I've had an interesting time thinking about how characters reveal themselves, who they are, in fiction. Is it what they say? Their language? Yes. But further, most say that 'actions speak louder than words.' People reveal themselves by the things they 'do'. Which I agree with.

I came up with a dilemma, however, when I realised that I was finding character progression in my novel very difficult. Most of my characters (except my 1st person protag) were sketchy at best. And then it hit me: most of my characters are physically disabled (my novel is set in a residential college for disabled people, mostly in a boarding house). Some of them can't 'do' what typically would constitute character-revealing actions (skipping around in glee, punching the air (or anyone's face for that matter), picking up a pen/pencil themselves, slamming a door in disgust). A few cannot even make facial expressions; they only speak and wheel around. In fact, a lot of things some disabled people do are done 'for' them. My characters were sketchy because they we'ren't 'doing' anything dramatic with their bodies.

Of course, there are other ways to reveal character, and 'actions' cannot always be used. I thought it would be an interesting discussion to ask the board: 'How do people reveal themselves without action?'

I just tried to do this in a story that's posted in the children's forum. The narrator tells one story to her diary but her real feelings and thoughts come out between the lines.
I bet the people you're talking about can still show what they're feeling in some way or another. People's "aura" (not wishing to get all new-agey here) changes. You can feel when someone's angry, or nervous, or miserable, even if they've got their back to you. The tension in a person's body changes, I bet their electrical field changes too, or something (am not science buff). The atmosphere in a room can change after a comment. How do they wheel their chairs? Gently, violently? Do they clench a fist? Breathe quickly?
I am just thinking of Stephen Hawking here. I can see that someone disabled to that extent might have no other way of communicating but by the exact words he speaks. But that's a challenge too, perhaps a more difficult one - to reveal your characters through their words and nothing more.

Thanks Steerpike's sister, there are some excellent examples and ideas there. I guess I'm getting stuck occasionally because (and I've heard it mentioned on here before), there's sometimes an overabundance of 'I looked', 'I turned' etc. Boring and repetitive. I agree with you about the 'auras', and how you can 'feel' someone's reaction and feeling sometimes. You can also feel someone is behind you sometimes, as well. Interesting stuff.

On a more basic level, Nemo, are your characters able to choose which clothes they wish to be dressed in, maybe they have a favourite colour - red says something about someone which grey doesn't.

Maybe they have a favourite spot to look out of the window - onto a quiet field or nosing into a busy street.

Can they wheel themselves over to a favourite tv programme? Neighbours as opposed to the early evening news?

A favourite food, perhaps - spicy curry or plain beans on toast?

Then there's actions they can't control which reveal their feelings - blushing, perspiring, a nervous cough, maybe rudely closing their eyes if they don't wish to speak.

Oooh, sorry Nemo - mini brainstorm! (Or waffle, whichever way you want to look at it )

Casey

No, Casey, thankyou. Again, this is all extremely helpful. The level of physical limitation in my characters obviously varies greatly; but, being so close to the work myself, it's difficult, in my situation, not to make their 'actions' repetitive. I'm sure a lot of this will only really be given 'zing' in a second or third draft, where I can concentrate on 'colour' a bit more. You've given some great suggestions.

Hmmm: 'zing'. I ask ya, is it in YOUR dictionary?

I worked in a nursing home for a while and there were several clients who had severe age-related disabilities. They were still pretty good at making their feelings and personalities known. It depends on what tense you're using to write the story, is it first person or third person? You can reveal a lot about the characters by what possessions they have in their rooms or even the look in their eyes. You can also use appearance like one character may insist on wearing lipstick all the time or another may not care about how they look at all.

Great suggestions all. People's opinions are extremely revealing of the rest of them - how do different characters take an event in the home? And what and how do they discuss about it afterwards?

Emma

Hi Nemo

Everyone expresses their personality in a different way and that expression will depend very often on who else is around. Someone who will talk your leg off one minute will go mute in the presesnce of a stranger or alternatively someone who has hardly anything to say will suddenly become voluble in a crowd.

Here is an idea. Line up all your characters and offer them each in turn. A cake, a cigarette and a cat. And see how they react. Each character will react differently to each thing. Which should give you some insights in them as people. Which I suspect is the source of your problem. You are viewing your characters as handicapped people instead of people with handicaps. A very different thing.

Best

John

John: 'You are viewing your characters as handicapped people instead of people with handicaps. Very different thing.'

