Michelle Styles:

When Fiona Harper recommended Getting Into Character -- Seven Secrets Novelists Can Learn from Actors by Brandilyn Collins  at her RWA workshop, I knew I had to read that particular craft book. It was even better that it was available on kindle! (As a side note, I was annoyed Micheal Hauge's Writing Screenplays that Sell is NOT available on the UK kindle. I did get the book but would have preferred the kindle version...my bookself space is very limited) As Fiona likes the same sort of craft books, I tend to trust her judgement.
Ever since Natasha Oakley explained that she had no difficulty in developing characters because of her acting background and Susan Elizabeth Philips also mentioned how acting helped her develop her characters, I have been after finding a book which explains the connection. I don't come from an acting background and felt this part of my craft knowledge was severely lacking.
This led me in the first instance to Orson Scott Card's brilliant Characters and Viewpoints but that book didn't really go into the nitty-gritty of how actors operate. Getting Into Character does and it also explains the reasoning and the adaptations novelists can make.
 Collins used Stavinsky's Method Acting as a launchpad for delving into character. She details the 7 secrets -- peronsalizing, action objectives, subtexting, colouring passions, inner rhythm,  restraint and control and finally emotional memory (how a novelist can use emotional memories of seemingly mundane things to understand the highly charged emotions of their characters).
For example, we have all been intent on murder at times -- mosquitoes and flies generally being the target. It is a matter of harvesting those emotions to give resonance to the character. She also gets you thinking about how to portray a wide variety of emotions on the page. Anger can take many forms from mid irritation to cold blooded revenge to explosion. And how that anger is portrayed will depend a lot on the character and her back story, values, and the way she sees herself.
So now I know and the book does make me think. It is useful and is one way to approach character building, although not the only way.

First the rule of thumb: if your characters cry, the reader doesn't have to. The character is doing the work for the reader. If the character resists, the reader is more likely to cry and be emotionally connected. It makes perfect sense to me, but then I am ever likely to have my characters cry and I do try to remember not to as some readers find crying makes for water pots, but never knew the justification.
Have I said how much I love Characters & Viewpoints?
There is a lot packed into a little book.

This morning I moved up a level on the Jillian Michaels 6 week six pack abs dvd. I had thought that perhaps the dvd was more focused on strength and core than cardio. Umm no. Can I whisper -- plank moguls? Or jumping jack knifes? I am pleased I had 3 weeks at level 1. Even then I have learnt -- start with the beginner moves and work up. My heart rate was through the roof. This is cardio plus with a heavy emphasis on abs. I know I have already changed my shape with the first 3 weeks. I lost about an inch and a half from my waist.
I suspect it will continue. The workout is incredibly intense, insane but goodness me, I felt good after doing it.  Sweat is good. Taking care of my body does not come easy. And every time, I carry a large bag of dog food (15 kg) I remember that I have lost more than that!

Now to get back to my wip and to get ready to give the first of my library talks this afternoon. It is wonderful that International Women's Day is being supported by Daniel Craig...It is the 100th celebration of the day.

Hang around in Romancelandia a bit and you will see many authors use pictures of actors, models, polo players etc for inspiration for their characters. Some authors return time and again to familiar inspiration while others choose different ones. Both approaches can work because ultimately it is not about how a character looks but what is under his skin. However the first approach can lead to character burn out as you keep mining in the same place.
As you write more books, you need to be aware that your characters not only have to be different from each other but they have to be different from previous characters. They need to live and breathe. And readers if they glom on to an author may read a number of her books in quick succession. If your heroine always has silver eyes or black hair, someone may notice and be pulled out of the book.
You also can start repeating certain character traits or even ways characters behave. Suddenly instead of being well rounded, your characters become 2-dimensional. Some of that is because in the back of your mind, you are thinking how a particular actor might play that part. How his voice sounds. Or how he'd gesture with his hands. For example, in every movie, Hugh Grant seems to play Hugh Grant.
You can even think that you have built up this great and unique backstory, only to find yourself falling into the same trap. This is particularly true if you tend to write the same sort of core story. Or if you are exploring a similar theme to another story of yours.
I speak from experience here as some of the reason for the huge rewrites was that I gave into tempatation and reused hero fodder. Backstories were different but the characters were 2-d until I did a lot of remedial work. Your characters need to be unique. One way to do it is to think -- why are they different from my other heroes? What are they passionate about? How does that passion different from my other hero? What are their strongly held opinions? What won't they discuss? What truth do they hold dear that is different? How does their accent differ? Why is this actor not going to be playing himself but another role? Why is the reader really going to identify with this character? Why if a reader does glom on to your books, is this character going to stand out?

