Writers, the face-in-mirror stereotype sucks
In my first novel, I used a trick that probably ninety-nine percent of all beginners use and think they are genius. But the truth is, it’s what makes a beginner.
Harry dragged himself into the bathroom to wash the dirt of the night off his skin. He suddenly stopped in front of the mirror and looked at himself. The deeply sunken eyes with the dark tear sacs underneath matched his unhealthy, grey complexion. The former blonde hair was grayed years ago, and the wrinkles turned his whole face into a canyon of pain, resentment, and hopelessness. The thin moustache could have been a dirty shadow — a stranger would not have seen the difference at first glance.
PLEASE STOP! That’s terrible!
This text is an example that I just made up. But in a similar form, this method of introducing a character to the reader can be found in countless manuscripts by hopeful authors.
In this article, I will tell you why I avoid this stylistic tool.
Reason 1: This stylistic device is worn out.
What’s so bad about this method? Well, basically nothing at all. The technique is actually quite clever — when it is used for the first time. I don’t know who invented this kind of personal description, but I’m sure he will have impressed his readers with it.
Today, however, the “face-in-mirror trick” is one of the most annoying clichés you can come up with as an author. Every technique becomes a cliché when everyone uses it.
But there are other reasons to avoid the “face in the mirror trick”.
Reason 2: Hidden Info Dump
Many authors use the “face-in-mirror trick” to avoid another beginner’s sin when writing — the info dump.
The info dump provides the reader with heaps of information that the author believes is important for understanding the story or the main character.
Providing information to the reader is not a bad thing, of course, but the info dump simply presents this information to the reader instead of subtly revealing it throughout the story.
The info dump violates the central rule of storytelling: Show, don’t tell.
Of course, it is easier for the author to have a complicated background story explained by a minor character rather than weave this information so casually into the story that the reader hardly notices that relevant information is being provided.
The “face-in-mirror trick” offers only an apparent remedy here. The casual look into the mirror seems to result inevitably from the story, and the self-reflection of the main character released by the sight appears completely natural.
But the author deceives himself, because in ninety-nine percent of the cases, the view into the mirror doesn’t necessarily result from the story.
On closer inspection of most of the texts, one will find that the author forces the circumstances that allow a look into the mirror.
In our example, for example, it is questionable whether it is vital for the story that Harry goes to the bathroom. The suspicion suggests that the author only sends him there so that he can look into the mirror.
Once Harry has discovered the mirror, and he looks into it, we find ourselves in a situation in which we are pretending to adhere to the principle “Show, don’t tell.” However, it is only a pocket game trick.
Reason 3: The reader’s imagination is suppressed.
How often does it happen that readers need to know in detail what a character looks like? Yes, the question is earnest. I say: almost never.
In my books I describe all the characters very vaguely, if at all. On the one hand, this is due to my taste, because I don’t like to read detailed descriptions of faces, clothes, and other outward characteristics of the characters.
On the other hand, such descriptions are mostly entirely unnecessary, since the readers supplement everything, which is not in the text, in their fantasy.
In any case, no reader has ever asked me what my main character actually looks like, and that’s certainly not because it’s not interesting for the reader.
If you read a story, you get an idea of the people involved. The brain fills the blanks in the text.
This does not make it more difficult, but even more accessible for the reader to identify himself with the characters.
We tend to fill in the spaces in the description according to our preferences.
So we give the heroine of a story that we only know has long, blonde hair, perhaps curls, a rather dark or more light blonde, thick or thin hair, and many other attributes that correspond to our preferences.
Another reader, on the other hand, would imagine this figure quite differently. If I like a character, I will imagine its hairstyle as I would like it. If the author makes specifications that do not suit my taste, I may have difficulty finding a particular person sympathetic, even if the author wishes to do so.
So we see that it is not only unnecessary but often counterproductive, to describe the face or other outward appearances of a novel-character in too much detail.
Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Harry Potter’s success would certainly have been less resounding if not all readers had collectively imagined the boy’s face with the flash-shaped scar and the special glasses. But apart from such exceptions, the reader does not need to know in detail what a character looks like.
The “face-in-mirror trick” deprives the reader of the opportunity to imagine the character in the way he needs to get the best access to it.
Conclusion
Whoever uses the “face-in-mirror trick” is not automatically a lousy author, but usually merely inexperienced.
As soon as you know that the trick appears in almost every debut work, you realize that there must be more elegant ways to convey the information you want.
Further thought then leads to the conclusion that not only the trick is superfluous, but usually also the information that is to be transported with it.
At the end of the day, it’s all about leaving out everything that doesn’t belong to the story.
The scar on the heroine’s left cheek is irrelevant if it was not brought to her by the antagonist, and she wants to take revenge for it.
But even if that’s the case, we still don’t have to know that this scar is precisely three and a half centimeters long, runs from the bottom left to the top right, and still festered three weeks after the injury.
Let’s throw the “face in a mirror trick” away on the rubbish heap of clichés.
We can do better.
Read also:
do you want more of this?
Receive weekly email and don’t miss any of my articles.
suscribe here http://bit.ly/ReneJunge
