I’ve been noticing a trend that, while having trickles of historical
roots, has become a flood in the last thirty years or so.
What should be the literary building of characters in
storytelling is almost entirely replaced with a small collection of quirks, and
this bouquet of quirkiness passes for whole three-dimensional beings.
Just a few examples to illustrate the point would include
the movie Adult Best Friends, the middle grade novel Simon Sort of
Says, and the novel The Accidental Tourist by a writer I admire.
They are good stories, all of them. But they reek of quirks at the expense of
thoughtful interiority.
I’m guilty of this myself. Some of my stories take the easy
route, relying on superficial peculiarities rather than delving deeper. It’s
not only easier, but it also seems to pay in terms of beta readers, agents and
editors noting how much they enjoyed these “characters.”
I’m beginning to smell this literary “trick” a mile away.
Like potato chips, it’s tasty, but ultimately not nourishing. Entertainment
doesn’t mean the soul should be left hungry.
I’m going to try to think and mind my use of quirkiness the
next time I conjure a person on a page.
3 comments:
I almost always borrow from real life so when I use those particular quirks in my story people they feel organic.
Interesting point to consider. It's a bit harder in picture books to build an extensive, in-depth character portrayal, but certainly worth thinking about.
Your description of quirks in describing characters reminds me of something simikar in the arts. Too many works feel superficial, using techniques or materials that draw attention but leave me with a feeling of nothing there. What has happened to depth?
Post a Comment