Writing [Sharing] How does a character introduction impress readers?

[Eldoria]

Character Introduction​

Given two character introduction scenes with the same biodata and different narrative delivery below:

Scene 1:

A boy with dark robes stood straight, holding his wand out in front of him. His glasses glinted in the light from the tip.

His black pupils dilated, reflecting the silhouettes of a pair of werewolves descending from the hill.

"Barry... shoot now!" a classmate shouted.

"[Fireball]!"

The fireball shot east, hitting the foot of the hill...

"Boom!"

The explosion thundered.

Barry's black hair flapped in the shockwave.

Scene 2:

Barry stood straight. He wore dark robes. His glasses were clear. His hair was black.

He raised his wand in front of him. The tip of the wand emitted a bright light.

He saw a pair of werewolves descending from the hill on the eastern horizon.

"Barry... shoot now!" a classmate shouted.

"[Fireball]!"

The fireball shot to the foot of the hill...

"Boom!"

The explosion thundered.

Barry's hair an robes flapped in the shockwave.

The question is, as a reader, which character introduction scene is more impressive (the character is easy to imagine and remember)? Why?

Edit:
I appreciate your answers. However, please don't judge the plot, grammar, etc.

Analyze how a character is portrayed in your perception as a casual reader, not a author, based on the narrative provided.

This thread focuses on character portrayal using two different writing techniques.

I changed the name from Harry to Barry to avoid association with the iconic character, Harry Potter, and to prevent cognitive bias.

Barry here is just a random, unfamiliar character who could appear in any magical fantasy fiction.

 

[Jerynboe]

Honestly both of them are moving too fast imo without other context if this is literally the first time we see Harry, but I prefer the second one stylistically.

The first uses more words to say the same amount and while they are pretty words they aren’t really all that much better. Clearly more effort put into the description, but not in a way that really feels more effective.

The second is a little bit bare bones and could use some consolidation and maybe a small amount of extra description, but the first feels like an overcorrection to me.

I don’t FEEL anything more reading the first than the second because I have no idea who this guy is. I have a more or less equally clear image of what he looks like in both, and neither of them really tell me anything about the guy beyond his capacity to launch concussive fireballs at werewolves.
tldr: I enjoyed reading the second more, but honestly think both kinda fall flat as an introduction to a new character.

I hope that an answer to your question is somewhere in my rambling.

 

[Omarfaruq]

Character Introduction​

Given two character introduction scenes with the same biodata and different narrative delivery below:

Scene 1:


Scene 2:


The question is, as a reader, which character introduction scene is more impressive (the character is easy to imagine and remember)? Why?

Scene 2 because my story is comedy oriented, too many details hurts the comedy.

 

[LiteraryWho]

Very surprised Scene 1 isn't winning. It demonstrates much better technical skill (as a writer, I mean, not talking about the character). Even though it's a bit longer, it uses its extra "space" to escape the dry, "functional" writing of scene 2.

 

[RepresentingSilence]

 

[Zinless]

I feel like this:

A boy with dark robes stood straight, holding his wand out in front of him.

Creates a far clearer image than the one on scene two:

Harry stood straight. He wore dark robes. His glasses were clear. His hair was black.

Despite giving less detail overall, I feel like the way scene one is delivered captures the feeling of how the author wants Harry to be portrayed more than scene two.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

best way I can describe quick how to do an intro.

watch literally *any* james bond movie. Die An other Day is a perfect example.
(just about any action movie does this, its for a reason)

its just action about to happen. All drama and tension. Zero info dumping. Just... you'll find that out later, let 'er rip. You not only don't need to know who or why or any of that, you don't wanna know. Not now. Here's the chase, the fight, the action. Ogle the spectacle, and its clips and rushes, and its over quick. The writer? Is the drug dealer. You give them their *fix*, free up front. Now? They'll follow you, the writer, around . Because they know you can deliver the goods when its time.

NOW you go on with the second chapter. You can build slow, you can ramp up to the real climax.

 

[JordanIda]

Both versions contain both development and action.

As I read them, I observe that the developmental elements are extraneous to the action. However, then I read your closing sentence, and your question, viz., in which scene is the character more memorable? This is where I realize that I have it backward: In fact, the action is extraneous to your character development. So that is problem number one, common to both versions.

