I thought that this was the best book of the "Elements of Fiction Writing" line of books. Card is in his element as he gives excellent instruction on the creation of characters, and making them come alive within your writing. A recommended book for all writers.

Characters and Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card is a non-fiction title designed to assist writers with their character creation as well as other writing techniques.

The Cover: I’m sorry to say that while this is a suitable non-fiction cover with a clear title, I find it rather boring. To me it looks like one of those school books you are required to purchase for the curriculum, only to find you never need refer to it. If not for the title I doubt I’d have picked this one up at all.

The Good Stuff: This is a very good book for the beginner writer and still offers some insights to the more experienced. It is packed full with practical advice and techniques that are clearly explained. The author’s style is easy to read and enjoyable (nothing like the stuffy feel book cover gives off). I picked up a few tips for myself and certainly found some parts of the text thought provoking and stimulating.

The Bad Stuff: As with many non-fiction titles I read these days, I feel there is unnecessary filler within the pages. It may just be that I like to get straight to the point and move on, or it may be that I am familiar with a lot of the information and am looking for something new. Either way, I found myself skim-reading or skipping through some parts of this book.

Overall, I found this to be a good title focused on developing interesting characters. Some parts of this book stimulated my thoughts on things I consider I already know. Other parts gave me inspiration around things I have given little consideration to when developing my own characters. For these reasons, I’m giving this one a character building 4 out of 5 golden bookmarks.

This is actually the latest book I've read and it's been incredibly helpful. I was having trouble with my new book because it's told from two main characters' POVs in first person. I really felt like I hadn't solidified those characters and I turned to this book to help. The thing I liked best about this book was that it didn't tell you how to create in depth characterization. It asks you the right questions so you get there on your own. It really is a book of tools, not answers, and those tools have turned out to be very useful. Card takes you on a journey from basic character creation to understanding your story as a whole and how characterization plays into it. It's well written and easy to follow. I would definitely recommend it to anyone having trouble fully realizing their characters.

Okay, so you know I'm an addict, I read a lot of books on writing, and I'm not done on reviewing them all yet. This was useful in helping me decide which viewpoint to write from and how best to do that. Also what mistakes to avoid making as well. Such as writing a whole novel in third person, when other things are occurring that the protagonist can't know about they cannot be mentioned. But there are clever ways certain things can be shown to the reader through the actions of other characters when they are in the presence of the protagonist. Also when writing in this way, the protagonist can't say what another character thinks or feels, only what they think that character might think or feel, but again, this can be done by using a scene to show the character in dialogue or action that demonstrates how they might be thinking or feeling.

I've oft heard this book referred to as the definitive work on effective use of characters & viewpoint in writing but didn't really believe it - until I was "encouraged" by a pro writer whom I respect highly to dig into it.

I was wrong. It is an invaluable resource for any penmonkey. I know of many authors who have a talent for using just the right technique to depict vivid, dynamic and interesting characters with smooth and consistent use of proper perspective / voice.

I'm not one of them and struggle with that aspect of my writing.

I read this book THREE times and still struggle with complete understanding of all its contents. But I learned enough to have much more confidence in the craft of writing. Card makes numerous points and backs it up with examples, the best way for my mind to latch onto lessons.

While this book is not written for the casual reader, it will occupy a space on my bookshelf within easy reach for all the times I'll need to refer to it in the future.

In this book, Card delved deeper into the subject matter than I've ever seen anyone do before. This is a book I think anyone serious about writing a novel ought to read. It's made even better by the fact that Card's insights apply equally to both literary and mainstream fiction.

In the book, OSC split his advice into three broad sections: inventing a character, constructing the plot and how the characters perform. OSC also weaves in his breakdown of the MICE quotient, which also appeared in his other book of writing advice.

I greatly enjoyed this book, finding the advice more useful than his book focused on SF and Fantasy. While the MICE section is skipped through, the overall advice is much more detailed here. I will definitely read this book again to extract the most from the helpful advice.

