Losing yourself when reading

[The Judge]

I came across a news report of this research the other day and blogged about it, but it occurs to me it might be of interest to more than just my regular readers (yep, that's plural... I have two... )

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/exptaking.htm

What I find intriguing is how we, as writers, can use this. We can't insist on our readers putting all mirrors out of the way as they read, and we can't write our protagonists so as to include every demographic to help the immersive process. The research suggests that if we delay the giving of certain information we can influence our readers, who will assume the characters to be the same as they are (ie in this experiment, straight, not gay) until told differently, and therefore they will engage with the characters more. Yet it strikes me that there are risks in delaying giving that information too long, and readers might get annoyed at having to revise their whole conception of a character several hundred pages in. Perhaps it might work with such things as sexuality and attitudes, but skin colour or sex are going to be harder to keep quiet about.

Anyway, an interesting article.

[springs]

Very NLP.... and interesting, but I think there is an inherent danger, if we write to type and that is disappointing the reader - we're asking them to buy in to our world early on and to do that I think it's only fair to put our wares out pretty early.... so I have some pretty difficult to read scenes late on, and the prologue (the current one ) ends on a fairly dark note, so at least they were warned.... but definitely worth bearing in mind in terms of what does or doesn't hook a reader and how it's easy to lose a reader....

And two fans - showoff.

[Ursa major]

I assume this is why some authors seek to "prove" their political, religious or other beliefs through fiction. Most of the time, the attempt is appallingly obvious, though I have heard people say that "the play proved that <there is a simple, not to say simplistic, solution to a very complex social problem>" when, obviously it did nothing of the sort. They were, though, caught up in the fiction and were forgetting that it was, literally, staged to "prove" just that point.


(Oh, and it's a shame the researchers and/or the journalist(s) don't seem to have heard of the adverb, vicarious. )


All of which could just be vigorous hand waving to cover the fact that one very important aspect of my characters that isn't revealed until the end of WiP1.

[Boneman]

And maybe better still if the character doesn't know a sea-change is about to crash upon him.... We, the writers, are the Gods looking down on from Olympus, manipulating every facet of their lives, but of course we are readers as well, subject to the same influences. I recently re-read Shantaram as I waited for planes and on the journeys. He's very wordy at times, needs a damn good editor, but the power of his words is undeniable. Two days later, I was mulling over a scene where my hero was devastated, but not showing it correctly. When I added more layers of 'introspection' I knew where it was coming from, as I recognised the sentiments I was now propagating... maybe this is why they say we should read and read outside genre at all times - so we can be infuenced into influencing.

Now, what were those 'only seven stories that exist' again?

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Heinlein does this to some degree with Starship Troopers. The reader knows what city the MC is from, but his ethnicity isn't revealed until the last page--damned near the last line--if I recall.

Edit: No, end of penultimate chapter. Ah, the vageries of memory.

[psychotick]

Hi,

I always read to immerse myself completely in a book, and I nearly always forget the world outside when I do. So in one respect to me this seems like nothing more than the power of a good book. But I can't lose myself in the words or thoughts of a character too different to myself, and if I wasn't expecting the character to suddenly change gender, orientation or what have you, when it happened it would probably jar me, and maybe ruin my reading experience.

There are characters who have done this very thing to me. Thomas Covenant springs to mind as he so often does. I could handle everything about him until the rape. At that point I was so shaken I had to put down the book for a bit. Later I picked it up again, but as I read I was always a little bit wary. Wondering in the back of my mind, if he was going to do something so wrong again. And though I learned to accept him again, to understand him, it did not change my attitude towards the act.

And on a lighter note, I seem to recall reading a story once where the gender of the protagonist was never revealed. And I, like I imagine most other readers, never even realised it. I assumed that he was a guy since I'm a guy. I imagine women imagined she was a woman. And it was only after I'd read the story (it might have been Heinlein - I have a lot of his stuff and he is out there as far as sexual politics goes), and then read the author's bit afterwards that the ruse was revealed.

