We are all actors

[James118]

Just as theatrical actors must portray a character on a script, we act as the conduit between the characters in our imaginations and the audience. Indeed, every part of this process is bifurcated, just as actors read our scripts and come up with a way to deliver that concept to the audience: there is the idea itself, then how to deliver it to everyone. The duality even stretches to the characters themselves, just as it does for every person: you have a thought process, and then you choose how to express yourself. The latter is defined by the former.

Before I came to this realisation a few years back, I'd always just use my own reaction in the story, unless the character was notably different from me. But even if the character is very similar to me, in real life, no two people react the same way to anything. Your reaction to a disaster, approach to authority, greeting people of various social standings and levels of familiarity, all of those things you do are different to how I do them. Sure, they may share similarities, that's the axiom of communication and humanity. But there will always be differences, subtle or enormous.

And that strikes me as incredibly daunting. More than creating worlds and cultures, more than believable yet meaningful narratives: how am I to know how this character would react to such a thing, when they don't even exist? Worse, what if the audience (as one reader) identifies with the character more than I do, and expects a different reaction than what I wrote? Their life experience is different to mine. Maybe there are shared themes, but the actual experience, the places, people, sights and sounds, etc. are all different from mine, and therefore shaped a person that isn't me. And that person would do things differently.

Making 'spider diagrams' is probably the best way to tackle such an amorphous subject. I tend to stick to my laptop for all my creative outpourings, though I do have a paper pad (Doctor Who themed, hells yeah) for when I can't use the laptop. Though the hassle of drawing lines and bubbles on a computer would detract from the spontaneity of it all, but yeah, I just bash it out on Google Docs. When it isn't stored in my head. As a visual guy, you'd think I'd make more diagrams. But I don't. Not sure why. Oh well, my method mostly works for me, though two novels into one series and a handful of stand-alones begun, I should probably give it a pop at some point, just to be certain that I'm not making colossal oversights with my characterisations.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I use acting the characters, too, to get close. I'm lucky that my degree is in theatre so learned some cheats to doing that and, probably - despite being a mediocre at best actress - have some skills to support it. But, mainly, Stanislavski and brecht are useful in the acting as life realm.

 

[Tim Murray]

Just as theatrical actors must portray a character on a script, we act as the conduit between the characters in our imaginations and the audience. Indeed, every part of this process is bifurcated, just as actors read our scripts and come up with a way to deliver that concept to the audience: there is the idea itself, then how to deliver it to everyone. The duality even stretches to the characters themselves, just as it does for every person: you have a thought process, and then you choose how to express yourself. The latter is defined by the former.

Before I came to this realisation a few years back, I'd always just use my own reaction in the story, unless the character was notably different from me. But even if the character is very similar to me, in real life, no two people react the same way to anything. Your reaction to a disaster, approach to authority, greeting people of various social standings and levels of familiarity, all of those things you do are different to how I do them. Sure, they may share similarities, that's the axiom of communication and humanity. But there will always be differences, subtle or enormous.

And that strikes me as incredibly daunting. More than creating worlds and cultures, more than believable yet meaningful narratives: how am I to know how this character would react to such a thing, when they don't even exist? Worse, what if the audience (as one reader) identifies with the character more than I do, and expects a different reaction than what I wrote? Their life experience is different to mine. Maybe there are shared themes, but the actual experience, the places, people, sights and sounds, etc. are all different from mine, and therefore shaped a person that isn't me. And that person would do things differently.

Making 'spider diagrams' is probably the best way to tackle such an amorphous subject. I tend to stick to my laptop for all my creative outpourings, though I do have a paper pad (Doctor Who themed, hells yeah) for when I can't use the laptop. Though the hassle of drawing lines and bubbles on a computer would detract from the spontaneity of it all, but yeah, I just bash it out on Google Docs. When it isn't stored in my head. As a visual guy, you'd think I'd make more diagrams. But I don't. Not sure why. Oh well, my method mostly works for me, though two novels into one series and a handful of stand-alones begun, I should probably give it a pop at some point, just to be certain that I'm not making colossal oversights with my characterisations.

Having been on the acting stage for local productions, I agree. When you play a role, you have to live the part inside to come off with a believable performance. The same applies to writing, your characters have to live in your imagination. Then the fun begins to translate that into descriptive words and sentences.

