Writtenwyrdd

What about the spear carriers? (repost)

Thought I'd share this once more (From Oct 10, 2007):

It's always a temptation when writing, I find, to treat the smaller roles like I do new neighbors:  First impression is all there is to them.  You see them, form a sense of who they are and just carry on as usual.  It might not be until you really get to know them that you discover the apparent hippie is actually a NASA researcher and his wife is a PhD in Social Anthropology who does freelance consulting for the UN. 

At that point you have to take a mental step back and take another mental snapshot of them. 

The failing here is one that is one of adaptation which humans found useful:  The application of quickly formed labels for things and individuals.  This aided survival to form an instant impression of Good, Bad, Scary, Nice, etc.  Simplistic, but depth wasn't needful to survival.  A still shot of something that isn't questioned again without strong provocation.

Unfortunately, this trait lingers on in our behavior to the present day, allowing us to meet someone and form an impression that we just don't bother to change...resulting in a rather shocked realization when we discover the 'hippy' is a rocket scientist or similar.

And how does this specifically apply to writing?
I submit to you, fellow writers, that you probably do this glossing over with many of your bit players in  your stories.  It's only human nature, after all.  We do it in real life.  And it is hurting your novels because with small bit players, the spear carriers, you can add so much realism and veracity, empowering your worldbuilding and increasing the impact of your ideas-- if you reframe your image of that flat, pale little character on page 93.

Consider this:  People are like the patchwork quilt.   They are composed of bits taken from here and there, the places they've been, the people they've known, the emotional experiences they've had.  And then they sew these together.  Each is unique and beautiful in its own way, and you, the author, can use this knowledge to portray every character as individual.

It's easy to forget that people don't come to us in our stories frozen in time.  Especially when we are talking about minor characters.  If they do not react and change in direct experience during your stories, you have failed them and your story.  So they are a spear carrier in this story; but if you treat them like they are real people, they will add breadth and life to your writing.  Give the spear carriers a bone and let them be real enough to change some in your works.

But play Pygmalion and breathe the breath of life into them.  See how fascinating the story becomes.

Omens & Portents, oh my...

With NaNoWriMo still fresh in my mind, I've been pondering my writing process and novel plot a lot this past week.  NaNoWriMo is good for that.  Specifically, I've been thinking about plot and with that comes the useful process of asking what the various characters want.  Their desires and the reasons for them inform the plot.  Sometimes they dictate the plot.  Probably more often than not.

So when I ran across this article I was amused and felt that here was something significant that needed to be pondered.  Omens and portents are things which indivuals invest with meaning, regardless of any overt or legitimate meaning.  For example, a red light has meaning in and of itself, e.g. you are supposed to stop when it turns red; but the light turning red is a portent if you decide it means you weren't supposed to (deliberately) ram into the bumper of the idiot driver who cut you off.

Such decisions and (quirky) interpretations of your characters can be invaluable for plot complications, humor, character development/illustration.  They can provide impetus for arguments, for paranoia, for a lot of complexities.  They may not be common, but people really do invest meaning in what can seem to others absurdities.

And you might consider this usage of omens and portents, like Jesus in a burnt iron face, for occasional use in your writing. 

 "That's the tricky thing with fiction. I have gotten into more mild arguments with critique partners, my editors, myself (nothing like arguing with yourself) over motivations and characters and so on . . . on this and this alone. The believability issue.  I think newer writers find this particularly galling. In other words, we ALL know people capabale of being yes, THAT horrid, and yes, THAT eccentric. But put them in a fictional world and it starts to stretch readers' minds as far as believability."  Erica Orloff, from her blog

The above quote is from a great post by author Erica Orloff on characters and believability.  The salient point of the post is that what might be documented fact can come across to readers as false and unbelievable. 

She's so right.  And it's because readers' sense of what is believable is affected by other factors than reality.  Writing serves in part to make sense of the world.  And this is an unvoiced, unacknowledged, subconsious expectation.  Whereas the real world does not have to make sense.  We deep down want order instead of randomness, instead of chaos...but the real world denies us this.  So in made things, we want order.  We want logic.  We want A to follow B and Slot C to be the proper form for Tab D. 

Even in a memoir, we can't just write the facts.  It has to be a good story!  In other words, memoirs have to make that sort of sense, too.  So the memoir or biography writer needs to make the facts make sense.  Needs to interpret these things that happened in a manner that is acceptable and sensical for readers.

As Ms. Orloff says:

"I have come to the conclusion watching the behaviors of people who are really just ugly at times . . . that many people's cruelties are banal. As if they are blithely unaware they are rude or mean. Do I REALLY think the snarky woman who finds a way to insult to me at cocktail parties has nothing better to do than think of insults on my mothering skills? If I repeated to her what she said now, months after the fact, she would likely say, "I never said that." Or . . . "I must have been kidding." Or, like the lady who moved out of the neighborhood, I have a sneaking suspicion that excuse would be, "I must have been drunk." Some people's cruelties are completely banal. They don't even think about them. They don't lose sleep. They just wander through life that way.

But in a fictional world, writers set up REASONS for dismemberment and cruelty. We very often even give serial killers motivations of some sort (look what Thomas Harris did when he RUINED the Hannibal Lechter franchise). Give reasons . . . and people will BELIEVE your fiction.

But real life? A lot more banal."

Amen to that. 

And a reminder to please read and vote on the entries for the Chthulu-inspired Halloween Horror Contest.  Entries here.  Voting needs to be in by end of day, Monday, November 9th.  And please feel free to repost this information and/or mention the need for voters.  There are some great entries, and your horror-loving friends will thank you!

Writing about violent characters? This provides some insight.

"You kill the first one and you panic for a few days. You're nervous. But then you kill the second one and that's a kind of a medicine. It takes the pain away that you were feeling after the first killing."  'Red' a Medallin, Columbia hit man

An article on cnn.com gives an interview with a couple of Columbian hit men.  I found this article particularly fascinating because of the well-rounded glimpses you get of the lifestyle, the reasons for these men choosing their careers in violence, and the attitudes.  You can readily picture how they got where they are, and how they look at the world.

What was also interesting is that these men feel justified in their killing of the victims they refer to as 'patients.'  They get permission from the 'old men,' the guys in charge, and anyone they are directed or get permission to kill deserves it in their lights. 

It's an interesting viewpoint from the perspective of a writer, especially for rounding out your violent killers.  They probably all have a sense of justification for their work and actions.  We as writers need to find that which humanizes these characters so that they feel more real.  Because nothing (IMO anyhow) is worse than a flatly portrayed villian.  Well, except perhaps for an infallible hero/ine. 

Lastly, let me leave you with this Q&A from the article:

Penhaul: Do you want to get out of this life?

"C": "I know you should pay what you owe. But I don't want to pay for all those deaths. I'll be absolutely f***ed if I have to pay. I want to get out of this but I want a clean slate. If I pay my debt to the law then that means jail and if I pay on the street then that means death. I don't want to go to jail or to die."

Emotional grabbiness

"Have you heard the description, “The characters are flat?” That’s because the author is telling the reader what the character is doing and feeling, but the reader is not identifying with that character."  Heidi Thomas, The Blood Red Pencil blog

A telling line there.  (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.)  I have to say though that I don't entirely agree that it's telling the character's thoughts, actions and feelings that always causes a lack of reader bonding with the character(s).  Sometimes it's other choices at fault.

But, that said, I have felt pushed around by authors when reading, rather like having taped marks where I am supposed to put myself mentally as if it were a sort of emotional play and my part/reaction were dictated.  (Not sure if that's a useful analogy for anyone else, but it's all I've got at the moment.)  So you have a sense as a reader of being told how to feel (which agrees with Ms. Thomas' assessment). 

That'll tend to put a reader's back up in the I Don't Think So, Buster! mode.

So.  How does one avoid telling a reader what a character is doing and how the reader is supposed to respond?  Strong verbs, actions over descriptive narrative, no authorial intrusion aka telling, and clever use of dialog to illustrate actions/feelings/byplay.  Tough prescription, but that's what edits are for! 

Plenty of people have said it better than me, so I'll leave it at that.  What sparked this post, though, is my considering how some readers may be feeling dictated to and that the characters are flat because of certain narrative choices.  Some of these are quite popular, such as first person, or close-in third person.  We see what is inside a character's head, and depending upon the author's style, might be seeing internal dialog, narrative, exposition and all sorts of things masquerading as what's in the character's skull--yet which to many (most?) readers may perceive as telling instead of showing.

Which means it might boil down to individual taste more often than not.

Just a thought I'm tossing out there...

