Making the Introductions

Eliza left a comment on my last post concerning introducing characters and groups into a story. She goes into some more details here, highlighting the ways in which an author can bring new characters into a plot without necessarily altering the reader’s expectations regarding the importance or role of the new arrivals. It’s an interesting subject and one that I realised I hadn’t really thought about consciously before. After a few days contemplation, here’s what I’ve come up with.

Why Am I Here?

The first thing to be considered is whether you actually know what the group of characters are going to do. This may sound strange at first, surely an author doesn’t randomly introduce people into a story without knowing why. Well, actually I’ve found that I do. Sometimes during the course of writing a scene the story requires a character (or several) who have played no part before that point. It might be the infamous ‘red shirts’ acting as escort, police officers discovering the crime scene, teachers or classmates or any number of other plot-required persons. Their appearance is derived from the need to introduce another element into the story not satisfied by the existing characters.

On many occasions this character or group will perform their allotted role, take their bows and never darken your page again. All fine so far, but the point raised by Eliza is whether you want your reader to know that. As I mentioned in the previous post, blurring between characters, plot and setting gives a more-rounded story. If the reader can immediately pigeon-hole a character or group as simply a function of plot, they are likely to dismiss them.

On the other hand, if they are genuinely nothing more than plot devices you don’t want to invest too many words in their part, or for that matter have the reader invest too much interest in them, detracting from the main characters. If anything, over-involvement with inconsequential characters can cause disappointment because as a writer you run the risk of their part starting to look like a sub-plot but leading nowhere, making the reader feel like there’s an issue remaining unresolved. If you add a bit of colour to your two beat cops finding the body, having them bickering about the new desk sergeant, there’s always the danger that your reader wants to find out more about the desk sergeant than the body!

Bearing that in mind, sometimes you don’t have to know straight away how involved the new arrivals will be with the story. It can sometimes happen that a character or group with distinctly walk-on origins can be revisited later, and perhaps even turned into a minor or secondary character. This has certainly happened to me whilst writing Malekith and Shadow King. Characters, groups and even places can be returned to briefly later on when the time is appropriate.

A good example is the raven herald Elthyrior in Malekith. He’s little more than a name, a bit-part in that novel, but in Shadow King he’s quite an important character. His role in Shadow King could have been fulfilled by a new character created for that purpose, but his reappearance and renewed prominence changes the readers’ expectations. Due to the way the trilogy is structured, with overlapping narratives creating a full picture of events across the three novels, the reader that pays attention is rewarded later on. Can they afford to dismiss any of the characters they encounter, knowing that some of them may be more than what they seem at first glance?

This principle has been extended by design throughout the Time of Legends series, so that certain things and people recur throughout the books in some form or the other. Like Easter eggs on a DVD, readers of the different novels get a sense of reward and familiarity when they recognise that such-and-such was a lowly throne room spear bearer in Book A, while in Book D they learn that that character is now the captain of the castle guard.

This continuity of setting is important for a couple of reasons. The first is the reward for attentive readers I’ve just mentioned. Then there is the matter of verisimilitude. If the reader feels that the entire world exists purely for the benefit of the characters and plot, it is disregarded. If, on the other hand, the world continues to turn and there are events not directly related to the actions of the characters changing the setting, there is an added depth.  The promotion from spear bearer to guard captain is of no direct importance whatsoever (or perhaps it is!) but the fact that it happened demonstrates that the world you have created has an existence of its own beyond the requirements of the plot you are relating. Just like the real world, such things show that around your characters there’s a cast of hundreds, thousands, even millions who are getting on with life with their own trials and victories, enriching the setting.

Context

Which is all well and good, but how do you keep the expectations of the readers uncertain? The best way I have found is to employ a consistent inconsistency… Confused? As I always say about writing, be conscious of the decisions you make, as there is nothing random and so not wholly inconsistent. However, if every character is introduced the same way, and every character then makes a reappearance or not, you are creating predictability. Predictability confirms expectation and so stifles excitement and involvement.

So, far from worrying about how to introduce groups as a general rule, one must consider every introduction on its own merits, and be deliberately inconsistent about it. Some characters get introduced by name, seem to be important but are not. Others have the broadest brush introduction possible, but then come to be a major element of the story.