Re-read... great insight on the mechanics of characterization, with tons of examples. Makes my want to stop reading and start writing.

Orson Scott Card is an asshole but he's a beautiful writer and an excellent teacher of writing. Read this book if you're into fiction writing - but maybe get it from the public library instead of paying OSC for the pleasure ❤️

Orson Scott Card presents tools and techniques for the novice writer on characters and viewpoint. In his book we learn how to invent a character -- what makes a good fictional character. We discover how to construct a character and the importance of the MICE quotient -- Milieu, Idea, Character and Event. We learn the difference between major and minor characters and between walk-on and placeholder characters. We discuss how to raise the emotional stakes of a character and how we should feel about the characters. We talk about transformations -- why people change and justifying those changes. We learn about presentational versus representational viewpoint. We close by looking at first-person and third-person point-of-view.

I have mixed to bad luck with Writer's Digest books, except, apparently, when they're written by Orson Scott Card. This and his book on science fiction have both been stellar.

When most people think of what distinguishes good writing from bad writing, they tend to think of descriptive passages. Whose prose is the most breathtaking, whose is the most labored and purple? That's certainly part of what makes (or breaks) an author, but at the end of the day, whether or not a book works has less to do with the writer's descriptions than with whether or not they can make you believe in their characters. A great writer with no story or characters can't hold a candle to someone with a serviceable skillset whose characters feel as real as the people you've encountered in your own life.

"Characters and Viewpoints" guides the writer through the process of trying to understand their characters, to get inside their heads, and just as important, how and when to maintain distance from those characters. Orson Scott Card makes it clear that creating a character is not as straightforward as following a recipe (a dash of childhood trauma, a liberal splashing of personal quirks like nail-biting and chain smoking). One discovers their character as much as builds them, and once discovered and built, the character is then questioned and refined.

I can't recommend the book enough. And I'm a churlish type who usually finds at least something wrong with a How-To book. If you don't have it, get it.

Characters and Viewpoints
Orson Scott Card

Begin story where character becomes interesting and unique.

What is a character?

Real people your reader wants to know better than they know any living person.
Your story needs to tell them more about people than they already know. Do not stick to the facts—they already know them.
A character is what s/he does.
A character is what s/he means to do.
A character is what s/he has done or what has been done to him/her.
A character is (or might be) what others say about him/her.
A character is (or may be) who/where s/he is around (stereotype—not the same as cliche).
The strangeness of a character who violates a stereotype captures interest and nurtures surprise.
A character changes character in different circumstances, with different people.
A character is his or her own habits, patterns, talents, abilities, tastes, and preferences.
A character’s physical body is one factor among many in getting to know him or her.

What makes a good character?

Clarity, emotional involvement, understandability.
Major characters capture YOUR interest (answer “So what?”) and belief (answer “Oh yeah?” or “Huh?”).
Minor characters advance/twist the story line, relieve tension, convey information, (etc.), and then leave.
Changes the reader by putting the story in their memory.
Stands up under your interrogating questions: How? Why? What result? —the answer is not a cliche.
Exaggeration that doesn’t reduce believability.
Defies expectations in a believable way.
Exaggeration that defies expectations…you wouldn’t expect *that* to be exaggerated.
Answers “What could go wrong?”
Answers “Who suffers most in this situation, without dying or being incapacitated?” (they most need to change things)

Where do characters come from?

Ordinary to you is strange to/from someone else.
Mine the conversations/behavior of strangers.
Demand more from the idea than the plain facts.
People you know are merely a starting point to NEW characters who are submitted to the above interrogation/exaggeration/twist/justification.
You. You’ll never lie.
Imagine what it would take to get you to do something the character does.
—or something else “like” what the character does.
Answer “What is it like to be like this character?...” with whom not many people try to empathize, perhaps for taboo reasons.
Remember what it was like being you when you were very different from how you are now. Interrogate, Exaggerate, Twist
Imagine how events/reactions in your life could have gone differently.
The story demands certain characters, allows for visitors, and revisits old ones.
The idea you want to convey demands a certain character or group of characters to communicate it—but wring life from the character(s).
Dreams, news stories, headline, letter, song, thoughts, unrelated sources, speculative “What-IF?”ing.
Check out some landscape and submit it to Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? questions.