Priming the [emotional] pump

"Priming...is when someone is exposed to a certain environment and their subconscious is activated, and then they tend to act in accordance with that environment without deliberate intent. Priming can manipulate behavior; if someone witnesses violent behavior, they would likely behave more violently."  Science Daily article

Priming is a term I hadn't run across before.  While you wouldn't be likely to mention the term in your novel, the concept might be valuable.  And it does describe an interesting phenomena that is possibly related to mob crowd behavior (or so I'd presume.)  And I find it an interesting concept to keep in mind when considering how your characters' surroundings affect their actions, say when they find themselves doing something they normally wouldn't do without thinking about it. 

Additionally, the article cites a study that indicates various types of song lyrics can prime emotional responses.  For example, "Itsy Bitsy Spider" can open the mind, whereas patriotic songs can close it.  Those running the study "wanted to see if the songs created a pro-social or an anti-social response. ...[P]reliminary findings showed that the patriotic songs had a negative effect on the participants, as shown through their responses to the survey's questions about other cultures and diversity. The patriotic songs made the participants close-minded and prejudiced." 

Jungian Archetypes & Characterization

This is a repost from January of 2008.  That article gets so many hits that I figured it's one worth recycling, which I do periodically for those posts which I like.  Some of the links may be outdated.  I haven't rechecked...because I'm lazy and am willing to admit that in the interest of full disclosure. ;)

Any archetype can do anything – the question will always be why. Tami Cowden

Probably most of you have, at minimum, heard the term 'archetype' as developed and used by Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, as well as the term 'collective unconsciousness'. I'm not going to define them myself, as I'd be really bad at it; but you should probably familiarize yourself with the concept in order to increase your skills as a creator of characters. Or, failing that, just read a hell of a lot of mythology, Joseph Campbell, epic poetry. Or you could listen to Jewel ad nauseum on your iPod...

What are Archetypes?
Per wiki: "Archetypes are innate universal pre-conscious psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge. Being universal and innate, their influence can be detected in the form of myths, symbols and psychic aptitudes of human beings the world over. The archetypes are components of the collective unconscious and serve to organize, direct and inform human thought and behaviour."

The Sixteen Jungian Archetypes.
Jung outlined four main archetypes (Self, Shadow, Anima, Animus) but there are also symbols with layered meanings, and which for the purpose of creating characters are much the same thing (IMO). For these, Jung coined the term, primordial images. "Primordial images originate from the initial stages of humanity and have been part of the collective unconscious ever since. It is through primordial images that universal archetypes are experienced, and more importantly, that the unconscious is revealed."

Ripped from Wikipedia, these are:
The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation
The Shadow, the opposite of the ego image, often containing qualities that the ego does not identify with but possess nonetheless
The Anima, the feminine image in a man's psyche
The Animus, the masculine image in a woman's psyche
The Syzygy, a pairing of contrasexual opposites, which symbolized the communication of the conscious and unconscious minds. The conjunction of two organisms without the loss of identity.
The Child, is portrayed in literature in various ways. Often takes the form of a child who displays adult-like qualities giving, for example, wise advice to their friends or viceversa. (Linus van Pelt)
The Hero/Heroine, character that in the face of danger and adversity, from a position of weakness displays courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is, heroism, for some greater good. (Gilgamesh)
The Great Mother, either good or terrible, is closely related to Mother Goddess figures in many mythologies. Represents fecundity, pregnancy, ripeness.
The Wise old man, or Senex, often appears as a wizard, foreigner, hermit, absent-minded professor type, or alien (e.g. Yoda), typically represented as a kind and wise, older father-type figure who uses personal knowledge of people and the world to offer guidance, thereby acting as a mentor.
The Trickster or Ape. The trickster is incarnated as a clever, mischievous man or creature, who tries to survive the dangers and challenges of the world using trickery and deceit as a defense. (Loki, Prometheus, Coyote, Reynaud the Fox)
The Puer Aeternus (Latin for "eternal boy) Some of the signs of the expression of the puer archetype in a person's life can include immaturity,narcissism, and a desire to escape into fantasy or idealism in preference to remaining with the reality of a situation. (Peter Pan, Bart Simpson)
The Cosmic Man is generally described as helpful or positive, and is also frequently the physical basis of the world, such that after death parts of his body became physical parts of the universe. He also represents the oneness of human existence, or the universe. (Adam, Horus)

Why are archetypes important?
In the development of a character, the recognition of the particular archetype which the character typifies is a useful tool in the writerly toolbox. You can see how the character falls short of your needs or doesn't fit based on aspects of archetype, for example.

I'm afraid that this is such a fascinating topic for me (and the language in which the sources are rendered is so high falutin') that I'm not able to do it proper justice. So let me quote the most accessible descriptions of archetype and characters in writing that I've found.

Tami Cowden says, "Archetypes are not stereotypes; they are not cookie cutters. They can be considered a framework, or even better, a lump of clay of a particular color and consistency. Use the archetype as raw material to create a full bodied character." Wish I'd said that!

She lists her take on the Hero archetypes, Heroine archetypes, and the Villian archetypes on her web page (and in her book), and I found these to be very accessible as a writer.

Translating this to your writing style.
Just because your character is a Gilgamesh-style Hero doesn't mean he is exactly like Gilgamesh. In fact, he may not seem anything like Gilgamesh. The question, as Ms. Cowden says, is to determine the rationale behind the character's actions. WHY? Why, why, why?

This is a valid point and why I led this rant with that particular quote. All heroes are not alike; and the reason for their actions is the reason they are different. So, when you define the archetype based on the character's motivations, you have another tool to help you frame a story that fits the character, or a character to the story. You can also gauge problems if you analyze your major characters this way. For example, if the villian of the piece is more the hero than the hero, you might find your reception is off.

So, now you can go out and drive yourself crazy overanalyzing your work! One more way to avoid actually writing...

Links:
Carl Jung, by Dr. C. George Boeree
Archetypes list, by Philip Wedgewood
Archetypical Literary Criticism, wikipedia article
Jungian Archetypes, wikipedia article

Reading:
Archetypes & The Collective Unconscious, by C.G. Jung
Man & His Symbols, by C.G. Jung
Awakening the Heroes Within, by Carol Peterson
Heros & Heroines, by Tami Cowden
The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers & Joseph Campbell
The Golden Bough, by James G. Frazer
The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell
The White Goddess, by Robert Graves

Probably most of you have, at minimum, heard the term 'archetype' as developed and used by Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, as well as the term 'collective unconsciousness'. I'm not going to define them myself, as I'd be really bad at it; but you should probably familiarize yourself with the concept in order to increase your skills as a creator of characters. Or, failing that, just read a hell of a lot of mythology, Joseph Campbell, epic poetry. Or you could listen to Jewel ad nauseum on your iPod...

What are Archetypes?
Per wiki: "Archetypes are innate universal pre-conscious psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge. Being universal and innate, their influence can be detected in the form of myths, symbols and psychic aptitudes of human beings the world over. The archetypes are components of the collective unconscious and serve to organize, direct and inform human thought and behaviour."

The Sixteen Jungian Archetypes.
Jung outlined four main archetypes (Self, Shadow, Anima, Animus) but there are also symbols with layered meanings, and which for the purpose of creating characters are much the same thing (IMO). For these, Jung coined the term, primordial images. "Primordial images originate from the initial stages of humanity and have been part of the collective unconscious ever since. It is through primordial images that universal archetypes are experienced, and more importantly, that the unconscious is revealed."

Ripped from Wikipedia, these are:
The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation
The Shadow, the opposite of the ego image, often containing qualities that the ego does not identify with but possess nonetheless
The Anima, the feminine image in a man's psyche
The Animus, the masculine image in a woman's psyche
The Syzygy, a pairing of contrasexual opposites, which symbolized the communication of the conscious and unconscious minds. The conjunction of two organisms without the loss of identity.
The Child, is portrayed in literature in various ways. Often takes the form of a child who displays adult-like qualities giving, for example, wise advice to their friends or viceversa. (Linus van Pelt)
The Hero/Heroine, character that in the face of danger and adversity, from a position of weakness displays courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is, heroism, for some greater good. (Gilgamesh)
The Great Mother, either good or terrible, is closely related to Mother Goddess figures in many mythologies. Represents fecundity, pregnancy, ripeness.
The Wise old man, or Senex, often appears as a wizard, foreigner, hermit, absent-minded professor type, or alien (e.g. Yoda), typically represented as a kind and wise, older father-type figure who uses personal knowledge of people and the world to offer guidance, thereby acting as a mentor.
The Trickster or Ape. The trickster is incarnated as a clever, mischievous man or creature, who tries to survive the dangers and challenges of the world using trickery and deceit as a defense. (Loki, Prometheus, Coyote, Reynaud the Fox)
The Puer Aeternus (Latin for "eternal boy) Some of the signs of the expression of the puer archetype in a person's life can include immaturity,narcissism, and a desire to escape into fantasy or idealism in preference to remaining with the reality of a situation. (Peter Pan, Bart Simpson)
The Cosmic Man is generally described as helpful or positive, and is also frequently the physical basis of the world, such that after death parts of his body became physical parts of the universe. He also represents the oneness of human existence, or the universe. (Adam, Horus)

Why are archetypes important?
In the development of a character, the recognition of the particular archetype which the character typifies is a useful tool in the writerly toolbox. You can see how the character falls short of your needs or doesn't fit based on aspects of archetype, for example.

