[Aether Monkey]

So this is a bit dry, but if you are into theory, I would appreciate any thoughts.

I am working on a paper about characterization for a grant. Essentially I am trying to develop a method for teaching students to write (and characterize) that is more effective than the general sort of exercises most writing manuals advocate (make a list of details, write a back story, think of someone you know); the problem a developing student has is not just developing rich characters, it is also how to write them (line by line, word by word).

I am breaking down characterization via narratology into specific phrasing and their effects, i.e:

"He was a jerk"
"She thought he was a jerk."
"Jerk."
"They all sat down to dinner, he hawked a lugee into his napkin"

and then looking at how a character has a certain "melody" or group of effects that surround them in the prose (though the phrasings used to reach the effect may be vary widely within the norms for the prose style for a particular piece).

For example, character A might be generally portrayed (or initially portrayed prior to character development) by the author through 1) a comment on the high quality of their clothing, 2) an inference through another character's opinion that character A is fool, and 3) character A makes some statement that is cocksure and and over-reaching. This becomes character A's base melody (at least within the narrative sequence).

All of this could become ridiculously complicated, but the challenge is worthwhile to me: to help teenagers develop sensibilities and instincts that are usually acquired over years of reading and writing. The system is artificial and imperfect, but time and again, that is what my students struggle with--not the development, but the writing.

Anyway, any thoughts you have on this approach (not other approaches) would be appreciated.

[Dawnstorm]

An introduction to narratology (http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.htm). Is this your theoretical frame work?

I'm not sure what you mean by musical theory and form. I once explained mid-scene point-of-view switches with the concept of a pivot chord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_chord). In the same way you can use a chord that is common to two scales as a transition point from one scale into another, you can shift via a perception that two characters have in common from one point of view to another. That's a metaphor based on music theory. At least one person found it helpful, but I'm worrying that I've just doubled the amount of theory that the writer needs to understand.

In other words, people who know about music theory already will have an easier time with the analogy. People who know nothing about music may struggle on two ends now, where they only struggled on one end before.

Linking melody and character made me think of Prokovief's Peter and the Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_the_Wolf). I wonder if that's a helpful association, or an interfering one.

[NickeeCoco]

I'm thinking more of a rhythm thing, than a melody thing. I'll be honest, I don't really get this music theory thing. (And let me tell you, my mother is a music teacher, I know about music theory. I had no choice in the matter) Grouping word phrases as melodies is a little abstract, unless you're a lyricist. Also, unless the person is musical, or has studied music, I don't know if they'd get it. Rhythm, however, is easily understood. At least, more so than phrasing.

[Sparrow]

Anyway, any thoughts you have on this approach (not other approaches) would be appreciated.



I would have to agree with Nickee.
You would need your students to have some understanding of music theory to appreciate the metaphor. Not everybody gets Melody. Angus Young (ACDC) and Brian May (Queen) have spent almost their entire lives playing guitar; Angus Young couldn't produce a meaningful melody if he had a gun to his head, while Brian May comes by it naturally. Rhythm is easy, melody is elusory.

I would think as with any approach to teaching that you need it to be highly accessible to all your students, and I'd worry that characterization via narratology might be more than some can handle.

[tmso]

All of this could become ridiculously complicated, but the challenge is worthwhile to me: to help teenagers develop sensibilities and instincts that are usually acquired over years of reading and writing.

Why on earth would you want to do that? Isn't that the point? That they acquire the skills over years of reading and writing, that they have to experience life to write about it? That they should take the time to observe human nature (like in real life) and then learn how to capture that in printed word?

[Aether Monkey]

Why on earth would you want to do that? Isn't that the point?

Of course that is true, but the idea is to build a better way to learn some basics. Writing, as a craft that is taught, too often degenerates into "well, just write a lot and get feedback". Not to be overdramatic, but it would be like tossing the keys to a 15-year old and saying, "don't worry about it, just drive as much as possible and notice when people yell at you".

I agree, in the end, there is no substitute for practice, but I think some rudimentary concepts can be taught.

Is this your theoretical frame work?

Jahn section on Characterization (N7.1 on to N7.9) give a good overview, especially Pfister's tree diagram (though it is limited):
http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/narrcha1.gif

The amount of theory needed is more for the Fellowship than the students--the students don't need a perfect understanding of the concepts. Simple things like: time, beat, flow, melody. It is just a metaphor to help students along with real practices in fiction that are not taught.

Grouping word phrases as melodies is a little abstract, unless you're a lyricist. Also, unless the person is musical, or has studied music, I don't know if they'd get it

I should be more specific, but yes, this is a large concern and one of the reasons I am looking at only characterization. One could break down the whole of a prose sequence, but it would be way too much for most people (me included).

