After a great deal of debate, I've decided to bring this topic up in its own thread. I'm not sure how to go about this without pissing people off because such a huge number of Pens writers are guilty of this, myself included until a wonderful writer reviewed some of my work and pointed it out to me.

I'm talking about, for lack of a better term on my part, generic descriptors. The blonde, the redhead, the hacker, the Wiccan, the witch, the Watcher, the Slayer, the ex-vengence demon, the petite blonde, the construction worker, the (insert any job here), and on and on...

Why are these bad? It is a signal that we, the writer/narrator are coming through too much in the story. I'm not Hunter Thompson. I don't want the reader thinking about me. I want them thinking about Willow and Tara. I want them swimming around in their heads and hearts and feeling their emotions. Using a generic throws up a barrier that our reader doesn't want or need.

How so? Tara doesn't think of herself as "the blonde". Willow doesn't think of her that way either. She's Tara. She's her everything. By putting up that barrier, we force our reader to step back and see our characters for one or two traits only instead of as a whole, well-rounded, three dimensional person. Buffy may be the Slayer, but she isn't just the Slayer. We can display a character in their entirety by using their names. If I say "Tara" to a group of Kittens, I'll get as many different answers as there are people. Some will say "blonde" or "Wiccan", but still others will say "sweet" or "kind" or "sensuous". Her name encompasses all of her.

Now, on the other hand, these generics can be used to great affect. They can be used to show a distance between the two. This is especially affective when they first meet and are still visually new to one another. I am working on a particularly tricky scene at the moment that is too long to post, but I am using these generics to my advantage. Tara is being questioned by Willow who is a DEA agent. Tara is a radio DJ that Willow often listens to, so she has a level of familiarity with her (however distant) and constantly thinks of Tara by her name. I never utilize "blonde" or "DJ" or anything like that. She is always just "Tara". Tara, on the other hand, does not know nor has she ever seen or heard of Willow until a few minutes ago. Therefore, Willow is constantly described from Tara's POV as "the redhead", "the officer" or "the agent" until the very end when Willow promises to protect her. At the end, I tear down that barrier and she becomes "Willow".

But won't it get redundant using their names over and over? Isn't it redundant calling Tara a blonde throughout a story when we already know she's a blonde? Yes, some sentences may need a rewrite to keep from being redundant. But I have found those problems are easily solved and I usually end up with a better line anyway.

These words are walls around our characters. Our reader doesn't want to stand outside and look in. They want to roll around inside our characters hearts and heads and feel what they're feeling.

So let's tear away these walls and let them in.

_________________
Learning to be unrepentantly me.

Well now the problem is not something just inherent in fan fiction--it is a problem faced by anyone writing in the third person (as opposed to a first-person narrative, or a second-person "epistolary" narrative).

After all, if you're writing a story set in, I dunno, Roman times, at some point you're going to be referring to "the legionnaire", or "the Tribune", or perhaps "the Senator". When writing a third-person narrative, a writer automatically "steps back" and observes his/her characters from a certain distance. This, however, does not preclude being able to get very nicely into a character's head. Look at James Joyce, for example: "Ulysses" is basically in the third person, but we are placed inside the heads of Leopold and, very famously, Molly without any difficulty.

No. The only reason writers of W/T fan fiction are able to use these "generic descriptors" as you call them is because for the most part these are stories taking place inside an existing "universe", wherein previous writers (i.e. Joss and his staff) have already done the work of "visualizing" this world for us both literally and figuratively. After all, we don't really think of Willow or Tara looking different than their incarnations as Alyson Hannigan and Amber Benson! So, while such "descriptors" might not be a good idea for a totally "new" (or as Tolkien would have said, "sub-created") universe, for fan fiction they do provide a handy shorthand.

I don't think that they do all that much harm to the narrative flow.

See, it's funny, because the world has already been visually created you don't see a problem with using the shorthand, but I think that's precisely one of the reasons I don't like them in fan fic. I already know what they look like, even in AU where, as you so rightly pointed out, most of us see them as looking like AH or AB.