There are several mechanical flaws common to both versions: the use of ellipses ("Harry... shoot now) when a comma would work better; the quotations around "Boom," as though it is dialogue (lightning doesn't speak); the use of an emdash preceding the onomatopeia, when in fact the whole "earth-shattering kaboom" business would work better as a single sentence, and I'm not sure what the deal is with the square brackets around 'fireball.'

A more serious deficiency, common to both scenes, is the prevalence of lazy verbs. Interestingly enough, you're using lazy verbs two different ways, perhaps with your effort to produce stylistically distinct scenes. The first scene makes excessive use of gerunds and present participle. More effective verbs would eliminate these constructs and hone the delivery. The second scene dispenses with constructs like "holding," "descending," "glinting," and so on, but it replaces them with a construct that is even weaker: excessive use of conjugations of "to be." (Was this, were that.) Was, were, and is are death to action.

Extraneous details to the action constantly slow me down. Why does it matter that the werewolves are approaching from the east? What's with the eastern horizon? Is the sun coming up, and is that somehow significant?

Extraneous description is also in the way. Why does it matter that the boy's robes are dark? So what? Are they blending into a sepulchral night and concealing the boy's attack? Or are they just dark, in the same manner in which the boy just happens to be a boy? (Why does his gender matter?) I had to read scene one several times to disambiguate the glint of light upon glasses from "the tip." The tip of what? Ahh, yes. The wand. Why is the wand glowing? Is it a flashlight, or is it somehow consequential to the impending attack?

What I really want to know, if the action truly matters, is why our intrepid hero is attacking the werewolves in the first place? Are they hostile? Do they impose a grave threat?

But wait: the action doesn't matter. You want to know what I think of the character development, and whether it's memorable.

Lumos. Let there be light.

 

[Tsuru]

Character Introduction​

Given two character introduction scenes with the same biodata and different narrative delivery below:

Scene 1:


Scene 2:


The question is, as a reader, which character introduction scene is more impressive (the character is easy to imagine and remember)? Why?

Scene1.

Scene2 feels like a poem.
>Harry stood straight. He wore dark robes. His glasses were clear. His hair was black.
I read that in a manner of singing it for some reason.

But that doesnt mean scene1 is good.
Like someone said, too much details.
You are trying too hard on detailing him.
It feels "forced". Or basically aura-forcing.
Offtopic : I even wonder with how forced it was of MC looking cool, if in 5s later, he will act uncool as a joke. I blame MCU and JP animes overdoing this trope where you can't have one cool character anymore without them having a very goofy or cringe part later. Damn them.

If it was a (nowadays good quality) CN,
-Reader/Narration feels more inside the story. As if the camera follow right beside the side character screaming about wolves THEN it pan to the protagonist Harry. That we dont know.
-No description of Harry. He uses the spell. Boom. Then there you can potentially describe him. Like "His red eyes gaze returned to calmness" or "The explosion's wind moved his black hair and his glasses. To which he put them back in place like usual, as if accustomed to them falling off".

Describing him in a mortal fight with risk of death, is weird.
Its like a guy ogling a woman (heroine) midbattle : oh wow she is so pretty, her long red hair fly in the air, ressembling a pheonix, with her eyes sharp like swords. (Time dilation)
BRUH YOU RISK DYING AND YOU GOT TIME TO OGLE A WOMAN !? YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY 3 ENEMY SOLDIERS !


PS : Reason CNs no longer ultra describe female leads/heroines. Is because they recognized that forcing description (for no reason) is just off-putting. (Humans dont like being forced). So now CN authors try to pass description like a pill(or vegetables) hidden in food. You dont feel it but you ate it and you like the food.

best way I can describe quick how to do an intro.

watch literally *any* james bond movie. Die An other Day is a perfect example.
(just about any action movie does this, its for a reason)

its just action about to happen. All drama and tension. Zero info dumping. Just... you'll find that out later, let 'er rip. You not only don't need to know who or why or any of that, you don't wanna know. Not now. Here's the chase, the fight, the action. Ogle the spectacle, and its clips and rushes, and its over quick. The writer? Is the drug dealer. You give them their *fix*, free up front. Now? They'll follow you, the writer, around . Because they know you can deliver the goods when its time.

