My preferred method is no physical descriptions. It always backfires.
If I try to make a character sexy by saying she's a tall, well-endowed blonde, the readers will all have a fetish for bald dwarves with
boyish figures.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:07:57 -0500
Capuchin <NoReplies@jymes.com> wrote:
My preferred method is no physical descriptions. It always backfires.
If I try to make a character sexy by saying she's a tall, well-endowed
blonde, the readers will all have a fetish for bald dwarves with
boyish figures.
I've found that the more specific one gets about a character's physical >appearance, the harder it gets for readers to identify with them. But
you can't please everybody, and all you can really do about it is
allude to "Death of the Author" and say, "This was how *I* saw the >character."
I'll repeat the old tale about Isaac Asimov's work, in the
off-chance that some may not know it.
Each woman described herself.
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:46:56 GMT
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
I'll repeat the old tale about Isaac Asimov's work, in the
off-chance that some may not know it.
I don't think I've seen it before. Thanks for sharing it.
Each woman described herself.
I wonder if Asimov tried the same experiment with a male character on a
group of men.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:07:57 -0500
Capuchin <NoReplies@jymes.com> wrote:
My preferred method is no physical descriptions. It always backfires.
If I try to make a character sexy by saying she's a tall, well-endowed
blonde, the readers will all have a fetish for bald dwarves with
boyish figures.
I've found that the more specific one gets about a character's physical appearance, the harder it gets for readers to identify with them. But
you can't please everybody, and all you can really do about it is
allude to "Death of the Author" and say, "This was how *I* saw the character."
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:46:56 GMT
djheydt@xxx.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
I'll repeat the old tale about Isaac Asimov's work, in the
off-chance that some may not know it.
I don't think I've seen it before. Thanks for sharing it.
Each woman described herself.
I wonder if Asimov tried the same experiment with a male character on a
group of men.
--
Matthew Graybosch
https://matthewgraybosch.com
gopher://asgartech.com
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:07:57 -0500
Capuchin <NoReplies@jymes.com> wrote:
My preferred method is no physical descriptions. It always backfires.
If I try to make a character sexy by saying she's a tall, well-endowed
blonde, the readers will all have a fetish for bald dwarves with
boyish figures.
I've found that the more specific one gets about a character's physical appearance, the harder it gets for readers to identify with them. But
you can't please everybody, and all you can really do about it is
allude to "Death of the Author" and say, "This was how *I* saw the character."
you don't
respond the same to a 4'1" lavender haired boy that you do to a 6'6"
woman in fancy plate armor with a gigantic sword.
Matthew Graybosch wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:07:57 -0500
Capuchin <NoReplies@jymes.com> wrote:
My preferred method is no physical descriptions. It always backfires.
If I try to make a character sexy by saying she's a tall, well-endowed
blonde, the readers will all have a fetish for bald dwarves with
boyish figures.
I've found that the more specific one gets about a character's physical
appearance, the harder it gets for readers to identify with them. But
you can't please everybody, and all you can really do about it is
allude to "Death of the Author" and say, "This was how *I* saw the
character."
Has anyone here read "How Fiction Works"? The title is a bit >self-explanatory, but there was a chapter where it was noted that a good
way to write a character description is by creating a sentence or two
that captures the character's most important qualities. An example given
was something along the lines of "He walked with the demeanor of a man
who always first through a door." or something along those lines. It
doesn't overburden the reader with details, but also gives the reader
the cues needed to imagine a character according to the reader's life >experience. Don't know if that resonates in any way with the
conversation, but it seemed a relevant point...
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 2:16:55 PM UTC-6, Matthew Graybosch wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:46:56 GMTHe would have an enormous schwanschtucker.
djheydt@xxx.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
I'll repeat the old tale about Isaac Asimov's work, in the
off-chance that some may not know it.
I don't think I've seen it before. Thanks for sharing it.
Each woman described herself.
I wonder if Asimov tried the same experiment with a male character on a
group of men.
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 7:37:23 PM UTC-6, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
you don't
respond the same to a 4'1" lavender haired boy that you do to a 6'6"
woman in fancy plate armor with a gigantic sword.
Laughter is a universal language.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 91:07:55 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,100 |
Messages: | 5,277,688 |