"It's always preferable to allow the reader the pleasure of discovering a character rather than being told what type of person s/he is. " * Richie_d


Have you received a review comment that you thought was real food for thought and could apply to not just yours or others writing. Post/discuss them here. They could act as a catalyst to help writers develop, or lead to other story development ideas.

Thank you to Richie D. Our thought would be that this is a good point, from book characters to film characters, do we engage more by finding things out for ourselves, what examples of well known story characters does this apply to, and how do other writers achieve this?

* Above review quote in context of the review:


"What I would suggest is that you cut a little of the exposition--it's not necessary to explain everything. Often, you can accomplish a lot more by having your protagonist do something without explaining it, but letting the reader figure it out. A small example: after the boat is sunk by the ship, "Davy Jones" comes ashore and immediately tells himself he needs clothes. Yet, if you just show him finding the house, taking the clothes and leaving the money -- without narrative explanation of his actions -- we can figure out what he's doing and why. It's always preferable to allow the reader the pleasure of discovering a character rather than being told what type of person he is. When he leaves the money, we realise that here is a criminal with some sense of right and wrong."

I think the idea of 'giving space' to the reader/audience is a really interesting thought. On a creating character level, I was watching a documentary about Steven McQueen the other day, and part of his acting skill was that it not what was said by his characters, but often what was unsaid. He liked to go through scripts and take his dialogue out! Believing the audience likes to work it out for themselves and that 'mystery' is the element that keeps the audience intrigued and gets them more involved in working things out for themselves.

The Beggarmaster in Rohinton Mistry's A fine balance is a wonderful example of this. Never does Mistry present his POV, yet as i reader, you go from hating him, to almost liking him, to eventually at least understanding why he is who he is (shaped by history and culture) and realising that potentially in the same set of circumstances you may have taken the same path.

I hate to be told what a character is - i want to decide for myself - it is by comparing their experience to your own that the character becomes real. No one is wholly good or bad, even the direst of characters, believe in themselves as just, as acting on their unique set of morals and principles, e.g. Anthony Hopkins - silence of the lambs.

I find that readers like to engage their own imaginations in the story, and this is true not only of characters but of settings and character descriptions, too. I've had several readers tell me how vividly they could "see" the people and places in the story, when in fact there is little or no description at all.

Reading an Elmore Leonard book, for example, it's impressive how much of a sense of "place" comes merely from the dialogue.

If the dialogue is fresh and believable the brain automatically fits in a scene around the characters.