For readers to feel they know a character, some details
need to be consistent. If a man is
allergic to peanuts in Chapter One, he had better be allergic to peanuts in
Chapter Four. But that doesn’t mean he
can’t deliberately eat a peanut butter sandwich in Chapter Five.
Ralph Waldo Emerson is often cited observing that
“consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” as if any continuity of thought
reduces a speaker’s intelligence, but the context and even the full quote are
usually lost. The line from his 1841
essay, “Self-Reliance,” follows the idea that “the other terror that scares us
from self-trust is our consistency” – that is, the anger of other people at our
nonconformity plus the desire to remain consistent with our own previous
opinions prevent new independent thought.
Emerson’s full sentence is, “A foolish consistency is
the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and
divines.” The line descries a foolish consistency, held for the sake
of other people’s opinions, and implies a contrast to a sensible consistency, held for better reasons.
The same applies to writing characters. Some things needs to be held consistent,
including the rules of the world you have created. A rancher who’s never picked up a gun
shouldn’t shoot like a gunfighter unless the genre is so loosely related to
reality that anything can happen. In a
magical world things can change magically, but the rules of magical change must
be observed.
We recognize human beings by our contradictions as
well. A big man with a deep voice is
hardly memorable, but a big man with a squeaky voice is Mike Tyson. Two instances of frugality – say, one comment
and one action – will convince a reader that a character is cheap. But the same character can act with
extraordinary generosity if something overcomes her frugality, and a reader
will guess at the cause of that change.
So what about our peanut-allergic character in Chapter
Five? The details of the context make the
difference. Perhaps he doesn’t know he’s
eating peanut butter and is being poisoned.
Perhaps he is forced to eat peanut butter or starve. Perhaps he deliberately chooses to put
himself into anaphylactic shock, to escape a prison cell. In all three cases, if a writer consistently
establishes the allergy, each becomes a moment of dramatic tension.