The problems with character traps is one of the reasons why it becomes progressively harder to write in a given genre. You pick the easy fruit and then suddenly you have to stretch. The learning to stretch is important. It is about going back to the basics and making sure that each one is unique.
This is one of the reasons why this time --Richard Armitage and James Purefoy  get a miss and Rupert Perry Jones a look in. After all there is always more hero inspiration around if you care to find it...

Partly because a new movie about Brideshead revisited is about to be released, and partly because there is continuing interest in the book, a new book on the inspiration behind Brideshead has been published -- Madresfield:The real Brideshead by Jane Mulvagh. Having reading an excerpt from the Saturday Telegraph Magazine, I am sure the book will interest those people who are intrigued by such things, but it does also further debate on how much is in the author's imagination and how much does an author pick up from those around him.
The Lygon family certainly had a huge impact on Waugh. He used the setting of their house, Madresfield in several of his books, including Brideshead Revisited and A Handful of Dust. The Lygons were approached but refused to have the 970s tv series of Brideshead filmed at Madresfield. Waugh also wrote to one of the Lygons to explain that the characters might be seen to be certain members of the family but they were not. Certainly similarities could be drawn, but he wanted it to seem to be a product of his imagination.
Until I read the article I had not realised how much Waugh had drawn from the Lygons and others in his circle. I assumed that most of the situations etc had come from the melting pot of his own mind. But does it matter? As surely the characters he created were his wherever he got the inspiration?
As a writer, my characters are not really based on anyone. This is why I use things like Jung, Myer Briggs, archetypes, ennegrams, astrology, birth order and a number of other pop pysch methods to try to get to the core of a character. And I used research as a jumping off point, but I do try to imagine my own meals and my own decor. What would my characters notice is a far more important question rather than what would I notice or what should I be trying to faithfully describe...
My problem with trying to base a character on someone is that my perception of that person would come to the fore rather than the character I was trying to create. I think it does say something for Waugh that he was able to move his characters about while closely basing them on certain people. However, perhaps it is easier to do if you are writing a contemporary, and bit harder to do if you are writing a historical as you do have to be conscience of the historical mindset.
Anyway I am not entirely sure which is the easier task for the imagination -- to create entirely new characters ho move about the landscape of your mind, or to have inspired by real live people characters moving about that landscape. And what if the landscape is inspired by the landscape they naturally inhabit? Is there a fine line between reporter and novelist?
I s till remember a professor asking me where I had seen a specific image, and I had to admit in my mind but it was such a striking image that I thought it worthy of inclusion in my journal of images that I was keeping for the class. The professor and I did not get on...

My lovely sister emailed me to say that people are more than their Sun Signs and so I should not be overly concerned. And she is right, but characters are not people with all their wonderful contradictions. Characters need to display types of behaviour that readers can identify with and empathize with. They do not have to be sympathetic but their behaviour should show some sort of logical progression.
Thus while a person may be a number of different influences and impulses, a character is more likely to display or follow a certain arc of behaviour. He or she will have a finite number of motivations whereas a living and breathing human being will often have an infinite number of motivations. The more important a character, the greater the likelihood of many contradictory motivations and impulses.
Anyway, I like to keep things simple and to think along the specific type mode, rather than doing a pick and mix.
Ultimately, I want the characters to reveal their inner selves once they have been put under extreme pressure. It is the choices they make under pressure which defines them. But there has to be a certain amount of internal logic, and the use of astology/ennegrams/Myers Briggs does give me insight into the why and the choices they might make.

In other news: my newsletter and contest went out yesterday. The contest closes on 21 May ( this is the date I should be getting a fireplace in my study) and if you have not signed up, but do so before then, I will send you out the latest newsletter. It also has a recipe for Eccles cakes. And Eccles cakes are far better when they are freshly made, or if they are store bought -- at least warm them up. They date from the 17th century and are a mixture of currants, raisins, cut peel and spices encased in puff pastry.
Anyway, it is back to the current wip and the heroine who is revealing herself slowly. I do worry in some ways that I know more about the hero except that each wip is different and places different demands on the writer.

My new hero is a Scorpio. This much is clear. He is intense and he wants vengeance. It has been a long time coing, and he is determined to succeed. He is intensely private and controlled. Stubborn. A typical Scorpio. So much so good. Scorpios as heroes can be wonderful. A bit scary, but wonderful. And this is what my hero wants to be.
My problem is what is my heroine. She needs to evenly match him. She is not a pushover and she has her reasons. And she needs to have left him, and at some point, she will need to forgive him. This is highly unlikely for another Scorpio. A Leo or Aries would not accept the situation either. I suspect she might be an Aquarius. It is a very dangerous thing to do to leave a Scorpio and expect to get away unscathed. The hero deserved it, but no matter.
So I have been busy reading my Linda Goodman Sun Sign and Love Signs books. They are providing insight and I have eliminated a number of signs for my heroine. In other words, I know what she is not. I am just not sure I know what she is. I know some of this has to do with moon signs as well. And so she could have modulating effects, but I know the sort of woman I want...
Creating characters can be difficult, particularly when the characters are stubborn and not whisper.
This should be a fun manuscript to write...if my heroine would just open up a bit. In fact, if she doesn't, she might get fired and more interesting one hired.
One of the more liberating things for me when I was first starting to write was when a more experienced writer said -- sometimes the character does not want to work and has to be fired. In other words, sometimes, you have loaded the character with too much baggage or the wrong baggage for the story.

