<\/p>\n
There are three principal techniques narratives can use to convey a sense of character and to influence our responses to and estimation of that character<\/p>\n
The first of these techniques\u00a0(showing<\/strong>)\u00a0<\/strong>would seem to allow for\u00a0a more objective portrait to emerge than the other two, since it is the closest to letting that character speak, think and\/or act for themselves. Even here, however, we need to consider if the portrait is being \u2018framed\u2019 or \u2018skewed\u2019 in any way, either through selection (e.g. only showing those thoughts and actions which cast the character in a particularly good\/bad light) or through couching the presentation in words that\u00a0predetermine our interpretation of it (for instance,\u00a0\u201cDavid marched threateningly towards Tamara and demanded of her \u2018what\u2019s for tea?’\u201d gives a very different spin on events than \u201cDavid went over to Tamara and asked her \u2018what\u2019s for tea?\u201d).<\/p>\n The second technique (reporting<\/strong>) more obviously allows for the presentation of a character to be skewed in some way. It is therefore incumbent upon us on these occasions to attend to the character of the reporter as well as to the character that emerges of the person whose thoughts, words and\/or actions are being reported. Do we trust the source of this information or might they have particular reasons for wanting people to look upon and judge that character in a particular way? Even if we grant that they are trying to give as accurate and neutral a report as possible, how reliable is their report \u2013 or, to put this another way, how do they know what they know?<\/p>\n The third of these techniques (associating<\/strong>) is the most subtle. For that very reason, though, it is often the most effective in shaping our response to a character without our realising this is happening. If, for instance, every time we meet a character they are always holding a pint of beer, say, or wandering around some abandoned docks\u00a0at night, or standing in the vicinity either of a yew tree or of something made of yew (yew being, amongst other things,\u00a0a symbol of death), it will affect our sense of the kind of person they are, what they stand for and the role they play in the narrative as a whole.<\/p>\n Only once we have established\u00a0how<\/em> a character is characterised \u2013 which is to say, only once we have established how we know what we know about a character and have determined whether this knowledge is reliable or not \u2013 should\u00a0we proceed to consider\u00a0what kind<\/em> of character she or he is. To do this, it is\u00a0helpful to answer the following questions:<\/p>\n Finally, we should consider the role the character plays in<\/p>\n a. participating in and contributing to the action of the narrative (whether that be in the form of advancing it, hindering it, diverting it, or whatever)<\/p>\n b. characterising other characters. In addition to actively commenting on other characters, this can include throwing a clearer light on another character by virtue of their similarities and differences. A \u2019round\u2019 character can look all the rounder, for instance, if s\/he is surrounded by several \u2018flat\u2019 characters; a \u2018static\u2019 character can seem all the more \u2018static\u2019 if s\/he is surrounded by \u2018dynamic\u2019 characters; a \u2018clearly individuated\u2019 character can seem all the more individuated if everyone s\/he deals with is little more than a stereotype; and so on<\/p>\n\n