I'm afraid that this is such a fascinating topic for me (and the language in which the sources are rendered is so high falutin') that I'm not able to do it proper justice. So let me quote the most accessible descriptions of archetype and characters in writing that I've found.

Tami Cowden says, "Archetypes are not stereotypes; they are not cookie cutters. They can be considered a framework, or even better, a lump of clay of a particular color and consistency. Use the archetype as raw material to create a full bodied character." Wish I'd said that!

She lists her take on the Hero archetypes, Heroine archetypes, and the Villian archetypes on her web page (and in her book), and I found these to be very accessible as a writer.

Translating this to your writing style.
Just because your character is a Gilgamesh-style Hero doesn't mean he is exactly like Gilgamesh. In fact, he may not seem anything like Gilgamesh. The question, as Ms. Cowden says, is to determine the rationale behind the character's actions. WHY? Why, why, why?

This is a valid point and why I led this rant with that particular quote. All heroes are not alike; and the reason for their actions is the reason they are different. So, when you define the archetype based on the character's motivations, you have another tool to help you frame a story that fits the character, or a character to the story. You can also gauge problems if you analyze your major characters this way. For example, if the villian of the piece is more the hero than the hero, you might find your reception is off.

So, now you can go out and drive yourself crazy overanalyzing your work! One more way to avoid actually writing...

Links:
Carl Jung, by Dr. C. George Boeree
Archetypes list, by Philip Wedgewood
Archetypical Literary Criticism, wikipedia article
Jungian Archetypes, wikipedia article

Reading:
Archetypes & The Collective Unconscious, by C.G. Jung
Man & His Symbols, by C.G. Jung
Awakening the Heroes Within, by Carol Peterson
Heros & Heroines, by Tami Cowden
The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers & Joseph Campbell
The Golden Bough, by James G. Frazer
The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell
The White Goddess, by Robert Graves

Reframing - for those characters who need to grow

"Stop thinking some people are purely negative and evil. Every behavior has some positive intention behind it. Once you realize that, you can deal with “negative” people much better. For example, you can help them achieve their positive motive in a way that doesn’t harm anyone else." Vlad Dolezal, from his blog.

One of the things that can make me chuck a book across the room are TSTL (too stupid to live) characters who continually miss growth opportunities and retain the same flaws over the course of a series.  By book three*, if the character is continuing to whine about her problems and yet repeating the same mistakes, I say shame on the writer for failing to recognize the need for character growth as well as plot movement.

Yes, you do need both.  Plot movement implies character growth or at least change.  From being clueless to clued in, grief stricken to more at peace, victimized to vengeful--whatever.  You get the picture, though.  Because one of the things readers expect about novels is that the characters grow and change as their lives advance.  Like us, they do not remain static in their fictional worlds; characters face adversities and these leave their legacy in the form of scars, triumphs, newly won confidence, grief and the rest of the gamut of human emotions and outcomes. 

And, during all the upheaval, you character's growth has to be shown as part of a transformative process. 

One means you can use to do that is a technique called reframing.  Vlad Dolezal in his blog has a nice article on the subject, and it occurred to me it would be a useful means of dealing with a character who is in some form of emotional conflict.  Thought I'd fling that out there for you all to play around with. 

In particular, note the mention of how all actions are intended to have positive ends. They aren't inherently evil in intention. I plan to keep that in mind for my Evil Overlords. :)

 

*and here I'm being more generous than my wont

 

What your characters want

It’s usually true that the external desire will be a selfish want – something the protagonist wants for him or herself, and the inner need will be unselfish - something the protagonst comes to want for other people. This is a useful guideline because it clearly shows character growth.   Alexandra Sokolov

Visual Aid

Sometimes, our eyes deceive us, and perception, which the observer may believe to be absolute, can be 1) biased, 2) partially incorrect, or 3) wholly wrong.  The above picture is not photoshopped.  What you see behind the car is not added in; but the first impression you do doubt came to, that missiles are following the pickup, about to strike, is incorrect.  Just click on the picture to see the inset enlarged.*

This funny picture reminds me that when we have characters who are unreliable narrators it behooves us as writers to show both their logic and to use subtle foreshadowing to also show the opportunity for misinterpretation of data on the character's part.  That way, when the reader sees the character was wrong s/he will have had the opportunity to wonder if this initial interpretation was flawed and look for more clues.

It's also fascinating when the character insists they don't feel a certain way and yet over and over the writer gives us internal dialog, decisions or statements that continually contradict the assertion that the character keeps making.  Such instances occur, much to my delight, in Ilona Andrews' latest Kate Daniels book, Magic Strikes.  What's also great is that she doesn't succumb to the temptation to have anyone around the main character, Kate, point out her contradictions.  Granted, 99% of these things are internal monologue; but her actions are some indicator as well.

So those are my thoughts.  How do you like to see characters lie to themselves?  How do you approach it as a writer?

*Those are balloons!

Mind/body and your character

"The essential part of [the person transplanted to a new body], call it the soul or consciousness or whatever it is, still remains. The container has changed; the person remains the same. Who you are morally, who you are in memory, who you are in continuity, still exists. All the rules still apply. You have a new body and a new lease on life but that doesn’t mean you’ve cheated God or fate.

From a moral or teleological point of view, it’s no different from a heart or a liver transplant. Those would also extend your life and give you new opportunities. But you’re still obligated to follow the moral strictures of your god or your conscious and make sure you don’t treat the gift of life-extension as a “get out of jail free” card. It’s not a chance to abandon morality. It’s a chance to reaffirm it."  John Scalzi

In John Scalzi's interview at Tor.com, he discusses the reaction of a character who is placed in a replacement body.  And he states the above, apparently confident that who we are spiritually is transplanted along with the mind and personality and memories.

Which of course got me thinking, What If.

I think a key means of getting a new take on an old trope is to ask the assumptions that lay below the choice the writer made.  In this case, Scalzi is assuming that the soul and mind are going to transplant complete and unchanged to a new body.  Personally, I think the house dictates some of the personality; so I went in that direction in my thinking: What if the essential element that ties spirit to mind to flesh, forming a gestalt that equals our personality, is dependent on the flesh?  And what occurs to the individual who changes bodies?

That is an intriguing idea to me.  The consequences of not having the original flesh with its chemical and hormonal signals and relationships to affect thought and deed and emotion would possibly create a being who is no longer able to experience certain (or any) emotions, despite recalling these feelings.  It might even render the individual worse than a sociopath who 'gets' the rules of society but ignores them at will without guilt; it might render the changed individual so alien in thinking that he or she no longer can truly comprehend our drives and desires.

What if the newly bodied person finds that he can, without the blinkers of the original flesh, see the dynamics of humanity in a manner that leads him to think that he ought to 'fix' it, either by taking over or subverting the existing government in favor of a new one?  Or the old trope raising its head again: He decides humanity doesn't deserve to live? 

So many possibilities if you change the rules and assumptions.

A Rationale for Rabidity

I know you have met, or seen, or experienced in some fashion some individual somewhere who is, ahem, overly dedicated to a certain way of thinking, religion or product.  And An Amazing Mind blog has a wonderful talk on that. 

Have you ever met fanatic Linux fans?

You know, folks devotedly shouting that Linux is even better than sliced bread, that anybody still using Windows is stuck in the stone ages, that Linux has great anti-virus capabilities and it’s free and it’s awesome and…

And have you ever met a fanatic Google supporter?

I personally find there are plenty of fanatic Linux fans. But I haven’t met any fanatic Google fans yet. All the Google fans I have met (and there are millions of them) have been calm, almost matter-of-fact.

I’ve always wondered why that is. And I just found the answer in the book Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow.

When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths, or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because the dogmas or goals are in doubt."