Today I am also blogging at Tote Bags and have given my recipe for Hot Cross Buns, in case anyone is interested.

When reading Swain's Creating Characters, I was so grateful that he explained the difference between dossier before and dossier after writers. There are reasons why I do love Swain's approach to writing.
Dossier before writers need to know everything about their characters BEFORE they begin writing. Some writers will go so far as to say that they need to know if the character will prefer apple pie or cherry pie. Everything is planned out and charted. Detail character sheets are filled in. Characters' histories are traced from cradle to that moment of beginning and some times beyond. A lot of time and effort goes into this.
I don't work that way. It sends my daemon running for cover and I sit staring a blank screen.
Like Swain, I am a dossier after writer. I discover things and get to know my characters as I write. This means that I will sometimes have to do back rationalisation, but it is the way I work. I start with a rough idea, a few character sketches, certain details, a rough outline of where I think the story should go and then I write. As I get further in, I put more details in as my choices get narrowed. Then later, in the editing , I go back and make sure the details are correct. It is one of the reasons why I love my editor as she does take the time to point out details. And because I know she does this, I do try to be more attentive and less slap dash.
Neither method is wrong. It is all in what works for you. BUT at the end of the first draft, the writer should know the characters really well, and should be able to fill out a dossier without having to ponder. The question of whether or not they actually do, is up to the individual.
Both methods have their pluses. And it is a smart writer who figures out the best method for their own work habits.
A dossier before writers is the sort of writer who is far better suited than I am to writing a continuity or contributing to a long running series or serial. Writers who write these types of books are given bibles which detail events that have happened previously. These bibles can run to many pages. Think beyond romance to Nancy Drew books or Star Wars novels. So before the writer begins her particular story, she knows that the hero once had a fight with a man down the street for example. Or went to a certain school etc etc. It can not be changed as it was in the previous book and the author has to deal with it.
And some authors are brilliant at it.
I can't or rather suspect that I would find it difficult to work with other people's characters. I have a very hard time colouring within the lines. I do not use this method for my own stories and so would find it hard to adapt.
Much of the filling out of a dossier seems to me to be make work. I would far rather be writing the story. It does mean I can change things more quickly than if my character is written in stone before I start. BUT it also means that I do have to be careful when I am editing that everything is rationalised and given a meaning -- in other words, the why has to be there.
Luckily with writing, it is possible to change and adapt. Logic can run backwards. Some parts of writing are unforeseen. Detailed planning will not necessarily save the writer from sudden flashes of inspiration and does the writer truly want to be saved? Trying to over guess can lead to the process taking longer. Anyway, my daemon works this way and so I just go with the flow.
Anyway, tomorrow, I will talk about plotted plants and why they are a necessity -- for both before and after dossier writers.

The cry went up yesterday morning -- Ducklings! Seven ducklings!
My heart sank. The same duck who had successfully reared the autumn ducklings managed to sit through the ice and the snow and emerge with seven ducklings. Sigh. They are very cute -- five brown ones and 2 yellow ones. And they were difficult to herd into the oldest duck house. Seven balls of fluff zooming everywhere.
Yesterday, I also had a package from Amazon. My TBR pile runneth over, but I now have the last two books in the Raintree trilogy and Anne McAllister's latest.
On the writing side, a book on character traits arrived -- The Writer's Guide to Character Traits by Linda Edelstien Phd. It is basically a book of lists. For example, she lists all the traits of amnesia. From a brief look, the type you find in a romance novel tends to be physiological amnesia either dissociative, fugue or psychogenic. She also lists ways in which memories can be falsely implanted. There are also lists of traits of certain jobs, including for some reason -- kept woman.
Anyway it looks to be a useful book.
The second writing book -- Creating Character How to Build Story People is by Dwight V Swain. As it was written in 1990, the language is far more palatable than the earlier Techniques of the Selling Writer. It is also a thoroughly useful book. For example, he gives the 7 most common reasons for readers failing to suspend disbelief. Fiction as Swain points out is founded on the reader suspending disbelief. If they stop/are pulled out of the story, the writer has a problem. The seven main reasons are: failure to hold viewpoint, failure to do enough research, telling instead of showing, gaps in the motivation/reaction sequence, failure to plant or foreshadow things, giving your characters things to do that the reader finds distasteful, and making the main characters less than likable.
The book starts with Swain explaining the one key element every major character must have -- the ability to care.
Anyway, I have a lot of time for Swain and this book looks to be excellent. A master class not on the traits that go into making a character but on the hows and why. What works and doesn't. In many ways, it is more thorough than Debra Dixon's Goal, Motivation Conflict. Or perhaps I just like his style better.

