Choosing a Character who Sees Deeply
I really want to reveal the nature of my secret novel, before I make it so mysterious that it becomes a let down when I finally do reveal it.
That said, I'm not ready to talk details yet. As Scott Bailey mentioned in the comments on his blog post about outlining, it's not so much because I'm trying to keep it secret as that I don't feel comfortable jinxing it before I have a draft. So, for now, it's still the secret novel.
That said, I'll still discuss a problem in general terms, if I may. That's choosing a character who can see deeply.
I have several characters already chosen for me, as it were, by the nature of the novel. I know who my four main pov characters must be, at least in broad strokes. I still have to make sure, however, that the personality of these characters is not only sympathetic enough to justify being a protagonist, but profound enough to have insights into their own situations.
This is tricky.
I don't want the characters to be a mere mouthpiece for me the author. On the other hand, there are certain philosophical observations I would like my characters to be in a position to explore. I have to make certain I don't make them all dingbats. At the same time, their pov is going to be necessarily limited by where they are and what they are allowed to see, so I mustn't give in to the temptation to make them all knowing, either.
Unless I bypass my characters and write in omniscient.
I didn't realize how tempting that would be.
Or... here is a strange idea. I could introduce an omniscient narrator who is actually revealed to be a character at the end of the book. This voice over could philosophize along the way.
Hm. Probably I should just avoid the temptation to philosophize altogether.
Is it important to you to have a character who sees deeply, who is intelligent and observant, or do you prefer to work with "naive" characters, who, while themselves innocent of what is really going on around them, allow the reader to see past them, into the real situatoin?
That said, I'm not ready to talk details yet. As Scott Bailey mentioned in the comments on his blog post about outlining, it's not so much because I'm trying to keep it secret as that I don't feel comfortable jinxing it before I have a draft. So, for now, it's still the secret novel.
That said, I'll still discuss a problem in general terms, if I may. That's choosing a character who can see deeply.
I have several characters already chosen for me, as it were, by the nature of the novel. I know who my four main pov characters must be, at least in broad strokes. I still have to make sure, however, that the personality of these characters is not only sympathetic enough to justify being a protagonist, but profound enough to have insights into their own situations.
This is tricky.
I don't want the characters to be a mere mouthpiece for me the author. On the other hand, there are certain philosophical observations I would like my characters to be in a position to explore. I have to make certain I don't make them all dingbats. At the same time, their pov is going to be necessarily limited by where they are and what they are allowed to see, so I mustn't give in to the temptation to make them all knowing, either.
Unless I bypass my characters and write in omniscient.
I didn't realize how tempting that would be.
Or... here is a strange idea. I could introduce an omniscient narrator who is actually revealed to be a character at the end of the book. This voice over could philosophize along the way.
Hm. Probably I should just avoid the temptation to philosophize altogether.
Is it important to you to have a character who sees deeply, who is intelligent and observant, or do you prefer to work with "naive" characters, who, while themselves innocent of what is really going on around them, allow the reader to see past them, into the real situatoin?
Comments
I also like to have the situations bring the philosophical issues to the surface, rather than the characters but you probably are already doing that. But it's also true that I have one character lecture another outright on the idea of the Great Chain of Being, and I have two characters sitting on a wall discussing meritocracies. So my most unhelpful answer is: it depends. In the discussions I mention, characters are trying to convince others to think their way, to support their ends, so I think it's justified.
I probably put it there, but the characters are people. And like most people, they aren't given to sitting for days thinking about anything. They live their life as they need to and the rest is... hindsight.
At the end of the book you should be able to look back and see some greater meaning. But I prefer not to stop the action to spell it out for anyone during the book.
Granted, philosophical and action books require different kinds of heroes. I just realized part of my problem may be that I've stuffed my action fantasy with philosophers but the characters in my philosophical literary book (the secret novel) has less introspective characters. Since this isn't really the kind of story where people shoot at each other (ok, not *much*) I'm feeling the pinch.
all four could not remotely have the same pov... else you have three useless ones
This is a great post. It makes me think about how my stories present ideas. Through the characters? Or the narrator? Or the plot? My one philosophical characters lives in an apartment filled with classical literature. He couldn't help but "think deep" and lend a hand to the larger themes of the book. :D