Forum: Author Hangout

When you read, do you find such a list useful?

Occasionally, but if you have to keep referring to it, in my opinion the author is failing. Every time a reader has to break from the narrative to remind themselves of who a character is, the author is at risk of losing them.

Mind you, I seem to be in a minority on this. I've even seen effusive praise for a story with a large cast which I thought the author had got badly wrong.

Exactly. If it's a minority, there's at least two of us.

I understand the rationale as outlined just now by others, but I'm left thinking (a) it's the author's job to introduce the characters in the course of the story in a fashion that engages the reader, and (b) if the cast is so large it requires a list to remember who's who, perhaps it's too large.

And no fair citing War and Peace, unless you're writing War and Peace.

bb

And no fair citing War and Peace, unless you're writing War and Peace.

Okay, I won't cite War and Peace, but how about one of mine. I had a six volume series. By the end of the series, I was well over 100 characters, and few readers could recall each character from each book. In that case, if I gave an update on someone from book 2, most readers needed to look up who the hell they were. I tried to provide reference in the story itself, but even that is limited.

It's not a question of either/or. You explain who everyone is and define their personalities, but readers still have trouble recalling them (especially when it's a several days or weeks between chapters). Again, no one expects you to READ the character list, but it's there in case you need it.

However, in most cases, you aren't writing your magnum opus! If you don't need a huge cast, then just don't worry about it. But in a few cases, especially when characters are building movements a few people at a time, the character counts mount up quickly, and readers want to know what happened to their favorites--even if they weren't major characters.

if you have to keep referring to it

If you have a 50,000 word novel and twenty characters, you don't need anything to keep track of who is who. However, when you have a 100,000 or 200,000 word saga with over 50 characters who pop in and out at various points, then it's best to give the readers a quick check guide on who is who and how they fit in.

edit to add: In Finding Home I have 72 primary and secondary characters I have in the cast last, and a over a hundred others in the story. The story is 270,000 words long - a novel is 40,000 to 50,000 words long, so this is equal to 5 novels. Some of the characters are mentioned early, vanish for a long period, then reappear. It's unreasonable to expect every reader to remember all the characters in such a long and complex story. Thus a cast list helps them as a reference source to identify a character and put them in their proper relationship to every one else, to save them spending hours finding the earlier references.

I do the same thing. Make a list and update it as the story proceeds, but it stays with me. Continuity is much easier to keep this way. I get irritated when a story gets names wrong or places characters in situations they would not go into. When I encounter character lists I ignore them. If I can't follow the characters through the story, then it is not well enough written for me to finish it,has happened several times.

Ideally, you should never read a cast list, as they aren't included as entertainment and may contain spoilers. Instead, they're for the longer episodic stories that revisit characters not seem in some time for updates, by which point many will not recognize the names. As such, they're useful for saying 'That's who that is!'

Funny thing, despite my views I just thought of an endless tale with extensive cast lists by House—I refer to George R. R. Martin's opus, where at the end of each volume he has charts of each family.

Is it useful? Yes. In Martin's case, there's a dense back story that all the characters know—the kids are taught who did what to whom in their tutoring—and Martin's storytelling moves from character to character so it's hard to remember every name.

So, if you're George R. R. Martin, go for it.

bb

If it weren't for the TV series, only a handful of people would have heard of Martin. He's a rich source of examples of how not to write.

Sorry, but his book series was immensely successful before it was picked up for television, and long before anyone considered it capable of being broadcast as a weekly series. You may not like his techniques, but they work well as a whole and fit his stories.

We'll have to disagree on that.

The writers' group I go to has some creative writing course addicts who are taking or have taken all levels from university degrees down to evening classes.

They all say that they've been told how awful Martin's writing is. That he's achieved any level of success is a triumph of story weaving over technical skill.

His books could be so much better if he used a decent editor.

AJ

They all say that they've been told how awful Martin's writing is.

I haven't read his stuff so I can't comment on that, but I know when "The Da Vinci Code" came out the critics said Dan Brown was a lousy writer. I loved the way he wrote it.

I actually think Stephen King isn't a good writer. Great story teller, but not a good writer.

Great story teller, but not a good writer.

That's probably what matters the most.

I wish I could find a breakdown of sales of 'A Song of Ice and Fire' by year. I would expect the peak to have occurred a significant time after initial publication, after the TV series captured public imagination.

AJ

I wish I could find a breakdown of sales of 'A Song of Ice and Fire' by year. I would expect the peak to have occurred a significant time after initial publication, after the TV series captured public imagination.

All I know is, before the story was ever considered for television (HBO), he'd published three hugely successful books, each densely packed with details which his fans loved. So it's misconstrued to claim that he's only successful because he's on TV now. Instead, his books are on TV precisely because his books were SO successful! The sad part is that because he refused to turn his stories over to some unknown scriptwriter, he'll probably never finish his original series. :(

When I think of 'hugely successful' fantasy, Harry Potter springs to mind. But the Harry Potter books made it from genre to mainstream on their own, before the films came out. Game of Thrones was still firmly genre until the TV series made it a household name.

AJ

I dislike cast lists, as they shouldn't really be necessary. If it is before the story starts, then what is the point of it. At that time I have no idea who the characters are anyway, so listing someone who may appear peripherally ten chapters into the book is just confusing the matter.

Sigh! The reason why cast lists appear as the first chapter is because you've got to reserve a spot for it when the story first starts, otherwise you're stuck with posting it after the story completes, at which point no one will ever see it.

Even then, the question is: do you constantly update it each chapter, or just post everyone once so you don't need to track every single update for each chapter? Modifying the cast list makes the most sense from the readers perspective, but includes a huge amount of additional work while posting. I've tried both techniques and have never received complaints or congratulations either way, so who know which is best.