The other factor to bear in mind is the needs of the narrative – it’s pacing and structure. Try as you might, there’s probably no good way to introduce a new group in any amount of detail in the middle of something important . If it’s an action scene, for instance, you don’t want to distract from the action by suddenly disappearing down a sidestreet talking about the new bunch of mercenaries that have turned up to save the day. Their immediate entrance to the story should be fitting to the circumstance of the scene. If need be, more lengthier introductions can be made later.

The other defining constraint on the introduction is the viewpoint and narrative style being used. In a narrow viewpoint story, where everything being related to the reader comes through the main viewpoint character, the author is simply not in a position to make wider introductions unless the viewing character already has that information. If they are old associates, then by all means talk about the character’s history with them, give them names and so on. If the arrivals are strangers to the character they will be strangers to the reader and only the information they offer about themselves to your characters will become known.

If the style of the story is more omniscient in scope the narrator has greater leeway for imparting additional information direct to the reader, often details that the characters are unaware of. In this sort of story the extra latitude can be both a boon and a curse. If used well it can add depth to the setting, create tension in the plot by having the reader better informed than the characters and also introduce vital information that otherwise could not be brought to light.

On the flip side, overuse of this device invites exposition, cluttering the story with excessive insights into characters of no importance, essays on the setting that add nothing to the narrative and general bumpf that gets in the way of the reader’s experience. On a practical level, 500 words spent describing the inner politics of the brigand gang might be better spent elsewhere.

As an author you make choices about where your reader directs his or her attention and attachment at any given time. The more the reader knows about a character, the more involved he or she will be, for good or ill. Sometimes it’s worthwhile having the reader invest a little bit of emotional stake in a minor character or group, particularly if you know bad things are going to happen. At other times, you really don’t want the reader giving a hoot about anybody other than the main characters. Despite everything else, this is their story after all, not the tale of the fan waver who’s worried that his wife is having an affair or the bus driver who has gambling problems…

In this regard I apply the same principles to these newcomers that I would to a main character – a slowly building picture of who they are works better than an info-dump intro. You’ll find that if you give the reader enough to form a rough opinion you’ve started with the right amount of information. Should the group’s importance grow in the story (by design or otherwise) their continued involvement – their words and deeds – will flesh out the initial impressions in a natural way. If their involvement is to end, the information will also stop as the story progresses, hopefully leaving the reader knowing what they need to know but nothing more.

Who Said What Now?

Dialogue is the biggest sticking point when introducing strangers. If the reader doesn’t have names to attach to characters the writing can become confused or, worse, suffer from the worst kind of Burly Detective Syndrome. In this case it is sometimes worth using a regular epithet instead of a real name. Just as ‘John said’ becomes invisible on the page so too does ‘the stranger said’ if you use it consistently. Like a name the attached title needs to be simple and unobtrusive, so avoid ‘the bearded man with the eye patch said’ and keep it short!

In the first few lines of dialogue, you can use this to your advantage. By using a line of dialogue to highlight the character, you can use this as an excuse to drop in another titbit of information about them, the dialogue breaking up the description into discreet packages:

“What are you doing here?” asked the burly corporal, puffing up his chest and hooking his thumbs into the belt around his ample paunch. His four squad members slouched close by, smoking and chatting, paying little attention to their leader.

“We were just looking for the main hangar,” said Michael, casting an uncertain glance over his shoulder towards the main compound.

“Hangar’s off limits to civvies,” the corporal told them. His shirt was crumpled and perspiration stained, and clearly he had been standing out in the sun for most of the day. The stench of stale sweat emanating from him was enough to force Michael to suppress a grimace.

“I have a pass here somewhere, from Colonel Grey,” Michael replied, fishing the laminated badge from his pocket and thrusting it towards the jobsworth standing in front of the door. The corporal peered at it for the briefest of moments, immediately recognising Grey’s signature at the bottom. He shifted uneasily , trying to straighten up in case the visitors were important while his shoulders slumped in disappointment. Fear of superiors won the battle and he came to attention, his hand rising in a sharp salute.

“Corporal Mannings, sir!” he barked, eyes directed respectfully over Michael’s shoulder. The other soldiers shuffled to attention with less vigour, looking curiously at Michael and Serena.

“Thank you, corporal,” Michael said, returning the forged pass to his pocket. “If you would direct us to Dr Pearson’s offices, I would be most grateful.”