I thought this quote a useful reading and insight for creating a more rounded version of this sort of character, in particular by showing their motivation via the above interpretation--because if your pov character understands them, it makes them (more) sympathetic to the reader even if they are being wholly obnoxious. 

It could even be really funny, say if you have the pov character (or the evil villian) psychoanallyze their opposing hero/villian by quoting things such as the above to rebut their contentions, and when the person gets all worked up and foaming at the mouth, toss out the bit about they only bluster because their goal or dogma is in doubt.  That could be a really funny scene.  Imagine if someone did that to Dr. Evil, for example.

Developing a unique Other

Marian Pereira had a really nice post on eyes a while back.  Which sparked a response from me about missed opportunities for worldbuilding and Other development (Other being the aliens, fairies or whatnot in your spec fic work.) 

Basically, I love to change eyes.  But I try to avoid it as the first choice of things to change.  I try to first figure out what the Other is suppose to be like inside, and how the humans are supposed to react to them.  Do I want that reaction to be unfairly biased against them?  Or do I desire a beautiful evil?  (Personally, I'd take gorgeous death over ugly sweetness, but then I'm primarily a fan of the gothic, dark works.)

See, the thing about eyes is everyone switches up the eyes. I can understand why--eyes are the windows to the soul and all that. We tend to interpret subtext, emotion, personality via the eyes (or that's how we think of it). So the focus on the eyes (no pun intended) is really an easy trap for a writer to use.

I always want, first thing, to change the eyes. But I try and resist, try and change something else.

Imagine that your characters, who are generally human in seeming, have a perfectly normal face. How would the reaction when interacting with humans differ if, say, they have a worm-like tentacle instead of a thumb?

Or what if they had a skin texture that freaked people out? People often say snakes are slimy (which is false) but if a race had a possibly scaled, slick, surface, it would gross any number of people out.  Likewise, slimy skin.  (I mean snails...gross!)

Being overly hot or chilly to the touch is also disturbing to mankind, because it's not 'normal.'

I just think that we limit our writerly options when we go for the eye change first. Eyes are, relatively speaking, a safe bet. And thus they can be overused.

Social glue

"Having a dialogue with someone is really like a social glue, and it gets us thinking in a different manner."  Carrie Keating, Colgate University psychology professor

Reading an article on ABC news' "What Would You Do?" I ran across an experiment where the crew decided to test and see if strangers would react if someone's things were stolen.  Would they help?

The fascinating thing is that 1 out of 5 would intervene if a woman at the beach walked away from her stuff to go swimming and a thief stole her iPod.  However, if the woman asked someone to watch her things, most of those asked to watch would react.  Ambiguity was a big factor in the non-reaction, and a tendency for bystanders to convince themselves the thief must be a friend or boyfriend.  But there was no ambiguity if the woman asks for them to watch her things.

Where it gets really interesting for me is this:  When the woman merely exchanged a pleasantry or two and then walked away from her stuff, the people reacted as if she'd asked them to watch her stuff.

The explanation is that the interaction must form 'a sort of social glue' that  at least changes the bystanders perception of her.  Perhaps it merely lifts her from the buzzing white noise of the crowded background; perhaps, by talking with her, the bystanders have allowed that woman into their world and thus feel a social investment or responsibility.  The thing is, though, the tendency is there and can be utilized as another wrench in our writerly toolbox.

I found this fascinating, and an exploitable trait we can use as writers.  I mean, can you imagine the sort of character who would calculatingly use this trait to, say, cause the bystanders to help her out by delaying a tail, for example? 

Ideas. 

• Your character is being followed, and she thus stops and chats with someone at the bus stop as if she's going to catch that bus.  What she is reallydoing is initiating contact with a stranger.  And when she pretends to see her follower for the first time, she might say something like, "Oh my god, it's him," and run off, the other person then delaying the guy who by inference is intent on harm. 
• Or your character has to make a drop because he (or a client) is being blackmailed.  But they don't want to give up the money, they want to stop this guy.  But because of various good reasons no one can involve the cops.  So our hero decides to use the very public daylight drop to his advantage.  He engages someone on the park bench in conversation, and casually leaves his briefcase in order to, say, throw something into a nearby trash barrel.  And the subsequent switch of the briefcase causes the bystander to call attention to the supposed theft. 

These options are a bit too glib and reliant on luck; but I am sure you can think of smaller ways to use this, ways which aren't cynical and deliberate ploys to use a friendly stranger.

*rubs hands together gleefully*  I have got to use this someplace...

I don't think I heard that right...

"Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking." Albert Einstein

The above quote cracked me up.  I wish I could be full of gentle humor, brilliance and true wisdom like Einstein.  I'd have liked to have met him.

I've actually had that thought about myself from time to time.  It has to do with the way the human mind likes to make assumptions, a form of mental shorthand, I suppose.  We interpret data based on past performance and experience and while it may be wrong we still fall for it and are surprised to discover we erred. 

And it occurs to me you might use this tendency in your plot structuring.  As in you set up your readers the same way you set up your characters.  They see a tendency to do one thing several times over in a particular secondary character, and when the secondary character does something just slightly different, you have the main character either not notice or misinterpret the behavior or words in a manner that aids in the plot development.

I'm sure I've seen this done before a zillion times, but have I ever really considered that the writer was exploiting our human nature in this way?  I had not. 

Now that I point it out, however, I hope to use it scientifically.  And I hope you do, too. 

Happy writing!

Can a stalker be funny? Or is this pathetic?

“[W]hen my husband unpacked his belongings from his ex-wife’s house, he kept finding little ’surprises.’ for example, although they did not go to high school together, she had signed his senior yearbook, and little notes and reproductions of wedding pictures were stuck in books and in pockets of his clothes.”

See, you want a quirk for a character, you don't have to look very far.  I provide (courtesy of passive-agressive notes in this post.)  (And you really should check out the picture on the post.)

Pondering character nicknames and formality

Came up with a nickname for a character in the shower this morning (which I now have forgotten, drat it!) and it got me to thinking about how getting a character a nickname that has the same often freaky-bizarre ring of real world nicknames often doesn't work. If your character has a nickname "Skanky" based on his name, unlike this guy*:

Who's actual character name is Schanke, it might not be well received.  (I always found Schanke's name smirk worthy, btw.)

For example, if someone's brother-in-law is known as "Uncle Skanky" to his kids, it might take way to long within your story's narrative to explain the derivation of "Skanky" from the character's name of "Stan Key." (And, let's face it, a long narrative and no-doubt irrelevant aside mentioning that the moniker was hung on him by schoolyard bullies in the third grade might take the humor out of it.)  By the writer's default option for expediency and keeping the stuff you mention relevant, you would likely choose to omit the nickname and the explanation and just call him "Uncle Stan."

(However you could choose to make a name significant, say if you have a rotten brat of a twelve-year-old who manages to rub salt in a bruised Stan ego.  The story could be about a depressed and suicidal loser guy named Stan; or it could be about a kid discovering he hurt his uncle and learning something because of it.  But you could make it part of the story.  Which is sort of tangential to the main point, but there you go.) (I'm borrowing parenthesis from Kiersten today.)

Nicknames as pejoratives are widespread in spoken language and are a powerful tool for your dialog writing practice.

Power politics of address. Rank, relationship and attitude of one character toward another is communicated by all the usual aspects of verbal and non-verbal communication:  facial expression, tone of voice, body language, pacing, and as I address in this post, the choice of wording in terms of title or name used.

Polite address.  Levels of address are significant and frequently underrated in today's America.  Like nicknames, formal titles are significant in their use or lack.  Rather like a handshake, how someone chooses to address another person can indicate many things, including social or workplace rank, attitude (politeness, lack of respect) and the state of their relationship.  "Dissing" someone by pulling your hand back instead of shaking hands is a punkass move, and says some distinctive things about a person who does it.  Likewise, a similar act via use of address is deliberately using a diminutive name for someone whom we are disrespecting.  Being extremely overly formal can have the same effect. 

Or it can be done for humor.  If the guy on SNL referred to President Barrak Obama as "My homie Barrak," it would be seen as part of the joke.  But if some guy who met the president tried to do one of those complicated handshakes and say something like, "What up my homie?" it would not work.  Because, along with the title, the respect is missing.

And this is something you all know instinctively, but perhaps hadn't considered in terms of how your characters relate.  Most of this is dialog related, and so perhaps in edits you might consider how the use or lack thereof of a title affects the tone of the communication, and use it to effect to add to the tension or perhaps dial it back if a character needs to be a bit placating, needs to appease someone she  needs to get on her side for example.

