a common character

[cacian]

I am supposed to write a piece to reveal a character that is common.
I get popular and common quite often muddled up.
I have an idea of what common means but I am not sure whether it would match the reader's.
The point is to make the reader aware that one is common and another isn't.
I am not sure whether it is done through telling or showing or both.
Could a loner be common for example?

How would you define common?

[Anton Hermes]

Best thread so far.

[Bonsai Ent]

Well if it's done through telling you need only write:
"Here is Frank, Frank is common"
and job's a good'n.

So I'd lean towards showing.

I'd infer the definition of common from the instructions I was given I suppose. But I'm guessing they mean either in terms of class, or character that is a recurring literary trope?

[hillwalker]

When refering to someone's personality being 'common' has nothing at all to do with popularity.

Being 'common' means someone displays bad manners - possibly due to a poor upbringing. Common people swear a lot, don't care who they offend and are generally disliked by most people. The 'neighbours from Hell' almost always come from a 'common' background.

H

[Volya]

When refering to someone's personality being 'common' has nothing at all to do with popularity.

Being 'common' means someone displays bad manners - possibly due to a poor upbringing. Common people swear a lot, don't care who they offend and are generally disliked by most people. The 'neighbours from Hell' almost always come from a 'common' background.

H

When has it ever meant that???

[hillwalker]

Try opening a dictionary - under 'C' for 'common' -

If the exercise is to reveal a character who is 'common' one assumes it's their behaviour and personal characteristics they are looking for rather than their shared attributes with other people.
So in this instance the words 'common' (same root as 'commoner' meaning a person of non-noble birth) and 'vulgar' are interchangeable.

H

H

[Volya]

Surely if that's what the exercise is about they would've just used the word 'vulgar' rather than 'common'. Common is far more likely to mean a 'commoner' or 'usual'

[cacian]

Best thread so far.

Is it? Well they do say taste gets better with age or is that just with alcohol? :smilewinkgrin:

[cacian]

Well if it's done through telling you need only write:
"Here is Frank, Frank is common"
and job's a good'n.

So I'd lean towards showing.

I'd infer the definition of common from the instructions I was given I suppose. But I'm guessing they mean either in terms of class, or character that is a recurring literary trope?
Hi Bonsai thank you for posting.
I have to write up so that it is obvious the character is common but without saying it directly to the reader.
We are practicing 'subtelty' as a concept through writing and so introducing someone by saying he/she is common is the only thing that is not allowed. The aim of this writing is to show the ability to make a character comes across as that without having to 'literally' lecture the reader about it.
Sorry I did not make that clear at the beginning of the post.

When refering to someone's personality being 'common' has nothing at all to do with popularity.

Being 'common' means someone displays bad manners - possibly due to a poor upbringing. Common people swear a lot, don't care who they offend and are generally disliked by most people. The 'neighbours from Hell' almost always come from a 'common' background.

H

I see. So common is class related?
Could someone of an upper class upbringing display commoness because they would have learned it say from watching too many shameless programmes for example or because they think it would be cool to be common.
What I mean could a character being influenced by commoness because from what I understand many middleclass people aspire to looking like an average common person rather then themselves.

[Cioran]

Once there was a redheaded man without eyes and without ears. He had no hair either, so that he was a redhead was just something they said.

He could not speak, for he had no mouth. He had no nose either.

He didn't even have arms or legs. He had no stomach either, and he had no back, and he had no spine, and no intestines of any kind. He didn't have anything at all. So it is hard to understand whom we are really talking about.

So it is probably best not to talk about him any more.

--Daniil Kharms

[cacian]

Once there was a redheaded man without eyes and without ears. He had no hair either, so that he was a redhead was just something they said.

He could not speak, for he had no mouth. He had no nose either.

He didn't even have arms or legs. He had no stomach either, and he had no back, and he had no spine, and no intestines of any kind. He didn't have anything at all. So it is hard to understand whom we are really talking about.

So it is probably best not to talk about him any more.

--Daniil Kharms

Is this a recitation or a short note on something?

[Cioran]

Is this a recitation or a short note on something?

It's a short story -- the entirety of it -- by the Soviet-era writer Daniil Kharms. (http://www.sevaj.dk/kharms/kharmseng.htm) It shows there is no such thing as the "common character." because when one tries to reduce someone to common characteristics, he disappears entirely behind those characteristics because they don't exist and hence he/she does not exist. It's the perfect rejoinder to the assignment that you were given.

Uncommonly, the comic Kharms was sentenced to a Leningrad lunatic asylum by Stalin, where he starved to death during the German siege of that city. :yikes:

[hillwalker]

Surely if that's what the exercise is about they would've just used the word 'vulgar' rather than 'common'. Common is far more likely to mean a 'commoner' or 'usual'

You're confusing the word 'common' with 'average'. You would describe a person as average if he was the same as most other people. You would describe a person as common if he displayed low moral standards. A 'commoner' doesn't mean the same as an 'usual' kind of person.


I see. So common is class related?
Could someone of an upper class upbringing display commoness because they would have learned it say from watching too many shameless programmes for example or because they think it would be cool to be common.