The reader already knows enough about Corporal Mannings to start making a judgement on him, but his introduction has been done in such a way that if he never appears again the reader won’t miss him. We’ve even been cunning enough to get his name mentioned.

Similarly, his somewhat lacklustre squad have been introduced as a group. Think of them as a single entity initially until individuals from the group come to the fore. This is where I think ’show not tell’ comes into its own. Rather than simply saying that the door was guarded by Corporal Mannings, a notorious jobsworth and bootlicker who was easily fooled by Michael’s fake pass, we have turned it into a short scene.

A group can act surly or excited, be talkative or silent, or do any of the other things a single character might do. If the group eye the characters with resentment, it might be the one that looks most welcoming that attracts the attention, hinting at a possible deeper involvement. The two that are sniggering to themselves at the back, or the concubine who looks at the hero with disinterest while the others leer appreciatively are all signalled as being different from the group and therefore containing the potential for closer examination.

Turning the tables

Having created certain expectations through the introduction of your character(s) it’s important to return to that inconsistency I mentioned earlier. It might be that our hero ends up talking to another concubine and the one that didn’t fancy him is actually of no consequence at all, her reaction simply an affirmation that not all concubines are the same. Important character(s) can emerge from the group rather than being placed front and centre from the outset, keeping our reader on their toes in all subsequent encounters.

To follow the earlier example, it may be that the writer allows the reader enough time to forget about jobsworth Corporal Mannings. When he is reintroduced later on, at a point where his presence will be a potential obstacle for our characters, the reader (and characters) will go back to that first impression and expect opposition. Imagine their surprise to learn that Corporal Mannings is actually an affable chap who was simply tired and bored after a long day stood on watch. Having been apprised of our characters’ situation he is more than willing to help out and changes from being an obstacle to an aid.

Alternatively, Mannings might be every bit the jobsworth he’s been made out to be, but the real power in the squad is one of the other soldiers who comes to the fore in the second encounter, speaking on behalf of the characters. He might end up being a secondary character from then on, splitting from the group and becoming an individual. Alternatively, each time Corporal Mannings and his squad appears the reader is not sure what they’ll do, or even if they’ll turn up again. The group, like a character, has developed a dynamic that can be used.

Conclusion

So if I was to summarise that long ramble into some concrete advice…

When the group is introduced, have an idea of what their role is but keep it to yourself until it becomes self-evident to the reader.

Think of encounters you have in real life. Some are ships passing in the night, others have more meaning. However, the circumstances of those initial encounters don’t follow any defined form, and neither should those in your stories. Great friendships might spark over time from humble beginnings, while folks who have an instant rapport may well never see each other again.

Until specific characters are identified, think of the group as a single character. The people that make up the group are like the facets of a character. Just as you would not provide a lengthy biography of a character on first appearance, it is not necessary to divulge everything about a group.

Keep the readers guessing. Invent a new group or character for the hell of it, and toss them away without regard, even if you have spent a little bit of time introducing them.

If people are going to die, some of them should have names and some not!

Which Comes First?

I’ve been looking at the poll results with interest, and reading your comments as well. First of all I’ll muse a bit on these and then I’ll relate my own take on the character/ plot/ setting triangle.

From this terribly unscientific and self-selecting survey, it seems that there’s a real split between characters and plot being the most important factor in a story. What I find really interesting is that nobody voted for setting. My slight surprise comes from the fact that, as an author, I have (so far!) written within two settings – Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000. The success of Black Library and the many other tie-in titles that dominate portions of the SF/ fantasy market would suggest that setting is very important to many readers. The same could be said of Discworld, or Shannara or any other number of settings that have spawned countless books.

Setting the Tone

While the setting attracts the reader to the story, it is the basics of characters and/ or plot on which the story is judged. A poor story does not improve simply by being a Star Trek novel or a Warhammer 40,000 novella. I wonder also if readers, particularly of tie-in fiction, take the setting for granted. A setting adds backdrop to the characters and plot, and in many ways if it is well done it is hardly noticed at all. It adds resonance and flavour to these foreground elements without intruding upon them.