Nicknames. When a nickname is used in a novel, I find that most of them are self explanatory or just used without explanation by the author.  (Much of the time there's no need for an explanation; Bobby for Robert is pretty obvious.)  They don't necessarily add to the character much, but they might be chosen for the novel for a number of reasons. 

One practice I think is particularly useful is using styles of nicknames in order depict a regionalism (such as Jane Susan Cooligan being called Janey-Sue by her southern relatives) or depict attitude of one character toward another (such as when a diminutive-ending nickname like -y endings are used: Robert to Bobby, Debra to Debbie, Sylvia to Sylvie) because these latter embody an inherent problem in English of sexism and power politics embedded in the language. 

Sexism in English?  Embedded in the language?  Yes. Definitely.  Just like racism (refer to the term 'jewing down' as a perjorative example) English contains myriad examples of phrases and means of saying things that embody cultural attitudes.  And people pick up that sort of stuff without realising it.  As a careful writer, you can utilize this to foster better characterization or to remove embedded meanings you didn't intend.  (That's harder, by the way.) 

As a specific example, take the 'little girl' endings of nicknames, the -ie or -y endings.  Calling a woman named Susan by the nickname Susie is essentially calling her a child.  And I know you all are familiar with how one can belittle a man the same way.  To be called 'Mikey" instead of "Mike" does the same thing, but with a different twist in that the general sense of 'rightness' is that it's okay to call a woman Susie, but not to call a man Mikey.  

So, as a woman who has constantly to tell people who immediately presume upon the nasty childhood diminutive I gave up over twenty years ago NOT to use it, and thereby offend them for their being insufferably presumptuous, it's something we writers can use, this regrettable tendency in our language.

As a side bonus, you can consider foreign (alien?) characters and their language flukes.  I believe that a bit of this sort of language thinking for dialog and communication issues may pay off big time in the worldbuilding department for you. 

Bringing this back to me (of course.)  I always think of writing in terms of my own process, so an example of a nickname in my current project.  In my returned-to vampire novel, I have an albino character known as Pearly.  For him, his nickname is part of his characterization.  His nature is polished and smooth and impenetrable.  And that the Elders call him Giuseppe instead of Pearly or Pearly Joe like his contemporaries is also a distinction I felt was useful in the novel. I didn't plan this; it just popped into my head with one of those 'of course' sorts of feelings. 

This also reflects my general tendency to try and have everything serve multiple functions, too.  Which can become overdone, but in this case which I like.  Because I hadn't intended it, you see.  Hidden symbolism at work.  I love it.

How have you handled nicknames? 

*Forever Knight

Voice

The Blood-Red Pencil has a nice post on character voice you should check out for a wonderful example on why you shouldn't mangle the English language in order to present your character's voice.  The example used is dropping g's in a Southerner's speech, but it applies to any form of language modification.  Don't drop into written pidgin with phonetic misspellings for effect, in other words, because it is lazy writing.  (I've done the same thing occasionally, and I can see that it was a stupid and lazy conceit.  I won't do it again!)

There are two sorts of dialog that this lesson applies to, as well:  Your characters' spoken dialog, and their respective internal monologues.  Each character's individuality and roundedness as characters depends on their speech forms and patterns.

So, with that lesson in mind, happy writing!

Your character's job

Found a new blog, "Write On! Advice from an Editor" wherein there is some great advice from blogger, writer and editor Jean Henry Mead.  She has a particularly interesting article on your character's job here.

The "stupid tax"

From my time in law enforcement, I coined the term "stupid tax."  Basically, any penalty or fine is a stupid tax, when it comes to law enforcement--because the persons receiving penalties or fines are getting punished for, basically, being stupid.  It's just a term used "behind closed doors" regarding particularly foolish things, like having a huge bag of weed on the seat you're rolling from and (true story) saying, "it's not mine, I don't know how it got there."

The stupid tax applies precisely where comedian Bill Engvall says, "Here's your sign."   And while I coined the term before "here's your sign" came into being, his term is funnier.  Mine's more in the nature of jargon.  You know, an industry term that mostly insiders get.  A form of shorthand or definition that works in a select group.

Which brings me to the ideas part of this rant.  As in What About Jargon In Your Novel?  I think I've posted on a similar topic once or twice, but not in the sense of considering how jargon reflects character mentality or mood.

Various situations can apply where jargon is useful.  In the aforementioned example of law enforcement, the insider lingo regarding criminals can be rather insulting or rude.  Or LEOs (law enforcement officers) might, like military members or emergency responders on the fire or ambulance crews, have an increasingly raised threshold for what consists of too gross.  You see lots of horrible things and as a coping mechanism people (maybe particularly guys, not sure) tend toward morbid and grossly inappropriate humor.  Sometimes it dehumanizes or objectifies victims or criminals or the deceased so you can look at them as an object in order to keep from losing it yourself; and sometimes it pops out inappropriately instead of behind closed doors.  If a sick sense of humor shows up when the surgeon is telling the family members their child just died, it would be completely outrageous; if a stressed doctor in the lounge says something inappropriate to a colleague, it might be stress relief.  So you can show a lot about your character by where and how you use this sort of language. 

Let me digress into various situations where jargon can be useful for showing character.

Stress can bring out these types of speech as well.  As in the above example, one's emotional resiliance can be eroded, and one's patience and particularly empathy can be flat-lined.  A cop under stress can talk to people politely yet get the complaint "he was rude to me" because his overall stress level flattens the emotions.  I can recall being told I was rude because I "didn't smile enough" even though I said please and thank you and was excruciatingly polite.  Besides just having a "mean face" due to being exhausted, stressed by a fight with a recent contact, or your feet hurting, there's the way stress can cause one to use shorthand terms.  For example, watch some of those caught on tape shows and see how the cops talk.  If their speech gets all full of jargon, the situation is getting tense a lot of times, in my observation.  I think it's a reflection of the officer's attention being on watching for clues that the person will attack or do something that needs intervention.

Dehumanization.  Very useful process that using jargon terms can begin.  Suspect becomes "perp" or similar.  Foul language references to the person, and escalating negativity reflected in the terminology.  This pattern of degradation generally can also apply to everyday terms anyone would understand, moving from terms that are neutral in tone (e.g. PC terminology), to jargon slang that is not so PC, pejoratives combined with foul language and often sexual terminology (e.g. a woman is a 'cunt,' a gay man is a 'faggot,' a suspected rapist or molester is a 'sick mother fucker').  (I particularly love Law & Order because they almost never drop into this sort of speech.  It's really not acceptable, even in cop circles.)

Ideas. Many of the situations I can think of where the use of jargon would be of possible use are involving the military or cops.  But in general I think you could do this with doctors in the ER, with a psychiatrist trying to distance himself emotionally from a patient's trauma (dropping into clinical terms, for example) or with a mother who is a bit too cerebral for her children, like Lilith on Cheers. 

And if cop or military characters are in a conflict situation, they'll probably drop into jargon shorthand with their teammates or pals.  This might be funny or even tragic if one of them doesn't follow what they are saying.  Or troops in combat sound more realistic as the jargon flies.  And when the stuff hits the fan, they drop into terse shorthand.  Kilometers becomes klicks becomes k's as the tension and need to share info rise.  When the mood turns ugly, your cops questioning the suspect start getting ugly in their humor or their terms for the suspect as they talk about him. Conversely, they may become more pointedly polite to the suspect.

In any case, you can take this kernal of an idea and apply it to your story characters and to scenes to underly the rising tension and conflict.  Just consider your particular character and his or her stress level and apply the appropriate level of speech to your character as the situation demands.  Another tool in your writerly toolbox.  Happy writing! 

Shame, Guilt & Human Nature

"But I really do feel guilty about it.  Especially about the binoculars.  Just not enough to stop." How to be Popular, Meg Cabot

Ever consider how it works for a character who is racked with guilt yet acts directly in opposition to that guilt?  The Will To Self-Destruct.  Alcoholics and drug addicts and emotionally wrecked people often do this. 

Or survivor's guilt, where the character is hampered in her ability to function by worrying about whether she's flawed.  Lilith Saintcrow's Jill Kismet in Night Shift has to deal with the worry she's killed her partner.  She carries on; others might crumble.

The existence of shame [a painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace] has, I believe, a social function.  The village, grouping together via established social mores and behaviors, is stronger for it.  Society functions by inculcating and perpetuating behaviors that keep the unit stable.  It can and does go awry (witness the many and varied failures of governmental experiments throughout history) and groups of human beings can come up with really odd social constructs which they pass along. These can be religious ritual, cannibalism, eating of certain foods, taboo behaviors, etc.  Guilt for trangressing these social norms can be a useful plot device, a means of showing one's character's character.

