tricks and techniques and depth

[marycatelli]

Am pondering a couple of techniques I have heard of writers using.  Both of them for depth.

One comes from industry:  the "Five Whys."  Whenever there is a problem, you need to ask why five times.  I can see the applicability to fiction:

• Theodora must go to this planet.
• Why?
• to perform a certain ceremony
• Why?
• Because if it's not performed by a member of the royal family, the kingdom will cease to be ruled by the king
• Why?
• Because it's the law from pre-Unification days.
• Why?
• Because the Unification was an immensely chaotic business and this law was not one of the most urgent to change.
• Why?
• Because it wasn't going to affect anything for nearly a century.

Ok, I think I did the world-building deep enough on that question.  And I can see its being helpful on plotting questions, like why that problem will slap your hero upside his head.  (Five is not the required number; you can do less, or more, as needed.)

And then there's character description.  I've heard this twice with two different criteria.  One was to test how deep a character is by whether you can describe them without their name or attire.  The other was the same, without their name, occupation, or appearance.  Hmm.  Occupation can be a rather significant element, whether you chose it yourself or were forced into it.  Has anyone heard of a different list?

Comments

[john-j-enright.livejournal.com]

In play construction you often hear that you should be able to name the main thing any given character is personally trying to accomplish in the story. Of course, it may shift.

[marycatelli]

What does the character want.

Motivation.

Depth is all very well after you have your motivation.

OTOH, I already had a technique about deepening your motivations. On the third hand, I could use them both.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Well, it could go ...

Wants a new dress
...To wear to a job interview
......Because she wants a job in ___
........To escape from her small town
...........Because they know of her scandalous past
etc etc

I'm sure this has been used in many a 'how to write for the Saturday Evening Post' book, because I'm beginning to remember the rest of it. Losing the dress, she meets someone who was attracted by her scandalous past, so the rest collapses.

[marycatelli]

So it could!

Of course then there's the cases where it doesn't go that deep. When interviewing rescuers about why they saved people from the Holocaust, many had no answer for a first "Why?", or even became angry at the question.

[john-j-enright.livejournal.com]

You're right. Motivation.

[marycatelli]

the number of things we writers have to juggle!

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

On your example, maybe it should go to the level of, Why was this custom established in the first place?

[marycatelli]

All sorts of legimitimizing stuff happens like that. Like, say, elections.

[jennygordon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm ... thanks for that. Interesting food for thought. The 'Why?' test reminds me of that thing all kids of a certain age do to their parents, which is also kind of interesting actually. Maybe kids have an inbuilt desire to understand things on a deeper level, while many adults just shrug and let it slide as something that 'just is'.

[marycatelli]

Plus of course they know less.

Plus of course they have no manners. 0:)