Character introduction issue

[sozme]

Forgive me for using my own writing as an example, but I think it is the easiest way to help you understand my inquiry. These are just a few of the very first lines of a POV character's first chapter (none of the characters are known by the reader at this point):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Ranger Driscoll Cannon strode across purple-colored sand towards the wrecked starship. The air on Juno was hot and heavy on his skin, the scent of ammonia-filled ocean bitter in his nostrils. Overhead, flickers of lightning illuminated chopper-sized avian creatures circling a blood orange sky.

“Latest body count?” Cannon said, turning to the two men following him.

“Thirty-two,” Klein said. “Same as two minutes ago.”

“Security?”

“Our three guys plus a thousand Espatiers,” Rix said, looking up from the holographic display on his wrist. “Nothing getting in that mine, Boss.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So one critique I have received relates to the fact that I don't "introduce" the two other characters (Klein and Rix). As in, I suppose, tell you what they look like or what they are doing in the same way that I give what the focal character is doing (stroding along the beach etc.)

This is actually one of the rare criticisms I've received that really puzzles me. In the genre in which I am writing, it is actually extremely exhausting to detail even minor things about every single insignificant character that is introduced. If I were to put more description in here (for example), I think it would just slow everything down. But at the same time, I guess some people want to get more of a measure of the characters that are being referred to???

BTW this is not necessarily about the piece I wrote above, it's just a general question - do you think there needs to be some sort of character introduction for everyone who walks onto the page? (assuming it is implied from the context more or less what they are - i.e. soldier, priest, homeless bum, etc.)
IMO doing that in sci fi/military sci fi even space opera (hell even epic fantasy) is too much of a pacing killer.

 

[Biskit]

Unless there is significant set-up prior to the extract, for me there is too much information packed into a few sentences. The light-touch presentation of the two secondary characters didn't strike me as a problem as such, but is perhaps out of balance with the detail-heavy tone of the opening para.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

My opinion is that this should be done very quietly -- don't slow down to give us a full description, but just give us something to get a sense of the character.

There are two situations here:

1. The character is familiar to the viewpoint character. Since Cannon knows Klein (for example) you could just add something like "the big man's voice boomed in Cannon's headphones." See? Just a little hint to give the reader something to imagine.

2. The character is new to the viewpoint character. In this case, it makes sense to offer slightly more description. It shouldn't go on and on, but it should offer a little more. Just to make something up off the top of my head:

"A figure stepped out of the shadow of the ruined building. It was thin and pale, dressed in rags. Dirty gray hair hung over its face like a mask."

I hope this helps.

 

[LittleStar]

I think I disagree with the critiscism you've recieved. I do not think you should fully describe every character that strolls across the page, in fact I'm quite the opposite, and honestly you'd robably be hard pressed to find what any of my characters look like aside from a few striking or noticeable pieces.

In my opinion, character description is largely unnessecary. Everyone knows what a human looks like, everyone has an image of a marine, a sportsman, a basketball player, ballet dancer etc. if there is something out of place, sure add this in... Otherwise you're probably eating in the way of the readers own imaginings. Your job as the writer is to facilitate the travel to this imagination and unobtrusively guide through.


Maybe what the crit was getting at, however, was your speakers lacking a connecting action, and as such seemingly coming from nowhere? Especially, as sozme says, after the wavy opening paragraph.

eg. "Thirty two," Klein said, kicking the sand.

EDIT: Victoria said what I was trying to with my last point, so much better than I did

 

[The Judge]

Was the comment made here? I quickly looked at your two threads in Critiques and couldn't find anything there, but I may well have missed it. The reason I ask, is that if you are puzzled about something, then there's no reason you can't ask the person to be more specific about what was meant by "introduce" and whether he/she indeed meant description.

I wonder though, whether perhaps it isn't the fact we don't know if they are tall/thin/black/hunch-backed or whatever, but that their relationship to Cannon and/or their job description isn't clear. We can assume from the conversation they are underlings, but are they forensics, or detectives, or security experts? Having said that, I'm not sure how you could easily slip that detail into this specific passage without it sounding forced -- to me the "Chief Ranger" itself sounds a little unnatural since it's you as author getting it out there, not the POV character thinking it.