Again, the best rule of thumb is the number of characters. If you've got a cast of less than twenty characters, then skip it entirely, even if they're all named George! However, if you've got multiple books and your fans keep asking whatever happened to Freddie from chapter 7 of book 2, then there's a demand for the reference.

However, cast lists are not an excuse for not fleshing out characters or establishing who someone is when they reappear in the story. They're simply a convenience for a few readers, nothing more.

However, cast lists are not an excuse for not fleshing out characters or establishing who someone is when they reappear in the story.

Exactly.

bb

Maybe chuck that one into the Author's Bucketlist for Laz. The ability to flag a "chapter" as being an appendix/cast list posting, and not part of the story itself. Then allow for SOL itself to sort it accordingly(at the tail end) rather than front loading it, or having to constantly repost the thing as the last chapter increments.

It's easy enough to post it first, update it each chapter, and then when the story completes, delete it and repost it at the end. If Laz does it, it would have to be a 'floating' chapter, which would probably be a nightmare to arrange.

What I suspect they differ over, is the need for such extensive, largely unfocused stories.

just because a story is large and complex, doesn't mean it's unfocused.

But likewise, just because a story is large doesn't mean it is complex.

True, however, I was challenging the statement all large stories were unfocused, when only some are.

True, however, I was challenging the statement all large stories were unfocused, when only some are.

Again, no one here ever claimed that. I was merely echoing complaints I've heard before in an attempt to summarize the original post. I never claimed that ALL long story are unfocused, in fact, I was arguing against my own stories, so don't start attacking me for stating positions which aren't my own. Instead, wait until someone agrees with my summary of the objection to cast lists, and then they can either defend it or not.

@awnlee Jacking

They all say that they've been told how awful Martin's writing is. That he's achieved any level of success is a triumph of story weaving over technical skill.

His books could be so much better if he used a decent editor.

If he did, he'd likely never have gotten his story published. You've quoting a bunch of unnamed sources--probably all unpublished from the sounds of it--to question the 'literary claims' of someone who's sold millions of copies.

And so what if his books sell because he's a better story weaver (i.e. story teller) than a grammarcist? Does anyone really care what kind of grades he got in applying commas? Few of us here are heavily trained in the literary arts. We're all fumbling in the dark, trying to pick up in our later years everything we didn't pay attention to while we were in school. So to start attacking someone for not being a great 'technical writer' is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Note: I'm not saying you can't criticize him for his poor use of English, just that it's unjust to claim that he's a better story weaver than a technically skilled writer. Who the frig cares? There are millions of technically correct writers who'd I'd never read, but finding a great story that engages me is an agonizingly difficult task.

better story weaver (i.e. story teller)

I deliberately didn't use the term 'story teller' because one of the principal criticisms relates to how the books are structured. By all accounts the TV series did a very good job of assuaging this defect.

AJ

This may be more of a reflection of the academic world having a disconnect with the wider world.

And perhaps the disdain the literary fiction world (and wannabes) expresses for successful commercial fiction.

I've never finished a James Patterson novel, because they don't click with me. But as Patterson said once in response to another writer's (can't remember who it was) ding, "How many books has he sold?"

Patterson is, I believe, either the No. 1 bestselling author in the world, or close to it.

Yeah, yeah, the literary types will reply, but it doesn't matter how many books he's sold if the writing isn't any good (See, Fifty Shades of Grey).

Each to his own.

bb

As well as being a prolific writer and latterly grooming a crop of young writers to imitate his style, Patterson now positions himself as a teacher as well as a writer. He has some street cred in that respect because his various sets of rules for writing are often mentioned in Creative Writing classes.

I consider him a good storyteller but I have issues with the quality of his story weaving. His universes lack the attention to detail of George R R Martin, for example.

But that's just my opinion, YMMV.

AJ

As well as being a prolific writer and latterly grooming a crop of young writers to imitate his style, Patterson now positions himself as a teacher as well as a writer. He has some street cred in that respect because his various sets of rules for writing are often mentioned in Creative Writing classes.

I didn't know about his presence in writing classes. Yikes. At Barnes & Noble the other evening (trailing after my spouse on the hunt for the next Outlander volume) I saw a table covered with what appeared to be novellas by Patterson. Claimed to be original work, could be read "in a couple of hours" or words to that effect on the jacket. Can't remember the name of the series—"Morsels?"

Is there a Patterson School, like many of the old Renaissance painters, i.e., a crew doing the work while supervised by the master?

bb

I think the term you're looking for is "Ghost Writer" which is something a number of Celebrities do when writing "autobiographies" or a number of other works.

It's not ghost writer. (See awnlee jawking's response.) If I'm remembering the notes correctly, Alexandre Dumas employed assistants in writing The Count of Monte Cristo and other novels, although how much Dumas delegated is disputed, I think.

Or to put in the context an Erotica Forum might be able to appreciate.

Touché!

Although I've always appreciated Mr. Skin's efforts on the body double / no body double front.

bb

Is there a Patterson School, like many of the old Renaissance painters, i.e., a crew doing the work while supervised by the master?

I think that's a pretty good description. The authors write to a strict 'James Patterson' formula, allegedly Patterson edits the results, and his name is writ large on the cover alongside the author's in order to appeal to Patterson afficionados. I believe the 'Private' series have all been written that way.

AJ

just because a story is large and complex, doesn't mean it's unfocused.

You, of all people, should know that I specialize in large, complex, heavily detailed stories with huge casts. I was trying to restate the objection that first provoked this discussion, questioning why casts list were necessary at all if stories were 'properly written'.