NOW you go on with the second chapter. You can build slow, you can ramp up to the real climax.

Umu umu (nodding along) +1

I will add to this :
(not saying to you but OP, but you can also read it)

Hence why CN writing industry, for a decade, have this rule of "3 golden chapters"
You must grab the reader no matter what in the first 3 (or even 1) first chapters.
Not to say to scam them by using 200% energy for it and slump the rest of the novel, but that the attention of the reader is limited (and more books available) and that they are trying the first 3 like a playtest. Which they drop if they dont like it.

And well, authors with tacit understanding, try to skip the bs and at least show why their story is unlike the thousands others on the internet. (could be the mc, the cheat, the comedy, the trolling, the personality, the fighting, etc)
Because in the end, authors are also readers. (most successful ones) (just like successful indie devs, are gamers themselves)

 

[L1aei]

The question is, as a reader, which character introduction scene is more impressive (the character is easy to imagine and remember)? Why?

Scene 1 is my choice.

Honestly, and I'm not doing this to be funny or anything, I read Scene 2's first sentence and my attention waned at the disassociated POV describing how Harry looked. I read Scene 1 perfectly fine and envisioned it, and already had no issues imaging a placeholder for Harry's appearance, but when Scene 2 came up, I had to focus on slotting pieces of color and texture onto Harry first and then get into the scene.

That's a gear shift. Am I making sense why I chose the first over the second?

 

[TinaMigarlo]

There are several mechanical flaws common to both versions: the use of ellipses ("Harry... shoot now) when a comma would work better; the quotations around "Boom," as though it is dialogue (lightning doesn't speak); the use of an emdash preceding the onomatopeia, when in fact the whole "earth-shattering kaboom" business would work better as a single sentence, and I'm not sure what the deal is with the square brackets around 'fireball.'

at my last writer's get together site, I got made fun of.
My story itself *might* be okay, but I was addicted to newb writing mistakes.

Yeah, I'm now in the final stages of phasing out the periods... of ellipsis. They can in general be eliminated, replaced with a comma, or things reworded to be another sentence or to join the two things together in a straightforward compound sentence. Its okay, most beginning writers do this, I think. I had a bad problem of asking questions.

Where was everyone going? He had to find out. Why are things always like this? No way to tell.

ellipsis and parenthetical questions, my two constant enemies only now dying the death they deserve. And hell yes, I use the "quotations" constantly. I'm eliminating about all of them as well. I got enough to do editing, without doing this drudge work.

PS - square brackets around [Fireball]
I'm no expert, but I see people do that *all* the time. Seems to be universal shorthand for a spell or talking to the game interface.
so don't sweat that one.

so don't beat yourself up, we're all doing the same stuff the first couple of rodeos.

 

[Feudyn]

Honestly? This question sucks, because for me, I have found that for me it is so genre-specific haha

And i dont mean that in a bad way. I mean that in a way that shows how what you are doing are both not wrong, but it is possible that (again, depending on your genre/nice) readers may just prefer one over the other, and that's normal.
Your examples both work, it may affect the pacing a tiny bit but it's nothing compared to the grand scheme of things.

An example I could remember clearly happened recently to me:

Since I first started reading and writing more books I somehow naturally gravitated towards those that were descriptive, powerfully clear, and literary-strong/heavy type of books.
The webnovel that I started writing recently naturally turned out similar to that. But then, upon inspection, feedback, and reviews, turns out I was over-describing for the style of the genre that I was writing (dark-fantasy). So much so that (unbeknownst at the time) it was majorly affecting the story's pacing.
So imagine my shock and horror when I went backwards, revised and edited, and ended up turning 5000ish worded chapters into chapters that averaged around 800 - 1500ish words. LOL

And again, I must stress: if those are the two examples that you have, then it is a question that sucks because those two do not necessarily sound like problems. I think you're doing great!

 

[L1aei]

Honestly? This question sucks, because for me, I have found that for me it is so genre-specific haha

And i dont mean that in a bad way. I mean that in a way that shows how what you are doing are both not wrong, but it is possible that (again, depending on your genre/nice) readers may just prefer one over the other, and that's normal.
Your examples both work, it may affect the pacing a tiny bit but it's nothing compared to the grand scheme of things.