It's my pet peeve. I know it. And I admit I'm a lunatic about it. I will even agree that it doesn't hurt narrative flow, but only to a point. I can recall an example from a story I was reading a few months ago. It was AU, compelling, thought provoking. I was enjoying it. Then came an update with a smut scene. WHOOHOO! But then at one point, the writer described Willow pulling off a particularly smooth move but used a generic. It wasn't even "the redhead" which I could have overlooked, especially with good smut. No, they used her job title. Talk about jarring! I couldn't even bring myself to finish the update. There's just nothing like being tossed back in your seat and held at arms length by the writer.

As an aside, since I chose to start this thread here, my only concern was with the fic being posted here. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that. Thank you for the outside references though. Rules, such as they are, are certainly made to be broken. I just wish this one wasn't broken so much.

_________________
Learning to be unrepentantly me.

I agree with Trom DeGrey that a number of the writers on DCP do use 'generic descriptors' rather frequently. They certainly seem to be used far more here than in pretty much any book I can remember reading. I found it odd when first reading fic here, but have adjusted to it. I now see it as an idiosyncrasy of this board. It can be jarring at times though and certainly some writers do seem to overuse it. Even now I do find it a tad confusing when a character is viewing someone they know, but uses a visual descriptor e.g. 'the blond' rather than a name e.g. Tara. Occassionally it has wrongly lead me to wonder if we are being introduced to a new character!

That said, I can still enjoy a fic even if it does contain rather more of these 'generic descriptors' than I think I would ever use. Over all the plotlines matter more than whether the writer refers to Tara by her name or as 'the blond'.

When writing myself, I try to think how the characters would view each other and use words that would make sense to them. That would tend to make use of first names e.g. Tara and Willow, or possibly 'pet' names e.g. my love, rather than visual descriptors. I probably mainly use first-person narative rather than third person though. However, IMO even when a scene is viewed through third person, names can be used throughout, so long as the reader has already been introduced to the characters and should be able to visualise them.

_________________
~ cosmic dancer

'Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow'
Albert Einstein

I am totally guilty of using these generic descriptors in both my fics for this board and in my personal writings. For me, these have never detracted from my pleasure as a reader but I can certainly see how they could. As an experiment, I went back and re-wrote the lastest chapter of the fic I'm currently working on to eliminate the generic descriptors (and there were quite a few of them). It actually wasn't too difficult to restructure the sentences and in some instances they did turn out better. Thanks for the heads up Trom. I'll keep it in mind as I continue writing.

_________________
"Life is nothing but a dream, and if you create your life with Love, your dream becomes a masterpiece of art." - Don Miguel Ruiz

Hey Tiggs! Thanks for the post. raspberryhat and I were talking about this thread the other day and I was voicing my misgivings about putting this out there in the first place. ras reminded me why we came up with this concept in the first place. The constant improvement of, first and foremost, writers, as well as the betas that work with them. I'm ecstatic that you found something of value here.

_________________
Learning to be unrepentantly me.

*hides in shame*

Trom: Fear not, I've been pressing "accept change" a lot recently...

And yeah, I barely realised I used them at all until you pointed it out. I think I started doing it because I was reading a fic somewhere and the author had used their names over and over in one sentence, and it just looked utterly wrong and amateurish...but with hindsight, said author should probably have just rewritten the sentence a little to be more coherent.

I think I never really realised the barriers the generics put up - I've never really noticed it myself until someone uses a totally inappropriate one (Tara making out with 'The Hacker', anyone?). I'm guilty of that as well I guess.

Ah well, I'm still new to this whole writing lark so I'm learning new stuff every day

_________________
"Bugger, I thought you'd gone!" - Ethan Rayne

Trom,

I struggle with pronouns and I wonder if the 'generic descriptors'-those banes of your existence- aren't an attempt to circumvent this particular issue. It becomes more of a problem when same-gender characters interact in a physical way. I don't mean just the smutty stuff either (although, at times, it's hilarious--as careful reading reveals actions neither physically nor anatomically possible.)