Here there is a significant difference between tie-in settings and those worlds created by a single author. In the first case, it is the setting with which the reader attributes certain values and expectations, regardless of who the writer might be. A Warhammer story should have a certain style and presentation that fits within the wider setting, for example. The setting determines a sort of baseline for the type of story one is going to read. In the case of the author-derived setting, the two are inextricably linked, so the association with the setting becomes an association with the author. In this case, the style of story is likely to transfer from the author to other settings created by him or her. Take, for example, David Gemmell. He wrote his novels in a variety of settings, both fantastical and semi-historical. Despite some distinct differences between these settings there is a definite ‘Gemmellness’ that readers can expect, whether it is part of the Drenai saga or takes place in ancient Macedonia.

Which brings me back to the idea that setting is the beginning of the journey for the reader. A setting informs the reader of the type of plot and characters they can expect. If a reader has already read stories within a particular setting, and enjoyed them, they are then pre-disposed towards reading more in that setting, having established that they like the tone and content of stories inherent in that setting (as much as they might like the style of a particular author as well). When a setting is shared, it is important that it has certain fundamental characteristics, a defined flavour, that can be made evident through the works of different writers. By understanding and keeping to these underlying tenets of the setting, the tie-in author can be sure that at least the first hurdle is crossed. If the principles of the setting are not understood or incorporated, then the converse is true and a fan of the setting is likely to feel alienated from their favoured world at the first step.

Plotting a Course

Plot came a very close second place in the poll, so close in fact that statistically it’s really a joint first place with character. Plot is fundamental to a story, it is what happens. More importantly, plot can be thought of why things happen. A piece without plot is simply a series of events with no causality.

What makes a good plot has been debated and analysed by many writers and critics, and there are plenty of essays to be found online and books to read and I have little to add to this wealth of information. That would make for a very short post, so instead I’ll return to the point about setting being overlooked, and have a look at the relation of plot and setting.

Some would say there are only so many plots in the world, and at the basic level they’ve all been used; a tale of redemption or condemnation, the Hero’s Journey, rags-to-riches and vice versa, all have been told a thousand times over and more. So what is it that keeps us coming back to the same old stories? The characters, some would say, judging by the poll results. However, quite often these tried-and-tested plots require tried-and-tested characters too. Plot is inextricably linked to character (as I will discuss in a while) and so though the names might change and the nuances are finessed, the same characters can be found doing the same things.

Setting then comes back into its own and may provide us with that defining difference that gives a story enough uniqueness that it is worth reading. Take the murder mystery. There are certain conventions required for the plot of a murder mystery, even if the main characters are as different as Poirot to Taggart to Grissom. In a sentence, the plot of a murder mystery is simple: someone gets killed and our detectives must find out (and prove) who did it and how. There can be all kinds of inventive ways for people to die and ways of them being found out, which is the second-guessing appeal for murder mystery fans.

Where setting can bring fresh air to the tried-and-trusted is to bring different constraints and opportunities to the plot. The murder could take place on the Orient Express, at a country manor, in the slums of Buenos Aires, in the back-alleys of Glasgow, on a moonbase or anywhere else. The setting also incorporates the tools by which the characters can detect and evade detection, whether that is the good old magnifying glass or digital DNA databases. Miss Marple never had a crime lab and requires a certain type of plot, while the stories of CSI: Miami and their ilk depend upon the (pseudo-)scientific apparatus at their disposal. The particulars of the murder could be exactly the same, but the story that progresses from that incident are very different and determined by the setting.

[I think that one of the charms of Bones is the blend of the traditional and the modern detective, with the main thrust of the plot coming from Dr Brennan's big brain lab, but usually requiring the instinctive input and boot leather from Agent Booth to pull the threads together.]

Setting can also provide sub-plot, which for any fiction piece of reasonable length is essential. It might be a time factor – the plane will land and the suspects will go free. It could be environmental constraints – the murderer must be one of the cadets on the army base. From a certain viewpoint (mine!) it can even be said that minor characters are really part of the setting rather than the plot – police officers, other criminals, witnesses, red herring suspects are not really characters they are setting elements that can be used to influence the plot.

Character Flaw

Characters just about nudged out in front, but not by any significant margin. The setting draws us in, the plot keeps us reading, but it is the characters that engage us. The characters are agents of the plot, bringing it into action and relating its events to the reader. Characters are also the main contributors to sub-plot, the mechanism by which even the most straightforward story can maintain our interest.

