VERY BASIC WRITING PLANNER

Calling a Character by Their Title or an Epithet

Would you refer to your best friend as “the redhead” or “Kristen”? Is your favorite teacher “the teacher” or “Mr. Small”? An epithet is an adjective or descriptive phrase used to refer to a person. Referring to a character by a trait or their title is called an “amateur mistake” when used incorrectly, but “good perspective writing” when used well.  What makes title of epithet a mistake is when it creates a sense of distance that doesn’t make sense given the narrator’s perspective.

These three sentences are written using different methods of reference, and the method is very telling of how the narrator perceives things.

The doctor waved to the nurse as she passed him in the hallway.

This reads as very impersonal, like the narrator doesn’t know either of these characters. This is the kind of sentence I’d expect from a narrator who just met those two people, or never met them and is just observing some hospital interaction.

Dr. Martinez waved to Nurse Merther as she passed him in the hallway.

Now the narrator is familiar with these characters, just not close enough to use a first name. Maybe they don’t know it, maybe they prefer to be professional with medical personnel, or perhaps they’re a colleague who doesn’t choose to socialize with either of those people.

Angela waved to David as she passed him in the hallway.

The narrator clearly knows these two people well enough to drop any formality at all. Perhaps the narrator is a close friend, a social colleague, or just a rude patient who somehow figured out all the names of the hospital staff.

The point is, the method of reference can show perspective and creates distance when used incorrectly. A narrator familiar with a character almost always uses the character’s name unless the situation is one where there is a power difference or there’s a good reason for it. You don’t think of your best friend as “the (hair color)” and wouldn’t refer to them like that, so you narrator isn’t going to do that to their best friend either. If they do, it often sounds odd and distances the reader.

Now, the line does get fuzzy when a narrator is omniscient 3rd person, but that still ties into the idea of perspective. How the narrator refers to someone shows what they think of the person. This can be used to show growing familiarity: perhaps “the doctor” becomes “Dr. Martinez” after a nice conversation, then becomes “Angela” when the narrator really gets to know her.

“Show, don’t tell” is often used to describe character action, but it applies just as much to perceptive. Instead of narrating how much someone likes their doctor, perhaps opt to use a less formal character reference in scenes. Consistent perspective is the mark of good writing and often a good story. Some  writers use epithets or titles to avoid repetition in their writing, but it’s an incorrect use of impersonal character reference. Swapping out ways to refer to characters because you think your writing is repetitive has two outcomes:

The writing is fine and the pronoun/name use is a non-issue.

The writing is repetitive, and in that case you’re only creating a different problem by swapping pronouns and names for something else. The solution is to work on the repetitiveness of the writing rather than trying to patch it up with nicknames or other ways to refer to people. That “solution” is only creating an additional problem because the underlying writing is still repetitive and now your narrator suddenly seems to have forgotten their friend’s name.

Unnecessary use of titles, epithets, and monikers are a telltale sign of a novice writer. They don’t exist to “spice up” writing or fix an issue of repetitiveness– they’re for showing the reader how the narrator thinks of the character, the level of respect, and personal distance via word choice. Much like many aspects of improving at writing, learning why something is an issue is key to becoming more effective at the craft.

————————

Thinking of asking a question? Please read the Rules and Considerations to make sure I’m the right resource, and check the Tag List to see if your question has already been asked. If you can give back, please consider supporting me on Ko-fi or via Venmo Username: JustAWritingAid

Be warned, I now have a powerful tool for translating that even translates my subordinate clauses over subordinate clauses correctly. From now on it is over with simplified sentences and you will get the full dose of my way of writing. I am curious what you say to it and how it will be received. And thanks @cirianne for reminding me there is DeepL. 

Wow, interesting idea!

💡

Hey yourwriters, thanks for the light bulb 😁

One of the ideas I still have to write is about a group of children that are taken away from their parents under the pretense they are in need of special teachers who end up on a different planet because the government knows the world is dying and theses kids DNA tells they will develop powers outside earth and the politicians thought the best way to guarantee survival of mankind is to send these kids away so they will start a new society with the help of adults who were picked for this.

Bad thing is the kids and their caretakers strand on the other planet and are forced to survive there and deal with the native inhabitants.