Making decisions.

Name. A name carries ethnic, national, racial, gender baggage.
Names should start with different letters, and vary in length and sound patterns.
Introduce the character by the name he will have for most of the story.
The first time you use an alternative name, show the link to the original name.
The character’s name comes out of a particular person’s mouth the same way every time.
Record your decisions.

What kind of story are you telling?

Milieu - place and culture take precedent in “pure milieu," less emphasis on characterization (Tolkein)
Idea - begins with a problem/question and ends with an answer, no change/transformation, many capable of murder (murder mysteries)
Character - (attempted) transformation story that begins with dissatisfaction and ends with satisfaction/dissatisfaction
Event - action movie (romantic tradition). Begins in major catastrophe, ends in resolution/catastrophe.
Contract with reader--finish what you start, including any characters in which time is invested.

The hierarchy.

1. Walk-ons. Part of the milieu. Follows stereotype, or joins story.
2. Minor. Eccentric, exaggerated, obsessive, but not at the beginning. If spend too much time on it, go major.
3. Major. Best actor / supporting actor.
--they stand out, believably
--their choices/actions move the story, change other character's lives
--others focus on them
--frequency of appearance
--we sympathize with them
--the story is told from their point of view

How to raise the emotional stakes.

Suffering (inflicted/felt/chosen) somewhere between the trivial and unbearable--no desensitizing repetition. #sacrifice
--Show the causes/effects, not the actual suffering.
Jeopardy--anticipated, inevitable pain or loss. (sexual tension when there are negative factors--killed by sex, though)
Connect character with world around her (storm, etc.).
The character has good reason to cry, but doesn't--let the reader.

What should we feel about the character?

First impressions/introductions happen quickly in story, too.
Sympathy vs. antipathy.
Sympathy:
If you want people to agree w/ an idea, make the character likable.
Antipathy:
If you want people to disagree w/ an idea, make the character unlikeable.
Sympathy again:
If you want people to think objectively about an idea, make disagreeing characters that are both likable.
Antipathy again:
People want to hang out with likable characters, so its hard to do the anti-hero.
--There are ways to stir up sympathy w/o stirring up liking, but that's not a true anti-hero.
Sympathy again:
We like the familiar and recognizable--a character like us.
--however, it also bores us. Strange is more interesting.
Physical attraction is likable (or resented), so leave that to the imagination.
Victim -- readers sympathize with suffering victims
Savior -- readers sympathize with rescuers who aren't meddlers
Sacrifice -- readers sympathize with those who sacrifice for a good cause when they volunteer for the best alternative among the options
Initiative -- the character can't always just be reacting to events...his plan/need needs to cause them.
Courage, fair play, and other virtues attract reader sympathy.
If a hard task brings glory with it, a good character waits to be drafted.
A good character is dependable.
Clever, but s/he doesn't know it.
NOT TOO PERFECT...needs some foibles.
Antipathy again:
The villain sadistically feeds on power despite others' suffering, and bullies people.
Murder elicits antipathy only if done for selfish reasons to the undeserving.
--also true of other crimes.
Dull and unambitious.
Self-serving and self-appointed.
Oathbreaker.
Proud intellectual.
Madman/woman.
Humorless, whiny, blamer, takes all credit, boasts, inconsiderate, judgmental, suspicious, preferential treatment, hypocrite.
NOT ALL BAD...needs some redeeming qualities/motives, but not so much that antipathy turns into sympathy/liking.

The hero and the common man.

Realistic/Romantic pendulum
Find "Realistically Romantic"

The comic character: controlled disbelief.