Readers interact with a story because the characters interact with the setting and plot on their behalf. They have relationships with each other that are shared by the reader. The characters can be the difference between an intriguing plot and a compelling story. The plot of a story is an intellectual involvement – the desire to understand what has happened and why. The characters are the emotional involvement – they are the reason we care what happens and why.

The importance of characters in fiction has grown stronger and stronger over the last century and a half. Even outside fiction the ‘human interest’ angle on news stories is intended to create an emotional bond with the events portrayed. The tragedy and the comedy, the essential conflict, the themes of a story are brought to life through the characters, not the plot. We may enjoy a good twist in the story, for example, but it usually only matters if that twist has an impact on the characters. It may be that the twist throws new light on everything the characters have done or it could be that the twist is the catalyst for the conflict-resolution our characters need to achieve.

I would have voted for characters, for the record. For me, plot and setting are abstract things, while characters are visceral. The connection between the writer/ reader and the characters must be the driving force behind a story. When that connection is made, quite often it is almost irrelevant what the characters actually do, the reader simply enjoys spending the time with them (hence the popularity of soap operas and, to some extent, reality shows). The love, the bickering, the interplay of personalities are what make stories a reflection of real life. Good characters can be dependable or fickle, honest or untrustworthy, and can behave in irrational ways that do not service the plot but serve their own needs. When plot dominates too much, readers can sense that the characters are on tracks, moving towards some destination determined already by the author. When characters are the foremost concern of the writer, there is an intuitive understanding that what is happening is natural – the events of the plot unfold because of the actions of the characters and the nature of the setting, rather than because they were predetermined.

So What?

Character, plot and setting all work together to make a story a success. In a well-written story the reader should not be able to see the joins between these three elements. Plot should evolve out of character, the characters’ actions and personalities should be influenced by the setting, and the backdrop to the story should evoke the flavour of the piece and inform the plot.

As a writer, you will find that your style of storytelling will have a natural bias between these three elements, with character and plot vying for first place over setting. It is important to be aware of where your natural inclination lies, so when planning or writing a story you can assure yourself that you haven’t overlooked the other important elements.

Sometimes it is worthwhile writing outside of the comfort zone; plan and write a story that is plot-intensive if you usually go for character-heavy stories; or write a story where you pay more attention than normal to the setting; or compose a biographical piece about your characters which has them doing something with virtually no plot or setting at all, concentrating entirely on the interplay between them.

Real World Stuff

Thanks to those who came to the signings in London, and particular thanks to Liz and Mark from My Favourite Books, and Siân and John at Forbidden Planet. Sorry I didn’t meet you, Danie, and apologies to all involved for my train dramas making me late…

Currently Reading: Man Plus by Frederik Pohl.

Currently Watching: Not a lot at the moment, though new 24 has just started, and Lost and Battlestar Galactica are returning soon.

Just Watched: The Spirit. For some it’s utter trash, for others it’s genius. Over-the-top, stylised nonsense, and all the better for it. Witty, whimsical, old skool. I loved it. A real Marmite film amongst my friends. Get your brain into the right gear and it’s fantastic, if you don’t ‘get it’ (and I don’t mean that in an elitist way) then you’ll probably hate it.

Sniffle…

I was planning to write a post discussing the poll results and comments today, but I’ve been laid low with a cold and my brain has been stodged up with cotton wool. Dennis has been busy passing me tissues and paracetamol so that I can get fighting fit for my signings on Saturday. Anyway, this is just a quick note to say that I haven’t forgotten you and I’ll be posting something more substantial early next week (health permiting). For now I’ll be lying on the sofa reading Something Wicked This Way Comes, by Ray Bradbury.

Published in: on January 8, 2009 at 9:31 am Comments (1)

A New Year with a New Thing

Since I can now add polls , I thought I’d start 2009 with one!

When reading a story, what do you think is the most important element?  Is it good characters, a great plot or a compelling setting? Obviously all three are desirable, but this is all about making a choice.

Can good characters overcome an average universe? Does an interesting storyline compensate for medicore characters? Does a world spun with imagination sweep away lacklustre plotting?

You decide! Please feel free to explain your vote in the comments section.

Published in: on January 2, 2009 at 10:18 am Comments (10)
Tags: , , , ,