Acing pacing in your writing

I’ve read too many books and watched too many shows where pacing has ruined a good story. So, here are some of my tips for getting pacing right:

1. Don’t take too long to get to the inciting incident

Look, showing the ordinary life of your protagonist might be interesting if there’s something strange about their life, but readers want stuff to happen.

At least with genre fiction, you shouldn’t take too long to get to the action - the event that gets the story going.

If you can do it well and have readers invested from the start, you can start with the inciting incident. However, for most works I would recommend having it in the second chapter.

Your readers want to know what the story is about, not what the character thinks of his English teacher

2. Keep it moving, but don’t rush

Action is important. It drives the story and it’s interesting. You should make sure to put enough action in your work. Things should be happening.

BUT a novel is not a play or a movie or a comic. What makes reading a full-length novel so entertaining is the detail. The in-depth characterisation and description. The emotion and thought processes.

So, keep it moving, but don’t sacrifice the juicy details. Don’t skip from one action or dialogue scene to the next without taking your readers deeper into the intricacies of the story and characters.

It’s a delicate balance that can only truly be found by reading a lot and practicing.

3. Avoid a sagging middle

Your beginning is solid. Your end is exciting. But the middle is a chaotic mess that bores the reader. Trust me, it happens more than you might believe.

Sagging middle syndrome is a thing, and the only way to avoid it is to plan.

Look, I like pantsing, but planning the middle of your novel will help your pacing exponentially.

Make a rough outline of what needs to happen to get your characters to the climax. Add a few lighter/character-driven scenes where there are too many action scenes in the sequence. Remove events which are unnecessary. And make sure that everything makes sense!

This counts for second books in series as well. It should be good on its own, not just as a filler.

4. Don’t fast forward to the end

I’m looking at you, Game of Thrones.

If you’ve built up the story and set up everything for the final big bang, you have to deliver.

Keep the pacing somewhat similar to that of the rest of the story. Your readers have gotten used to it. And if they’re still reading at that point, they probably like that pace. Don’t write a relatively slow book and then have the climax be over in three pages.

I know you want the climax to be exciting. So, yes, make it a little more fast-paced than the middle. But not massively different.

5. Trust your characters

As with every aspect of creative writing, character is most important.

Is your character experiencing the scene quickly and choppily? Or are they slowing down and taking in everything?

If you stick with what your characters are feeling, you will get it right.

Look, exams have fried my brain. So, this isn’t the most well-formulated post I’ve made. But I hope that it can be helpful.

Reblog if you found these tips useful. Comment with your own pacing tips. Follow me for similar content.

Isn’t “complex, nuanced, morally gray villain” and “villain who is just evil with nothing more to it” a false dilemma?

I contend that villains don’t have to be morally gray to be complex. Your villains can have complex reasons for what they do, and internal conflicts, and still be completely vile. Their motivations can be nuanced and still be fundamentally twisted. Their internal conflicts can be between multiple awful, fucked up, selfish sides of themselves. Villains can be complicated by differing drives and motivations and viewpoints even if none of them are good.

Give me a villain who is like...for example, conflicted between killing his son to eliminate a threat to his power, and keeping him alive so he can continue to exercise his abusive, fucked up control and twist his son into what he wants. He’s stuck between hating his son and desiring him as a possession and puppet, but neither of his conflicting motivations are The Good One.

Give me a villain who has to choose between the ideology of the violent, corrupt organization that groomed and trained him and the desire to betray everyone, strike out on his own with no support, and begin his own genocidal terrorist group. There can be a lot of complicated, shifting emotions over this, but it’s far from being a battle between an evil path and a good path.

Idk. “purely, disgustingly evil villain” is not the same as “one dimensional villain”

Thanks to @inkingfireplace for tagging me!

1.     Name: Anthea

2.     Nickname: Ann

3.     Star Sign: scorpio

4.     Prefered pronouns: she/her

5.     Sexuality: lesbian

6.     Favourite Color: blue

7.     Time Right Now:  14:59

8.     Average Hours of Sleep: seven hours

9.     Lucky Number(s): nine

10.  Last Thing I Googled: corona universities

11.  Number of Blankets: one

12.  Favourite Fictional Character: Luna Lovegood

13.  What are you wearing: green jeans and a grey sweater

14.  Favorite Book: Aristotle and Dante discover the secrets of the universe by Benjamin Alire Saénz

15.  Favorite Musician(s): Coldplay, Muse, Racoon, U2

16.  Dream Job: astrophysicist or writer

17.  Number of Followers: 33

18.  When Did You Create Your Blog: a few months ago

19.  What Do You Mostly Post: things about my wips or about writing in general

20.  What Made You Decide to Get a Tumblr: I thought it would be fun

21.  When Did Your Blog Reach Its Peak: not yet I guess

22.  Do You Get Asks on a Daily Basis: no

23.  Why Did You Choose Your URL: I wanted a username related to writing and this one wasn’t taken yet.

Tagging: @dowings, @myhusbandsasemni, @poeticparchment, @inklingsoflaura, @epicpoetry

