The Corean Chronicles
Characterization and Other Thoughts
Characterization is key to the success of most books, and one of the things I've observed over the years is the wide variation in reader and reviewer assessments of my ability to characterize -- even when they're talking about the same book;
For example, in looking at reviews of my novel Flash, I found the following from three different sources:
"...nonstop action, which, however, never sidelines good world-building and characterization..."
"...the relationships are wooden."
"...tells of the close relationships between deVrai and his sister's family..."
One of the reader reviews of Haze includes the following phrases... "agent/assassin has no depth... we learn Haze is honest/open..." Except that neither is the case. The protagonist, Keir Roget, reveals little emotionally in an overt sense, because he is aware that he lives in a world where every motion, every indication of feeling, is observed. There are many subtle indications of character and motivation, but few that are grand and overt, not if Roget wishes to survive. As for the planet Haze... this "open" society conceals a considerable amount, some of it rather enormous in scope, implication, and eventual consequences, through its apparent openness. In fact, what is "open," both in Roget and in all the cultures depicted, is a misrepresentation because what is obvious overshadows what is not readily apparent.
From observations such as these, it seems fairly clear to me that people have a very different idea of what characterization is. My own belief is that any character reveals who he or she is through acts, words, and self-observations (which may be accurate or self-deluding, if not both). The issue of acts would seem to be self-evident, but it's not, for several reasons. First, what a character does not do may be as revealing as what he does, but many readers key on acts, rather than on the omission of acts. Second, small acts may be more revealing than "large" acts. Third, the consistency of acts -- or the lack thereof -- also reveals character. The same three aspects also apply to what is said, or not said. In addition, character can be revealed by how others speak of and to them and how others interact with them... or fail to do so.
What this leads me to believe is that when I see a series of reviews, and different reviewers either praise or trash "characterization" in the same book, it's often likely that those who are negative about a writer's ability to characterize are either unwilling or unable to look at anything other than large acts and obvious statements. In addition, a significant percentage of such negative reader reviews tend to contain factual and technical errors, including citing the incorrect names of characters, suggesting a rapid and superficial reading. These factors suggest that obvious and broad-brush characterization is necessary to reach the widest possible audience. That doesn't do much for nuance and subtlety, not that they're exactly a priority for more than a few readers.
But this has a lot to do with how books are being received by the public, and while I do not find the reduction in quality both in books and in the reviewing/Internet community, I acknowledge that at least people are reading books and commenting on them. They may be wrong a lot of the time, or inadequate to the task of having anything useful to say, but 20 years ago they might not have been able to say much to anyone anyway.
Hopefully, though, the people who gain credibility online are those who actually earn it through talent and accurate critiques of books.
Or, alternatively the writer highlights the action; "Hero BRAVELY jumped on the horse.." or "He gallantly helped her...and with admiration told..". As you seem to prefer to only talk about actions from neutral or character's viewpoint, reader has to use more time thinking of the implications. I would suppose that not everybody is up to it and thus miss the characterization completely.
In general, fantasy writers seem to trust in few big scenes that establish the gist of the character. You don't seem to do those - and even the defining moments become such only after the fact... very seldom during the act or before.
You do write differently than most writers in this genre - it should be expected that not all genre readers can jump with the change (which of course tells you something of the readership). It would be interesting to find out how many of your regular readers find your characters wooden and lacking of characterization? And if those exist, why do they read your books?
I found the book much more enjoyable once I quit trying to force an interest in the main character and read the work as a fictionalized, action-filled blog post... I am quite certain that the author's depection of the character was accurate but, with the exception of a few character traits, he was not likeable and it was very difficult to care one way or another about what happened to him.
This is one of the pitfalls with using such a self-contained character...
Off topic. Whatever happened to the starship Winterlance? Is it still in orbit up there? And will Ryba's prophecies about the End of Time come true? I wonder how that's going to work out.
<< Back to all Blog posts
