Introducing characters in the "traditional" style

[Jabrosky]

On DeviantArt I received a review for my "Coming of Ramun" excerpt (also displayed in the Showcase) that was generally favorable, but the reviewer suggested that I should "introduce the characters in the traditional style". By this he apparently meant that I briefly explain who my characters are when I introduce them into a story. I guess this includes something like a short description of things like physical features or clothing.

Truth be told, this comment surprised me because I keep hearing about how we should plunge our characters immediately into the action instead of starting off with a description (or whatever he meant by "traditional-style introduction"). Certainly writers who prefer to work with a deep point-of-view wouldn't bother with describing viewpoint characters in most circumstances.

What could my reviewer mean when he talks about "introducing characters in a traditional style"?

 

[Svrtnsse]

What could my reviewer mean when he talks about "introducing characters in a traditional style"?

I don't have the flying faintest what he's on about and I have a hunch that neither does he - only he doesn't know.

Is there such a thing as an introduction of the character in question at all, that you can share, or is he just there in the story?

 

[Jabrosky]

This is the paragraph where I first invoke my PoV character:

Mahitu sprang up from her reed mat and panted. The perspiration that beaded her black-brown skin chilled her despite the night's humid warmth. Somewhere a shrill shrieking noise had kicked her out of sleep, or so she could have sworn.

 

[Duncan M]

If that's your introduction, it seems quite effective. The mental image it produces is a fine starting point in my opinion. If your reviewer was going for a few sentences or a paragraph dedicated to the looks/preferences/behavior of your character, I'd have to disagree with him. Introductions like that break the flow for me, and they seem unmemorable--even boring, like being made to memorize bullet points. My only advice to you would be to introduce your character's traits through action, imagery, thoughts, and dialogue (like in your excerpt there).

 

[Svrtnsse]

For me, that's enough to create a first impression of the character.

If it was me writing it, I would try to fit in some kind of mention of her hair - because hair is important to me. The reason it's important is that it's a big part of a character's appearance and you see it right away when you see the character. As such the hair is a subconscious part of the first impression. In this case I'm imagining her with short black hair. If it would turn out it was long and red I'd be annoyed. That's a personal preference though and you may pull it off without the hair.

Other than that, it works for me and I still don't have a clue what "traditional style" might be.

What you've got here is a character framework. You've got all of the very basics (apart from the hair) and you can build on it and add things in later. I would probably not wait too long to add details though (but I'm on thin ice now as I'm not speaking from experience).

 

[Noma Galway]

I really like the introduction of the character there. Like Svrt, I do have a picture of her with short black hair, and I have a very clear picture of her in my head. What I do is mention details in passing, and that works for my crit partner, or it has so far.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I don't fret over one random person's opinion - especially when, as you said, no one else seems to have an issue with the passage. If it came from, say, five people, I would take a closer look. The only time I take a single opinion seriously is if I know and trust that person's opinion and experience. Stop fussing and trust your instincts.

 

[Jabrosky]

For me, that's enough to create a first impression of the character.

If it was me writing it, I would try to fit in some kind of mention of her hair - because hair is important to me. The reason it's important is that it's a big part of a character's appearance and you see it right away when you see the character. As such the hair is a subconscious part of the first impression. In this case I'm imagining her with short black hair. If it would turn out it was long and red I'd be annoyed. That's a personal preference though and you may pull it off without the hair.

Other than that, it works for me and I still don't have a clue what "traditional style" might be.

What you've got here is a character framework. You've got all of the very basics (apart from the hair) and you can build on it and add things in later. I would probably not wait too long to add details though (but I'm on thin ice now as I'm not speaking from experience).

Thank you. I actually picture this heroine as having long dreadlocks, but wasn't sure where to squeeze it into the opening. The skin color I could work in because I was describing her fearful cold sweat, but what could happen to hair in the context of fear?

I do mention the character scratching her dreadlocks in befuddlement later in the story though.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Maybe she's brushing a dread out of her face or she has some beads in it the clatter against each other or maybe they stick the sweaty skin on her back. They might be whipping around from the hasty motions?

 

[Mythopoet]

As a reader, I noticed something recently. I find it far easier to remember who a character is and what their characteristics are and they tend to make a greater impression on me when they are introduced in the traditional style. In general, this means about a paragraph briefly summing up some of their more memorable attributes and place in the story.

