Secondary Venn
I love my best friend. We finish each other's sentences. Sometimes, a conversation will resemble, "Did you see the new . . .?" "Yeah . . . can you . . .?" "I know, I'm stunned." I'm not kidding. Conversation is sometimes completely unnecessary. In fact, display a photo of Tom Cruise (mutually loathe him), George Clooney as Batman (love Clooney, but he's no Batman), or any one of hundreds of things, and we can just look at each other and think, "Yeah. I know." But much as we "get" each other on a soul level, she still has a whole life separate from me.
My kids are the same way. They have their lives as they intersect with me, and their lives separate from me. As they get older, the intersecting part gets smaller--no less intense and full of love--but smaller. And that's the order of things.
So it should be with secondary characters. Their whole PURPOSE is to show their intersection with your main character to help define your character, to advance the plot, to be an adversary to your main character, whatever. Do these characters have whole lives separate from that? Of course, just like real people. But that doesn't belong in the book. That intersecting part belongs there. If that part takes over, or if the non-intersecting stuff bleeds into your plot, it's time for that very painful process known as "Kill your darlings."
The ever-brilliant JVZ, who visits this blog, and I were discussing this--but not in these terms--the other day. There's something really audacious I want to include in the Magickeepers. Something that happened before my hero's time. An accident of his birth, so to speak. And JVZ said I could simply imply it and never answer it, because it turned out the world's most famous elder wizard was gay, after all, and that never really made it into a certain literary monster series. The Venn intersection allowed for hints, but no more.
Now, don't get me wrong. In The Magickeepers, for instance, I know the whole tragic history of every single magician in the entire clan. I know their heartaches, the things they hope for, their motivations. But only ONE magician is the real main character, and he happens to be 13 years old. So the rest of it will have to settle for being Venn intersections.
Thoughts?
32 comments:
All about choices, isn't it? All about what you put in and what you leave out.
Hi Mark:
Yup. Where it intersects is up to the writer.
E
In my wip, I don't mention hardly any backstory about my h/h, but I do dribble in some for my villain. I think it's important to humanize him, show why he feels he has to do something so heinous. (Love the word heinous.) In his case, there's a reason I'm using his backstory.
This is on my mind a lot lately.
I'm contemplating having a secondary character reveal something about herself that no one knows (heck, I just 'found out' myself). It will greatly impact the life and thoughts and actions of the main character. I don't know if it will work.
Time will tell!
Hi Edie:
I think the reason I like the Venn example, is that it's not that there's NO intersection, just what impacts the story and is important--often how it affects the main character.
E
Hi Amy:
Go for it! :-)
E
My thoughts?
Val Kilmer AND George Clooney are not Batman. ;-)
I love your description of intersecting parts. It clicks for me. Thanks for the awesome post, E.
Tom Cruise?!! *cough* *ack, ack*
PM
Erica, you've hit on a major love of mine...characters. I write WF, and there's always secondary characters threading through. Relationship books are definitely my passion, and allows me to explore many aspects. Thank goodness!
Hi Heather:
Glad you agree!!!!! Michael Keaton and Christian Bale.
'nuff said.
E
PAMMIE!!!!
Gag, cough, vomit.
:-)
E
Hi Ladonna:
Some characters are going to have those bigger swaths of intersection than others . . . but I thought this was a good analogy for not letting them "take over" a story.
E
Am I the only person left who thinks Tom Cruise is a great actor?
I love the venn diagram analogy; visualize the character as a whole, but include only those aspects that necessarily intersect with the other characters. You could write a good instructional essay using this analogy alone. Illustrate it with characters from Tom Cruise movies . . .
stephen:
Our friendship is in serious jeopardy, hanging by the balance. PLEASE tell me you don't REALLY think he's a good actor? Please?
:-)
E
I can't stand his early work; he was an irritating twerp. But the older he gets, the better he gets. I tend to judge people by their potential, and I predict that when he's an old man he'll have done work that stands out as among the best in Hollywood history.
I consider the off-camera stuff entirely irrelevant.
stephen:
I actually (gag) liked him in Born on the 4th of July. But something about his general smarminess . . . he never quite loses it on camara for me. Some actors get lost in a role. Some you never ever forget who they are. So it always looks like acting.
When I saw Sophie's Choice with Meryl Streep . . . and then saw her in Deer Hunter . . . in neither case did it feel like a performance. Which is why, I suppose, she is Meryl Streep! :-)
E
I need to get this out of the way: Long time reader, first time commenter.
Personally, I go about creating characters the way an actor prepares for a role. To continue the Batman love, Michael Caine recently let a reporter in on the backstory he'd created for Alfred in the two newest Batman movies. (WW2 special forces sergeant who takes a job in service after a career-ending injury.) It never makes it to the screen, obviously, but it adds depth to how he plays the role.