But that's the skill of the author. Telling you enough to let you identify with a character, and not so much that you will find something to put your back up about him (or her).

Cheers, Greg.

[Mouse]

I've never identified with a character enough that I've 'lost myself' in them. Ever. Probably why I don't really write (or see the point of) characters which have a sort of generic personality that anybody could see themselves as. (I've heard Harry Potter is this type of character, but I've not read HP so have no idea how true that is.)

I do write stories where I've not bothered to reveal the gender though. Usually because it's just not been important. And it's been interesting to hear from people who've read it and some of them just refer to this character as a 'he' and some as a 'she.' And no, it's not always men thinking it's a man and women thinking it's a woman.

[Montero]

Interesting article. At the end it says experience taking can be an unconscious process, so being objective about whether or not one has experienced - well, I don't think I have. done it
I certainly immerse myself in a book, have a level of visualisation of what the character is seeing and doing.
If I find a character annoying, or not believable, then I might give up on a book. It could be that the character is not believable because they are too far outside my range of experience, or of course they might just be badly written.

I do know I've found that on re-reading Terry Pratchett books over the last twenty years, there have been passages that I hadn't especially noticed on first read that would suddenly "click" say five years later when I have experienced more things.

Not sure if I've ever been influenced - I might have read a book and thought "it would be fun to do xxx" but other than that... But again, it is supposed to be a subliminal influence.

Not bothered at all by the gender or the sexuality of the character, do not need to identify there.

Other than that - Katherine Kerr, Polar City Blues, Polar City Nightmares. In the foreword to one of those two, she says something to the effect that in most sf books the assumption seems to be that all the characters are white unless stated otherwise. In the Polar City books, assume they are black unless stated otherwise.

Oh, and wombling on the gender thought - once Rosemary Sutcliff (who wrote historical stories, mostly YA) was asked why she always wrote stories about boys. She replied that it was because boys had all the adventures (or it might have been "fun").

[Peter Graham]

Yet it strikes me that there are risks in delaying giving that information too long, and readers might get annoyed at having to revise their whole conception of a character several hundred pages in. Perhaps it might work with such things as sexuality and attitudes, but skin colour or sex are going to be harder to keep quiet about.

I suspect that depends on whether it is really necessary to tell them at all. J K Rowling got it right with Dumbledore. Transpires that in JK's mind, he was gay. Yet she never told the reader, as his sexuality had absolutely nothing to do with the story. Quite right too. There is a painful tendency in some writers to wish to show how terribly liberal and inclusive they are. Sexuality or ethnicity is shoehorned into the text, not because it makes a jot of difference to the story, but because it scratches some itch on the part of the writer. If it is integral to the plot that a character is Asian, bi-curious, has a blue bonnet or is a pre-op starfish, then let's hear it. If not, just tell us what we do need to know. Got some rough-handed labourer in the book? I live Oop North, so unless the writer renders his speech phonetically, I'm always going to give that character a northern accent in my head, even if the writer tells me he's from Daan Saaf.

Anyway, an interesting article.

Indeed it is. In some ways, it reminds me of astrology, in that adherents take a few lines of general, non-specific fluff and tailor it to ther own experiences in order to make the astrology "true". One of the great things about humans is our desire to see ourselves as individuals, rather than herd animals. We're both, of course, but what unites us is always greater than what divides us. So, if we read a well written piece about a character struggling to come to terms with the need to vote, there is a good chance we will see aspects of ourselves in the piece, perhaps unaware that everyone else will too!

The trick, I think, is simply to write from the heart.

Regards,

Peter

[DrMclony]

Interesting stuff. I personally love to "lose myself in a book". The biggest problem is people finding me again! lol nose in book = go away hehehe

But more seriously, I think delaying can be quite detrimental to a reader relating. I well written character will appeal equally to gay or straight, male or female, sheep or cattle or vegetation eater etc. Delaying is a way of avoiding dumping a mass of character descriptions on a reader, but if I don't know who I am reading about quickly enough, I am far more likely to put the book down than keep going.