Yes. Some people might certainly pretend to be common to fit in with a select group. There are times or occasions when it's more cool to be 'working class' (for want of a better term) than to belong to the elite. Look at David Cameron ponceying about in a baseball cap.

H

[Volya]

I know that 'commoner' doesn't mean the same as a 'usual' kind of person. Saying somebody is common though, is most likely to mean either they are a commoner or they are an average person. 'Commoner' doesn't mean somebody has bad manners, or is rude, it just means they are of the working/lower-class.

[hillwalker]

I know that 'commoner' doesn't mean the same as a 'usual' kind of person. Saying somebody is common though, is most likely to mean either they are a commoner or they are an average person. 'Commoner' doesn't mean somebody has bad manners, or is rude, it just means they are of the working/lower-class.

You're missing the point again.

A 'commoner' is someone who is of lower class origins.

The 'common man' is a phrase that means an average person.

Describing a particluar person as 'common' usually means that they have dubious morals rather than that they are the same as everyone else.

Since the object of caican's exercise is to 'reveal a character that is common' (rather than describe the common man in general) one assumes the term relates to that individual's personal attributes rather than what properties they share within the rest of the population. If that had been the task then surely she would have been asked to 'reveal a character who is average' (which seems a rather pointless exercise).

Perhaps she should check with her tutor to establish what he/she means by the term 'common'.

H

[dark desire]

Common. Usual. Not special. There are two aspects to this. First is if your character has nothing special then you would probably not even write about him/her. Somehow if you manage to write that, nobody will read it. God forbid if they read it they will hate you for writing something pointless.

And yet when we say a character is a common person, there are specific aesthetics at work. My understanding is that you are looking for these external aesthetics that will make the character 'look' ordinary. That the specialty of your character will be shrouded in many layers of commonness. Your question is what can these layers be.

The layers of commonness if seen from a reader's perspective would look unrelated. But here is the opportunity for the writer to unveil her own subconscious. What are the common things that you care about or are bothered about? Do you care about generation gap between parents and children? Do you detest consumerism? Are you inclined towards specific political ideologies? Do you feel education is nowhere close to as it should be?

Then there will be deeper layers of common things - the authors your character likes, her feelings about people's reading habits, Her activities on the internet, her interests in food, health, and her opinions about various health regimes, yoga, meditations etc.

Through daily activities and tracing her thought process (or her conversations with people around) you can create many layers of ordinariness for your character. If you want a good example of this read something by Jhumpa Lahiri.

Somewhere as you will move towards specifics, your character will take a specific shape, a definite face. What your teacher is looking for is that the movement to the point of something dramatic in your story should be smooth and down to earth. It should look organic and not synthetic.

My two cents.

[cacian]

Common. Usual. Not special. There are two aspects to this. First is if your character has nothing special then you would probably not even write about him/her. Somehow if you manage to write that, nobody will read it. God forbid if they read it they will hate you for writing something pointless.

I see. Special never came to mind somehow I would have thought there is something 'common' in all of us.
I have started by searching for that common thing in order to make it appeal to all readers of all backgrounds.
I think capturing humour within this character makes the link and reaches out to all readers


And yet when we say a character is a common person, there are specific aesthetics at work. My understanding is that you are looking for these external aesthetics that will make the character 'look' ordinary. That the specialty of your character will be shrouded in many layers of commonness. Your question is what can these layers be.

Indeed how does one look ordinary?Is that ordinary as opposed to extraordinary?
through looks and clothes maybe.
Would you say poverty makes one common and its origin?


The layers of commonness if seen from a reader's perspective would look unrelated. But here is the opportunity for the writer to unveil her own subconscious. What are the common things that you care about or are bothered about? Do you care about generation gap between parents and children? Do you detest consumerism? Are you inclined towards specific political ideologies? Do you feel education is nowhere close to as it should be?
Interesting views here.
Could mean the same as any other of a same level of living or poverty line.


Then there will be deeper layers of common things - the authors your character likes, her feelings about people's reading habits, Her activities on the internet, her interests in food, health, and her opinions about various health regimes, yoga, meditations etc.

Again it seems to be money has a lot to do with it or maybe not.
The question here is one minute one is common and next one has won the lottery. Does that person still bear the traits of commoness?
It is kind of tricky.
I think education might play a role here. The willingness to learn might bring someone back from commoness to intellectual.

Through daily activities and tracing her thought process (or her conversations with people around) you can create many layers of ordinariness for your character. If you want a good example of this read something by Jhumpa Lahiri.

Jhumpa Lahiri I have heard of. I will check it out.


Somewhere as you will move towards specifics, your character will take a specific shape, a definite face. What your teacher is looking for is that the movement to the point of something dramatic in your story should be smooth and down to earth. It should look organic and not synthetic.

We are looking to depict a common character without lecturing the reader about their background but by taking one common and one say posh and work around that. A duality of class to show the characters in their element and make them interact.
I think the story might develop with two very different people meeting and becoming friends and their backgrounds is what makes them unique in getting on.
I am having fun. I am finding the posh easier to depict.



My two cents.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.

[xtianfriborg13]

A 'common' character in my own opinion is a person who chooses to blend in with the norm of their culture instead of standing out, if you know what I mean.