An example I could remember clearly happened recently to me:

Since I first started reading and writing more books I somehow naturally gravitated towards those that were descriptive, powerfully clear, and literary-strong/heavy type of books.
The webnovel that I started writing recently naturally turned out similar to that. But then, upon inspection, feedback, and reviews, turns out I was over-describing for the style of the genre that I was writing (dark-fantasy). So much so that (unbeknownst at the time) it was majorly affecting the story's pacing.
So imagine my shock and horror when I went backwards, revised and edited, and ended up turning 5000ish worded chapters into chapters that averaged around 800 - 1500ish words. LOL

And again, I must stress: if those are the two examples that you have, then it is a question that sucks because those two do not necessarily sound like problems. I think you're doing great!

Don't forget sometimes we get tired of reading a predictable layout too. Like, we expect what the next paragraph is going to narrate. But under a different author? That expectation can be thrown out the window and we have us only guessing what the pages reveal next.

 

[K_Nishi]

Scene 1 it is.
The question is whether an image forms in the reader’s mind.
And that is already decided within the first two lines.

 

[CinnaSloth]

Number 1. Easily better than 2 no contest.

The only thing I would change from:

"[Fireball]!"

The fireball shot east, hitting the foot of the hill, then—

"Boom!"

The explosion thundered.

Harry's black hair flapped in the shockwave.

remove the quotes from fireball, unless Harry is also shouting Fireball while casting fireball then remove the brackets instead of the quotes.
Remove the "Then-" and add a period because "The fireball shot east, hitting the foot of the hill." is a complete sentence on its own.
and place the onomatopoeia together with its following description.. kind of like a character speaking (quotations) while adding a movement.
I'm not a fan of "flapped" for hair, I'd probably go with waved or fluttered.. flapped sounds like its a hairpiece, or of it as really oily and unwashed. It just sounds gross to me, but that's just choice of words, there's nothing really wrong with it.

[Fireball]! (or "Fireball!" if Harry is shout casting,)
The fireball shot east, hitting the foot of the hill.
BOOM! The explosion thundered.
Harry's black hair flapped in the shockwave.

I'm just nitpicking though. what you have is great.

 

[MFontana]

Between them both, this one is significantly better in terms of literary, and descriptive, quality as compared to the latter example, but if I'm being completely honest, neither of them truly convey the character in a memorable fashion. The first does a much better job of painting the scene, but does nothing to make me (as a reader) care about the character, or what is going on.
I can remember the character (vaguely) in the visual sense, but that's about it.

A boy with dark robes stood straight, holding his wand out in front of him. His glasses glinted in the light from the tip.
His black pupils dilated, reflecting the silhouettes of a pair of werewolves descending from the hill.
"Harry... shoot now!" a classmate shouted.
"[Fireball]!"
The fireball shot east, hitting the foot of the hill...
"Boom!"
The explosion thundered.
Harry's black hair flapped in the shockwave.

As for the why; your descriptions in this sample are more immediate, and tied to an action being performed, or is relevant to the scene as a whole. The second sample is straight telling over showing in passive statements. "He was [descriptor]." and that is a very quick way to kill immersion in the moment.
Description follows action. This is a fairly simple, and direct, bit of advice that I was given as well, and it holds true for what the main difference between both samples is.

Spoiler: Scene Critique

That said, there is still a lot of room to improve upon the foundation you've got there, and that mostly comes down to polish and expansion in order to paint a clearer picture of the vision you have of the scene in words for your readers.
Most of the nitpicks were already pointed out by others here, so repeating them wouldn't serve any purpose. Instead, I'll just mention that what's here so far is suffering in terms of perspective clarity. Both samples aren't particularly clear on the perspective the scene is being presented from. Is it an onlooker? Is it one of the characters in the scene, and if so, who? Is it just a static camera viewpoint rather than one of the characters?
Everything should be presented through the lens of the perspective's viewpoint; be it a character, or "camera" observing the scene.
What does this character (or the camera) see?
Feel?
Hear?
And so on. I'm sure you get the idea of where I'm going with this.
Regardless of whatever or whomever you decide to opt for as your perspective viewpoint, you should strive to present all of the details and scenic elements through the lens of that viewpoint.
For example:

His black pupils dilated, reflecting the silhouettes of a pair of werewolves descending from the hill.