If you have a conflict between society and your character, guilt or shame might be an element to examine.  It can enrich the character's mental landscape, or it can be a pivotal influence upon their decision making process. 

And as always, happy writing!

PS, that quote?  The girl is spying on her best friend, a boy who's gotten pretty hawt over the summer.  She is watching him undress and do naked pushups or something.

Things that happen when you're not looking...

Ever notice how you don't look at things you see every day?  Like, in this case, the newel post at the top of my stairs.  I'm going around, doing bitty jobs around the house, taking down extraneous artwork and patching the holes before we start showing the place...and I notice that el gato grigio has been clawing the 100-year-old maple post so effectively that he's flattened the carving on one side.  (So thank the gods for wood putty, you can't tell unless you look close because I'm good at stain matching, hahaha!) 

The point being, this is an observation of how people truck through  mundane life.  Can it apply to writing and your characters, though?  There might be occasions where the character's expectations of what a thing is will be an exploitable plot problem.

Something to think about.

Meanwhile, I am still doing a ton of work around the house.  Lots of rain sort of stopped me from painting the porch railings and patching the driveway cracks, though.  But there's plenty to do inside.  Oh boy.  Exciting stuff. 

Limitations and characters

Just a small thought that occurs to me as I soldier onwards with the dreadfully long-lasting kitchen painting project.  I have had some physical problems over the years, including moderate to severe arthritis, a back I fractured a few years back and carpal tunnel that leaves me with some hand problems.  Sounds ridiculous, that list, but what it really means is that I can't do things for hours on end.  I am limited, whether I like it or not.  (And trust me, I do not like it at all.)

However, given the time to think as I work on my snail slow project, I got to thinking about how the limitations of a character are often the defining things.  The things a person cannot do can define them in either a negative or a positive sense.  One is limited socially, physically, mentally, or merely by circumstance never having presented an idea that is prevalent-- for example, that poor Austrian woman's children.  Recently freed from a basement prison, these children have never seen sunlight.  So language meanings that relate to light are lacking for them, or many another concept. They will either be disadvantaged by that lack of cultural/whatever insight or they will have the advantage of seeing from a completely unfettered perspective.

So when you develop a character, perhaps see what their limitations are, and consider how it can motivate them despite limitations, or how they can use that fresh perspective to find an out-of-the-box solution.

Don't hate me, write me realistically!

Here's a link to Lynn Viehl's post on "Ten Reasons I Hate Your Protagonist." It's a hoot. I think she got all the things that irritate me down there.

A couple of other things I hate:

• Protagonists who speak in full, complete, and grammatical sentences while under extreme stress. Personally, if someone just tried to shoot me I get a) pissed as hell, b) try to kill them myself, and c) invent a wider range of swear words than I already possess.
• Protagonists who are incapable of a normal range of human emotions or activities. Save the emotionally lame for characters other than the pov character or protag. It usually doesn't work and gets annoying when you treat the reader to an overabundance of description about this character's problems. In other words, they are downers.  (And, with a nod to Charles Gramlich's recent series of talks about subgenres, I ammend this to say that certain tropes/subgenres such as Sword and Sorcery lend themselves to less dimensional protagonist heros.)
• Protagonists who refuse to see what is occurring before their eyes through the second or third demonstration. This can be a) unfaithful lover, b) existance of ghosts, demons or other mythological/supernatural critters, or c) that they are now in the predicament which they fervently wish to deny. The latter is most frequently found in cheesty bodice rippers. The old pinching yourself to wake up thing.
• The spineless heroine who gets a clue, after being totally and irredeemably clueless for 200 pages, and saves the day/resolves her problems, no muss, no fuss.

What really irritates you?

Informative points of view on combat

Want to know about the mind of a military man in combat?  Read Sex Scenes At Starbuck's post commentary for this post.  Fascinating.  I was aware of most of this, but the vets who are posting are philosophical chaps who make the process extremely clear.  You might find great food for thought and ways and means to round out your characters who are forced into violent situations.  It also applies to cops, firefighters and other emergency responders to a greater or lesser degree.

Not all mush is mushy

Being loving is a difficult thing for me to write.  I'm not like that!  I'm a beeyatch mostly and self-serving, ugly with lack of coffee and general grumpiness in the morning and just nasty for no apparent reason in the off hours.  Except when I'm not, lol. 

But being gushy and mushy is just NOT me.  Nuh uh.  Sentimental cards?  No way.  Valentines celebrations?  I think not.  Remembering anniversaries?  My ex nailed a copy of the marriage license to the wall after the third year when I couldn't remember our anniversary. 

Let me say again:  I'm not a touchy-feely gal.  I'm not romantic.  I'm not fuzzy-wuzzy, and I was too selfish to even consider having children.  I do have friends, and people actually seem to like me when they actually get to know me. 

How does this relate to writing?  What I am getting at is that who I am does affect how I write.  I don't do mushy.  I don't do touchy feely.  I might consider it to be a good self-growth and writing-growth exercise to try being mushy; but I doubt the terms will ever enter the lexicon of anyone describing what I do.  The cynicism that drives me is more armor than a thousand tanks, and I'm gonna keep it that way.

And it shows in the writing.  As in my characters don't get all warm and fuzzy.  Like ever.  Snarky, sexy, agressive, okay that works; but sweet and loving?  Too many old wounds in my characters.  That's because we write what we know, and I know cynicism best of all. 

But (and you knew there would be one) I envy it.  Really.  And if you want to read something particularly sweet but not saccharine, check out this Woulda Coulda Shoulda post. 

How the real world views your character

How often does it occur in a fantasy novel that people think your character is nuts? Pretty damn likely, I'd think. And how often do you read in a novel any surrounding response to the characters dealing with the paranormal? Rarely, right? And not just because the mental hospital/psych eval scenario is old hat; it's also because it's easier to ignore the realistic reaction of bystanders to someone slaying vampires. Instead, what mention there is runs along the lines of "let's get out of here before the cops arrive." Well, why not have the occasional plot complication where someone gets caught or needs to be believed but they aren't?

A nifty diagnogsis for our paranormal participants.
A good friend is a neuropsychologist, and made mention that he is giving a talk on Delusional Misidentification Syndrome. This sparked me to thinking about how important it is to place the character into the context of their environment. What do the people around them think is happening when they start to act in response to fairies, elves, vampires, zombies, the paranormal?

The nifty thing about DMS is that describes a bunch of monoschematic delusions, which is to say, that they think one thing is changed in the delusion and otherwise reality is pretty much normal. (This is a glib interpretation, mind you.) I got all giddy and wriggly like a puppy thinking about this, because that is exactly what I'd think a person might diagnose one of my characters with, if, say, she thought her husband had been turned into a vampire or swapped with a simulacrum changeling. Cool.

How this relates to worldbuilding.
Social and physical context is so easy to overlook in planning your projects that it cannot be overstated here: Context must be considered. If your character has to react in ways which would attract the attention of authorities (police, politicians, medical establishments) then what they would interpret via their view of reality must be reflected in these supporting characters' reactions.

Pacatrue had an interesting blog post a while back on context, which might provide you some world building food for thought.

Definitions of DMS, per wikipedia:
Delusional misidentification syndrome is an umbrella term for a group of delusional disorders that occur in the context of mental or neurological illness. They all involve a belief that the identity of a person, object or place has somehow changed or has been altered. As these delusions typically only concern one particular topic they are also fall under the category called monothematic delusions.
This syndrome is usually considered to include four main variants1:
The Capgras delusion is the belief that (usually) a close relative or spouse has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor.
The Fregoli delusion is the belief that various people that the believer meets are actually the same person in disguise.
Intermetamorphosis is the belief that people in the environment swap identities with each other whilst maintaining the same appearance.
Subjective doubles, in which a person believes there is a doppelgänger or double of him or herself carrying out independent actions.

The flavor of a culture, or a truism?

"There was a great simplicity and openness of character about the Gauls, a love of liberty and a generous sympathy with the oppressed.  They scorned surprises and strategems in war, trusting only to strength and valour.  This absense of craft was indeed one of the reasons why they succumbed to the Romans so much sooner and more easily than the Spaniards.  The conquest of Gaul was begun about a century later than that of Spain, but it was concluded earlier.  For the Spaniard kept up a scattered guerilla warfare, protecting himself in his mountains, whereas the Gaul came on with fire and fury, and shattered his whole strength at once against the Roman legions.  Another reason for the comparatively easy subjugation of the Gauls lay in their inability to combine.  Their internal animosities were of more importance to them than the exclusion of the foreigner." De Bello Gallico, According to the Text of Emanuel Hoffman via Google book search. (footnotes and bibliographical refs are omitted)

Does this sound familiar?  I'd bet it does if you have read ANY epic fantasy or military SF! 