Think of the grouped effects/methods as the melody (not the exact phrasing): 1) fastidious dresser, 2) peers don't respect, 3) cocky statements. The exact wording and phrasing may change (in a range). This is the basic idea the students will get, yet from it I think I can teach a lot of concrete skills that most writing classes/teachers/texts usually deal with by saying, "go practice and figure it out".

Linking melody and character made me think of Prokovief's Peter and the Wolf

hehe. It's funny, when my peers and I were presenting the prospectus' for these, time had run out when it got to me--looking at the clock, I said, "Ok, I just ripped off Peter and the Wolf basically; let's go to the pub."

I think that the most basic idea of melody and it's role in a musical piece should be enough. Similarly, I will break down the Pfister tree into more concrete examples and create a sort of menu. This is a teaching tool to help students ramp up certain ideas and practices. It is not intended as a means of complete composition (though it is how Roddy Doyle wrote The Commitments from what I hear).

Thank you all. One of the most painstaking things about writing up things like this is working out kinks--all your feedback is precious.

[Diane]

Wow... this is so complicated... No offense but taking such an analytical approach would more likely turn me off to writing than help me understand.

I kind of get what you're saying, sorta. I'm a musician. I initially when I began writing listened to the flow and nuances of the word-rhythm. Then later I realized that I was being very self-indulgent and that the product required too high of a vocab and word comprehension for typical readers for it to sell well at all. So as much as the prose sounded wonderful and the wordplay was pleasing to me, I learned I had to change how I write if I intend to have anyone enjoy my story other than me.

[Fung Koo]

Hi Aether Monkey :)

I'd say that the gap you've noticed and are trying to fill is very real, so kudos on that front. From a background in English Lit and Education, I agree with you entirely that we generally do a poor job in teaching the whys of writing, and spend far too much time on the hows (as if enough how can make up a why). But I think you might be reinventing the wheel.

Seems to me you're looking for a practical approach to teaching rhetoric for creative fiction. The notion of building a thread of persuasion through the relating of a character seems to fit the concept of "melody" that you're after.

Also, the way you've presented it, it seems like you're picking musical grammar as a stand-in for language/literary grammar. Given that analogous relationships between the two already exist, you could probably save yourself some work here.

Narratology is a fairly high-end theory, requiring pretty advanced knowledge of grammar, linguistics, formalism... Are you using it here for much more than the method it uses to examine interactions between story elements? Or is it just a theory to whap onto the grant proposal? :)

Is this an instructional model that you're building or a conceptual model? As a question of pedagogy, it might be useful to think of how you would evaluate the method to determine how to approach it. It's a bit like running in reverse from "teaching to the test," but if the goal is instruction then you also need an assessment model (i.e. -- know where you're going before you figure out how to get there). But if it's a conceptual model designed to enhance the student's understanding of what they're doing, then you're going to run into the simple issue of requisite foreknowledge.

Also, can you clarify: what are "real practices in fiction that are not taught"? What kinds of practices are you saying aren't taught?

What age of students are you imagining this teaching tool as useful for? (As in, what grade levels -- keeping in mind that most curricula these days are designed as complete packages and have embedded logical progressions.) "Teenagers" is a little general.

[Sparrow]

Think of the grouped effects/methods as the melody (not the exact phrasing): 1) fastidious dresser, 2) peers don't respect, 3) cocky statements. The exact wording and phrasing may change (in a range). This is the basic idea the students will get, yet from it I think I can teach a lot of concrete skills that most writing classes/teachers/texts usually deal with by saying, "go practice and figure it out".

But I'm afraid that is what it always comes down to, practice.
Not just any practice, structured exercises that force the student to explore and expand at each sitting. I don't think there are any shortcuts.
A student interested in becoming a writer will have to figure it out on their own, be fearless in the endeavor, and work at it for many years.

I'm looking at this as an artist.
You can teach just about anyone to produce landscapes, but very few students will ever draw the human form well enough to be considered professional.

I listened to a very interesting story on NPR some months ago on my morning drive home from work, about what it takes to be very, very good at something. It doesn't matter the vocation-- engineer, teacher, artist, writer, talk show host, whatever... it came down to natural ability, and perseverance over an extended period of time (often many years).

I think being very good at something, in this case writing fiction, has less to do with musical metaphors, and is a whole lot more akin to a boxing analogy-- just get in the ring and take your lumps.

[Xenaphobia]

I don't really understand the music theory idea (no training in music). But how is it any different than simply giving notable examples of the different methods authors have used to reveal character?