Hmmm... that's pretty unlikely, since I myself am disabled. (And by the way, 'disabled' is a better word than 'handicapped'; just for future reference.) But thanks, anyway, for some good advice.

Best

Mark

Did anyone see the excellent drama last night about the shopaholic? Without any language we began to realise her 'problem' was also related to her previous bulimia. We saw her in one scene cutting a tiny slice of her daughter's birthday cake for herself in secret, then moving the knife to make it a bigger piece. Then we saw her scoffing a huge burger - looked completely out of character as she was so immaculately dressed and elegantly slim - but in character, if you see what I mean. The best touch about this was that she had ketchup smeared on her mouth, which again you wouldn't have expected from such an outwardly together woman. The ketchup was spotted by her mother and this again was an excellent device for exploring their relationship. There were also a couple of scenes where she shredded salted peanuts and ate the slivers with her drink and took the currants from a cake and nibbled them. To me this spoke volumes about her. But I do wish sometimes I could just sit and watch something rather than have to keep analysing how it works or doesn't work!

By the way - erm - and I might be about to about to set the proverbial cat among the pigeons here - exactly why is 'disabled' a better word than 'handicapped'? No offence intended - I just would really like to know because no matter how many times I stare at these two words I can't see why one would offend and one wouldn't.

Hi Mark

Then you know where I'm coming from. I didn't know you were disabled and assumed you were seeing your characters as disabled people rather than people with disabilities.

Some years ago I was involved in organising the Mensa AGM a weekend for around four hundred VERY demanding people. And one of the things I stressed was that adequate provison be made for people who had mobility concerns.

The previous year I had been at a similar gathering where the main conference was held on the fourth floor of a building without lifts and most of the social functions in the basement.

Some of my friends at the time were using wheel chairs and though we managed to manhandle the lighter ones up and down. One gentleman was just too heavy for us to lift. It was very sad and embarrassing for all concerned and he kept insisting that we left him. But as he was considerably more entertaining than most of the speakers he always a group of friends to chat with and bring him drinks.

The point I am making is that people with disabilities deal with those disabilities in different ways and that a writer should recognise that. The only way to make a character come alive is to view the world from inside their skin.

Best

John

Thanks again, everyone, for your thoughts on this topic.

Prospero, all excellent points, and I agree with you. Thanks for sharing those insights.

Jem, I didn't see this documentary, but your insights are exactly what I'm talking about. It sounds like whoever the director was was an expert at 'showing', not telling.

As regards your 'by the way' comment, no offence taken, it's a good question. The difference between 'Disabled' or 'Handicapped' may be splitting hairs. However, black people, for similar reasons, don't like to be referred to as 'coloured'. Indeed, I may feel that that is splitting hairs. It's just what has become accepted language, and anything else is archaic. Having said that, 'handicapped' is still used in the USA, so (as they'd say over there), 'go figure'. If I was to split hairs, I'd say (and this is only my personal feeling), 'handicapped' implies an inherent disadvantage: if you have a handicap in a sport, you're inherently 'not as good' as someone with a lesser handicap. And people who have a handicap in golf, for example, quietly just accept this as 'the way things are'. (Yes, I know you can work your way up in sport; 'lessen the handicap' etc, but that's not the point, really.)

'Disabled', however, implies that we are not inherently 'disadvantaged'; we are only made so - we are only 'disabled' - by society: prejudice, lack of awareness, stereotype etc. Notice the difference between being made 'disabled', and being inherently less 'able' (or 'unable'. All this relates to philosophy really, specifically the social theory of disability, which basically says the above: society is the 'disabler'.

Sorry for waffling; I just thought you'd asked a good question. You may disagree with my answer, but that, I believe, is why many people make the distinction nowadays.

Mark

<Added>

Regarding the society comment, look at Prospero's experience above. Now, it's only a drop in the pond - I know - but if all of these conference buildings improved their access, 'disabled' would become less of an issue. Indeed, perhaps eventually, redundant. Just my opinion.

<Added>

By the way, apologies, I should have mentioned I come from a position of physical disability. I'm not sure about terms used for people with mental impairments, you'd have to ask someone else about terminology there.

but if all of these conference buildings improved their access, 'disabled' would become less of an issue. Indeed, perhaps eventually, redundant.

Just my opinion.

Not just your opinion Mark, I heartily agree with you.

The building I mentioned was quite an old one which is why it didn't have the necessary facilities. But what irritated me was that the organisers had either not considered or had callously disregarded the needs of the disabled. No excuses, they should have chosen a better equipped venue.

Best

John