The Art of Character Lesson 1.2

[ScienceGirl]

Chapter One of The Art of Character is entitled "Fingering Smoke: Are Characters Created or Discovered?" 

Corbett relates tales of several famous artists including Michelangelo, playright Martin McDonagh, Jackson Pollock, John Coltrane, and Miles Davis, comparing their different methods of discovery. Michelangelo and McDonagh believed that God, the creator, was the source of artistic inspiration and their job was to merely liberate the sculptures and plays. Pollock achieved his art through more of a trial-and-error approach. 

He says if you translate Pollock's method to fiction, the writer might start with a blank page, same as a canvas, and "gradually, through trial and error and persistent refinement," see something that becomes clearer as the work continues. 

In other words, this is discovery vs. creation of the art. 

The problem with creation, one that many of us often experience, is knowing when to stop. Corbett relates an exchange between John Coltrane and Miles Davis about this topic, claiming that Davis supposedly advised Coltrane that his solos ended when he "put the horn down." 

Another problem with creation he brings up is those "jabbering hobgoblins," or our characters that nag at us and take on a life of their own.

Corbett also finds fault with discovery. He says:

Myth suggests at least something of an approach; it presupposes a realm where the personified ambitions, hopes, and suspicions of mankind reside. Whether one calls that realm the psyche or Collective Unconsciousness or Valhalla, what we think of as characters in our stories, if sufficiently meaningful and profound, seemingly glimmer with the aura of that otherworld.

Sounds magical, right? If only perfectly developed characters would drop onto our pages! Corbett points out that such inspiration can be both consoling and terrifying at the same time. He relates the depiction of human life in story to fingering smoke, something so tricky that it often seems unreachable. 

And, he adds that "even if I can picture my characters vividly in my mind's eye, hear their voices with perfect pitch, observe them prancing about of their own volition, that doesn't mean I've come up with anything unique or even interesting."  In other words, if the character "falls flat" on the page, it's not the character's fault. It's the author's fault.

As with most two-sided processes, Corbett leads us to the conclusion that the best method of character development is through both creation AND discovery. A character might come to us, say, in a dream. But then, we can use creation to pull them out of our unconsciousness and breathe life into them. He compares character development to being more like the story of Geppetto the woodcutter, forging story like Pinnochio from "a bit of raw material that interests us," then "working at it day and night, not just deliberately and attentively, but lovingly." And then, the material takes a life of its own. 

He also advises against relying too heavily on archetypes, because "dramatic urgency isn't created by nomenclature." Too often, he says, these general names are merely "new rags draped on the same old scarecrow." (Warrior, Shadow, Herald, Lost Soul, Trickster are the ones he uses. I thought about even things like Prostitute, Prisoner, Lawyer, Doctor, Mother. Just being called something doesn't make it so.)

Desire, he says, is where action is born, and action is how character is defined. 

So, as we continue this journey, we'll look at some specific ways to define character through action. I really hope you guys enjoy these ideas as much as I have.

[pelwrath]

After reading, I think I use both, though not in equal amounts for each character.

For my MC’s I create a brief bio in a notes document. The basic physical features and something different. A hobby, job, some personality bits.

[ScienceGirl]

Jul 2, 2021 8:41:01 GMT -6 pelwrath said:

After reading, I think I use both, though not in equal amounts for each character.

For my MC’s I create a brief bio in a notes document. The basic physical features and something different. A hobby, job, some personality bits.

I like to do that, too. It's really hard to keep all their hair/eye color and such straight. Great idea! 

[pelwrath]

How do you avoid the "Well you know, Bob" troupe? Maybe Bob doesn't know. I've had discussions where either I or a friend explained something to me, that either they or I didn't know, so since it happens in real life, what's wrong with it in literature?

[ScienceGirl]

Oct 20, 2021 8:06:12 GMT -6 pelwrath said:

How do you avoid the "Well you know, Bob" troupe? Maybe Bob doesn't know. I've had discussions where either I or a friend explained something to me, that either they or I didn't know, so since it happens in real life, what's wrong with it in literature?

Pel, I think that's a context situation. If you've done a good enough job with the context that your readers can trust the characters, it's probably okay to slip a couple of those in. If your setting and characters and the rest of your backdrop is underdeveloped, they will stick out like a sore thumb. The problem with any trope IMHO is that people don't surround them with clever writing and colorful characters so they stand out as cliche. But someone else might have a better answer than me. 

Good writing covers a lot of deliberate rule-breaking for the pros. Look at David Baldacci, who pops in a car chase every time he needs to add 10,000 words to a story. It's a great tactic, though, because he's written some pretty awesome car chases, and that's why people love him and buy up his books as soon as they release. 

[pelwrath]

So, be careful when using it and do so sparingly. Thanks for replying.