As a general point, I do like some introduction of a character, whether by way of physical description or job/history/relationship, but to my mind it has to be handled in the same way as any other information. If it's dumped on the page, or given at length, it's going to disrupt the story -- and if you've got three characters introduced in only a few hundred words, describing all of them is likely to stop the action stone-dead, to the story's detriment. However, a few words and judicious adjectives woven into the writing can help the reader to picture the scene a little better eg "Blake, whey-faced and sweating, approached them" or "As he thought, Nguyen rubbed at the long scar that cut through his moustache".

Use the introduction of the character to show... um... character -- either that of the person who is described, or the one doing the describing -- or to add flavour and texture to the scene.

 

[sozme]

Was the comment made here?

Nope, this was from one of them paid critique sites (Scribeophile or whats-its).

 

[RX-79G]

If you have three new characters in a scene and you only introduce one, it makes the reader assume that they've already met the other two and are forgetting that. It isn't that Klein needs a bio, just that readers don't like feeling confused. Then they start flipping back pages to figure it out.

All you really need is something like:
...turning to his two subordinates.

“Thirty-two,” Klein, the taller one, replied. “Same as two minutes ago.”


This is just enough info to tell the reader that they are reading about three new characters, and that Cannon is the important one.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Can I just point out that ammonia doesn't smell bitter, and in any serious quantity it's extremely poisonous.

 

[CWScott]

I like the scene the way it is, but it would be easy to add a little info without bogging down the story. I would probably rearrange the sentence where Cannon turns around. This is a good spot to add a little info on the other two from his POV.

Or, instead of trying to give a little more depth to the other two characters, maybe cut out one of them from the scene entirely. Have only Klein following him and the one checking his display. That way you only need to give a little snippit for him.

 

[Elventine]

I think that is depends on your writing style. I have read many great books by well known authors who do little in the way of introducing or describing characters and it worked well. Especially when it comes to bit part characters that are there for a page or two to just say something important and then leave or die. They are in the end unimportant, I don't need or care where they are born or what accent they have. Unless they are going to be important save the descriptions and "he said looking at his feet" for the important people or else you get text that is filled with people doing stuff that chops up the pace and gets on this readers nerves. There truly is only so many times I can read "the skinny guy said" or "he nervously looked around at the walls" before I loose my will to read another page.

So keep it simple. Say what needs to be said about the important people to impart life and emotion to them. What is more important to impart is environment, emotion, reposes, needs and depth.

 

[Dan Jones]

I think there are probably three tiers of physical descriptions of characters.

The first is the lengthy description, to be used sparingly, and IMO only necessary if the character being described is so physically striking, or different, that it wouldn't make sense for there not to be a description, especially if it has some relevance to character's or story's sake. Plus, in this case a lengthy description doesn't disrupt the narrating character's POV as it will be as striking to them as it would be to the reader.

Secondly, if someone is meeting someone else for the first time then a short description is fine, but woven into the text, and probably only focusing on the bits that the narrating character notices, such as a character's red hair, or thin frame, or keen eyes, etc. This still gives a sense of the look of the person without going into minute detail.

Thirdly, there are the descriptions of familiar characters. So, your two, Cannon and Klein, wouldn't give a full-on description of each other for the sake of the reader as it'd break POV and feel manufactured and false since they already now each other. But you can still drop in hints about physical appearance when it'd be pertinent to the observing character. Something about Cannon being bald, or wrinkled around the eyes, or whatever, or having a slight limp, or wearing a battered old fedora, or whatever. No need to list this stuff up front. Mention it when it becomes relevant.

Lastly, I also think that figurative descriptives work well, ones which make the reader engage their own imagination. Descriptors like "waspish" or "dull" or "rakish" or are specific enough to provide a sense of the character, without being as prescriptive as listing physical attributes like specific height, weight, eye colour, clothing etc, which is quite a cold way to describe someone.