# A couple of questions.



## Vore Writer (Feb 21, 2009)

These are related to a story I'm about to re-write called Communist America, and I'd like some input. The story will be written in three parts, the first part taking place in a concentration camp. Here are the questions:


1: How important is mentioning the location? It'll be rare the characters will know where they're at. For the most part they're basically going to be in the middle of nowhere. And when it comes to the camp, nobody is going to know where it's at. Not even the guards. Yeah, they'll guess it's either in Kansas and Oklahoma, but that's about it. I also don't really feel the need to let the reader know something the characters don't.

2: This one is more aimed towards the first part. With it taking place at a camp, how do I mention characters without making it sound like I'm throwing them in at random? For the most part I plan on naming those that'll play a rather important role, and mentioning just the species for those that'll only say a line or two.


----------



## Klace (Feb 21, 2009)

Vore Writer said:


> These are related to a story I'm about to re-write called Communist America, and I'd like some input. The story will be written in three parts, the first part taking place in a concentration camp. Here are the questions:
> 
> 
> 1: How important is mentioning the location? It'll be rare the characters will know where they're at. For the most part they're basically going to be in the middle of nowhere. And when it comes to the camp, nobody is going to know where it's at. Not even the guards. Yeah, they'll guess it's either in Kansas and Oklahoma, but that's about it. I also don't really feel the need to let the reader know something the characters don't.
> ...



Hey, I'm a writer here so let me help out.

1) In the end it's a matter of opinion, but letting the reader know something the characters don't is what we call "dramatic irony" in the biz.
I'd suggest doing it if you want to have literary analysts say: "Hey it's dramatic irony". But then again you shouldn't do it unless you have a point.
 If it can provide any insight into characters or create any amount of extra tension or drama (as the name of the irony implies), then please do it.
But do not under any circumstances do it without any significance, or just to have it in there for you to seem pseudo-sophisticated.
I don't have a firm grasp on your story but only do it if you feel it's important to the overall tale.

2) To be honest, when you introduce any character in any way, you're introducing them at random to the reader because they have no idea who they are or what to expect. 
The most important thing is to think ahead of the beginning and ask yourself if you have that character planned out through the entire story. 
It's more a worry of making them seem random and pointless in the long run rather than at the beginning. If you have a story for them, developments planned, and stuff like that, you should be fine in the big picture.
Besides you can always come back to the beginning later on and fix the introductions up whichever way you want. 
Another way to emphasize to the reader to place an importance and emotional connection to that character, is to visually describe the characters that will play an important role more so than the ones that won't. 
You had it right when you said you would only describe the species of the lesser characters. But try to go really in depth with the main characters so the reader knows which ones are important and which ones are not.

I hope this helped. 

~KGL


----------



## Blake (Feb 21, 2009)

"when it comes to the camp, nobody is going to know where it's at. Not even the guards. Yeah, they'll guess it's either in Kansas and Oklahoma, but that's about it."

In practice, conspiracies are nearly impossible (keeping the exact location from the guards)- With any number of people, keeping a secret becomes exponentially harder.  Once the guards know, the people in the camp will find out one way or another- guards are loose lipped, people overhear things, rumours spread.

If you narrow it down to the middle of nowhere in a particular state, that's probably reasonable.  You can make up an interstate and location.

"With it taking place at a camp, how do I mention characters without making it sound like I'm throwing them in at random?"

Answer: Don't.  It's generally a bad idea to only use a character for a few lines- you just don't need to have the character factor into the dialogue.  Have a more important character tell another what the unimportant character said:  "So this guard said..." "So I heard somebody say..."

Limiting the cast and not introducing random characters is generally good practice.  If the character isn't important enough for a name and back story, try to leave it out of dialogue entirely.


----------



## Klace (Feb 21, 2009)

Blake said:


> "when it comes to the camp, nobody is going to know where it's at. Not even the guards. Yeah, they'll guess it's either in Kansas and Oklahoma, but that's about it."
> 
> In practice, conspiracies are nearly impossible (keeping the exact location from the guards)- With any number of people, keeping a secret becomes exponentially harder.  Once the guards know, the people in the camp will find out one way or another- guards are loose lipped, people overhear things, rumours spread.
> 
> ...



I disagree, I think that the random characters at the beginning should have a few lines of dialogue. Not pointless dialogue but insightful dialogue.
Keep in mind that one of the most important ways of building a character is to use what people think or say about that character to use as a foundation.
So these random characters could say things about the more important characters that you emphasize on, if this is doable.
They could also say things that tell about the well-being and conditions of the camp. Don't have any pointless dialogue. Always have a reason for why the people say what they say.
Have the randoms focus on describing the camp, while the important characters develop themselves around the camp you have described with the help of the lesser characters.
What matters is that if you the author finds it important, put it in. You can try both of the ways suggested and see which one helps your story develop the best.

Blake kind of has it right about the location from a logical angle, though.
But if it's your story and you don't want them to know where they are, then I trust you have a literary device and reason as to why they do not.
Then, as I said before, it's a matter of opinion and significance.


----------



## Blake (Feb 21, 2009)

Klace said:


> Keep in mind that one of the most important ways of building a character is to use what people think or say about that character to use as a foundation.



Ah, but this can be done very well without random characters.  More lengthy and reciprocal interractions are always better.

Quick Improv. Example:

The stare caught his eye enough to turn him about; some young fox kid, rough and dirty clothes- maybe not a street urchin, but certainly not well to do.
"It's clear enough that _his_ parents never taught him proper manners" Hamton growled to himself.
"You're that Hamton guy aren't you?" the kid had some nerve, "You know what they say about you?  They say you're a miserable grouch- they do, it's true!"
Hamton rolled his eyes and moved on,
"They say you wouldn't help nobody were your life depended on it,"  followed the boy...

etc.

Meaningful interactions with a smaller number of characters who can crop back up in the story and expose popular consensus are far better than a bunch of random one-liners.

This has been used variably from friends trying to counsel the characters on where they are going wrong, to secretaries or generals reporting.




> So these random characters could say things about the more important characters that you emphasize on, if this is doable.



Or the more important characters can take the place of the random ones, furthering the development of the important characters rather than spending precious words on new ones that are meaningless overall.

It's better even to invent new character merely for exposition, because a single more developed  character is better at exposition and will develop your main character better than random ones can.


----------



## Klace (Feb 21, 2009)

Blake said:


> Ah, but this can be done very well without random characters.  More lengthy and reciprocal interractions are always better.
> 
> Quick Improv. Example:
> 
> ...



You're acting like I want him to have 50 random characters with one-liners.
The example you gave is fine, and it would be MUCH better for non-important side characters to give back story to the camp, rather than the main characters to waste their _own_ dialogue space on explaining where things are taking place. 
You can do much more interesting and creative things that way.


----------



## Vore Writer (Feb 21, 2009)

Thanks for the suggestions.

When it comes to the second question, I'm considering of doing a mixture of both. A couple of characters will play small roles throughout the first part, and others will be used only in a chapter and/or a scene. Depending on how they want to be used.


----------

