Week Three: The Iceberg Theory

This week we’ve been exploring character and the different levels of character. It’s been a really interesting thing to study, as it’s an area that’s a lot more complex than I thought it was.

The stories we read this week all contained a very clearly specified narrative voice, conveying the profile of the character through the way they speak and the ways in which others perceive them.

“Sand” by Tim Winton demonstrated from the start of the story that the main narrative voice, Frank, is a child from his choice of vocabulary and tone. The fact that Frank is a child proves to be a vital part of the story, but it is not stated explicitly

I also found it interesting that the narrative had no quote marks around the dialogue. I read this as an extension of Frank’s childish perspective; if we imagine that Frank is “telling” this story, he most likely wouldn’t see the need for quote marks.

“Pioneers, Oh, Pioneers” by Jean Rhys was intriguing in the way in which the author smoothly and clearly changed the narrative voice throughout the piece. The story was enriched by the multiple perspectives and it allowed the author to demonstrate other facets of what was happening. Also on a personal level, I’ve found it difficult in the past to interchange the narrative voice over the course of a piece, and so this piece gave me a few pointers to use.

“Girl” by Jamaica Kinkaid is very different to the other stories, as it is less of a story and more of a stream of lessons. Kinkaid’s style is quite fascinating, as everything we learn about the characters is interpreted from the lessons. The mother’s voice is very clear in the passages, and the reader can build up a profile of the mother from what is written there, even though it is all directed to the child.

In the lecture, we discussed the idea of Hemingway’s iceberg theory of character. It wasn’t an idea I was previously familiar with, but this photo helped me to wrap my head around it.

Essentially, the top part of the iceberg is the bit that everyone sees. For character, that’s the things which are evident from the first time you see them i.e. physical appearance/clothes/props (car, house, bags)/mannerisms/voice/gait. When introducing a character, these elements of their personality will be the first things you show the reader.

The second part of the iceberg, which lies just below the surface of the water, is a bit more difficult to see. A boat needs to get closer to the iceberg to be able to see this part of it. When it comes to character, the second layer is what is easily accessible during a first meeting with someone, for example. The parts of their personality that make them who they are, and that they are not afraid of showing or wish to hide. These could include the personality/beliefs/personal histories/morality/interests/hobbies/jobs/studies/passions/goals/fears + phobias of a character.

And then the third part of the iceberg is the part that is almost completely hidden in the dark water; the part of the character that only the people who are closest to them know about them.

As the writer, you know what’s in that sector of the character, but it might be something that you don’t share with the other characters or the reader. For example, the character’s regrets/relationships/the psychology behind them/what do they want from life/memories/who they perform to be versus who they are/desires/secrets/what holds them back/weaknesses/guilt/anxieties/self-esteem/what are they making up for.

We debated the idea of character and whether people are all fundamentally the same and just shaped by what happens to them. The idea of what is nature and what is nurture was quite an

interesting idea to think about.

I’ve been thinking about it, and I think it’s important for a character to have a healthy balance of both nature and nurture evident in their character. As far as I can see, the best written characters are comprised of both positive and negative elements that they have learned or developed.

We explored the ways we judge other people on a daily basis, and how we could convey that in our writing. When we meet a new person, we immediately attempt to establish whether this person will be a good or bad thing for us – and obviously sometimes it’s not as clear cut as that. I played around with how to convey this immediate reaction to a stranger in my own story; so far I haven’t written anything concrete but these were my ideas:

- Sees the other wolf – instinctively wary

- She notices he needs help – indicates he should come with her

- Initially reluctant – doesn’t know her

- “We locked eyes, and my heart slowed down its relentless pounding. Something in that gaze told me that I could trust this person, despite knowing nothing about them.”

- Would you follow someone you have absolutely no information about? Just a feeling that you can trust them?

- Doesn’t even know what she looks like in human form

- Won't be able to rely on external signifiers

External signifiers can tell us a lot about a person; the clothes they wear, the things they say, etc allow us to make a judgement about that person. Naturally, we trust our initial opinion, but we are constantly ready to adjust our opinion when we get more information. As a reader, we have to be able to do the same.

This idea brought to my mind the character of Nick from “The Great Gatsby”. Within the first page of the novel, we develop an opinion of Nick as a character that is almost instantly altered. During his introduction, he seems like a trustworthy narrator, but then proves himself to be anything but by contradicting himself a little further down the page. As he says, “reserving judgement is a matter of infinite hope” and he demonstrates that that is true; we judge Nick in one way, and then change our judgement as we learn more about him.

The physical description and depiction of the personality of each of the characters is more realistic if it depends on the other characters. It’s quite an interesting to consider that how people are described in real life relies upon the way people describe them, meaning that no description is ever impartial. If we consider that in our stories, you not only have to decide upon the character of the person you’re describing but also the opinion of the narrative voice on this new character, the story itself becomes much richer.

We noted the importance of remembering that a character must have both vices and virtues to be believable. No character is wholly good or bad, although they may have leanings to one side or the other. I was reminded of Desdemona in “Othello”; at first, Desdemona is portrayed as quite a headstrong character, but becomes meek and virtuous by the end of the play. If she was headstrong throughout, the early-modern audience wouldn’t have felt sympathy for her, but if she was virtuous throughout, she would be boring. The complexity of her character is what makes her interesting and believable.

The story should convey who the characters are instead of the character telling the reader directly what kind of character they are. If they did, it would most likely be inaccurate, as most people don’t acknowledge their vices and/or their virtues. Indeed, it’s interesting to use dramatic irony so that the reader knows more about the character than the character knows about themselves.

We discussed how writers play on our sense of judgement; they present the main traits of the character but can change our opinions of the character over the course of the story. We may be led to like the character at first, and then learn that they are not a good person.

When talking in the first or close third person, we learned that you don’t need description of the person narrating ; you should focus more on looking through their eyes and describing what they see i.e. the people around them.

We also discussed the dynamic of having a dominant (i.e. confident, fearless, commanding) and a submissive (i.e. always giving ground, kind, unassuming) character. Although this is a tried and tested dynamic, is it a necessary one for a story? Personally, I don’t think you need these kinds of character in every story, but I do think it can be effective to use the dynamic between them both.

In our seminars, we worked through people’s work, giving feedback. Although I didn’t get chance to show any of my work, the general feedback we discussed will be helpful in my own work, such as don’t repeat information and don’t over-explain.

I liked my seminar leader’s tip on feedback: “if you get feedback, rework the piece but don’t be afraid to go back to the original draft if you feel you’re taking the energy out of it.”

I collated these questions to act as an initial prompt to dig deeper into the personality of my characters:

- Is the structure of a story built around the characters within it?

- What pre-emptions of danger and/or change can we give in the descriptions?

- How does fear effect your character? Do it hold them back or light them up?

- When a submissive character is physically/emotionally hurt by a dominant character, do they stand up for themselves or not?

- As the story progresses, how can we change the reader’s judgement of the character?

- Is this character initially attractive/unattractive, or is it what lies beneath that shapes our opinion?

- Is your vocabulary and register use appropriate for the character?

- What is the place of the setting?