This is a cool-as-hell visual effect, sure, but does it really fit within the perspective viewpoint you're aiming for?

The fireball shot east, hitting the foot of the hill…

Compared to your earlier descriptions, some of these details could be combined with the prior depiction of the werewolves, and the rest could be expanded upon to create a more immersive visual of the scene.
Where is Harry standing, relative to the werewolves?
What time of day is it?
What is Harry doing, specifically, to cast the fireball in question?
How does that look, feel, sound, etc etc to your viewpoint character/lens?

And with regard to the onomatopoeia bits, personally I'd cut them in favor of more descriptive detail for the impact and depth, but stylistically speaking, if you want to use them then by all means do so. It's not for me, personally, but that doesn't make it wrong, or bad by any means.
The only suggestion I'd offer there is that if you are committed to using them, make their punctuation clearer and cleaner.
No quotes, unless they're actually being said by a character (which honestly makes them look weird) and disrupts the flow of the scene.
Instead, I'd suggest a bold-italic for the emphasis and punch they need.
All Caps can also work for added impact depending on the moment, and to make the onomatopoeia stand out, like so.

"Boom!"
BOOM!

Overall, you've got a solid foundational draft here that is just stumbling over the technical execution in order to convey your vision to your readers. However, the main issue with whether the character(s) are memorable here, is the pacing, the narrative weight, and lack of personality. The scene is progressing far to quickly to really develop any of that, or any sense of significance, impact, or weight with Harry's presence.

As for advice... Try to tie the character's introduction to another character's (better if we care about this one) emotional state and the dramatic state of the narrative itself.

You've got gold for the set-up with the other classmate there, but don't go into any detail about him/her, or the narrative aspects of the scene, so it really ends up landing flat for both characters beyond Harry's visuals.
Show us (the readers) more than just Harry blowing up some werewolves. (Which admittedly can make for some good visuals)
Show us the why of it.
Show us the kind of character he is. Is he a hero? A villain? An Anti-Hero? An Anti-Villain?
Show us his morality. Is he a 'good' character, or an 'evil' one? Or maybe something in-between?
Show us his ethical beliefs. Does he follow a code of honor? Does he believe in the Rule of Law? Or is he an "every man for himself" kind of person?
If there is an existing conflict (humans -vs- werewolves maybe), take some time to give that a bit of weight for context.

As a trick, ask yourself "What do I want my reader to feel whenever Harry is in the scene?" and present him through a lens that subconsciously evokes that feeling. Nail that, and you'll nail the memorable characters every time.

You don't have to do it all at once either, just drop it a little at a time while hinting to the existence of the rest. And if you want a multi-faceted character, show us his inner conflicts as well as the external ones. Show us his motivations, and his goals/ideals. Just remember, for each detail you reveal, layer a mystery or question around it.

I sincerely hope all of this helps, El.

 

[FRWriter]

I think 1 is vastly superior.

Two is boring because you use short sentences as if crossing off a list.

"Harry stood straight. He wore dark robes. His glasses were clear. His hair was black." Really sucks.

If this is an important character, I'd go into even more detail for the character introduction because you have just told us about:

- boy (so he's somewhat young? How old? Could be more specific. How tall is he? What is his build?)
- dark robes (what does dark mean? So black?)
- he has a wand... (what kind of wand? Is it short, long, thick, is it special in any way?)
- glasses (what kind of glasses)
- black pupils (I mean, yeah, pupils are always black, but what about his eyes?)
- black hair (How long?)

So honestly, if this is an important character, I think there is room for improvement, or to be more precise, you could expand his introduction.

Just my two cents, I mean, you introduce him in the middle of a combat scene, so there is certainly an argument to be made to keep it short, because a lengthy description would disrupt the combat scene.
You can always expand his description later on.

