My theory of characterization is basically this: Put some dirt on a hero, and put some sunshine on the villain, one brush stroke of beauty on the villain.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What is important, then, is not that the critic should possess a correct abstract definition of beauty for the intellect, but a certain kind of temperament, the power of being deeply moved by the presence of beautiful objects.
One of the things that all authors of fiction must learn to judge is whether - and in what detail - to describe the face of a character.
Character contributes to beauty. It fortifies a woman as her youth fades. A mode of conduct, a standard of courage, discipline, fortitude, and integrity can do a great deal to make a woman beautiful.
Beauty has a lot to do with character.
Villains are often attractive.
I try to give both my heroes and villains an emotional dimensionality which provides the motivation for their actions.
The important thing is for the characters to feel real, and to be given the humanity they are due. That granting of humanity is what separates a full portrait from a stereotype.
An attempt to write nothing but characterization will soon bog down; I for one don't want to have somebody tell me about someone else.
Perhaps the mission of an artist is to interpret beauty to people - the beauty within themselves.
Many attempts have been made by writers on art and poetry to define beauty in the abstract, to express it in the most general terms, to find some universal formula for it.
No opposing quotes found.