How do you intrroduce a major character into your story.
All at once - providing a physical description and credentials into an introductory paragraph? Or do you do it in dribs and drabs over a longer period. Do you ever place a major character into your story with no descriptions of any kind?
If I read a long introductory paragraph describing a character in the first 1000 words, I generally quit the story. It's an info dump and I know I'm not going to remember much of it.
For physical characteristics, I tend to be sparse, probably sparser than I should be. She's "blonde and athletic" and that's about as far as I get. I'm trying to be more unique in physical tags to make the characters easier to remember, but that's an on-going thing.
For credentials, I follow the rule of "tell the reader what they need to know when they need to know it and no earlier." For example, "Dad's on another three week business trip." I've worked out Dad's profession and why he needs to be gone for three weeks, but at that point in the story, the reader doesn't care. All they need to know is he's gone and it's not by choice.
As for your last question, The answer is: sort of. If I'm writing a story in first person, I don't have them describe themselves these days (there have been exceptions in my past). But those details often seep out. For example: "she was unusually tall for a woman--only a couple of inches shorter than me." Also, people get a feel for first person characters through their words, voice, and action rather than descriptions, so I try to focus on those.
If I read a long introductory paragraph describing a character in the first 1000 words, I generally quit the story. It's an info dump and I know I'm not going to remember much of it.
I can see that. Maybe it depends on the character, but it probably doesn't.
For physical characteristics, I tend to be sparse, probably sparser than I should be. She's "blonde and athletic" and that's about as far as I get. I'm trying to be more unique in physical tags to make the characters easier to remember, but that's an on-going thing.
I tend to be sparse as well, but there are exceptions. A highly physical character is just going to get more description, but even then, there are details which much show up many chapters later.
I have a fairly strong feel for who my first-person narrator is, though, so what's described is what he thinks is important.
And, yes, he hasn't gone on about his looks, but over time, there's plenty of information.
Depends a lot on the character. I've got a major character who got a pretty solid description in Book 1. She was a very minor character until well into Book 2, though.
I've got another fairly major character who was really never described much at all (physically). Not when he was introduced and not after.
An awful lot of it depends on what they're doing in the story and where they'll go. Are they 'major' right away? If so, perhaps your narrator will spend time on them (but perhaps not, if their looks aren't important to the story, like one of the ones I mentioned above).
On the other hand, my minor-turned-major character was noteworthy because of her looks in the beginning. Someone very eye-catching is much more likely to get a description.
Another part depends on your story. I'm writing an epic, so it's hardly unreasonably for a character to pop up, go away, then return many chapters (or books) later. People in real life do that.
Oh, and one of my fairly important characters is a historical person. I didn't bother describing him very much - people know (or can easily google) what he looks like, then and now.
I try to provide only (or at least mostly) the characteristics important to the story. So, in a particular story that I am writing, in the first paragraph the character mentions he is a "gentile" (non-Mormon), relevant because it is 1939 and he is in rural Utah, just a bit east of SLC, and most of the people in the community are members of the Church of LDS. It is mentioned he is a Ranch Hand too.
This is a factor (implied but not explicit) why he decides to join the US Army. I believe I am "showing not telling" why he is more tolerant of diverse people he encounters over the course of the story. He has been a discriminated minority (despite being a WASP male); he experiences further prejudice (if not quite discrimination) being a "Yankee" in the "Deep South" (South Carolina, Georgia); he witnesses fellow soldiers being discriminated against (Catholics, and "Yankees").
Much later in the story when he encounters the discrimination, even atrocities committed by the N@zis, there is a context in the story of the imperfections in the USA; although not nearly the scale of what is witnessed in 1944/45 Europe!
I have an extensive document detailing the appearance, ethnic background (important in the 1940's USA, and a source of jokes and friction among soldiers), their place of birth/where they grew up, and if different where they were before joining the Army, their education, job(s), etc. Not nearly all of it will make it into the story, but it does influence how their characters act. In particular those from urban areas, and those from rural areas.
So, most characters will be distinctive by their place of origin, and manner of speech; more so than their appearance. Albeit some individuals with a distinctive appearance will have it commented about, as you should expect from a bunch of young soldiers.
As you would expect in a group of people, some will be more prominent, and others less so. As the combat grinds on most of the replacements are barely detailed, if at all.
I'll introduce a character however I must, depending on what's called for while I'm writing their scene.
A word on info dumps: Some writers are better than it than others. Off hand, I enjoyed Robert Jordan's unnecessary descriptions of one-off characters, but then I couldn't stand it when Steven Erikson and Terry Brooks did it.
Some writers are good at it, some aren't.
Jordan is definitely love/hate in a lot of ways. I like his unnecessary descriptions of all sorts of things, but I completely understand why others don't.
If he 'stuck to the plot,' there would be 1/3 of the material (and he might have finished it during his lifetime), but it'd be a much sparser story.
On the other hand, we know a lot more than we needed to about the intricacies of a lot of things.
Jordan could have definitely trimmed that series down. At one point, it felt like he got caught up in writing about the day-to-day activities of his characters, turning it into a soap opera.
I feel that way about a few books: Malazan, Book of the Fallen and A Song of Fire and Ice are two of the biggest I can think of off-hand.
