I do?

This is exactly what I mean, Perdita, thank you.

One of the elderly ladies I mention above, Rosie, isn't important to the story advancing at all, but my main character is a physical therapist, and I use this lady to show a side of my main character, Sherry, that couldn't be shown as easily another way. Her interaction with her patient, Rosie, helped me to develop her into a very real person.

 

[rgraham666]

With me, it depends on the purpose the secondary character serves.

In The Orange Slip I filled out the characters of the male protagonist's wife and female protagonist's husband because I needed those people reasonably fleshed out to provide drama to the story.

Others, like the lawyer, were rather thin, but they were only there as props. They were part of the scenery as it were. Active parts true, but just scenery.

As always, secondary characters are a tool, to be used as necessary.

 

[Boota]

I tend to fill out my secondary characters rather well. Not entirely on purpose, but it seems to work. In my novel there are a lot of aspects of people I know in real life put into the characters and my friends have a good time picking them out. One of the characters, who is a complete fabrication, is ALWAYS thought to be someone I know. They say that she reads as too real to be made up.

In a short story I probably wouldn't waste much time on a secondary character, but if I was to bother with putting one in I would try to make it something more than just a flat cut-out.

 

[impressive]

My question then is how much emphasis do you guys put on your secondary characters? Do you sweat them or are you content with them just fulfiling their role, whatever it may be?

I seldom even HAVE secondary characters, but in the few instances I have -- they've been as colorful as the primaries. (Now, how colorful THAT is ... I'll leave up to the reader )

 

[Weird Harold]

My question then is how much emphasis do you guys put on your secondary characters? Do you sweat them or are you content with them just fulfiling their role, whatever it may be?

I distinguish characters a bit further than most.

I try to write primary characters in sharp focus with as much detail and characterization as possible.

I try to write secondary charcaters in soft focus with enough detail to make them recognizable and interesting without wasting many words on their life history and motivations.

Then there are the tertiary characters -- I leave them mostly as stereotypes or cartoons with only enough definition to separate them from the furniture and foliage.

I think of characters as cast members in may respects. I'll spend years casting the perfect actors as the stars, months casting the supporting players and ten or twenty minutes grabbing extras off the street when it's time to film.

 

[nushu2]

My stories, so far, have been minimalist, designed for short attention spans. Secondary characters are flat or stereotypes to advance the story. One might say that about my main characters also but not to my face. The nice thing about stereotypes is they don't need an introduction and are disposable.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Bad secondary characters have killed stories of mine in the past. I have a novel on hold whose big hand brake was that two unimportant secondary characters in a row were shallow pathetic creations.

To me, the secondary characters have to be somewhat interesting and I like giving them a bit of backstory and life. My favorite story character currently actually was a secondary character who has one tiny scene in a story, but whose personality is so quirky that you can't help but fall in love with her and so I have the main character do that even though he never sees her again.

Perhaps it comes from writing plays, where the trend is that every character is enjoyable to play and so all secondary characters tend to be fun too.

Maybe personal preference. I'm not quite sure.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I think Sol Stein said it was a good idea to give your secondary characters some vivid, distinctive personal or physical characteristic. The idea being we spend a fair slug of time, even in short stories, on the main characters and can get into nuance and quirks. But the minor characters need a few bold traits that readers can identify with and, if needed, remember.

My short stories are, by Oggbashan standards, very short (5000-1000) so I seldom use minor characters. My Holiday Contest entry had one of the few:

Mindy Davis was short, dumpy and prone to emotional outbursts. She was also Randi's loyal roommate.

With a novel, you can spend more time on them. This is how I introduced a minor character in the novel I just finished. It contains more discription than I give most main characters in a short story.

A familiar figure stood at the business end of the cafe’s pinball machine, The Bashful Beauty. By even the most tolerant of standards Donnie Charles Wyatt was a strange life form. By local standards he was way off the scale. His more distinctive features included long stringy hair, and the beginnings of a beer gut. He also had a goofy, don’t-give-a-damn smile some girls insisted was cute.

Friends and law enforcement officers alike called him, D.C. Both groups agreed he was every bit as odd as he looked. Among other things, he was a self-destructive, semi-alcoholic, anti-establishment free spirit.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Belegon]

I guess I don't know how to answer this. How do I draw the line between primary and secondary? In my most recent work th eventual female lead is a cardboard cutout for two thirds of the story.

Many of my "secondary characters" have a "primary character" history in my mind. It may not be in this story, but it is there.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I guess I don't know how to answer this. How do I draw the line between primary and secondary? In my most recent work th eventual female lead is a cardboard cutout for two thirds of the story.

Many of my "secondary characters" have a "primary character" history in my mind. It may not be in this story, but it is there.

Most of the writing "gurus" I've read advise against doing that. On the other hand, one of the nice things about Lit is it gives us a place to experiment and try things the experts say are a no-no.

Some writers just start a story and write until it's finished. I can't. That novel I shameleesly quoted from has over 100 characters and I have at least a short bio on everyone. For one thing, it helps me keep 'em consistent.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Weird Harold]

How do I draw the line between primary and secondary?

If they wear a red shirt and are in the away party, then they're probably secondary characters. (actually, by my standards, the red-shirts are tertiary characters.)

Secondary characters are the "supporting actors" in your story -- the characters your primary characters interact with -- the friends, co-workers, parents, teachers, and so forth.

A good test for whether a character is "secondary" is to ask if they can be replaced without changing the essential story. i.e. Does it really need to be "Mom" who hears the tearful confession, or could that scene/relationsip be re-written with "Best Friend" as confessor?

Tertiary characters are those that don't affect the character's actions and they're almost universally interchangeable -- They're the ones listed in movie credits as "store clerk," "Third man in the bar," etc. -- the characters that don't really need even a name.

 

[Seattle Zack]

With me, secondary characters sometimes become more interesting that the protagonists ... then I have to wrestle with them, convince them that they are not intrinsical to my plot ... then they rear their ugly heads, with much more interesting conflicts than the story I had in mind ... then I have to either re-work my story or bag it entirely (ouch, split infinitive) .... it's tough, when you let them do things by themselves. Often, they demand stories of their own.

 

[NoJo]

McKee has some good stuff on secondary characters, who are often useful for exposition or plot advancement:

The MENTOR, the MESSENGER, the RIVAL, the ACCOLYTE, the POTATO-HEAD

(not sure about the last one)

You can see them all in Star Wars, which was pretty much written to formula, and of course, worked brilliantly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks all. I've looked at some things i have in progreess and realize I can't help myself with the secondary characters. In two instances, they have taken over a story. That isn't bad, at least fo rme, but the lack of depth in the stuff I have written while sick is all the more glaring because of it. I wonder if perhaps when you are sick, the creative part of your mind shuts down first? The details are still good, the facts correct, but the pulse & heartbeat of the story are negiligible.

 

[Guest]

I wonder if perhaps when you are sick, the creative part of your mind shuts down first? The details are still good, the facts correct, but the pulse & heartbeat of the story are negiligible.

Colly, go easy on yourself. When one is ill all faculties are disturbed. I'm impressed you can write en malaise. Take care, P.


p.s. Jose, you've inspired me; think I'll write an incest story about the Potatohead family.