Obviously a lot of writers over the decades have taken this WAY overboard, which is surely why it is condemned now. If it takes you pages of description to introduce a character you're doing it wrong. But a paragraph or even two is, I would say, not too much. I have found that when authors sprinkle description along the way I tend to forget those details because they aren't really connected to anything. Especially if they are sprinkled into dialogue tags (which most reader's brains tend to gloss over anyway). In the end my picture of the characters ends up very, very vague making me attached to them less than I should be.

But if you start with a decent introductory picture of the character I can attach any lone details that are sprinkled through the text later in the story to that first impression making a much clearer idea of the character in my head.

This is, by the way, something I just realized very recently. I had always been very much in the "make a bread crumb trail of character description" camp until I suddenly realized that doesn't work for me at all as a reader.

 

[KC Trae Becker]

I was going to say that the comment came from an artist (an assumption based on where the review came from) who is likely to value physical description more than most, but now I'm not so sure.

The recent trend of advice to writers I've been getting, to limit description and let the reader see the character as they choose unless it's important to the plot doesn't seem popular here either. I'm looking forward to reading what others say about this topic.

 

[Jabrosky]

I was going to say that the comment came from an artist (an assumption based on where the review came from) who is likely to value physical description more than most, but now I'm not so sure.

The recent trend of advice to writers I've been getting, to limit description and let the reader see the character as they choose unless it's important to the plot doesn't seem popular here either. I'm looking forward to reading what others say about this topic.

My reviewer runs a literature group and posts a lot of poetry on his account. Then again, poetry may be an inherently more "visual" means of writing than conventional prose.

 

[Svrtnsse]

As a reader, I noticed something recently. I find it far easier to remember who a character is and what their characteristics are and they tend to make a greater impression on me when they are introduced in the traditional style. In general, this means about a paragraph briefly summing up some of their more memorable attributes and place in the story.

I think this ties back to the saying "first impressions last". The first impression you get of someone sticks with you for a long time and it can take quite a lot to make it change. The same thing probably applies in writing. I read Jabrosky's description two hours ago and even though I now know the girl has dreads I'm still picturing her with short black hair with no dreads.
Though if she has dreads they will have read and white beads in them. That didn't say anywhere, it just came to me when I made the comment about it in an earlier post, and that image is still there.

I think that, as you say, you don't need much to set the first impression. A paragraph should do it, but you can probably narrow it down even more, to just mentioning one or two significant attributes. The important thing would be that those attributes are significant enough that the reader notices them. That way they will carry the impression of the character and the reader will have an easier time remembering them.

Adding a mention of the her to the description would change the character from "the dark skinned girl" to "the dark skinned girl with the dreads". It's a very minor change, but it (presumably) sets her apart from the other dark skinned girls. I'd also say that it sets her apart from other dark skinned girls even if it later turns out that all dark skinned girls have dreads.


EDIT:
I now also have a clue about what the "traditional method" is.

 

[Penpilot]

My reviewer runs a literature group and posts a lot of poetry on his account. Then again, poetry may be an inherently more "visual" means of writing than conventional prose.

In literature it's generally more acceptable to have a long expository sections on stuff. Now if this isn't the way you want to do things, then don't.

You can take a couple of things away from this though. One, you can ask the commenter to expand on what they mean by "traditional style". Get a better understanding about what they're getting at, and what they think is missing. Two, take it as a incentive to take another look at your work and think about if you are continuously developing a sharper-and-sharper image of your character as the story progresses. See if there are a few things you could sprinkle in.

 

[skip.knox]

The introduction is fine. But a main character is never completely introduced in one breath. It's more like a courtship. The reader learns more over time, including surprises.

I try to think about the practicalities. For instance, she is springing up from sleep. If she is going to get up and investigate the noise, then some description of clothing would come next, unless what she sleeps in is what she normally wears. Or the weapon she grabs. Or the staff. Any of these things would give us a further picture.

OTOH, things like eye color or the shape of her hands don't further the scene. Those can come later.

To reiterate what others have said, there is emphatically not a traditional way of introducing characters. Don't worry about it.