I found myself slipping into this ‘generic’ usage about 2/3rds through a story during a flashback sequence. We do need some physical descriptors so the reader can 'see' the character, and an occasional reminder can be a useful break from proper nouns or to avoid those dreaded cascading pronouns. For example: ‘She ran to her desk and saw her standing over her diary. What is she doing, she thought. Anger flared, and stained her cheeks crimson.’ Right, it’s over kill, but I’ve read [and done] it. So many questions arise: whose diary, whose cheeks are stained crimson? Still a cascading pronoun mess, but this, ‘She ran to her desk and saw him standing over her diary, What is he doing… she thought. Anger flared, and stained his cheeks crimson,’ leaves little room for ambiguity.

I have quite a few books, from popular lesbian authors, where it seems a matter of the writer (and editor!) seeming to give up thinking, ‘the reader will figgur it out.’ There’s an innate ambiguity when two female or two male characters interact. Using generic descriptors is a way to differentiate the pronoun confusion. Anyone writing these kinds of scenes faces this dilemma. The question is, for me at least, how the heck do you resolve it; how does one balance proper pronoun use, avoid overuse and annoyingly ambiguous sentences without peppering the passage (and getting hit for alliteration no-no’s) with proper nouns?

Me’thinks it’s time to revisit Strump and White’s lessons on subjects, objects, direct and indirect objects and pronouns…but you know, as many times as I read over this stuff, nothing seems to stick. Suggestions, helpful hints most welcome.

Cheers!!
Patches

The_Lord_J- *chuckle* Glad to hear you don't mind "accepting change" a little bit. What you've let me read has been wonderfully entertaining and I think your story is a great addition to the world of W/T fic. What you've told me in your post is that I'm doing what every beta should try to do, help the writer take their work a step further. Thanks for that.

Patches-

My short answer would be a beta. Or two. Or three. Sometimes I find myself sitting and writing and rewriting a sentence and then finally I give up and send it to raspberryhat or anirtakenigma and they both send me back two or three great suggestions and I think, "Why didn't I think of that?" Sometimes you just need a different set of eyes.

My longer answer would be a non-answer: I understand. These days I beta much more than I write, but I do understand the pronoun game and all its frustrations. I guess what's best to remember though is that every writer deals with pronoun ambiguity unless they write something about just one man and one woman interacting with no one else ever present. This is my personal rule of thumb: When in doubt, use a name and send it to the beta. Which I guess brings me back to my short answer. Seriously though, I've been working with a writer who used generics too often and when I pointed it out to her she started going too far the other way at times. I would get sentences with "Willow" and "Tara" over and over again. From a beta stand point though, that was much easier to work with. It becomes a matter of holding the point of view. If Tara speaks and the next sentence is her action, then I can use first her name and then a pronoun without creating confusion. Simplistic example? Certainly, but as good a starting place as any.

When in doubt, use a name.
Send it to your beta.
Mix names and pronouns to hold a point of view.

_________________
Learning to be unrepentantly me.

This is something close to my heart when writing. I know I do it, but I deliberately try to avoid using the cliche ones like "The blonde" etc except once (say once in 5,000 words) in a while I'll slip it in for variety. And variety is the key for me.

In any given area of text I hate to see the same descriptors or names used time after time. "Tara did this, Tara did that. Tara went over to the cupboard and Tara got the cup" Repeated names are as bad as descriptors for me - in proximity at least. When I did Beta reading I was always hard on that - your not the only person who objects (at least I did when I could beta.)

That's an extreme example but repeated descriptors (general or not) and/or names in a small segment of text don't quite work for me. In general I try to avoid ever putting two in a row or a sentence. I'm fortunate in a sense that I write in a single characters head at a time so my viewpoint is always looking outward, at other people. It's easy to mix things up for other characters that way - and sometimes yes, I use a general descriptor like "redhead" though I'd rather use "girlfriend", "love" etc.