Random Question Time! Do you make art of any sort (mood or aesthetic boards, playlists, face claims with minor quick changes) for your characters?

Thank you for the question!

I often make aesthetics and playlists and sometimes edits with face claims.

I also like to play scenes and background stories out in my head while playing a piano piece with the right mood.

i just put together an autistic character profile to help allistic people write autistic characters. have at it

Are You Using Too Much Stage Direction?

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, we don’t need to know that someone crossed the room, reached for the coffee cup, turned sideways, took a step forward, or glanced to the left.

Visual writers have an especially hard time with this (fiction writers who “see” their story in their head, and write down the images blow-for-blow, as though narrating a movie).

There’s nothing wrong with this writing process, of course. Just know that you’ll be more prone to adding excessive, pointless movements to your novel or short story.

Then, when revising, ask yourself if they are important to the story (sometimes, it is important that someone took a step forward!) and take out the ones that aren’t. Or, better yet, delete them all, then put back only the ones that have left holes in their absence.

Remember, stage direction is different from meaningful gesture or action.

Meaningful gestures and actions can orient the reader or give information about character or plot.

Stage direction, by my definition, is pointless movement.

Here is an original excerpt from Haruki Murakami’s Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World to illustrate my point.

“See anyone milling around in the hall?” I asked. “Not a soul,” she said. I undid the chain, let her in, and quickly relocked the door. “Something sure smells good,” she said. “Mind if I peek in the kitchen?” “Go right ahead. But are you sure there aren’t any strange characters hanging around the entrance? No one doing street repairs, or just sitting in a parked car?” “Nothing of the kind,” she said, plunking the books down on the kitchen table. Then she lifted the lid of each pot on the range. “You make all this yourself?”

Here, we get just enough to orient us–we know the woman was outside the apartment, she walked into the house, went into the kitchen, and the narrator followed her there. But Murakami doesn’t actually say that. He allows us to infer those movements from the dialogue and the light peppering of action and description.

Now, here is the same excerpt re-written with way too much stage direction:

Lees verder

Never Confuse Characterization for Character

Lately I’ve been revisiting Story by Robert McKee, a famous book on the craft of storytelling. It can be pretty intense and heavy at times, so it’s not something I would recommend for beginners. In fact, the first time I read it, a lot of it was so deep and new that it went over my head. It’s been interesting reading it again. Now, parts seem to be validating my ideas, rather than turning and twisting them.

One thing in particular stuck out to me this last week: character vs. characterization.

Regularly, I see writers hyperfocused on characterization.

Characterization is all the surface or near-surface stuff: voice, demeanor, likes and dislikes, hair and eye color, clothes, habits, etc.

Honestly, I personally consider these things to be part of character, but for the sake of this post, we are going to look at them as two different things, to communicate specific ideas.

Characterization can be really important and really effective. Give us the right voice, mannerisms, and appearance, and we can instantly be drawn to someone. Jack Sparrow is a good example. Johnny Depp combined Pepe le Pew with Keith Richards to come up with a unique, iconic characterization. In fact, Depp is often very good with characterization. A lot of actors have the same demeanor for all of their characters (I’m trying so hard to not name anyone in particular right now), but Depp’s Jack Sparrow, Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka, Grindelwald, Mort Rainey, etc. all have unique characterizations.

You are very familiar with characterization. All over online you can find long questionnaires to fill out to get to know your protagonist (or any other character). Back in the day, I would fill these out because they were fun (and they are, and that’s okay!), but I often found that despite how personal the questions could get (i.e. “What is his/her greatest fear?”), I wasn’t quite satisfied with the person on the page, not to mention that a lot of the stuff I ended up brainstorming seemed irrelevant to the story. And in some cases, I had to change what I’d filled out to write a better story “for some reason.”