First published in 1898, this tome talks about the Gauls and their conquest by the Romans. 

However, from Lord of the Rings to many of the recent epic fantasies I've read, the dynamics are remarkably similar. 

Which tells us something about epic fantasies.  Either the cultures we prefer to see in them are divisive and troublemaking, or this rather ubiquitous social dynamic of divisiveness and inner cultural conflict obscuring threats from outside is a pervasive human condition. 

I rather think the latter.  How do you weigh in on this? 

In terms of writing, though, the loosely connected tribal society that can't get its act together because of internal conflict is rather useful from a plot conflict perspective.  A major obstacle to overcome!

Happy writing!

Characters and their baggage

In a book review of Your First Novel by Ann Rittenberg and Laura Whitcom, Josie D  shares some great wisdom from  the book.  It's a simple metaphor, and it makes sense:   Your Characters Have Baggage.

To whit:  They have a piece of luggage, a carry-on and a small surprise in his pocket.  Read her post for a longer explanation, but  basically it makes a ton of sense.  To make your character realistic, he has some baggage.  It might be his mission he's seeking to accomplish.  Then there is a thing that is at cross-purposes or which deepens our sense of the character, the small carry-on.  It adds to the main baggage or increases our understanding.  Third, the small surprise is something 'that alters our perception or deepens our understanding of the character,' as Josie mentions.   Then she gives a great list of examples to illustrate the point.

What I take from this interesting discussion is that if you wish to have a rounded character, you give them dimension by giving them background that affects the plot and story.  In specific, you make them rounded by giving them three facts that give them three dimensions.  Well, perhaps that's taking it a bit too far; but you can see what I mean!

Social outlook

An article on pets vs. food animals.  Thanks to Sclerotic Rings for the link.  As a writer, I found it informative to be forced to consider a hot-button issue like the eating of cats and dogs in other countries.  We all have our cultural boundaries that we tend to unswervingly assume are the realities for other cultures, and this issue of what's supposed to be food is a biggie.  The article is very lucid in its presentation of others' views of our Western sensibilities, and points out how we tend to treat other cultures as bad and us as right...as if we have a god-given right to do so. 

The stuff of international, um, misunderstandings, yes?

I recall once having dinner with some acquaintances, and my then-hubs and I mentioned that we hunted.  I swear, this woman vomited in her mouth and ran from the room at the mere thought of us eating venison.  (And yes, said, "Ew, you eat Bambi?!")  That's an example of cultural boundaries, all right. 

Likewise, imagine eating ants, snails, grubs, cat, or raccoon meat.  Some things don't seem so bad, but others make the stomach roil.  Depends on you, your culture and your individual tolerance.  Cannibalism is even acceptable-- somewhere.  (I mention this because of a classmate in college who'd just returned from a year living with a former tribe of headhunters.  He shared in great detail their attitudes about not being able to head hunt.  Very enlightening, because they still wanted to, it was that embedded in their culture.)

So, back to the main point:  An awareness of cultural perspectives is valuable for your fictional worlds and the characters who find themselves stranded there.

Happy writing!

The Squidginess Factor: Pillage & Murder

A wonderful site I haven't touted lately is How Stuff Works.  When you haven't had your fill of random facts, this is the place to go.  Or, if you need some inspiration, this is the place to go.  As in today, where I learned that Ghenghis Khan did not actually kill 1,748,000 men, women and children in the ancient city of Nishapur.  But die they did, the whole city of them, all because Ghengis' son-in-law got waxed by a stray arrow.  And their heads stacked in pyramids for the daughter's perusal.

Now, as a modern sort of gal, I tend to keep a rein on my characters' bloodymindedness; however, I can see that I should be pulling this stuff out to read more often.  That, and reread that book I have on real accounts of piracy in the Carribbean.  Those guys were pretty ruthless, too.

Anyhow, the point is that in fantasy works that are not near-real-world (or even those that are) you might consider where your personal ethics and squidginess tolerance lie, and then press those boundaries while you write.  Ignore the squeamishness and press into the forbidden zone. 

It might just infuse your writing with something valuable, new, and give you a depth that you previously lacked in the bad guy character department.  Even your so-called good guys have a dark side, quite often; so be aware of it.

***************

And, I came across this line regarding Ghenghis Khan:

Thanks to his far-flung travels and his appetite for women, a 2003 study found that as many as 16 million people alive today -- or about 0.5 percent of the global population -- are descendants of Khan [source: Zerjal, et al.].

Jungian Archetypes & Characterization

Any archetype can do anything – the question will always be why. Tami Cowden

Probably most of you have, at minimum, heard the term 'archetype' as developed and used by Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, as well as the term 'collective unconsciousness'. I'm not going to define them myself, as I'd be really bad at it; but you should probably familiarize yourself with the concept in order to increase your skills as a creator of characters. Or, failing that, just read a hell of a lot of mythology, Joseph Campbell, epic poetry. Or you could listen to Jewel ad nauseum on your iPod...

What are Archetypes?
Per wiki: Archetypes are innate universal pre-conscious psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge. Being universal and innate, their influence can be detected in the form of myths, symbols and psychic aptitudes of human beings the world over. The archetypes are components of the collective unconscious and serve to organize, direct and inform human thought and behaviour.

The Sixteen Jungian Archetypes.
Jung outlined four main archetypes (Self, Shadow, Anima, Animus) but there are also symbols with layered meanings, and which for the purpose of creating characters are much the same thing (IMO). For these, Jung coined the term, primordial images. "Primordial images originate from the initial stages of humanity and have been part of the collective unconscious ever since. It is through primordial images that universal archetypes are experienced, and more importantly, that the unconscious is revealed."

Ripped from Wikipedia, these are:
The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation
The Shadow, the opposite of the ego image, often containing qualities that the ego does not identify with but possess nonetheless
The Anima, the feminine image in a man's psyche
The Animus, the masculine image in a woman's psyche
The Syzygy, a pairing of contrasexual opposites, which symbolized the communication of the conscious and unconscious minds. The conjunction of two organisms without the loss of identity.
The Child, is portrayed in literature in various ways. Often takes the form of a child who displays adult-like qualities giving, for example, wise advice to their friends or viceversa. (Linus van Pelt)
The Hero/Heroine, character that in the face of danger and adversity, from a position of weakness displays courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is, heroism, for some greater good. (Gilgamesh)
The Great Mother, either good or terrible, is closely related to Mother Goddess figures in many mythologies. Represents fecundity, pregnancy, ripeness.
The Wise old man, or Senex, often appears as a wizard, foreigner, hermit, absent-minded professor type, or alien (e.g. Yoda), typically represented as a kind and wise, older father-type figure who uses personal knowledge of people and the world to offer guidance, thereby acting as a mentor.
The Trickster or Ape. The trickster is incarnated as a clever, mischievous man or creature, who tries to survive the dangers and challenges of the world using trickery and deceit as a defense. (Loki, Prometheus, Coyote, Reynaud the Fox)
The Puer Aeternus (Latin for "eternal boy) Some of the signs of the expression of the puer archetype in a person's life can include immaturity,narcissism, and a desire to escape into fantasy or idealism in preference to remaining with the reality of a situation. (Peter Pan, Bart Simpson)
The Cosmic Man is generally described as helpful or positive, and is also frequently the physical basis of the world, such that after death parts of his body became physical parts of the universe. He also represents the oneness of human existence, or the universe. (Adam, Horus)

Why are archetypes important?
In the development of a character, the recognition of the particular archetype which the character typifies is a useful tool in the writerly toolbox. You can see how the character falls short of your needs or doesn't fit based on aspects of archetype, for example.

I'm afraid that this is such a fascinating topic for me (and the language in which the sources are rendered is so high falutin') that I'm not able to do it proper justice. So let me quote the most accessible descriptions of archetype and characters in writing that I've found.

Tami Cowden says, "Archetypes are not stereotypes; they are not cookie cutters. They can be considered a framework, or even better, a lump of clay of a particular color and consistency. Use the archetype as raw material to create a full bodied character." Wish I'd said that!

She lists her take on the Hero archetypes, Heroine archetypes, and the Villian archetypes on her web page (and in her book), and I found these to be very accessible as a writer.