 

[James118]

I use acting the characters, too, to get close. I'm lucky that my degree is in theatre so learned some cheats to doing that and, probably - despite being a mediocre at best actress - have some skills to support it. But, mainly, Stanislavski and brecht are useful in the acting as life realm.

I've been told, on more than one occasion, that speaking a story aloud is a great way to get a sense of sentence structure, dialogue et al. Presumably that includes accents and otherwise unusual contractions (my current protag is a farmhand) and idioms. But I can't stand the sound of my own voice (I'm sure we've all been there with voice recordings), so I've never done this. Is it really as useful as everyone claims? ...Should I have started a new thread for this question? XD

 

[Ray McCarthy]

that speaking a story aloud is a great way to get a sense of sentence structure, dialogue et al.

Absolutely for Presentations/Speeches, Poetry, plays and Screenplay. But not so much novels.
Written dialogue isn't same as real speech, so I'm sceptical. It may help to see some problems. Written(inc written dialogue) and spoken English are actually two separate related languages.

It is true though that "acting" the characters in a sense is needed to help give them depth. That's not remotely the same as reading stuff out loud. It happens BEFORE you type the text!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

All this ^ ^ is another reason I do the "Alan Partridge thing" and stay in character for as long as possible when writing a first draft. S. Palmer will be absent from Saturday 19th December - Sunday 3rd January.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

and stay in character for as long as possible

I find it hard to be a 13 yo girl*, or an Alien. But it certainly helps to try and base dialogue / decisions and ability to do stuff from POV of the character rather than yourself. That's acting, not reading out what you already wrote. Imagine the reactions and plans, then write about it.

EDIT:
[* Though I remember my sister, girl next door, my daughter etc. I create characters from a mix of different aspects of people I've known or read about, not directly on one person as that actually would be boring.]

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I've been told, on more than one occasion, that speaking a story aloud is a great way to get a sense of sentence structure, dialogue et al. Presumably that includes accents and otherwise unusual contractions (my current protag is a farmhand) and idioms. But I can't stand the sound of my own voice (I'm sure we've all been there with voice recordings), so I've never done this. Is it really as useful as everyone claims? ...Should I have started a new thread for this question? XD

I think it is and just as much so for novels as any other form of writing. You catch clunky sentences when you do it, tense changes, places where it slips out of rhythm. And, when you're published, you'll be expected to be able to read out loud - so it's good practice too!

 

[J Riff]

I agree. If you have trouble with a particular part of a novel, or short or whatever, usually when you explain it to someone verbally, you will get it right, or close to, because your brain just naturally arrnages it in a nice package for whoever you are delivering it too. I think a mistake people make is trying to 'write' consciously, a bit much. That's probably what 'flow' is all about.

 

[tinkerdan]

I think the reading out loud is the best way for even dialogue; because if you can't say it out loud and make it sound right--how do you expect your reader to make it sound like it did in your head.

There really is sound reasoning in that expression 'it sounded better in my head'.

 

[Droflet]

And all the world's a stage. Ah, yes, well I remember adopting the two chairs approach. Two chairs, two characters, one Drof. Then I changed, abandoned all the old tricks, didn't write character notes, nada. BUT, before I put ink on the pages I sat, for hours, days, weeks, getting my head around my characters. Then, into the work. Then, characters I wasn't expecting turned up, and from some foreign recess of my dark mind, they took form. History will judge if this method works.

 

[James118]

I think the reading out loud is the best way for even dialogue; because if you can't say it out loud and make it sound right--how do you expect your reader to make it sound like it did in your head.

There really is sound reasoning in that expression 'it sounded better in my head'.

Touche.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

because if you can't say it out loud and make it sound right--how do you expect your reader to make it sound like it did in your head

I'd agree with that, even though in general I'm sceptical with reading novels out loud. A radio adaptation as a "play" even close to the book is much more satisfying than a simple reading of a book. So it should primarily work being read internally. I agree too the writer can be blind to problems, though I think as you write more (10+ rather than 1 book) the flaws become more obvious. A good beta reader is important.
I'm finding that writing the dialogue with no tags helps, then adding them in after.