 

[Emotica]

I liked scene 1 better, but I really like this wasn't directly tied to the question? Neither scene felt like an introduction. They both read like appearances. I think in many ways, appearances aren't introductions. I think an introduction implies that you're actually learning the core elements of the character. If Harry simply wears glasses and shoots fireballs, and that's all I really need to know, then I suppose it is an introduction, and maybe I'm getting philosophical here, but even a main character might not be introduced in chapter one. I think of titular titles in series. "Chapter 25: Important Character Name" for instance tells you that THIS chapter is going to be definitive for that character. Maybe they show their full potential, and maybe it just reinforces everything you already thought about them, or maybe it subverts it, but it implies introduction or reintroduction. A lot of fan-favorite characters don't have their layers peeled back until later in the story. I don't think the introduction is the moment the character appears, but the moment when the reader/viewer has reason to care about the character.

Magic, Harry, and werewolves are all new concepts in this very short excerpt. That's not bad, but quite honestly, this is an introduction to the world, not Harry. I now care about this world because it has magic, werewolves, and wizards I assume. That's something to unpackage. Harry is just a small piece of the larger cake in this context, and he isn't even serving as a viewer surrogate to be just as surprised as I am. If he was an easy reader-insert, then even that could be an introduction in it's own right, because at least then I can make some logical inferences about the character. Even if fireball is a rare spell, then I wouldn't know it from this context, as the introduction of being able to shoot fire eclipses the existence of a boy wearing glasses. I'd say Harry's introduction would be when he actually proves why he's different. Harry Potter did this "easily" enough, because we view the magical world through our shared muggle lens AND we start off with his backstory and current situation. If it wasn't for that prelude, then I'd say we're not properly introduced to Harry Potter until the end of the 1st book where it becomes clear that not only is he a child of prophecy, but how far he's willing to take things to save the day, something that will be consistent for 6 more books..

Going full circle, that's why I'd say this technically isn't an introduction for Harry in either Scene 1 or 2. All we know is he wears glasses and shoots magic. Sure, if it's revealed no one else wears glasses, or knows fireball, or has black hair, then it instantly recontextualizes everything, but I truly think it can only be considered an introduction if it distinguishes the character. You can double dip on these things. Snape in Harry Potter is introduced as a proper jerk, and later reintroduced in a new lens, but you wouldn't consider him just standing there in the background to be an introduction simply because he's mentioned or seen. I believe that's simply an appearance, but maybe it's just semantics.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Character Introduction​

Given two character introduction scenes with the same biodata and different narrative delivery below:

Scene 1:


Scene 2:


The question is, as a reader, which character introduction scene is more impressive (the character is easy to imagine and remember)? Why?

Edit:
I appreciate your answers. However, please don't judge the plot, grammar, etc.

Analyze how a character is portrayed in your perception as a casual reader, not a author, based on the narrative provided.

This thread focuses on character portrayal using two different writing techniques.

I changed the name from Harry to Barry to avoid association with the iconic character, Harry Potter, and to prevent cognitive bias.

Barry here is just a random, unfamiliar character who could appear in any magical fantasy fiction.

What about Scene 3:

Nervously, the boy in dark robes stood straight, holding his wand out in front of him. The faintly glowing tip was reflected in his glasses.

His dark pupils dilated, reflecting the silhouettes of a pair of creatures descending from the hill. Seeing their general shapes and how they moved, one word entered his mind: Werewolves!

"Barry... shoot now!" a classmate shouted.

Swirling his wand, he swallowed hard and exclaimed: "Fireball!"

A ball of fire shot forth from the wand, bearing east, striking the foot of the hill...

BOOM! an explosion reverberated across the area.

Barry's black hair flapped in the shockwave, as he waited nervously to see the outcome.

 

[Nolff]

Character Introduction​

Given two character introduction scenes with the same biodata and different narrative delivery below:

Scene 1:


Scene 2:


The question is, as a reader, which character introduction scene is more impressive (the character is easy to imagine and remember)? Why?

Edit:
I appreciate your answers. However, please don't judge the plot, grammar, etc.

Analyze how a character is portrayed in your perception as a casual reader, not a author, based on the narrative provided.

This thread focuses on character portrayal using two different writing techniques.

I changed the name from Harry to Barry to avoid association with the iconic character, Harry Potter, and to prevent cognitive bias.

Barry here is just a random, unfamiliar character who could appear in any magical fantasy fiction.

I lean more towards the first scene.

Feels less like a formal introduction in front of the entire class.