When do stories reach the point of having too many characters? Is the point different for books or film? Can books effectively juggle more because they can spend more time and attention on differentiating each character? Or does film have the advantage because characters can be recognized on sight? What books and films have had too many characters for your liking?
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Too many Characters?
- Thread starter Violanthe
- Start date
FrodoLIVES
New Member
I think that books are more interesting if they have many characters. It gives the reader many characters to relate with, and more chances to find one they really like. It makes the story, as a whole, more real. Plus, with books, you can always go back and check out passages you may have missed about a certain character.
But, in film, I think that too many characters can be a bad thing because I can't always recognize them by sight. Sometimes they just look the same and I spend half the movie trying to figure out who is who
But, films with only a few characters could get boring really easily so I'm not sure where I stand on this topic.
But, in film, I think that too many characters can be a bad thing because I can't always recognize them by sight. Sometimes they just look the same and I spend half the movie trying to figure out who is who
But, films with only a few characters could get boring really easily so I'm not sure where I stand on this topic.
Wintergreen
New Member
I think it is more difficult for films because you recognise the characters by sight but they refer to each other by name, so you're sunk if you don't make the link between appearance and name. That's why half the dialogue of a good murder mystery consists of people reminding each other of their names.
In books it's much easier because the name is everything. Plus you can always flick back if you've forgotten someone.
In books it's much easier because the name is everything. Plus you can always flick back if you've forgotten someone.
Personally, I don't think it detracts too much from the quality of the book. Yeah, it makes it confusing to follow, but some of my favorite books have had a rather overbearing number of characters.
Examples:
Melanie Rawn's Exiles 'Trilogy':Ruins of Ambrai and The Mageborn Traitor
Too many names and minor characters, but it still remained one of my favorite fantasy series of all times.
All the President's Men: Thank God for the Cast of Characters list at the beginning. It was a struggle to figure out who was who, but memorizing that and the relations they had was actually quite fun. Same goes for Kushiel's Dart, though I must say it was a relief when she went to a less populated setting part way through the book. I don't think I could have followed the movie for ATPM very well had I not read the book first, even though they scaled back the characters.
In Rawn's books, most of the minor characters were unnecessary to recall. In the latter two, most characters were important to understanding the plot. I guess it just depends on how you use your excess characters and whether it's worth making the readers do the extra work to remember who they are. Sometimes it is- sometimes it isn't.
Examples:
Melanie Rawn's Exiles 'Trilogy':Ruins of Ambrai and The Mageborn Traitor
Too many names and minor characters, but it still remained one of my favorite fantasy series of all times.
All the President's Men: Thank God for the Cast of Characters list at the beginning. It was a struggle to figure out who was who, but memorizing that and the relations they had was actually quite fun. Same goes for Kushiel's Dart, though I must say it was a relief when she went to a less populated setting part way through the book. I don't think I could have followed the movie for ATPM very well had I not read the book first, even though they scaled back the characters.
In Rawn's books, most of the minor characters were unnecessary to recall. In the latter two, most characters were important to understanding the plot. I guess it just depends on how you use your excess characters and whether it's worth making the readers do the extra work to remember who they are. Sometimes it is- sometimes it isn't.
An interesting point, certainly. The more characters there are, the more different types of people have something interesting to find in the story.
However, isn't the flipside also true? The more characters there are, the more likely there will be one that you don't like, and that will turn you off to reading the book?
HermioneWeasley
Member
personally, i think a lot of fantasy books have too many characters and places and too much history, you know those books? where you can't keep track of everything. there's a lot of them in the adult sci fi/fantasy section. you know those?
ions
New Member
Look at War and Peace. Many characters. Michener novels. Many characters. Think of all the people you know. Your inner circle and then the casual aquaintences. At first someone who just met you would have trouble remembering everyone you know. As they spend more time with you they would begin to remember all, or most, of the characters in your life. When you first begin a novel you enter a character's life. If the author properly immerses you in that character's life you will learn to recognize the people around them.
Heteronym
New Member
The Brothers Karamazov was difficult for me at first as there are a good number of characters. On top of that, the names were Russian, and to add on to that, there were nicknames for some of them.
Russian names are terrible, aren't they? It's like each character has two or three names. Crime and Punishment confused me with Raskolnikov also being Rodion and Rodya
Too many characters shouldn't pose a problem if the novel manages to juggle them evenly. For that I believe it needs leght. A short book with too many names will be confusing, as the narrative can only give so much space to each one.
Russian names are terrible, aren't they? It's like each character has two or three names. Crime and Punishment confused me with Raskolnikov also being Rodion and Rodya
QUOTE]
Ler me see if I remember this correctly - I should wait till I get home and dig out the reference. I read Gogol's "Souls of the Dead" in the Penguin Classic edition and it had a good reference section which said something along the lines of:
Formal Russian names are triple barrelled:
Ivan Ivanevitch Gogol (for example)
The first (Ivan) is their given name (which up until the revolution had to be selected from a list of saints approved by the Orthodox Church hence the number of Peter's, Alexander's etc.)
The second (Ivanevich) is the patronomic. This is the fathers given name (Ivan in my example) which has -evich added for a boy or -ana added for a girl.
The third (Gogol) is the family name.
I also seem to remember something about a nickname. Sorry this is an awful post. I'll dig out the correct reference this evening and correct when I get a chance
Madeline
New Member
Shadows on a Wall by Ray Connolly had so many good characters, so to keep them straight I wrote their names down and put it in the front of the book and a brief description of their parts in the story. My friends that borrowed the book told me they really appreciated that I did.
Sorry being dumb - can't remember how to edit posts
ANyway what I said above was essentially correct with the exception of:
"for males -ovich or evich, for females -ovna or evna,
and other points to note:"
"...patronomics can be used on their own but only humorously or condescendingly. "
Most given names have affectionate or dimuntive forms, as in English. It is hard to make general rules for them and, in the context of this book, not necessary. Most end in -ya (Boris - Borya) or -ka, -enka, -usha, -ushka, -usya. Thus Aleksandr:Sasha:Sashka:Sashenka;Pavel (Chichikov's first name)...
The first name (either its full form or its afectionately diminutive form) can be used with the surname, omiting the patronymic...."
This is taken and adapted from Nikolay Gogol - Dead Souls, a poem - Translated with and introduction and Notes by Robert A. Maguire, Penguin Classics 2004.
ANyway what I said above was essentially correct with the exception of:
"for males -ovich or evich, for females -ovna or evna,
and other points to note:"
"...patronomics can be used on their own but only humorously or condescendingly. "
Most given names have affectionate or dimuntive forms, as in English. It is hard to make general rules for them and, in the context of this book, not necessary. Most end in -ya (Boris - Borya) or -ka, -enka, -usha, -ushka, -usya. Thus Aleksandr:Sasha:Sashka:Sashenka;Pavel (Chichikov's first name)...
The first name (either its full form or its afectionately diminutive form) can be used with the surname, omiting the patronymic...."
This is taken and adapted from Nikolay Gogol - Dead Souls, a poem - Translated with and introduction and Notes by Robert A. Maguire, Penguin Classics 2004.