Translating this to your writing style.
Just because your character is a Gilgamesh-style Hero doesn't mean he is exactly like Gilgamesh. In fact, he may not seem anything like Gilgamesh. The question, as Ms. Cowden says, is to determine the rationale behind the character's actions. WHY? Why, why, why?

This is a valid point and why I led this rant with that particular quote. All heroes are not alike; and the reason for their actions is the reason they are different. So, when you define the archetype based on the character's motivations, you have another tool to help you frame a story that fits the character, or a character to the story. You can also gauge problems if you analyze your major characters this way. For example, if the villian of the piece is more the hero than the hero, you might find your reception is off.

So, now you can go out and drive yourself crazy overanalyzing your work! One more way to avoid actually writing...

Links:
Carl Jung, by Dr. C. George Boeree
Archetypes list, by Philip Wedgewood
Archetypical Literary Criticism, wikipedia article
Jungian Archetypes, wikipedia article

Reading:
Archetypes & The Collective Unconscious, by C.G. Jung
Man & His Symbols, by C.G. Jung
Awakening the Heroes Within, by Carol Peterson
Heros & Heroines, by Tami Cowden
The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers & Joseph Campbell
The Golden Bough, by James G. Frazer
The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell
The White Goddess, by Robert Graves

Speech

As writers, we continually struggle with getting our characters to speak as if they were alive.  This doesn't mean they speak like we speak: if they did, literally, speak like us, it would be boring and likely unintelligible due to lack of body language, vocal nuances and the continual crossing-paths of two or more distinct conversations as everyone speaking drops their agenda bombs into the mix.

So we necessarily use tricks like tags to identify the speakers, and punctuation to show yelling or dragging or interruptions.  We use stage business to show the readers emotion, reaction, etc.  And we use italics to show points of stress in the speech.

An interesting show of how italics can change interpretation is here, on a site discussing Yiddish and its effect upon English. 

The article gave me some interesting food for thought about the nature of vocal stress and how it is a powerful factor in characterization.

Happy writing!

Childhood in your stories

A family counselor I heard speak last Spring said she believes that young girls today who get caught up in skinniness, fashion, popularity, pop culture and boys are, essentially, “underemployed.” Their brains, she said, need to be engaged by things larger than themselves: things like hobbies, sports, art, music or community service. If they’re not, there’s a vacuum, and all kinds of wretched stuff comes to fill their minds instead. Judith Warner

I'm not sure how to take Ms. Warner's NYT blog post.  Are kids becoming dumbed down by our newest pop- cultural parenting trends?  The lack of time to be alone, do hobbies, read, whatever that causes them to have a 'bigger than themselves' experience?

I've long thought that it's harming them to not give them some room to screw up, some space without parental involvement.  But in terms of 'wretched stuff that comes to fill their minds'... That struck a chord.

Made me consider characters and their responses to childrearing in their worlds and times.  This isn't an area where I'd tend to give much page time; but as a background, and as a bit of something that you can use in your created culture, it's pretty useful.

I think, though, that the most useful thing from this quote is that you have to consider what is the result of the style of upbringing.  What are the negative things, what are the positive things.  What effect does this childhood have, and if there are a lot of kids messed up by it, what happens then?  Do you have flocks of street children 'surfing' on top of trains and getting thrill-killed?  Neurotic agoraphobics who can only communicate via electronic go between?  And so forth.

Think about it.  The children are the future, after all...

Happy writing!

I hope you enjoyed Turkey Day

Belated blessings.
Mom and I had five people over to supper yesterday, and  good time was had by all.  I cooked a 20# turkey, and yum! it was good.  Three of us are vegetarians, so there were some interestingly non-traditional dishes as well.  But the gravy, stuffing, cranberry sauce and turkey bloated my belly quite nicely.  I forgave the heartburn as earned in a good cause.

I must say, though, that the day was dampened a bit by Old Cat's problems.  He's suffering the worst sort of incontinence (really gross) and if immodium doesn't do the job, don't know if he'll be around this time next week.  Horrible.  Stuff just pops out of him.  I have never seen a cat embarrassed before, and possibly I still haven't.  But his offended demeanor when this happens leads me to believe that a cat's embarrassment is full of glares and It's Not MY Fault (implying it's mine or whoever else is present's).  Especially when I clean him up afterwards.

Which leads me to the discussion about characterization. 
How does a character continue to ring true to your audience through the length of a  novel?  Even more difficult, of a series?  In the Elantra Chronicles, which have been the reading for the last few days, the main character, Kaylin, is characterized as smart yet ignorant, as exasperatingly stubborn yet naive as hell, as loyal yet violently allergic to authority.  She loves her job as a Hawk (basically, a cop) and she loves the Law.  She hates magic, but by unfortunate circumstance is magical. 

So, in this example, the character is a bundle of contradictions.  The author, Michelle Sagara, makes her endearing by having her be a contradiction who is consistent.  The consistency, I believe, is the key.  There are recurring references (mostly comedic or as sarcastic dialog) referring to Kaylin's traits, most particularly Kaylin's ability to fail every class she deems superfluous to her role as Hawk.  We see a few things about her character through these jibes: She is, with all her being, determined to be a Hawk, to seek justice for those who need it. 

Probably the biggest sin of characterization is to have your characters fail to change.  That makes them Too Stupid To Live (TSTL) or boring.  However, somethings should also be consistent; and those are the traits (like Kaylin's) which define the characters. 

I once spent a time working with deaf children in a summer camp.  The girls created a shortcut for my name, spelling it partially and completing another gesture in the process-- swooping in a curve to mimic my distinctively curved eyebrows.  This is a common trend in sign language.  It's both a form of shortcut and a means of making my name distinctive to me. 

Likewise, we create certain signature behaviors of our characters. 

Subtle influences

Glancing up, she saw the flag of the Hawks on its tower height, and she stopped for a moment, hoping to hear its heavy canvas flap in the wind.  But she was earthbound.  Funny, how it was the unreachable things that always provided her an anchor.  Cast in Shadow, by Michelle Sagara

Subtleties often bring the most memorable moments in a good read.  In the quote above, character insight is done particularly well.  In my own thinking, such thoughts as the character, Kaylin, thinks are common; but I read that paragraph just now and thought about how I tell my character's insights. 

I am not generally that subtle.  I like to say it outright, baldly and bloody like the aftermath of a bar fight.

However, most characters' telling moments of insight are not that hard won.  At least, not if they aren't TSTL.  And, personally, I really insist on a modicum of self-awareness in the characters I read about; so I figure it's sort of normal to have them able to figure most things out.  Right?

How do you portray your character's insights about themselves?

By the way, I recommend Cast in Shadow.  The beginning is a bit confusing as you figure out the world wherein the story resides, but it's a good book if you can last the first twenty pages.

What about the spear carriers?

It's always a temptation when writing, I find, to treat the smaller roles like I do new neighbors:  First impression is all there is to them.  You see them, form a sense of who they are and just carry on as usual.  It might not be until you really get to know them that you discover the apparent hippie is actually a NASA researcher and his wife is a PhD in Social Anthropology who does freelance consulting for the UN. 

At that point you have to take a mental step back and take another mental snapshot of them. 

The failing here is one that is one of adaptation which humans found useful:  The application of quickly formed labels for things and individuals.  This aided survival to form an instant impression of Good, Bad, Scary, Nice, etc.  Simplistic, but depth wasn't needful to survival.  A still shot of something that isn't questioned again without strong provocation.

Unfortunately, this trait lingers on in our behavior to the present day, allowing us to meet someone and form an impression that we just don't bother to change...resulting in a rather shocked realization when we discover the 'hippy' is a rocket scientist or similar.

And how does this specifically apply to writing?
I submit to you, fellow writers, that you probably do this glossing over with many of your bit players in  your stories.  It's only human nature, after all.  We do it in real life.  And it is hurting your novels because with small bit players, the spear carriers, you can add so much realism and veracity, empowering your worldbuilding and increasing the impact of your ideas-- if you reframe your image of that flat, pale little character on page 93.

Consider this:  People are like the patchwork quilt.   They are composed of bits taken from here and there, the places they've been, the people they've known, the emotional experiences they've had.  And then they sew these together.  Each is unique and beautiful in its own way, and you, the author, can use this knowledge to portray every character as individual.

It's easy to forget that people don't come to us in our stories frozen in time.  Especially when we are talking about minor characters.  If they do not react and change in direct experience during your stories, you have failed them and your story.  So they are a spear carrier in this story; but if you treat them like they are real people, they will add breadth and life to your writing.  Give the spear carriers a bone and let them be real enough to change some in your works.

But play Pygmalion and breathe the breath of life into them.  See how fascinating the story becomes.