Often when I am starting a new wip, I feel that I have to go back and revisit all the things that I have learnt. Twyla Tharp called it polishing around the clock face. You work on one thing and then other things get a bit dusty, so you have to work on that. Without exercising various skills, it is impossible to stay in peak fitness.
A big lesson for me when I was first writing was learning to trust my characters and their conflicts. Also not being too nice to my characters and resolving issues too quickly. Without conflict the tension goes down to zero. Another sign can be adding lots of subplots and extra characters. Or having them interact quite often with secondary characters rather than with their other protagonist.
It is why authors spend a long time getting to know their characters and discovering what makes them tick. So you resolve one problem, andthat leads to another problem, esculating the tension between the characters. Making the stakes greater. Asking yourself -- how can I make this worse? How can I really turn the screws? Can I trust my characters to actually have deep seated problems before their character arc is complete? What are their feelings -- beginning, middle and end? Why will they be willing to give their love? What are the goals, motivations and conflicts?
And I have to remind myself of this every time I write. My natural inclination is to be kind and kindness does not create the tension required for a romance novel...
Back to polishing the clock, but some places always do require that bit extra.

I am starting to realize just how FULL of things I use McKee's STORY is. And I have not even gotten into his analysis of Story design. And it should be noted that I am just giving you the highlights as they occur to me. The subject matter is huge.
As an side, I understand, his workshops are great as well. He goes through Casablance scene by scene.

Right, so here is today's bit on character and characterization.

Characterization is observable -- everything knowable through human scrunity, the hair colour, the eyes, house, the mode of transport, education etc etc The sum total of these characteristics makes an unique being, but it does not really tells anything about true character. This is often wht one feels out on character questionaires btw. As an aside, I rtend not fill out the questionaires until after I have completed the first draft. If I can't do it WITHOUT thinking too deeply then, then I don't know enough about my characters. I may not have written about a favourite thing, but I will know what the favourite thing has to be. Other writers approach it differently, but it is what works for me as often time, character is not cut instone until I have reached the climatic moment.

True Character is only reveaked when a human being is put under pressure. The greater the pressure, the more significant the choice. Choices made when nothing is at risk mean nothing. It is the choices your protagonist makes when she is under pressure, that reveal her inner core of humanity.

You need to make sure that the pressure is continually applied and that she has to make choices that have consequences. the choices she makes will reveal her innner humanity, in a way that makes her resonate with the reader. Making a chioice where there in no consequence is not really a choice. Choosing to tell the truth when a lie will save her life is very different than choosing to tell the truth when nothing will happen to her.
A protagonist is always a willful being. She makes proactive, not passive choices. It are these choices that define the story.

Equally, the revelation of true character as opposed to characterization is what fine storytelling is all about. For example, if your protagonist first appears to be a loving wife blindly devoted to her husband and at the end is still a loving wife blindly devoted to her huband, you have created a character with no growth arc and the character will feel flat. Through the pressure applied, characters need to reveal their inner cores and grow. Character arc changes inner nature for better or worse in the course of the story.

The revaltion of true character must effect the climax. If the climax fails, the story fails. The ultimate pressure needs to be put on at the climax. It is the blackest of black moments when the hardest choices have to be made.

One good trick he does say is to consider which actor/actress you would have play the role? What would happen if a different actor played it? How would the character change? What would be different about that character?
He also says FALL IN LOVE with your characters. The reader can tell when a writer is not in love with his characters as they do not possess the same depth. Embrace all of your characters. Note this does not mean protect your characters. It means putting them under pressure and seeing how they react.

He also says -- self knowledge leads to great character. The only person you can ever know truly is yourself. The root of all character writing is personal experience and personal emotion. The more you can understand your own humanity, the better your characters will be. Human emotions are what you want to write, and the only human emotions you can directly expereince are your own. The same is true for Hemingway, Steinbeck, Shakespeare, Moliere, Austen and Dickens. The only emotions they ever directly experienced were their own. It is the ability to communicate those emotions that results in fine writing.

Much of this is probably not revolutionary, but I do like the way he says it and his examples. When I first read Story, it made sense.