Enough wrong for us to not take seriously, enough right for us to care.
A "take" at the audience quickly signals comedy. "It bit my hand."
Exaggeration. (But subtle.)
Downplaying. (Also via exaggeration.)
Oddness. (Usually for minor characters. For major: Build up using Romantic/Realistic techniques, undercut with just enough oddness. Go too far & you get The Three Stooges.)

The serious character: make us believe.

Details. Relevant, appropriate.
Elaboration of motive moves the story but only with action.
Attitude. --hand-in-hand w/ causation.
NO description w/o attitude.
The remembered past. Less important in romance.
After you begin story where character becomes interesting and unique, then give him a whole life.
Flashback to begin the story, or after the beginning is well-established to provide context--quickly get back to the action.
Memories that causally affect (believably rather than conveniently timed) or are given new meaning in the now.
Quick memory references in passing.
Implied past via expectations, habits, networks.
Justification. Sometimes things need foreshadowing to be believable, but not in a way that ruins jeopardy.
Justified jeopardy is saved by inserting tension through other means that don't require as much justification.
Justify in proportion to the event/character's importance.

Transformations.

You can't change. Unmasking.
-despite attempts
-change is temporary
-change is in line w/ true self
Other things change you.
-failed attempts to transcend body
-success through positive circumstances
You change yourself.
-transcending body/circumstance
Justifying changes
-requires explanation proportionate to character/change's importance
-absurdism is psychological/philosophical fiction and the milieu of the absurd universe must be established at the beginning to avoid losing the reader's trust when people change for no reason.

Voices.

Accent, vocab, attitude.
Person (first/third)
Tense (past/present)
Past is best for fiction, more common--reader won't notice it, like proper wallpaper, so it will feel more immediate than present tence

Presentations vs. representation.

-Presentational talks to the reader from the beginning. Talks to "you." Or it inserts the narrator's attitude.
-Representational ignores the reader and narrator. Keeps the focus on the characters and story.

Dramatic vs. narrative.

-Don't show the obvious--tell (narrate).
-Make characters real by not telling, but showing (dramatize).

First-person narrative.

-Choose a new voice for each narrator.
-Don't use odd spellings or apostrophes.
-Be present in scenes, because first person is already more representational than third person limited.
-Find balance between unbearably intense and heartless when showing tragic events, or:
-Maybe the character is coy and tells instead, or:
-Maybe the character is clinical or heartless, or:
-Choose a more removed narrator, or:
-Use third person.
-Can't be a bore or describe himself performing noble acts (unless it is shown, not told, and he doesn't realize it's noble).
-Can do something terrible while explaining how it's justified.
-No fourth wall. Who is the intended audience (frame story not to the reader)? What is the narrator's purpose in writing?
-Lying narrator admits he lies (give motive!) or is unmasked via another character who sometimes takes over as narrator to set facts straight (DO set facts straight).
-Clearly communicate change in narrators.
-Distant in time.
-Flashback to begin the story, or after the beginning is well-established to provide context--quickly get back to the action.
-Memories that causally affect (believably rather than conveniently timed) or are given new meaning in the now.
-Do not withhold what the narrator knows at each point in the story.
-Can't die, obviously.
-Can't get inside anyone else's head.
-Can't remember his actions or motives from the outside.
-Must be a tale-teller.
-first person or third omniscient can help create comic distance
-first person is good for a more factual, eye-witness feel

Third person.

Omniscient v Limited
-omniscient sees all perspectives but through narrator's pov, can tell story in less time, more presentational, more detached, allows for more characters, places, and larger spans of time
-limited sees from one character, or clearly switches between characters (never mid-scene), requires more story telling, more representational, more emotional involvement in a particular character
-first person or third omniscient can help create comic distance
-first person is good for a more factual, eye-witness feel
-third person limited good for beginners, but does not permit digressions
-third person combines flexibility of omniscient with intensity of first person
-Levels of Penetration may vary throughout the story:
LIGHT: in the mind, but not experiencing--scene is neutral in attitude until describing character's thoughts
DEEP: we get motives from inside
CINEMATIC: seeing only, as if over the shoulder