Elizabeth George: Characterization is the Most Important Element in Fiction

 

 

In Write Away, Elizabeth George presents her method for writing fiction. Here I will discuss her approach to creating characters.

First, though, she has an idea for what her novel will be about and expands that idea as much as possible to have a solid understanding of what the story line is.

Once she has a good idea for her novel, the next thing she does is to begin developing her characters. Without a thorough understanding of her characters, she wouldn’t know where to start writing the story. Characters are the impetus for other aspects of the novel. It’s also through understanding her characters that she develops much of her plot and subplots.

Character Analysis

Her character analysis can start anywhere, with any piece of information about a character. She writes in stream-of-consciousness fashion about each and every character who might appear in the novel. In the analysis, she wants to present everything she can about the character, but she is mainly concerned with five pieces of information:

1)      The character’s CORE NEED.  This a need that originates deep within a person and is the force that drives a person to do the things he does. The need is so important to a person that, when it is thwarted, it can cause a pathological reaction, which leads to the second important piece of information about a character,

2)      The character’s PATHOLOGICAL MANUEVER. This is what the character does under stress, how he reacts when his core need is being denied or interfered with. It displays as some of the negative ways of coping, such as becoming obsessive or hysterical.

3)      The character’s SEXUALITY. She wants to know what his attitude to sex is and his sexual history. This may or may not show up in the story, but it’s important to know.

4)      A PAST EVENT in the character’s life that has had a significant influence on him. Again, this may not show up in the story, but it tells a great deal about the character and why he is the way he is.

5)      WHAT THE CHARACTER WANTS IN THE STORY. That is, what the character wants throughout the story and what the character wants in each individual scene. Of course, this is influenced by the previous four pieces of information about the character. What a character wants isn’t always clear cut or derived from one basic need. It can result from multiple factors. And it may not be directly expressed.

Knowing all of this about each character suggests subplots and many directions a story may take. It can lead to sources of conflict and plot development. This isn’t formulaic writing, it’s organic, and can lead to many surprises. I think this approach to characterization is well worth exploring.

What about you? Do you have a specialized approach to creating characters?

"Write Like The Masters" by William Cane (5) George Orwell, "1984"

In my continuing endeavor to learn more about what makes master writers masters, I've re-read 1984 by George Orwell, keeping in mind William Cane's discussion in Write Like the Masters.

First, let me say it now. 1984 is the most harrowing book I've ever read. Part of what makes it so harrowing is its plausibility. I so identified with Winston Smith that I felt his confusion and horror. I could very well see myself living in the insane world of Big Brother, Ingsoc, and doublespeak. So this supports Cane's discussion of Orwell's use of limited third person point of view being part of the power of this story.

Cane points out that Orwell uses penumbra, i.e., characterizing individuals through indirect and "more ambiguous suggestion" than through direct positive statements about individuals. In truth, penumbra pervades every character in the book. Smith (and the reader) can never be sure of whom to trust or believe.

According to Cane, Orwell uses a very simple plot. It is simple, but in a complex way. The complexity arises from the the subtext and gives the simple plot extra energy and meaning.

Cane says Orwell makes good use of repetition throughout the novel. The story constantly, in vaious ways, reiterates its themes--the ambiguity, the paradoxes of Oceanian society: War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength. What is so harrowing is that all of this is accomplished by making the past the present (or the present the past) in such a way that there is no past. This is accomplished by obliterating memory.

Cane stresses how Orwell makes the villain not only bad, but also good. Of course, what is good and bad has been turned upside down in Oceania. Who is the villain? It's Big Brother. It's your neighbor. It's your employer. It's your friend or family member. Perhaps it's even yourself, and what can be more harrowing than that?

Point Of View

Choosing the point of view (pov) for a novel can involve some difficult choices. Almost everything I've written has been in third-person omniscent; it gives you so much more lattitude. Limited third-person omniscent can give you quite a bit of room to maneuver, too. But nothing beats first-person--for the writer as well as for the reader--for immediately identifying with a character. But the limitations of first-person are many.

What are the advantages of third-person omniscient? The story can be seen through the eyes of any of the characters at any time. In first person, you can't very well see the story from any other character's pov, not without many limitations.

To some degree, plot determines pov. For example, a story I'm working on right now, started out in first-person, but I've come to realize that it won't work for the plot of the novel. Other people's povs, without the protagonist in the chapter, must occur later in the novel. Now I've got to rewrite what I've done. Fortunately, I'm very early in the story, so it's not a problem. But, I hate to change the pov, because I'm losing the instant identification with the protagonist that I've felt. But a writer does what he has to do. The overall story comes first. I'll try to figure out a way to keep it in first person before making the change, but keeping it may be too difficult.

Writing As a Lonely Occupation

Yes, writing is a lonely occupation. But, as a fiction writer, I'm involved in my characters' lives, which can be sort of like having company. Of course, they are not real people, but sometimes it seems like they are. I care about their lives, their dreams, their relationships. I can have a hard time when one of them dies. Usually, when I start a story, I don't know much about my characters, but after a while I know them really well. I like character-driven stories. Plot is important. But the characters are more important. One of the ways writing is less lonely is by participating in writing groups or workshops.