I’ve actually heard/read a few writers get on the character vs. characterization bandwagon and go on to kind of … knock down characterization. I don’t agree with that. I strongly believe in the power of rich characterization. And I have zero problems if you want to be like Johnny Depp and give each main character a super unique demeanor. In fact, as long as it doesn’t get too outlandish for your world, I enjoy that and think it is a good idea.

After all, if Jack Sparrow had a demeanor like the Mad Hatter, Pirates would be totally different.

But here is the problem that past me, and I see a lot of writers run into, characterization is not the sum of character. You might be filling out questionnaire after questionnaire, trying to find The Thing™️, but it’s not coming together, because you only know about characterization.

Characterization is part of a character, but it isn’t fully “character.” When it gets down to it, when you want to get really, really deep, characterization isn’t going to get you there.

As J.K. Rowling famously wrote, it’s our choices that determine who we are.

You can be the gothiest goth kid, or the preppiest prep kid, but who you truly are is what you choose to do, and perhaps, I would probably add, why you choose to do it. When encountering a stray dog, do you kick it away or give it some food? You can cut out all the external stuff; you can cut out the hairstyle, the age, the clothes, the likes and dislikes, and at the heart of it, is choices.

But it’s not just any choice.

As Robert McKee and others have stated, to get into that inner gem of character, it’s the choices the character makes when there are significant stakes. If a character chooses vanilla ice cream over chocolate, that doesn’t really tell me a lot, unless I want to read symbolism into it (which could be there).

Maybe your protagonist tells the truth to his parents about putting a frog in his sister’s bed. Does that really matter if there are no potential consequences involved? Telling the truth when there are no dire consequences is easy. Telling the truth when there are important things at stake is harder. What if telling the truth meant he would be grounded and could not participate in a talent show he’s been practicing for, for months? There is prize money involved, and he was hoping to use that money to buy a chemistry set. Chemistry is his passion and he wants be a world-renowned chemist someday. Which is more important to him? A potential chemistry set or telling the truth?

This can be a great way to add depth. Well, it is depth. Especially if their characterization seems to be at odds with who they truly are. A vampire who craves human blood but chooses not to drink it is interesting. A prince who’d rather be a beach bum is interesting. The bully who, when it gets down to it, sticks up for an enemy is interesting. It makes them more complex. It draws us in so we want to know more. Why doesn’t this vampire drink human blood? Why doesn’t this prince want to be a king? Why did this bully stick up for someone? The answers to those questions makes them complex.

We all have layers after all. And we all have boundaries. I almost never lie. But if I was stuck between telling the truth or lying to save a loved one’s life, well, I’d pick the latter. But if I picked the former, that would say a lot about me as well.

Some writers throw in contradictions to create character depth (a vampire who refuses to drink human blood), which works, but if it’s a main character, and I never get an idea or hint of the “why,” I sometimes find myself feeling … cheated. Like it was just thrown in (and maybe it was). I also then get stuck, fixated on the why that I never get, so it’s distracting. I don’t know that we always need to explore the why, but I would say for main characters, it’s almost always more effective, more powerful, more meaningful, to address the why, to some extent. Unless, of course, the reason is ridiculous, in which case, maybe you need to reevaluate that and come up with something better.

There is an important part to all of this, which is that we need to see your character making significant choices, which means they must be placed in situations where they can make decisions. If you don’t give your character opportunities to make significant decisions, it’s probably going to be a problem. This is another reason why people ask for “active” protagonists. They must want something and make choices with stakes attached.

Don’t be afraid to make your protagonist’s true self a bit negative or flawed–after all, they need to grow during the story (usually). Maybe near the beginning of the story, you show your character being selfish, but at the end, we see he is willing to sacrifice his life, literally or figuratively. This is called character arc.

The way your character changes through the course of the story can also bring more “character” to him or her than characterization can alone. If we have a character that starts as a villain, but ends up being a good guy by the end, well, that’s interesting and complex, and the transformation demands depth to be satisfying. This can all get more complicated real fast, because there are degrees and variations, and I don’t want to muddy the water quite yet.

But if you are only trying to find character by filling out endless characterization questionnaires, you might never write a fully formed, deep, complex character. Instead, consider choices, contradictions, and arcs.