I have a rather greater problem with "She"/"her" which is another topic. But writing in a person's head (third person internalised... or something like that) AND writing about two women in love, with a number of other female characters - but avoiding using names too much as well means that - I often wrote myself into confusing number of she's/her's that could refer to one, two or more characters depending on the scene! I would definitely recommend avoiding tying yourself in knots with the number of female characters tend to turn up in a story about women in love.

Katharyn

_________________
-------------------------
If I wanted a little pussy, I've got my own to play with.

Chance in *Chance*
-------------------------

Hmm this is also something I ponder a lot. As an English major I'm constantly reminded of it in lectures, whilst trying not to dig Milton up and hang him for boring me with Paradise Lost (sorry Milton lovers )

Above all, it's a cardinal sin to constantly refer to characters by their names, as Katharyn says. I for one loathe reading fics that have that. But there is of course that problem of too many descriptors, and I'm forever struggling with that.

I think writing the characters as they view themselves perhaps helps. I don't know, I'm still working on that myself

_________________
Sticks: Spellbound Sapphic Saviour
JediBites.com | JediBites Forums

Uh, I guess I'm guilty of using generic descriptors too, but I mostly stick to 'the blonde' and 'the redhead'. Really, referring to a person by their job title or hobby is kinda strange, so I don't do that. Even then, I tend to use as few of them as I can.

It gets a bit repetitive if you only use the names or only pronouns, so I put one here and there for the sake of the story's flow. I think if you can balance the use of names, pronouns and descriptors it's ok.

Since I'm a nerd and not a writer, I don't worry much about such things. Usually.

_________________
Alex

To the query, "What is a friend?" his reply was "A single soul dwelling in two bodies." - Aristotle, Greek Philosopher

Yes I am guilty of using these "generic descriptors" but when you are writing scenes between two women, wherein it would be very confusing if you just used gender pronouns, there has to be some way of delineating who is doing what to whom (and no I'm not just talking about sex) and in any scene that is at least an action scene of sorts, at least wherein there is some action taking place, it is necessary to make it clear who is the active charatcer in the current action without taking some long descriptive detour that would break the line of action and to use only Willow and Tara's proper names at every turn would be very clunky and repetitive and difficult to read...it would be a detriment to the story, as you would be distracted by the redundancy or confused by exclusive pronoun use...yes it may be cheating to say "the blonde" or "the hacker" in your estimation, but it is a pretty much necessary evil in fanfic...you have, as someone said, an established universe, you aren't creating from scratch and you have to do something to avoid the aforementioned pitfalls...so while I do indeed use "generic descriptors" I am very careful about mixing them up and not using them too frequently in any one story or at least as seldom as is possible or at the very least not within the same section of the story...if you've got another suggestion for keeping identities straight (for lack of a better word) without using this method, I'd be glad to hear it...

Also the way this is worded may sound like an attack or defensiveness...but really I just had two cups of tea and am zooming on caffeine which tends to make me a tad didactic

Then again, when I think about it, I really don't have to worry about annoying Betas because I don't use one...being a psycho perfectionist with obsessive re-writing disorder, I have my own little Beta inside my head who is far more vicious with a blue pencil than any exterior editor could ever be

Sandi

I agree. I think the problem is that we're talking about a board full of writers none of whom own the characters. The first person to use "the blonde" wasn't even thought about. Nor the tenth. But once you get up to the hundreds and everyone's doing it becomes a cliche in its own right and we censor ourselves to avoid writing to the cliche.

In your own, original, writing you can use these terms far more because you're not operating in a world a hundred other people are writing in - with the same characters.

That said this is one of the only cases where I accept that there are almost inevitable differences between fanfic and other fiction. "Typical" fanfic can be beautifully written because it's typically fanfic and that's what people want. On the other hand there's no reason that fanfic can't resemble a novel in structure, style and poise. There are wonderful examples of each around.

Katharyn

_________________
-------------------------
If I wanted a little pussy, I've got my own to play with.

Chance in *Chance*
-------------------------