It's important for me to know everything about even secondary characters, because it informs the way I write them, but most of it never makes it to the page.
BTW, the venn diagram is a perfect way to illustrate it. And I liked Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men."
Hi r.j.:
Thanks for posting a comment!
I am very similar--a "method" writer, wherein I have it all there, but only some ends up on paper.
E
Meryl Streep is in a class all her own. I think she's the greatest actress in Hollywood history. (And this is from someone who is most comfortable bucking the trend.)
You're right about Tom Cruise bringing his "Tom Cruisiness" onto the set. I find the same is true of Hugh Grant, Leonardo DiCaprio, and other young Turks. But I didn't care for Tom Hanks until I saw "Big" (now I think he's a genius). These guys have enormous raw talent and are only lacking some gray hairs.
I'm steering your post off-topic. Sorry. Nice Venn diagram.
This is (another) timely post for me. I just read somewhere in blogland about the need to have subplots, but making sure they don't overwhelm the main plot. I would assume this goes hand in hand with secondary characters.
My current wip follows a young man's journey to the US and there are a lot of supporting roles, but few stay in the story for very long. There are two or three that require more detail, but I worry about my lack of subplot.
Something for me to think about.
I think Tom Cruise is a good actor. Most recently I thought Collateral was great.
Stephen: Did you know he went to St. Xavier high school in Louisville? Some of my friends were in his class, and I remember them talking about this goofy guy with crooked teeth who said he was going to be a movie star some day. I have to respect him for knowing what he wanted and going for it.
Erica: Great way to look at secondary characters!
P.S. I wouldn't be too upset if Nicholas Colt made it to the big screen and Tom Cruise took the role. ;)
stephen:
Off-topic or not, she is extraordinary.
Of the young guys working today, I think Ryan Gosling is extraordinary (in Half-Nelson, he is amazing!!), and I defy anyone to top Edward Norton playing a racist in American History X. Wow. Tom Cruise can kiss both their asses. ;-)
E
On the Dumbledore is Gay thing, I agree with you that everything about secondary characters can't be shown, but when it's something socially controversial, and make no mistake, a gay wizard in a major children's book that interacts heavily with and loves Harry, IS socially controversial. (Though obviously not in an untoward way, still that makes people uncomfortable, rightly or wrongly.)
It feels to me more like being too scared to be honest about it in the book itself than just not wanting to focus too much on Dumbledore. After all, it could have been a very casual and brief mention that was part of characterizing him but didn't detract in any way from Harry.
It feels wrong and unfair as a reader to later find out "off the record" that Dumbledore is actually gay. So, while that might be true in Rowling's world, it didn't happen, or get mentioned or hinted at in the slightest manner in the books, so "factually" in that world it's about at the same level as fanfic to me.
It didn't really happen, but we can talk about it later and pretend it did by retroactively applying the new knowledge to the original piece.
Zoe:
Definitely a valid point, but I somehow don't "see" that about JKR. In anything I have read, she never struck me as fearful, but she HAS struck me, repeatedly, as have a vast and huge Harry world beyond anything that ended up in those books. VAST. It's how she writes these fairy tales and things after the fact for charity. And I think she has trouble letting go, to be honest, as anyone WOULD of something so much a part of them. So I actually don't question it. She knew it, and it didn't end up on the page, but then neither did tons of material.
And honestly, with all the crap the Holy Rollers stirred up with this promoting the devil and magic and black magic, I can hardly think him being gay would add tons more to the controversy.
E
I'm one of the few who haven't read "Harry Potter" but I have to comment on the gay wizard thing, and I have no idea what Harry's wiz wore, so I'll use Merlin as an example: Tall pointy hat embroidered with stars; long silk cape with bell sleeves; carries a fancy walking stick...hello? Think I saw the same outfit in the recent local Gay Pride parade. :)
Seriously, why should it matter to the reader one way or the other if Harry Potter's head wizard is gay? If it's not mentioned in the story who gives a rat's butt?
Nice blog, btw. Keeps me feeling fine about all the stuff I put into my drafts that I later remove.
Kath:
LOL! Thanks for that--yes, indeed. In all that finery?
E
hehe Erica, this inspired me for a whole big rant on my blog about the Rowling/Harry Potter thing. I LOVE Harry Potter as a series, I'm a big fan, but I hold a lot of ambivalence about the author because of many behaviors she's exhibited. I realize she's on display and that makes it difficult, nevertheless. Ack, I'll save it for the post. hehhe.
I have it on good authority that Merlin was bi.
Jude:
Talking to Arthur lately?
E
Yeah. He's always bragging about the size of his sword and all.
Interesting reading. The problem with knowing too much about the secondary characters is indeed the urge to let everyone know what we know. But I guess self-control is a basic attribute the writer needs.
Hi Suzanne:
We're in charge. Or at least we think we are. ;-)
E
Post a Comment