[David Evil Overlord]

Originally Posted by Fishbowl Helmet

Heinlein does this to some degree with Starship Troopers. The reader knows what city the MC is from, but his ethnicity isn't revealed until the last page--damned near the last line--if I recall.

Edit: No, end of penultimate chapter. Ah, the vageries of memory.

Right at the end, the MC speaks a language another character doesn't know. The MC says it's Tagalog, the language of the Philippines. Up until that moment, the reader probably assumes the MC is an All American White Male (the book was written around 1958, IIRC).

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by The Judge

Yet it strikes me that there are risks in delaying giving that information too long, and readers might get annoyed at having to revise their whole conception of a character several hundred pages in. Perhaps it might work with such things as sexuality and attitudes, but skin colour or sex are going to be harder to keep quiet about.

IMO, you give a very brief description of a character when you meet them, and then leave it at that.

Leave room for the reader to fill in any gaps, and be generous with those.

You only need to pass on the "spirit" of the character, not a daily detailed treatment on every facet of their physicality.

[David Evil Overlord]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

You only need to pass on the "spirit" of the character, not a daily detailed treatment on every facet of their physicality.

Some writers list all the characteristics like eye colour, hair colour, etc. even if they don't matter to the plot.

Terry Pratchett described a character (in Going Postal?) by saying he had a face like a clenched fist. How's that for the "spirit" of the character?

[Montero]

Yes, TP description good characterisation. Puts me in mind of my English master who was a great Dickens fan (I'm not in general) enthusing about how a Dickens character was solely described as having a mouth like a letter box. Though I don't enjoy reading Dickens that character description did stick in my mind.

Herd nature of people - a while back I read an article on various experiments on the herd habits of people. Both experiments I remember were done in lifts.

Experiment 1. Couple of experimenters get into quite a crowded lift, with all the unknowing test subjects were wearing hats (must have been a while ago). They stand at the front where everyone can see them, then one at a time they take their hats off. Most people in the lift are influenced, one at a time, to take their hats off.

Experiment 2. Couple of experimenters get into a crowded lift, and instead of turning to face the doors, stand with their backs to it. Most of the people are motivated to at least shuffle, if not to consider turning around.

Oh, and as a bit of an aside. When Anthony Hopkins was rehearsing for his Hannibal Lector role, he apparently used to practice the mad stare at dinner parties - if he made people nervously look away, he knew he was getting it right.

[AnyaKimlin]

Actually I disagree I think Dumbledore's sexuality played a huge part in the Harry Potter stories. It even suggests something about the relationship between himself and Snape. A lot in the stories made more sense when she said it. I did feel cheated when she added the information.

I have no problem identifying myself with a wide variety of characters and losing myself in the story, but once it is over it is over and I go back to being me. Sometimes a book will enrich me and force a change in viewpoint.

Physicality and details can be an important part of the characterisation. My heroine when it comes to building characters is Dolly Parton. What she does in a short song is amazing. Jolene had beauty beyond compare, with auburn hair, ivory skin and eyes of emerald green. Joshua was a man with long and black hair; deep and low voice and a lovely smile.

The physical details can become what you remember about the character - Jo March's thick hair and smile; Jane Eyre was small and plain; Sherlock's deerstalker/ear flapped traveling cap; Poirot's mustache; Marple's birdlike, little old lady.

However, sometimes no matter how hard you try the reader will override the description. With my first character he is six-feet-eleven, built like a behemoth, blond dread-locks, blue eyes and a face even a mother would struggle to love if it was on the backend of a bus. Apparently my first person character is insecure about his appearance and not ugly. I am always getting into trouble with readers for calling him a pathetic, ugly, wimp lol.