Activity

@caseybold @taylorclogston @toklaham-veruzia @allertingthbs @jennythefaun

I’ve honestly never thought about the pros and cons of revealing or hiding aspects of a character early on in a story. As I’m thinking about it, it seems the one thing I’d avoid is the completely mysterious character.

In Six of Crows, all the character are introduced with something they’re obsessed with, hints of things that haunt them or motivate them, and a strong aura of who they are. The characterization starts only one level deep, but it is a very thorough first level. For at least the first, scene, I’m totally commited to following each character and the mysteries around their deeper personalities keeps me in suspense. I really like that strategy.

I also really like Fabry’s approach. It’s less intense/suspenseful, but it tells me what I should be looking for. It’s like, here’s the themes, don’t miss them. I think that’s probably a perfect fit for a first person story about the past. I love those types of stories because they’re just so…marinated. They’re rich in perspective, and I think Fabry laying out the stakes all at once emphasizes the story’s perspective.

It’s funny. When I asked the question about showing vs telling, I was thinking Fabry showed a lot. Well, he did, but you’re all totally right he told a lot too. I guess you have to when it’s first person about the past. You can’t escape the narrator voice. 😉 So I had to ask, why didn’t it feel like telling? I think you nailed it, @jennythefaun. It’s the highly detailed, sensory, concrete language. Also, there’s telling, and then there’s being on the nose. Fabry had little to know on the nose prose from what I recall.