There are two ways to tell a reader what a character is like. You can tell them directly, “Marcus was an impatient man”, or you can show them indirectly, through behaviour, speech, choices, and reaction.

The second approach is almost always more powerful. Here’s why, and how to do it well.

What Is Indirect Characterisation?

Indirect characterisation is the technique of revealing character through what a character does, says, thinks, and reacts to, rather than through direct authorial statement.

Instead of telling the reader that your character is selfish, you show them order the last bottle of wine without asking anyone else at the table. Instead of declaring them observant, you show them notice the slight hesitation before an answer that everyone else misses.

The reader draws the conclusion themselves. And conclusions readers draw themselves stick far harder than ones they’re handed.

The Five Main Techniques

1. Action

What a character does, especially when under pressure or when no one is watching, is the most direct revelation of who they actually are.

The key is choosing the right action. Specific, telling actions say more than general ones. “She helped him” says something. “She slipped the last of her sandwich into his coat pocket on her way past” says considerably more.

Ask yourself: what is the smallest action that reveals the biggest truth about this character right now?

2. Speech

Not just what a character says, but how they say it. Word choice, sentence length, what they avoid, what they repeat, how they handle silence, all of this characterises.

A character who deflects personal questions with jokes is telling us something. A character who speaks in complete, structured sentences in casual conversation is telling us something different. Neither requires authorial explanation.

3. Thought

If you’re writing in a POV that allows access to interiority, what a character thinks (as opposed to what they say aloud) is one of your richest characterisation tools.

The gap between thought and speech is especially powerful. A character who thinks “I hate him” and says “I understand why you’d feel that way” is being revealed on two levels at once.

4. Appearance and Physical Detail

How a character presents themselves, their dress, posture, the state of their home, the objects around them, reflects their inner life without stating it directly.

A character whose apartment is immaculate except for one chaotic drawer. A character whose clothes are expensive but worn in ways that suggest they don’t care. These details imply without asserting.

5. Effect on Others

How other characters react to your character tells us about them too. If every person in a room falls quiet when one character speaks, that silence is characterisation. If a character can’t enter a scene without someone visibly relaxing, that’s characterisation. The effect a character has on their environment is part of who they are.

Why Indirect Characterisation Works

The fundamental reason is trust. Direct characterisation asks the reader to accept your assessment of a character on faith. Indirect characterisation gives the reader evidence and lets them reach their own conclusion.

Readers are pattern-recognition machines. They want to solve the puzzle of a character, to figure out who this person is from how they behave. When you do that work for them with a descriptor, you’ve removed the most satisfying part of engaging with a character.

There’s also the question of credibility. If you tell a reader a character is witty, and that character then says something clunky, the description feels hollow. But if you never tell the reader anything, you just write dialogue that makes them laugh, the characterisation is self-sustaining.

When Direct Characterisation Has Its Place

This isn’t an absolute rule. Direct characterisation isn’t inherently weak, it depends on how and when you use it.

In genre fiction with a lot of POV characters, brief direct characterisation when introducing someone minor can be efficient without being clumsy.

In first-person narration, the narrator’s direct assessment of other characters is itself characterisation, it tells us as much about the narrator as about the subject.

For minor details that don’t need to be dramatised, direct statement is fine. Not everything deserves a scene. “She was in her sixties” is fine. Spending half a paragraph showing us she’s in her sixties through indirect means is probably a misuse of your reader’s time.

The rule of thumb: anything central to who your main characters are should be shown indirectly. Details peripheral to the story’s concerns can be stated directly.

Common Mistakes

Telling us what to feel about a character’s action. “She laughed, but it was cruel.” That last clause does the reader’s job for them. Cut it. Let the laugh and its context do the work.

Inconsistency. If you’ve shown us, through action, speech, and thought, that a character is deeply insecure, a scene where they perform complete self-confidence will jar unless there’s a reason for it. Indirect characterisation only works if it accumulates into a coherent portrait.

Using physical description as a moral indicator. Describing your villain with narrow eyes and a pinched mouth, or your hero with a broad open face, is a lazy form of indirect characterisation that modern readers find irritating. It works if it’s subverted, but you have to actually subvert it.

Forgetting that indirect characterisation takes space. It’s slower than direct statement. If you’re moving fast through plot, it’s tempting to stop showing and start telling. Know when you’re doing it and make sure the pace demands it.

Indirect Characterisation Across a Full Manuscript

The real challenge with indirect characterisation is consistency across 80,000 words. Characters need to feel like themselves in every scene, which means the patterns of behaviour, speech, and reaction you’ve established need to hold.

This is one of the main things revision is for: checking that your character’s indirect portrait is consistent and cumulative. That each scene adds to the reader’s understanding of who this person is. That nothing they do contradicts what you’ve shown before without adequate reason.

Writing Desk tip: Use character notes to record the key behavioural patterns you want a character to exhibit, the mannerisms, speech habits, and typical reactions that build their indirect portrait across the manuscript. Having that reference available while drafting makes drift far less likely.

The Goal: A Character Who Doesn’t Need Describing

The best indirect characterisation produces characters who feel so fully realised that readers would recognise them from a single line of dialogue, without attribution, without description, without any authorial help at all.

That’s the target. Not “he was kind” but a moment of kindness so specific and so characteristic that the reader thinks: of course that’s what he’d do.

When you get there, you’ve done your job.

Related reading: