Let's talk about 'the description now. The following are reflections scattered, leaving, however, from the very beginning, the most obvious questions. is essential to describe a character?
might as well ask whether it is necessary to have a character. To write a story usually necessary, saddled with someone. Otherwise there is a story, but a (more or less long) report of anxiety.
course we must agree on the term "character". In ancient times the characters were not always characterized as such, but described by one of their passions or dominant characteristics: The Wrath of Achilles, cunning Odysseus' curiosity and so on. Yet Achilles and Odysseus were really characters, not only types. Why? Because they were essentially grandly human.
first conclusion: it takes to write a story that needs a bit like a character that we can understand (identify with him / dislike / despise ...). In short, enough to arouse emotions.
is essential to give him a name?
No. BU writers have avoided naming their character. We can consciously (and very ambitious ...) decide to shut its name because it represents the human condition Or because we want to create mystery or sense of distance, preventing the reader to enter into intimacy with him. We can also provide a nickname, a pseudonym, call Green Hat, The great Lombard (as Vittorini) and so on. We can not use the name because the narrator and the character are already too close (for example if the character and the narrator are the same, or if the character is the only object of attention of the narrator). Or because a character has only the role of listener, as in the epistolary novel, as does De La Mare in Memoirs of a Midget ( My dear friend ... and down three hundred - magnificent - often a letter).
However, if you consciously decide to give a name to the character, let us remember that the name is not an accident in fiction, is not neutral, but is part of:
When he awoke, Gregor Samsa Gregor not only exists ... it has a name and austere ordinary sets, the name just to make credible the transformation of an obscure clerk in the name cockroach ... Gregor adequate to ensure that, with that name, is not the type to go and look for a strange destiny so incredible that he could become a Scarafia happen to everyone. In addition, of course, nothing other than him, Gregor. But Kafka would get the same result this way: When he awoke, Arcimboldus de Ferlecchis ...?
Keep in mind, however, that a person baptized Fardezio Mud ( underline solitary Bosonetto M., Einaudi), declared the intention to look at it from above and allows readers to identify with completely. The character, in short, no longer has complete autonomy. And processing.
Description direct
Adele was a girl of twelve, tall and thin, with blond hair, and wore only tracksuits. He arrived late to school forever. His father, an engineer with a passion for reading, had grown in her curiosity and sense of observation ...
In the twentieth century (and the twenty-first), this type of description does not use and dusted off when it is still used in particular way. Also De La Mare, for example, in the text ... describes in detail the character to emphasize the indefinable strangeness and eerie bond created between him and the narrator.
Descrizione indiretta
L’Adele di allora dava l’impressione di riuscire a bucare con i gomiti e le ginocchia la tuta rossa da ginnastica e di inciampare nei piedi troppo lunghi. Correva sempre, la treccia bionda che sbatteva sulle spalle e una pila di libri e quaderni con la copertina gialla sotto il braccio. A suola la rimproveravano spesso per i troppi ritardi, ma Adele non perdeva tempo, semplicemente di fermava ad ascoltare e a guardare.
Così di Adele ne sappiamo decisamente di più: le piacciono il rosso e il giallo, probabilmente si sente goffa, riceve spesso sgridate ottuse che non merita. È capace, nonostante sia sempre affannata, to stop to contemplate the world.
NB In a story, the importance of calibrating a description is even better: If you have a novel in two hundred pages of time to describe the character in a story mean you have ten, fifteen. And you can not bury the poor reader in an avalanche of adjectives fussy.
Where is the narrator?
When the narrator describes, which arises in relation to his character?
The beautiful Iset froze a few feet from Rameses. He, his first and only love, continued to impress. It was too big for her, Iset would never be able to grasp the breadth of his thought. But the magic of passion quell'insuperabile filled moat ( C. Jacq.)
No doubt, Ramses is seen from bottom to top . Honestly, the song makes me sick, but he shows with undeniable clarity that Iset is in love and afraid of Ramses and Rameses sees far, think big, conceive designs that she, poor thing, not even want to imagine (or, take your pick, which is Iset a bit 'silly, Jacq Ramses a balloon and a pedestrian writer, conservative and male).
Fardezio Mud struggled to impose order on the pages of his manuscript, five decades of efforts aimed at remain in the bottom drawer of his desk. Finally, the page you agree to stay, at least temporarily, in their place, one behind the other second number. But Fardezio no illusions: it had only signed a truce.
Even this sucks, I know. It is not Bosonetto, which I apologize. It is mine. Writing it, I peered down Ferdezio , condescendingly, I described the pathetic loser in his struggle with the objects and the fate (and I felt brilliant, modestly). And I have given this order subliminal: not open that drawer. So the fifty pounds of Fardezio think are a bunch of shit.
Verchoyle Paddy was a man who had hands-on business in half a dozen, most profitable and which would still be improved over time. Paddy was the kind of person. He himself was a bit 'artisan, and he did not like having to deal with second-rate material: fought like a fury with those who sought to foist inferior merchandise. Could have been even richer but at the same time would also have been poorer, and at the time was certainly not making it. (Frank O'Connor Telling Sellerio).
Here the character is seen next, at par, with interest and participation, ma non con parzialità. Paddy non è uno stinco di santo, non gli piace passare per scemo, ma non è troppo avido. Insomma è una persona come tante che potrebbe anche risultare simpatica e sorprendete. (e infatti lo è). La visione di fianco è senz’altro più promettente, quella che rivela di più e che maggiormente intriga il lettore. I personaggi visti di fianco possono essere anche meschini ed egoisti, ma essendo molto umani non risultano mai completamente odiosi e estranei. ( Per inciso, sono quelli che più ci aiutano a sviluppare l’empatia).
Dentro!
Il narratore, però, può essere all'interno , ovvero portare il lettore in the mind of the character. The narrative point of view may be that of the omniscient narrator (NO), the indirect free (IL), the first person (IO). However, the character not only know each other directly and not so much the physical features, but also the thoughts, emotions, often made with the technique of interior monologue (MI). It's the way I best suited to describe an important person, the reader must accept, sympathize, which can be identified while it is too expensive for a character
God is in the details?
Probably yes, at least when dealing with literature. Phrases such as "Carmen sits on the chair." can sounds obvious (and where he could sit, poor Carmen, in the air?) or be illuminating (there are five comfortable chairs in the room, and the reader knows. But Carmen has chosen the only chair ...). So we are careful, we should ask whether the detail that we have described is necessary, useful or superfluous, not placed there to cut the sentence to give it a naturalism obvious.
In a strict naturalism is a narrative dead end. In a work strictly naturalistic detail is present because inherent to life, not because inherent in the work [...] The art is selective and the truth is the truth of the essential that creates movement. (Flannery O'Connor, The devil's territory )
If Carmen chooses the chair instead of a chair, will have their reasons. Maybe he wants to punish himself, or perhaps refuses to relax and want to stay on guard. Or perhaps the chair is placed in front of the window and Carmen absolutely must see what happens in the street. Or maybe ... If you do not know why Carmen has to sit "on the chair" and not simply "sit", perhaps we'd better put down the pen, or remove your fingers from the keyboard and wait until our vision of Carmen, sitting there, There is no longer accurate.
way, I always thought the territory Devil's as to the place of mind in which the reader may not want to go, but where he intends to take the honest narrator, who feels the need to tell a story talking about us (the people) and not of himself, and say something that is worth reading. Tomorrow.
