Proverbial are the criticisms of the so-called “psychological novels,” i.e., novels in which the author explores the mind and psychological motivations of his characters and focuses the narrative on the progression of facts and actions.
Some say that authors of this style of novel lack a kind of artistic vein, which supposedly would oblige them to paint each landscape, each environment with as much detail as possible. This is an interesting point.
However, I see the reader much more interested in the arc of action, in the psychological dramas of characters that cause him some empathy or revulsion, than in knowing, for example, about the objects left on a wooden table with signs of mold.
We could continue here in extensive, controversial and useless discussions, and the reader would eventually oppose my words to the beautiful descriptions made by great artists, as often found in Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov, Eça de Queiroz and many others. Does not matter.
What I mean is what I see operating in the reader’s head when in contact with any of these so-called “psychological novels”.
If, on the one hand, it is possible to point out a lack of descriptions of these novels, on the other we can say that the thread of the narrative never loosens, never breaks and that the reader, absorbed and concentrated, begins to play an active role in the story.
What do I mean by that? Let us think, for example, of the physical descriptions of the characters.
There are narratives where the author grants us only one or two characteristic traits of the character and then describes to him thoroughly the psychological.
What are we going to do? Through the psychological characteristics of this character, we began to draw him physically based on our own experience. Does the character have a vast mustache? Great: what evokes in us a vast mustache?
More: the author traces the psychological of a scoundrel. How is physically the biggest scoundrel we have ever met? Well, psychologists, do the proper research and you will confirm what I will say: the scoundrel, if not described in detail, will be drawn in detail by the reader, or even: the reader, perhaps, does not need too much information.
And I conclude with the reflection: what story will seem more real, more intense and thought-provoking to the reader: one which he completes and participates actively, drawing characters similar to his own universe, or one which the author…
There is no need to complete the question. It is up to the artist, however, to plan and intelligently distribute his triggers, using them, evidently, with due caution.
____________
Read more: