Six Points About Character, Plot, and Dialogue You Wish You'd Have Known Yesterday by Sol Stein

If you could sit down in a chair next to the editor of work by James Baldwin, Elia Kazan, Jack Higgins, Jacques Barzun, David Frost, Budd Schulberg, Dylan Thomas and Lionel Trilling, what could that editor say that would be immediately helpful to you in your work? If you're a film writer or a novelist, would there be a benefit in sitting down with the man whom Kazan in his autobiography called his producer and director.

(Kazan may have been the only American to hit home runs in all three fields, film, theater and fiction. He directed five Pulitzer-prize-winning plays, received two Academy Awards® for directing plus a Lifetime Achievement Award, and capped his career with a novel that was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list for 37 consecutive weeks.)

If you think Kazan's and Baldwin's editor could have a few words you might find useful, take heed because you're listening to him.

1. The job of the editor is to help the writer realize the writer's intentions. The problem is that the intentions of many writers are wrong. The job of the writer is not to express himself or get something off his chest; his job is to provide the reader with an experience that is superior to what the reader experiences in everyday life. His job is to give the reader (or viewer) pleasure; only then will his insight mean something. As a writer, you are, in one sense, a troublemaker. A psychotherapist tries to relieve a person's stress, strain and tension. You are not a psychotherapist. Your job is to give readers and viewers stress, strain and tension. They love it because it is not in their life; it is in a book or on screen.

2. There's a book called 'Characters Make Your Story.' You don't have to read it. The title says it all. If you start with characters and put a protagonist and antagonist in opposition to each other and let the plot grow from that, you can build a contender. If you start with plot and sprinkle characters in it, the likely result is hackwork.

In my novel 'The Best Revenge,’ a successful Broadway producer and a gangster seem to come from opposite sides of the human spectrum. They start out as the worst of enemies and ,in the course of a Broadway production financed by ill-gotten money, become the best of friends. How that happens is the plot, but the success of the plot is entirely dependent on the credibility of the characters. If you're going for an Academy Award, base your so-called 'high concept' on the character of your characters. And here's a hint. If you look at the fiction that survived the 20th century, you'll find that almost all the main characters are eccentric. The creation of characters is an arrogant and highly skilled function because what you're doing is competing with God.

3. You are in a long line of storytellers whose job was to keep the listeners attention. The storyteller around the fire droned on. If his audience guessed what happened next, they either fell asleep or killed him. You are lucky. Your job is to arouse the reader's curiosity and not satisfy it. That's how suspense is created. Make sure your story has uncertainty about something, a prospective danger to the leading character, confrontations, set up something that cries for a resolution and then don't resolve it -- for a time. Remember that suspense occurs when the reader or viewer wants something to happen desperately and it isn't happening yet.

Suspense works best in a closed locale, like an elevator, or a weekend getaway where an unexpected person appears. You build suspense throughout a novel by remembering this: Never take the reader where the reader wants to go.

4. When I was invited to teach a course on 'Dialogue for Writers' at UCI (the University of California at Irvine to you non- Californians), I was told by the dean who invited me that, to his knowledge, there hadn't been a course on that subject before. I still find that hard to believe, but in the early 90s, I ended up giving that course in a medical amphitheater because of the demand of writers in every genre for instruction in a language that is not English or Spanish.

Dialogue is a foreign language, different from whatever language a writer has grown up using. It can make people unknown to the writer cry, laugh and believe lies in seconds. It is succinct, can carry a great weight of meaning in few words, and, above all, it is adversarial. That doesn't mean shouting. Adversarial dialogue can be subtle. It also has modes that are akin to pitches in baseball, fastballs, curve balls, sinkers, which are dealt with fully in my books and software because there isn't room in an article for this delicate and hugely important process. But let me give you a couple of examples.

Here's an Elmore Leonard character propositioning a woman with a curve ball: 'Let's get a drink and talk for a few days.' A sinker is useful for comedy: 'Are you going to let go of me, or shall I scream and let the neighbors see you in your undershirt?'

Characters reveal themselves in dialogue best when they are under stress and blurt out things they never meant to say.

What counts in dialogue is not what is said, but what is meant.

Dialogue is not at all like recorded speech. Evidence: Court transcripts are recorded speech, and awfully boring.

5. I sometimes run into writers who bristle at the idea that conflict is necessary. They say, 'Why should I have conflict? Why can't I deal with human relations without conflict?' The answer is simple. Conflict is the essence of dramatic action and has been involved in theater and fiction since the beginning of time. What is easy to lose sight of in an era of slam-bang conflict is that conflict needn't be violent action. Even subtle conflict is interesting to readers and viewers. Here's an example from a story by Richard Bausch, a short story writer and novelist whose work has merited a Modern Library edition of his selected stories. The exchange is between a wife waking a husband who has to wake his children.

'Casey,' she said. 'I'm up,' he told her. 'Don't just say 'I'm up.' 'I am up,' Casey said, 'I've been up since five forty-five.' 'Well, good. Get up up.'

Dialogue is permeated with an adversarial spirit that comes out as confrontation, suspicion, opposition and refusal. Readers love dialogue when it throws sparks.

6. A distinction used to be made between commercial fiction and literary fiction. That distinction doesn't make sense at a time when some well-crafted literary fiction makes a lot of money. 'Popular fiction' doesn't make sense either because literary fiction is also popular if measured by the number of copies sold. The distinction I draw is between what I call transient fiction and literary fiction. Novels that are transient are like one-night stands, sex as entertainment. The novel with higher aspirations involves a union with the reader that lasts beyond the last page. It's the kind of book we say we love. It deserves the durability of hardcover binding and acid-free pages and a long afterlife beyond the year of its publication.

'Do read this, it's a wonderful book,' is word-of-mouth that is responsible for books worth not only reading but also keeping. Fiction that has a chance of lasting is usually characterized by the writer's close attention to the choice of words, and with what I call particularity, a subject I have written a great deal about and show how to use in 'FictionMaster'®. Fiction thrives on precisely observed detail, not generalizations.

I was recently editing a novel by a lawyer that has moments of precisely observed particularity. His main character is someone I'd like to meet and know. If we're invited to spend 12 hours with a story, we want to fall in love with that principal character, and I feel that way about this novelist's protagonist. But when the writer deals with the antagonists (there are several), we get generalities that tarnish their credibility. Remember one word on your way to literary success: Particularity. I wish I had more time with you. There are two more things I'd like you to remember. A writer writes what other people only think. The best writers I have worked with try to do that and often succeed. They also focus on detail, especially unconventional detail. I have barely touched on the complex craft of writing in this short article. The good news is that I have cloned myself in two books, 'Stein on Writing' and 'How to Grow a Novel,' and I now instruct more than 100,000 writers interactively in three computer programs to which I invite your attention.

Sol Stein is a prize-winning playwright produced on Broadway, an anthologized poet, the author of nine novels, including the million-copy-seller, 'The Magician,' plus nonfiction books, screenplays and TV dramas. He has edited and published some of the most successful writers of our century.

SEXUALITY, GENDER ROLES, AND THE ENNEAGRAM by Judith Searle

SEXUALITY, GENDER ROLES, AND THE ENNEAGRAM
© 1996 by Judith Searle
The first question we ask when a baby is born is: "Is it a boy or a girl?" Gender identity is the most basic of all human identities. Though most people accept most of the socially prescribed roles for the gender they were born with, some struggle against what they see as rigid and arbitrary social norms. All of us wonder: Exactly what is this mysterious sexual urge that drives us? Is our sexuality simply the particular cravings we express in our most private moments with a lover? How does our sexuality relate to our need for novelty? Is there some universal motor that runs sexual arousal for all of us?
We wouldn't expect a fish to have much insight into the nature of water. Men and women immersed in a hair-raising ride through the whitewater rapids of sexual conflicts and attractions look like equally poor bets for insights into the nature of sexuality and its relation to gender roles. However, I believe those of us who are familiar with the Enneagram have at our disposal an extraordinary tool for transcending our individual identities to gain a broader perspective on some important aspects of human sexuality and its relation to gender roles in our society.
Before I get into my thoughts about that, it might be well to begin with a couple of definitions. By "sexuality" I mean the personal experience of arousal and the drive toward orgasm. By "gender roles" I mean our society's conventions about which behaviors are appropriate for males and which for females. Gender roles are, in a sense, the context in which our sexuality exists in society.
On the issue of the root of human sexuality, I know of no better theory than Colin Wilson's. In his provocative book Origins of the Sexual Impulse he suggests that the underlying motor of sexuality is: "the need for 'alien-ness'--the illusion of the inviolability of the other person, upon which all sexual desire depends." (p. 42). His book is basically an expansion of this idea:
Satisfactory sex is the invasion of the other's "alien-ness." This is why we call the sexual parts our "private parts." All depends upon the idea of violating strangeness....When the intensity of sexual response depends on the alien-ness that has been invaded, it follows that men will try to intensify the response still further by going further afield in alien-ness. Since their enjoyment of "normal" sex depends on the sense of violating a taboo, it follows that they will try to increase their satisfaction by including as many taboos as possible in the sexual object....All sexual perversions, from mere adultery to necrophily, can be seen as attempts to increase the alien-ness of the act by increasing the number of taboos involved. Sex can never, on any level, be "healthy" or "normal." It always depends on the violating of taboos--or, as Baudelaire would have said, on the sense of sin. (pp. 246-47)
Many writers on sexuality have observed that most of us choose as sexual partners people who are distinct in temperament from ourselves. In her book The Sexual Self (an examination of sexual types in which readers familiar with the Enneagram will see clear correspondences to the nine Enneagram fixations) sex therapist Avodah K. Offit writes:
Passive people are most frequently married to dominant ones. By dominant, I do not necessarily mean aggressive or commanding. Dominance can also be related to mood, degree of verbosity, exhibitionism, paranoia, intellect, or indeed any other prevailing characteristic. (p. 206)
This pattern, Offit points out, has deep roots in the animal world:
In mating, mammals with a cortex are always concerned with some form of dominance, submission, or protection. Without Psyche, Cupid does not function. (p. 235)
To most sophisticated students of the Enneagram, it is axiomatic that each of us, while identifying a "home base" point we call our "fixation," participates in all points to some degree. A major strength of the Enneagram as a system is its compassionate acceptance of the full range of human types and its refusal to judge one as inherently "better" than any other. Nowhere is this concept more rigorously tested than in our consideration of gender roles and their relation to the diagram. There are certain points most of us associate with the "feminine"--notably Two and Four--and a certain point most of us associate with the "masculine"--notably Eight. For each of us, the tensions that drive our fixation shape our particular sexual style as well, but I believe each of us is also powerfully influenced by the opposition between Four and Eight (in which Two participates in ways I'll discuss later).
My basic thesis in this article is this: that the Four and Eight Enneagram points form a kind of universal template for gender roles in our society, and that the opposition between them is the source of the essential "alien-ness" that serves as the motor for our sexuality.
Four and Eight is a common combination in couples, and this pairing shows an obvious complementarity. As I observed in my article "The 'Latitude and Longitude' of Enneagram Fixations," Four's gift is for authenticity: depth of feeling, aesthetic perfect pitch, a romantic and passionate orientation to life. The price of this gift is self-absorption, and its pitfall is a tendency toward self-dramatization. Fours often view themselves as passionate people doomed to chronic pain because of the insensitivity of others. The "rubber band" effect in relationships (which Helen Palmer has astutely observed is characteristic of the Four) suggests that Fours may have a problem with too much pleasure--may in fact require a certain amount of pain to keep their feelings always at fever pitch and thus reinforce their view of themselves as more sensitive and authentically alive than most people.
Eight's gift is for action: a readiness to do whatever is necessary to seize and maintain power in a situation, a thick hide, a relish for confrontation, and a strong sexual appetite. The price of this gift is impulsiveness (an inability to forego confrontation, even when restraint might be more advantageous), and its pitfall is a tendency to hold grudges--to inflict massive punishments on those who would impede Eights' pursuit of their desires. Not surprisingly, Eights often cause quite a bit of pain to those around them. And this tendency makes them the perfect partner for Fours.
Though Offit's book makes no reference to the Enneagram, she observes a similar complementarity:

On the negative side, pain dependence--the craving to receive hurt, either physical or emotional--seems to be one of the most powerful aphrodisiacs of all time. This is often related to the sadism with which many parents expressed their concern. Children accustomed to having their bodies or sensibilities abused tend to preserve their punishments in later life by forming relationships which imitate early models. Security has become associated with pain.
Both receiving gratification of dependent needs and giving it can be immensely arousing. Those who derive satisfaction from supporting, parenting, or inflicting pain on people who would be better off without these attentions generally demonstrate that form of dependency which underlies aggressive character traits. (p. 40)

The intense one-pointed focus of pain in the body has an obvious relationship to the intense one-pointed focus of sexual pleasure. In a sense, pleasure is inseparable from pain in the human nervous system the same way light is inseparable from shadow in chiaroscuro painting. Pain is actually essential to human survival. Diseases such as leprosy that interfere with people's capacity to feel pain are extremely dangerous because their victims lack the early-warning system that keeps most of us from seriously damaging our bodies.
I've emphasized the sadistic-masochistic split between Eight and Four in order to make my point, but it's important to remember that all sexuality--not just its pathological manifestations--requires a basic "alien-ness" as a motor for desire. I have found Don Richard Riso's model (which describes the range of healthy to unhealthy behaviors for each Enneagram type) enormously useful in many ways, and it has obvious applications here. The relationship between Eight and Four partners might range all the way from a passionate, fulfilling adventure to a downward cycle of battering, terror, and murder. We see vivid depictions of the pathology of eroticized pain in such literary works as The Story of O and Susanna Moore's recent novel In the Cut.
Helen Palmer has pointed out that Mexico is basically an Eight/Four culture, with the men predominantly Eights and the women predominantly Fours. (I suspect this pattern may be true of Hispanic cultures generally.) I think most students of the Enneagram would acknowledge that the Four and Eight points on the diagram have strong gender associations. But let's consider for a moment the opposites of those stereotypes. Though we all know female Eights and male Fours, we recognize that these people frequently find themselves at odds with society's expectations--the Eight females often being seen as "unwomanly," the Four males as "unmanly."
The great value of the Enneagram in this instance is that it allows us to see these types (indeed, all types) as basic human types, not restricted in their gender incidence at all. I have yet to see any reliable studies of the numbers of males and females in the Eight and Four categories (or in any of the points, for that matter), but my gut-level sense is that there are probably in the general population about the same proportion of males and females in each point. However, I do observe a tendency among certain types in certain gender categories to be homosexual in their orientation.
Among gay males there seems to be a larger proportion of Fours than in the heterosexual male population, while among lesbians there seems to be a skewed proportion of Eights. (This is of course not to suggest that all Eight females are lesbian or all Four males gay, or that examples of all nine Enneagram types are not found among gay men and lesbians.) It is interesting to note that even within same-sex relationships there are usually distinct Eight/Four assignments of roles: "rough trade" and "queen" for males, "butch" and "femme" for females.
A close look at the Two point offers another perspective on the notion that Eight and Four represent a kind of universal template for sexuality. The world's great lovers--from Casanova to Madonna--have often been Twos. Twos' gift is for empathy: a powerful ability to connect with the feelings of others. Through their extraordinary sexual empathy Twos are able to scope out the erotic longings of others, and their ability to play a variety of roles has led some psychologists to characterize them as "histrionic." The price of their gift is a lack of connectedness to their own feelings, and their pitfall is a tendency to manipulate people.
When we examine the Enneagram "anatomy" of the Two point, we see that Twos have as their "longitude" (security-stress continuum) a direct line between Four and Eight. So Two is essentially an embodiment of the Eight/Four opposition, a paradoxical combination of aggressiveness and passivity, yang and yin.
Having no compelling erotic agenda of their own, seductive Twos are skilled at adapting to their partner's sexual scenario, playing whatever role seems likely to prove most arousing. The hidden agenda for all Twos is power, which Twos often achieve through their sexual prowess. We need to remember, of course, that Twos come in many different versions--running the gamut from radiant, altruistic health to hysterical, power-driven pathology.
Of all points on the Enneagram, Twos have the most potential for "polymorphous perversity"--swinging both ways. If a reliable tool for assessing sexual orientation in relation to the Enneagram were ever developed, I suspect it would show that a large proportion of bi-sexuals (of both sexes) are Twos.
In its embodiment of the Four/Eight opposition, Two exemplifies the possibilities for maintaining variety and sexual excitement through the trading off of gender roles in relationships. Having myself been in a relationship with a Two man for nearly thirty years, I can attest to the power of this kind of sexual play in keeping sexuality alive. I suspect that most long-term couples with strong sexual relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual, experiment with this kind of alternation of gender roles.
A look at the Enneagram Three offers yet another interesting perspective on the Eight/Four opposition as a template for sexuality and gender roles. Characteristically, the Three is concerned with presenting an appropriate image to the world, with Three women appearing conventionally "feminine" and Three men conventionally "masculine." Essential to the Three persona is an ability to gauge how one is perceived by others and a skill in fine-tuning the picture to elicit the desired response. (We all, of course, share this ability to some degree, but Threes are exceptionally adept in this area.)
I suspect that when gay men and lesbians who are Threes choose to keep their sexual orientation private they probably have more success than homosexuals of other Enneagram points in maintaining the appearance of heterosexuality.
The Three's focus on role playing makes me think of the way children play "house": "I'll be the daddy, you be the mommy." Or "doctor" (the great euphemism for childhood sexual explorations): "I'll be the doctor, you be the patient." Both these games are, in effect, practice sessions with Eight/Four polarities. Through trying on gender roles we learn to define ourselves in terms of the world's expectations.
Looking at the Three's ability to "put on the mask" of whatever gender image seems appropriate, I find myself wondering how firmly our sexuality is actually entrenched in immutable gender roles. Is it possible that all gender roles, for every Enneagram type, may ultimately be a part of our consensual social/sexual trance--a "let's pretend" that we subscribe to in the interest of generating sexual arousal? Are our "approved" lists of behaviors for each gender more arbitrary than we like to acknowledge? Does our view of distinct (and mutually exclusive) gender role categories really qualify as any more than a sort of masturbatory fantasy that allows us to maintain the "alien-ness" we need to get off?
Each of the Enneagram points tells itself a different "story" about the nature of reality. In this sense the nine points are like nine blind people trying to describe an elephant. Each of the nine stories about the elephant is true, but each is limited because it is not the whole story. I believe this situation applies also to our personal concepts of the nature of sexuality, each of us being equally blinkered by being either male or female--categories as mutually exclusive (and as connected) as the nine Enneagram types.
One of the great virtues of the Enneagram is that it allows us to grasp the possibility of an essential truth beyond our individual fixated views. In my own One fixation, for example, I am obsessed with imperfection (both in the world and in myself) and feel compelled to "fix" it. Yet beyond what I see through the flawed lens of my fixation is an essential truth: that the world is perfect, just as it is; that its very life depends on its constant changing and the growth of people within it in an organic way.
In similar fashion, each of us tells ourselves stories about the nature of sexuality from the skewed perspective of our personal sexual fantasies. But there is a kernel of truth underlying all the stories, and I believe the Enneagram can help us see the universal template we all subscribe to: that alien-ness, the motor that runs our desire, depends on our telling ourselves some version of a story about an Eight/Four opposition between ourselves and our lovers. Out of this awareness we can gain compassion for ourselves and others caught in society's fixation that there are appropriate behaviors for males that are distinct and opposite from appropriate behaviors for females.
Nothing brings us closer to our deepest human essence than the experience of a fulfilling and generous sexuality, and looking at our sexuality and gender roles through the correcting and magnifying lens of the Enneagram can offer a valuable perspective on our lives.
Bibliography:
Offit, Avodah K., The Sexual Self, revised edition. (New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., 1983).
Palmer, Helen, The Enneagram. (New York: HarperCollins, 1988).
Riso, Don Richard, Personality Types. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1987).
Searle, Judith, "The 'Latitude and Longitude' of Enneagram Fixations," Enneagram Monthly Vol. 2, nos. 2-4 (February-April 1996).
Wilson, Colin, Origins of the Sexual Impulse. (London: Panther Books, 1966).


The above article was published in the May 1996 issue of Enneagram Monthly.

SEMINARS FOR MALES (prepared and presented by females)

1. Combating Stupidity
2. You, Too, Can Do Housework
3. PMS: Learn When to Keep Your Mouth Shut
4. How to Fill an Ice Tray
5. We Do Not Want Sleazy Under things for Christmas: Give us Money
6. Understanding the Female Response to Your Coming in Drunk at 4:00am
7. Wonderful Laundry Techniques (formerly titled "Don't Wash my Silks")
8. Parenting: No, It Doesn't End With Conception
9. Get a Life: Learn to Cook
10. How Not to Act Like an Asshole When You're Obviously Wrong
11. Spelling: Even You Can Get it Right
12. Understanding Your Financial Incompetence
13. You: The Weaker Sex
14. Reasons to Give Flowers
15. How to Stay Awake After Sex-Afterglow, Hold Me, Talk to Me
16. Why it is Unacceptable to Relieve Yourself Anywhere but the Bathroom
17. Garbage: Getting it to the Curb
18. You Can Fall Asleep Without IT If You Really Try
19. The Morning Dilemma-If It's awake: Take A Cold Shower
20. I'll Wear It If I Damn Well Please
21. How to Put the Toilet Lid Down (formerly titled "No, It's Not a Bidet")
22. "The Weekend" and "Sports" are Not Synonyms
23. Give Me a Break: Why We Know Your Excuses are Bullshit
24. How to Go Shopping with Your Mate and Not Get Lost
25. The Remote Control: Overcoming Your Dependency
26. Romanticism: Ideas Other Than Sex
27. Helpful Postural Hints for Couch Potatoes
28. Mothers-in-Law: They are People Too
29. Male Bonding: Leaving Your Friends at Home
30. You, Too, Can Be a Designated Driver
31. Seeing the True You (formerly titled "No, You Don't Look Like Mel Gibson When Naked")
32. Changing Your Underwear: It Really Works
33. The Attainable Goal: Omitting TITS From Your Vocabulary
34. Fluffing the Blankets After Flatulating is Not Necessary
35. Techniques of Calling Home
36. Introductory Foreplay: The Drive Home Does Not Count.

Redheaded Women Have a Unique Ability

Redheads are special! Women who have red hair have an innate ability to tolerate more pain than other people. While testing the painkilling drug pentazocine, researchers from McGill University in Montreal discovered that the same gene that gives women red hair and fair skin also plays a role in the body's natural pain suppression system. However, it doesn't work for male carrot-tops. Redheaded women can tolerate more pain than anyone else, including men with red hair and men and women who do not have red hair. The others all had a similar and much lower tolerance to pain than flame-haired females.
Oooh la la! Click for a gorgeous photo gallery of one of Hollywood's leading flame-haired actresses.
"While we believe pain is the same in all women of all hair colors, our study shows women with red hair respond better to the painkilling drug we tested than anyone else--including men," lead researcher Jeffrey S. Mogil, a professor of pain studies at McGill, said in a news release. Why would the gene that gives red hair and fair skin--identified as Mc1r--work differently in redheaded men and women? Mogil told Reuters that men and women are using different pain pathways. "If they were using the same pathways, then the redhead gene would have the same impact for both sexes," he added.
What over-the-counter pain medicines work best? Here's a handy guide.
When we experience pain, our bodies attempt to dull the discomfort by releasing natural substances that are similar to medications like morphine. The gene Mc1r influences the pathway through which the body doles out those naturally occurring painkillers in women. The research could affect how doctors prescribe pain medication, since it's clear that genetic differences impact how well a drug will work for individual people. The study findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Quick Character Motivation Exercise by Alicia Rasley

Quick Character Motivation Exercise
copyright 2001 by Alicia Rasley
Here's a quick exercise to help you explore your protagonist's needs and values and strengths and issues.
Mixing External with Internal and Turning Up the Heat
1. Fill in the blanks: (Protagonist name) ____________ wants (goal) _________________ by (time, date, occasion) _______________, because (motivation) ______________. If (name) _____________ doesn't get this, (he/she) _____ thinks that (something bad) _______________ will happen. If (name) ______________ does get this, (he/she) ______ thinks that (something good)
________________ will happen.
Example: Theresa wants to find her birthparents while Adam is still in town to help her with the search (two weeks), because she thinks they will tell her why they gave her up. If Theresa doesn't find them, she thinks that once her adoptive mother dies, she will be all alone. If Theresa does find them, she thinks that she will finally belong to a real family.
2. Fill in the blanks:
(Name) _______________ is on a journey from (one state of being) ________________ to (another state of being) ________________, and to get there, (he/she) ___________ must (learn, grow, overcome something) ___________________________. The external plot powers (name) _________ on this journey because it challenges (him/her) _______ to (do, become, change)
________________.
Theresa is on a journey from isolation to alliance, and to get there, she must learn to give up the dreams of the ideal family and embrace the one she has. The external plot powers Theresa on this journey becaue it challenges her to search for the truth and to take her adoptive sisters into her confidence.
3. Jot down what your protagonist does in your external plot in the:
Beginning--
Middle--
End--
B-- Theresa comes home to search for her birthmother, hiding her plan from her adoptive sisters and mother.
M-- With help from the mysterious Adam, Theresa tracks her original family to a nearby town.
E-- Theresa learns that Adam isn't who she thought he was, and that her original family is not the ideal she'd hoped for. When Adam threatens her sisters, she realizes that she must accept them as her family and let go of her dream of restoring the past.
4. (Name's) _____________________ central strength is __________________. This is brought out in the external plot because ________________________________. Some problems that come along with this strength are: ___________________________________________.
Theresa's central strength is her scrupulous determination not to sin, to be virtuous. This is brought out in the external plot because she must rejoin the real world (after a long religious retreat) and deal with its moral ambiguities. She once thought if she were good enough, her birthmother would come back for her. Some problems that come with this strength are: self-righteousness, alienation from her "sinful" sister, over-strictness, self-absorption, fear that a mistake will lead to ostracism and
condemnation, others' perception that she's cold and unforgiving.
5. More than anything, (protagonist name) is afraid of __________________. The last thing he/she wants to do is ___________________. More than anything, Theresa is afraid of loving too much and being abandoned. The last thing she wants to do is trust in the love of the sisters who have never really accepted her.

Interesting story idea starters

How many times during the day do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Do you consider yourself well organized?? Do you often have to look for your keys?

While arguing with a close friend on the telephone, they get angry and hang up. Assuming they were at fault and make no attempt to contact you, how long would you wait to get in touch with them?

If your friends and acquaintances were willing to bluntly and honestly tell you what they really thought of you - would you want them to??

Before making a telephone call do you rehearse what you are going to say?

When did you last cry in front of another person?? by yourself??

Would you accept $10,000 to shave your head and continue your normal activities without a hat or wig and without explaining the reason for your haircut?

If you could have free, unlimited service for five years from either an extremely good cook, chauffeur, housekeeper, masseuse, or personal secretary, which would you choose?

If you went to a movie with a friend and it was lousy would you leave?

If you could script the basic plot for the dream you will have tonight - what would the story be??

Psychology of Men, By Doug McKee, Psy.D.

Psychology of Men
By Doug McKee, Psy.D.
Men have often been reluctant to admit to the need for help. For example, I often hear from women that their partners won't stop and ask for directions when lost on the highway.
Why is it that men are not conditioned to seek support from others? As little boys, they are often told to be independent and made to compete with other boys. Competition over cooperation is a value that is taught. It is no wonder, as adults, that males want to continue to "do it on their own." Getting help from others, especially a therapist, is seen as a sign of weakness, or even worse, failure.
Some of the rules are changing, though. Many men are seeking support and, more than ever, today's male can say phrases such as: "I'm hurt," "I don't know," and the very vulnerable admission "I'm scared." Typically men are given permission to express anger and sexual feelings while most other feelings have been taboo. To express love or sadness was too feminine, too ladylike, and therefore in the domain of being a "sissy." In a reaction against these values, the men's movement started by Robert Bly and Sam Keen became a fad in the early nineties. Drumming at men's groups was common and the self-help section of the bookstore filled up with books about men.
One of the pioneers of the men's movement is Warren Farrell. His work in the field of psychology started with NOW, the National Organization for Women. Farrell soon realized that men needed understanding also. I have learned a great deal from the books about men and the workshops that their authors presented. The next level of growth for me came from a commitment to personal therapy - specifically group therapy. I now believe that it is through a connection to others that men heal most fully.
The moral development of children was studied by Kohlberg. He originated the idea of a six stage model of how children acquire a concept of morality. Unfortunately, it was a study that only included boys as subjects. Years later, Carol Gilligan suggested that girls didn't share the same development. Her conclusion suggested that women gain their identity through connection while men attain theirs through separateness. This seemed to be very apparent to me after I read Gilligan's article, yet I had never heard it put so simply.
What do men talk about in therapy? It is not uncommon for men to deny their emotional pain at first. Sometimes sent by their partner, or other times reluctantly dragged by a significant other, men starting therapy enter into a domain that feels foreign to them. Therapy consists of looking at many gray areas that are uncomfortable. Men may bring up issues with the wife or children, the boss or a coworker. After several sessions, their isolation, lack of support, and need to feel in control often surfaces. Problems common among men in therapy are alcoholism, depression, anxiety, sleeping disorders, eating disorders and sexual disorders. These problems have often been painful, yet men have been trained to keep the pain hidden.
My approach in working with men is to allow them to express their emotional pain, validate it, and then learn new ways of relating to their environment. Some techniques I have used are: "I messages," empathy skill building, and practicing feeling expressions.
The use of "I messages" allows the client to speak for himself only. Men often use the pronoun "we" when in couples therapy. In group therapy, the word "you" is often inappropriately used when "I" would be a more powerful pronoun. Having clients, especially men, use "I messages" gives personal accountability to the statement.
Another technique that I use in therapy with men is an empathy skill building model. This approach involves having the male client repeat back the feelings he has heard from the group member or his family member. I have the client also state that he has heard the other's concern before he offers a solution. Too often men want to give helpful advice to a loved one before the problem has been fully understood. Having men understand others' emotions is one way of giving men the opportunity to acknowledge their own emotions.
One other technique that seems beneficial to my male clients is that of practicing the expression of feelings. I model for men what sobbing looks and sounds like. I make a grimace and begin to wail loud audible sounds to show men that crying is a wonderful emotion. Men are usually surprised that their therapist is play acting. I simply tell them that learning to cry deeply can be practiced by pretending to cry. I have no empirical research to back up this technique, yet I have had success at helping men reawaken their emotions using this demonstration. I have also gotten better at expressing my own sadness as I continue to practice.

Point of View by Alicia Rasley

Point of View by Alicia Rasley

This got cut for space from my upcoming POV book, so I thought I'd share
it with you instead!

--------
Point of View and Your Story by Alicia Rasley
Coming March 2008 from Writer's Digest Books





A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON POINT OF VIEW

In some form, point of view has always been present in most kinds of
fiction, at least in the Western tradition. (I'm not widely
enough read in other traditions, alas, to generalize about them.) I
suspect POV is something of a cognitive necessity because
of what we fiction writers are asking readers to do�to pretend; to forget
that this story is not true; to overcome the boundary of self to
become, if only momentarily, another person in another world. There's a
natural skepticism that resists surrendering to fiction, a form of
self-defense that has been with us since humans first started lying to
each other. But storytellers learned early to overcome this skepticism by
seducing the imagination through POV.
The earliest storytellers were bards who sang or recited the
old legends and myths of their culture, and they were much more in
tune with their audiences than any of us are. They had to be�their
audiences were right there, ready to throw tomatoes at them if they made
a character boring and didactic, or told an exciting battle scene from
too distant a perspective.
In those days, POV meant "spending time� with a character
more than "getting into his head." This was an easy choice, since the
early stories were full of action and violence and supernatural
activities, and too much introspection might lose the listener. These
great early stories, as far as we know, usually followed the heroic
characters who were doing most of the action; that is, it showed the plot
through the point of view of the "protagonist" or "prime actor", and
that's still a conventional POV approach today.
The Odyssey, for example, is told primarily from the
third-person POV of Odysseus (the title makes it clear that it is his
story), with long stretches in first person while he tells his tale of
woe to an audience. Scenes out of Odysseus's presence are generally
narrated omnisciently (from above), so necessary action such as his son's
search for news about him can be shown without detracting from the
intense focus on the main character. Even so early, we have the three
most common POV types: Single-third person, first person, and omniscient.
In the Western tradition, the first great novelistic
endeavor�or at least the first still available to us�was Homer's work The
Iliad and The Odyssey (eighth century BC). (These are in verse, not
prose, but otherwise might as well be novels�with central protagonist,
compressed time frame, and cohesive major plot line.) The dual epic about
the Trojan War and its aftermath was so important that centuries later
the puritanical Plato used Homer as the prime example of the addictive
evil of fiction�the bard spread a "mental poison," using drama to insert
the reader into history's "murder, incest, cruelty, treachery,
uncontrolled passions, weakness, cowardice, and malice." Two millennia
later, Keats read a translation of Homer and, consumed with joy, dashed
off in a couple hours what is perhaps England's greatest sonnet: "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer." And Homer is a hit even now; a new
translation of The Odyssey [CU1] recently[CU1] hit the best-seller list.
Why did Homer's epic last when so many other stories from
that period were lost forever? First, it's because he chose his material
well: The Trojan War was such a seminal event in Hellenic history that
its fascination survived during the mini-Dark Ages that followed the war.
So when Homer arrived in time to write it down, the legends had only
gathered power through centuries of bardic recitation.
Homer's version also incurred Plato's censure and survived
the next three millennia because he made it personal. The Iliad is not
just a chronicle of the culminating events of that war; it's the story of
two rival warriors, Hector and Achilles, who stake their lives and their
honor on a last gamble for victory. The Odyssey is not just a chronicle
of the consequences of that war; it's the deeply emotional journey of
Odysseus, a man weary of war who can't find his way back home.
Homer knew what we all need to remember�that readers
experience story best when they identify with one or two central
characters. That doesn't mean limiting the story to those characters; The
Iliad is rife with other great warriors (Odysseus is a secondary
character, in fact, in that earlier story), and gods make frequent
visitations whenever the action starts to flag. The Odyssey sometimes
deserts Odysseus to revisit his old Iliad buddies (and Helen of Troy has
a great cameo where she proclaims that she just doesn't know what came
over her when she started the war!) or to track his teenaged son
Telemachus on a voyage of discovery. But Homer's listeners knew that
Achilles was their Iliad guy (even if us modern types prefer the tragic
Hector) and that The Odyssey was, obviously, Odysseus's story.
But Homer didn't give over control of his narrative entirely
to his central character Odysseus. Instead he (or the bards before him)
created the omniscient narrator, who knows everything in the story and
tells the events he deems worthy with his own particular "spin." Why?
Partly, no doubt, because omniscient is an efficient way of corralling a
large group of characters (including Zeus and Athena) and several
settings (including Mt. Olympus and Hades).
But also perhaps the omniscient narrator was a subtle way of
reminding the audience the importance of keeping bards fed and housed.
Homer cleverly inserts some "bardic moments" by transforming Odysseus
into a storyteller for long stretches of The Odyssey. He even has
Odysseus whine a bit about how difficult it is to tell a story well, just
in case the ladies think only warriors have to fight battles. This
technique of a narrator proclaiming his own story to a crowd is obviously
derived from the oral tradition, but still very common today, especially
in first-person narrations.

AFTER HOMER
Drama.
That's what came after Homer, the rise of the theatrically
performed play. The extant literature of the fifth century BC era in
Greece is dominated by the great classical playwrights: Sophocles,
Euripedes, Aristophanes, and Aeschylus.
These guys retained the focus on a central character that had
become an important feature of Greek literature. In fact, Aristotle, in
his great work On Tragedy, said that a plot should follow one man on his
journey from fortune to misfortune or vice versa, such as Odysseus's
journey from exile to home. Aristotle's contemporary example was
Sophocles's play Oedipus the King, which chronicles a long day during
which the curious Oedipus seeks out the truth about himself and finds it
destroys his life.
Notice how performance changed radically in a few hundred
years: The Homeric-style bard recited the entire story of Odysseus,
narrating not just the dialogue but the action of the story. Though Homer
wrote in verse, he was writing fiction narrative much as we now write a
novel. But by the time of Sophocles, the recitation of bards had become
dramatic performances, the narrative having fallen away and the actors
instead acting out the action and addressing each other in dialogue. By
the fifth century BC, both major forms of fictional entertainment were
established�the Homer-like narrative, which takes in both epic poetry
(like that of Virgil and Milton) and much later the novel and short
story; and the performed drama, which took form in theater plays (like
those of Shakespeare) that would give rise to, in our own time, film and
television.

PERFORMANCE AND POV
It might seem odd to speak of a performed play as having POV. After all,
in a drama, the action is shown in actor movement and dialogue, without
the "introspection" that we usually think of as a hallmark of POV. But as
Aristotle pointed out, Sophocles's play is the story of Oedipus, and we
are confined primarily to his perspective of events�with a bit of
"voice-over analysis" from the omniscient chorus. He is on stage almost
the entire play, and we know no more than he does; we don't get a glimpse
into the blind soothsayer Tiresias's mind to learn ahead of time what
he's warning Oedipus about. We learn the truth only when Oedipus learns
it. (In case you haven't read the play, Oedipus finds out that he killed
his father and married his mother. And some people think the classics are
stuffy and dull!)
So performances can have POV in the sense of tracking a
character's journey and perspective. Shakespeare expanded this
capability, using soliloquies where a character actually addressed the
audience, speaking his thoughts aloud. ("To be or not to be," etc.)
Shakespeare's characters also use "asides" to convey their internal
thoughts�the actor playing Hamlet will turn away from the actor playing
Evil Uncle Claudius to mutter to the audience, "A little more than kin,
and less than kind." Milton and other epic poets used a similar technique
of the characters speaking out their thoughts when they were alone in a
scene (often at the end of a scene, when the other characters have
departed).
But true POV "introspection" or "internalization" had to wait
for the invention of the novel, which came (in England) in the latter
part of the seventeenth century, with Aphra Behn, and then a half-century
later with Daniel Defoe[LM2] and Samuel Richardson.

The Novel and POV
A novel is a long fictional work of prose narrative. You can see "the
novel" is defined in the negative of earlier literary forms: long, so
it's not a short story; fictional, so it's not a biography or history;
prose, so it's not in verse like a poem; and narrative, so it's not acted
out like a play.
The most important precursor to the British novel was
Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, which is something like today's
short-story anthology. There is a "frame" story�a group of pilgrims on a
pilgrimage to Canterbury�and within the frame, a bunch of stories they
supposedly tell to entertain each other. This is still in verse, but not
only are the collected stories clearly fictional, so is the frame story
about the pilgrimage. The Canterbury Tales lacks the coherence of plot
required in a novel, but makes good use of narrators, each with an
attitude of some kind (antisemitism, bawdiness) which affects the
narration of the stories�just as POV does in actual novels.
It was another three hundred years before the novel developed
in England (there was that little digression into Shakespearian drama
first), but by the seventeenth century, the tale-telling narrator emerged
in a new way. Many of the earliest novels (including those of Behn,
Richardson, Defoe) were epistolary, that is, based around a series of
fictional "epistles"�letters or journal entries. Readers at that time
were used to reading actual letters and diaries, and so the epistolary
format was familiar and natural.
Early novelists could also draw on the non-personal narrative
format found in epic poems, so a novel like Behn's Love Letters of a
Nobleman to His Sister had both a long exchange of letters between the
nobleman and his wife's sister, and extended passages of narrative which
related action not confined to that described in the letters. Already POV
was used fluidly: The letters are in first-person POV, while the
narrative is in a third-person omniscient POV. Behn made good use of the
contrast, letting her two lovers indict themselves as vain, shallow, and
in love with love, in a satire of sexual politics that rings with
authenticity even today.
What distinguishes the epistolary novel from more
conventional first-person narration is the fictional notion that the
narrative is aimed at a particular reader. The letters, supposedly, are
meant to be read by their recipients, and the diary entries are
presumably meant to be read over by the narrator/journal-writer and no
one else. So there's a specific purpose for the narrator in narrating
these events�either to explain them to the letter recipient or to record
them for her own later review. In standard first-person narration,
there's seldom a clear purpose or a specific reader for the narrator's
narration� for some reason, he's just telling his story out loud. (Read
more about this in chapter four.)
In fact, some authors insisted their fiction was fact; Aphra
Behn claimed to have witnessed many of the events of her story Oroonoko.
This increased the credibility of the story among readers still
suspicious of this new fiction format, by making the author/narrator seem
more like a journalist�even if she was actually making it all up.
Just after the dawn of the novel came the Age of
Enlightenment, a philosophical and political movement emphasizing
individuality and rationality. As literacy became more widespread
throughout Europe, readers became more comfortable with the fictional
narrative form, and the device of letters and journals gave way to a more
direct perspective, in many cases, an in-your-face first-person
narration, especially in Britain.
Laurence Sterne was the master of that first-person style in
his picaresque novels, his narrators speaking to the reader rather like a
raconteur facing a theater audience, with sharp, humorous voices and an
irreverent attitude. Even so early, first-person narration was
characterized by attitude, by a certain persona-projection that was too
outrageous to be that of the author.
Here's a selection from Sterne's The Life and Opinions of
Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Look past the archaic sentence constructions
and think about what sort of person this narrator is, one who modestly
proclaims himself to be telling the whole sordid tale because he so hates
to disappoint his readers and then boasts that soon his book will be as
famous as Pilgrim's Progress (a previous bestseller), who then drops the
classic name of Horace while admitting he can't quite remember what "Mr.
Horace" was talking about:
I know there are readers in the world, as well as many other good people
in it, who are not readers at all,�who find themselves ill at ease,
unless they are let into the whole secret from first to last, of every
thing which concerns you. It is in pure compliance with this humour of
theirs, and from a backwardness in my nature to disappoint any one soul
living, that I have been so very particular already.
As my life and opinions are likely to make some noise in the
world, and, if I conjecture right, will take in all ranks, professions,
and denominations of men whatever,�be no less read than the Pilgrim's
Progress itself�and in the end, prove the very thing which Montaigne
dreaded his Essays should turn out, that is, a book for a
parlour-window;�I find it necessary to consult every one a little in his
turn; and therefore must beg pardon for going on a little farther in the
same way: For which cause, right glad I am, that I have begun the history
of myself in the way I have done; and that I am able to go on, tracing
every thing in it, as Horace says, ab Ovo.
Horace, I know, does not recommend this fashion altogether:
But that gentleman is speaking only of an epic poem or a tragedy;�(I
forget which) besides, if it was not so, I should beg Mr. Horace's
pardon;�for in writing what I have set about, I shall confine myself
neither to his rules, nor to any man's rules that ever lived. To such
however as do not choose to go so far back into these things, I can give
no better advice than that they skip over the remaining part of this
chapter; for I declare before-hand, 'tis wrote only for the curious and
inquisitive.

This is a voice full of energy and wit�but it's not the author's voice.
Sterne was well aware that his "I" (Tristram Shandy) was a bit of a
blowhard, longwinded and conceited�that's what he wanted. He wanted a
true character narrating the book.
Eighteenth-century novels were often eponymous (titled for
their narrator/characters)� Moll Flanders, Robinson Crusoe, Tristram
Shandy�evidence of the new focus on the individual and the individual
perspective. "I am Tristram Shandy, and this is my story, and I alone
have the right to tell it!" the narrator is exclaiming, but of course,
these authors were not their narrators at all, and part of the fun of
such direct narration is imagining the naive new readers who thought
Tristram Shandy really existed.
But the dominance of first person couldn't last. The
first-person POV is perfect for picaresque comic novels, but not so
effective for more serious works or those with a larger cast and scope.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, Henry Fielding found that the
omniscient narrator allowed the plot to roam around in time and space,
unfettered by the physical existence of his major character, Tom Jones,
and created greater opportunities for a satirical view of his large cast.

While first-person narratives remained common in the
nineteenth century (especially in the United States), a comprehensive
third-person approach gradually became more popular. The early part of
the century saw an explosion in the novel form, with the development of
all sorts of genres�the Gothic, the romance, the mystery, the
adventure�which required multiple settings and larger casts of
characters. Another development was the rise of the social novel, a story
that attempted to give a comprehensive view of an entire culture or
subculture, whether a small village (George Eliot[LM3] ) or an inner-city
London neighborhood (Charles Dickens). No single perspective[CU4] could
convey the complicated mix of personality in a society, so the
first-person narration often gave way to one that allowed for multiple
viewpoints and settings.
In fact, some authors went to considerable trouble to have
multiple viewpoint within the first-person narration. The plots of both
Wuthering Heights and Frankenstein are framed in cumbersome narrative
contraptions, where minor characters repeat the first-person accounts of
major characters, thereby getting some of the distance offered by an
omniscient narrator with the intimacy of a first-person narration.
Authors also became more clearly designers of the readers'
experience, using ironic commentary to express a skeptical view of the
values and motives of their own characters, as in the famous opening
paragraph of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession
of a large fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the
feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a
neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the
surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some
one or other of their daughters.

This is a classic example of the omniscient narrator, the persona that is
not a character in the book but rather a godlike presence, often an
authorial presence. (Most omniscient narrators are not mere author
stand-ins, but quite a few seem to share their creators' values,
prejudices, and voice.)
So why did the intimate, outrageous first-person voices of
the eighteenth century give way to the austere, ironic omniscient
narrators of the ninteenth?
Perhaps the large number of readers actually believing Lemuel
Gulliver wrote down his own adventures alerted authors to the dangers of
being too anonymous. ("Yes, I know it says Gulliver's Travels, but I made
him up. I swear it! Look, see my name here on the cover?") And certainly
the greater scope and intent of the social novels, requiring a panoply of
character viewpoints, benefited from a controlling presence imposed from
above.
Most authors were content to keep themselves in the
background, emerging for the occasional wry comment like Austen's above,
or a direct address to "Gentle Reader." Some would give the reader a
heavy-handed preview of what was to come: "Little did she know that the
future would bring sorrow where there had once been joy...."
These author-intrusions were almost like instructions on how
to read the story. The reader was supposed to believe the omniscient
narrator, to trust that overhead godlike perspective. This served to
distance the reader from the characters, first because so little time was
spent in their minds, but also because the narrator's view on their
activities was usually so ironic.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the great Victorians�Charles
Dickens, George Eliot, and Thomas Hardy�were creating what later became
known as the "realistic novel." These weren't necessarily all that
realistic (think of Dickens and his many coincidences). The authors did,
however, try to portray the world as they knew it at the dawn of the
Industrial Revolution: More complicated than ever before, but still
subject to what Victorians saw as the natural rule that humanity will
organize disorder into order, and that harmony is the primary goal of
society. Often the Victorian novel opens with some great injustice or
cataclysm�a murder, a dispossession, a betrayal�and the action of the
book is the movement from that chaos to a resumption of order through the
choices of the main characters. (You can probably tell that most popular
fiction even today, not to mention most films and TV shows, are
"realistic" in this specialized sense, where the world of the story is
interrupted by a profound change, and the characters are charged with
re-establishing harmony.)
Understandably, most of these novels of chaos-to-control used
the "control-from-above" omniscient point of view (Dickens also employed
first person), but now with a deeper immersion into the minds of the
major characters. These books often had large casts, and several
characters got the "deep-immersion treatment." Sometimes entire scenes
would be told from the perspective of a single character, with only a bit
of explanatory material in omniscient (usually at the beginning and end
of the scene). While the benevolent dictatorship of the omniscient
narrative still controlled, the individual character's perspective was
beginning to acquire greater importance in framing the story events.

MEANWHILE, ACROSS THE POND �
First-person narration remained a force in U.S. literature well into the
nineteenth century. In fact, Edgar Allan Poe and Herman Melville were
experimenting with fascinating variations of first-person. Poe explored
the phenomenon of the unreliable narrator, where the reader was expected
to come to doubt what the first-person narrator said. And Melville was
working on telling an epic story through a single focused viewpoint
("Call me Ishmael" in Moby Dick).
As in England, omniscient also became a dominant voice in
American fiction. Popular American novels, like those written by Louisa
May Alcott, often made use of the omniscient technique of narrative
foreshadowing. Here�s a passage from The Obsession:
The carriage next to the one Rosamund [Tempest] selected held an equally
heavy load of misery. Could she have known that the other Mrs. Tempest
occupied the car directly in front of her own, it would have added a
little sting to Rosamund's suffering. She was spared that knowledge,
however, and thus it was that side by side, these two heavy-hearted women
were borne away into the night. But not to safety.

class=Section2>
In this way, the author is training the reader in how to read a book, how
to interpret foreshadowing, how to respond to dramatic irony, how to
experience suspense.
As readers became more experienced and the study of humanity
approached the era of Sigmund Freud and psychology, some authors started
tunneling into their characters, spending much more time in their
thoughts and feelings than omniscient would allow. Often they'd start a
scene in an omniscient mode, but then, as the scene progressed, slide
deeper into the character perspective. Henry James used a deeper, focused
POV to explore the psychological mysteries of his characters. Edith
Wharton, who wrote about how individuals interacted with each other and
with society, used the interior voice to contrast what a person thought
with what she did or said, as in this selection from House of Mirth where
Lily extricates herself from a dangerous and compromising position with a
married man:
The sharp release from her fears restored Lily to immediate lucidity. The
collapse of Trenor's will left her in control, and she heard herself, in
a voice that was her own yet outside herself, bidding him to ring for the
servant, bidding him to give the order for a hansom, directing him to put
her in it when it came. Whence the strength came to her, she knew not;
but an insistent voice warned her that she must leave the house openly,
and nerved her, in the hall before the hovering caretaker, to exchange
light words with Trenor, and charge him with the usual messages for Judy,
while all the while she shook with inward loathing.

MODERN POV
By the end of the nineteenth century, most of the major POV approaches
were in place. But in the early twentieth century, there came three other
variations, all of which pretty much did away with the omniscient
narrator�stream of consciousness, deep-third-person POV, and multiple
POV.
The first and most radical, stream of consciousness, was a
product of the modernism movement. Modernist novelists like James Joyce
and Thomas Wolfe[LM5] [CU6] , who were writing mostly after the futile
devastation of World War I, rejected the expansive sense of order and
control of the Victorian era, and with it the external control imposed by
the omniscient narrative.
Instead they experimented with a variety of narrative forms,
especially those that reflected what they saw as the fragmented nature of
modern life and the subjectivity of "reality." Stream of consciousness
�the seemingly verbatim reporting of the interior mental processes of a
character�took the internal tunneling used by James and Wharton and
turned it inside out, making it the major action of the scene.
The most famous example of stream of consciousness was James
Joyce's Ulysses, a retelling of The Odyssey set in Dublin in the early
twentieth century. Here's a sample of Leopold Bloom's mental workings as
he walks on a Dublin street and sees the brother of the great Irish
liberator Parnell:
... John Howard Parnell passed, unseeing. There he is: the brother. Image
of him. Haunting face. Now that's a coincidence. Course hundreds of times
you think of a person and don't meet him. Like a man walking in his
sleep. No one knows him. Must be a corporation meeting today. They say he
never put on the city marshal's uniform since he got the job.... Look at
the woebegone walk of him. Eaten a bad egg. Poached eyes on ghost. I have
a pain. Great man's brother: his brother's brother.

This is obviously pretty radical stuff (and let me tell you, it took me
almost all semester of English 315: The Modern Novel to get through 783
pages of that), but stunningly influential. The "interior monologue,"
complete with grammatical errors and sentence fragments and enigmatic
allusions, became a common feature in literary fiction throughout the
twentieth century. In fact, it's worked its way into popular fiction too,
in less radical form�still the stream of thoughts, but with a bit more
context and sentence structure�as in David Means�s "Carnie":
Strangely enough, the paths of John and Ned Alger had crossed before, on
a beach in Northern Michigan, near the encampment in which Ned grew up.
(No one was really sure how he got the name Ned, or even Alger, his
mother going by Alger but also the Indian name of Walk Moon; and there
was the man who was supposed to be standing in as his father,
Jack-something, who came in at night with his belt already undone.)

The first sentence is pretty typical single-third person, but as soon as
we get into the parentheses, we're following Ned's thought process quite
faithfully�the long, involved sentence sounds like the associative way we
think, each thought segueing into some associated memory or notion.
"Jack-something" comes right out of Ned's faulty memory, and is capped by
the vague but personally meaningful description "supposed to be standing
in as his father." But this is more controlled, more reader-friendly,
than the Joyce selection above. It sounds like thought without being too
discursive.

Single-Third POV
Deep-third person (also called single-focused and deep-immersion POV) was
the dominant POV approach of the second half of the twentieth century,
and doesn't look to be losing ground in the twenty-first. It provides a
tight focus on the perspective of one character throughout an entire
scene, chapter, or even book.
Deep third has the immediacy and intimacy of
stream-of-consciousness, with the advantage of being much more readable
and compatible with other POV choices; that is, you can start a scene in
omniscient and descend into the deeper single-focused POV, or you can
alternate different characters' POV passages (as long as you stay in each
POV for the whole passage). Deep-third POV has been used mostly in books
with one or two major characters.

Multiple POV
Another twentieth-century trend was towards the multiple POV, which
evolved from the omniscient. Like omniscient, multiple POV regards more
than one character as having something to "say" about the scene, so POV
within a scene might be shared among them. But unlike omniscient,
multiple POV has no narrator or narrative presence. The narrative can
shift frequently from character to character, but no one is commenting
from above on the characters or providing information they don't know.
The reader gets the juxtaposed experience of several characters without
the commentary and distance an omniscient narrator provides.
Multiple POV has been common since before World War II,
especially in popular fiction, and reflects a more cinematic approach to
the fictional world. You'll find it primarily in books with larger casts
of characters or dual protagonists.
These approaches haven't killed omniscient POV, but that's no
longer very common as the controlling POV approach for an entire book.
Especially since World War II, omniscient has become more of an
informational device within the narrative rather than a narrative
approach on its own. You'll still frequently see omniscient passages at
the beginnings and ends of scenes, setting the stage and establishing the
situation, and also sometimes as a bridge when the POV shifts from one
character to another.

First-Person POV Today
First-person POV is still popular, but tends to be confined to certain
genres (like the private-eye novel) or styles of fiction (the
coming-of-age novel). You'll sometimes see it alternating with
third-person POV. For example, in Simon Brett's A Nice Class of Corpse,
the villain's POV is told in first-person diary entries, while the rest
of the book is told in third person (mostly single-focused).

POV ECLECTICISM
Now, with all these POV options available, authors have more freedom to
choose among the approaches and even to mix them. This, however, doesn't
mean that anarchy rules, rather that the author now has the ability to
customize POV to suit a particular story. This ability, and the power it
gives you the author, has been the point of this book.

A FINAL EXERCISE:
1. Choose a favorite novel written before World War II, or a novel you
would consider a "classic". Read the first chapter, paying particular
attention to point of view. Can you define the major POV approach?
Identify the words or phrases that make the POV approach clear (such as
"Let the account begin, then, on the evening of the 15th..." as a marker
of omniscient).
2. Notice in the opening how the author establishes the setting, the
situation, and the identity of the main characters. How close do you get
to any one character?
3. How does the POV style reflect the time period? What benefits and
disadvantages do you see in this choice?

Is Your Home a Danger Zone for Your Marriage? by Nancy C. Anderson

Is Your Home a Danger Zone for Your Marriage?
Nancy C. Anderson
If there are lust lures in your home, go on a search and destroy mission.
Cyber Secrets
Donna would often sneak out of bed to "chat" with a man she met through a singles' web site. The fact that she wasn't single didn't seem to be relevant. When her husband, Larry, caught her typing in the dark at 3:00 A.M., he confronted her. But she quickly logged-off and denied any wrongdoing.

After Donna left for work the next morning, he accessed the messages that she and her cyber-hunk had been sending. He read page after page of sexually explicit suggestions. Larry had no idea his wife even knew such words! When he confronted her with the evidence, she came "clean" and said she'd stop -- but she didn't. She just became more secretive and better at hiding the evidence. Donna risked her marriage for a man she never met, and when Larry caught her again, he divorced her.

Internet pornography is one of the fastest growing web-industries in the world, and it's been the cause of countless affairs and divorces. If Internet access is a problem for anyone in your family, apply the verse in Matthew 5:29: "If your . . . eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." And if your Internet access causes you to sin, plug it out! Keep the computer, but get a filter that blocks all questionable sites and unwanted pop-up ads.
TV Temptations
Cable television and movie chanels are another problem area in many homes. Men are visual creatures, and they are naturally attracted to beautiful women wearing . . . nothing. If a man has easy access to adult movies, he'll be tempted to watch them. Even strong Christian men can get caught in the "just one more" trap that ends in divorce. If a husband is comparing his wife to eighteen-year-old hotties in porno movies she will not, literally, measure up. Their marriage will suffer.

X-rated movie channels called out to Jerry, a married Christian man, who watched them in the middle of the night. The more he saw, the more he wanted to see. Eventually, the thoughts of his late-night "dates" with these beautiful willing-to-do-anything women consumed his life.
He lost interest in his middle-aged wife, and when she caught him in his secret sin, he convinced her that it was her fault. She was ashamed to tell any of her friends or talk to their pastor, so she suffered in silence. He persuaded her to watch the movies with him, but it didn't solve their problems because she felt used, unloved, and dirty. He gave her his lust, but not his love.
The fatal venom of pornography poisoned their marriage.
Babysitter Blues
Jayne and Dennis hired a lovely sixteen-year-old babysitter named Linda. But because they didn't have clearly defined boundaries in place, the babysitter is now married to Dennis!
Jayne didn't see the signs because it never occurred to her that her husband could ever be more than a fatherly mentor to "little Linda." After all, he was almost forty and she was just a child; so it must be completely innocent. Wrong
When I invited Jayne, Dennis, and their kids over for dinner, I thought it was odd that they brought their babysitter. Then, when Linda sat next to Dennis, I was a little more concerned. But when I saw him take several bites of food off the babysitter's plate, my "Home-Invasion-Alarm-System" signaled a code red.
I told Jayne about my suspicions, and she said, " Dennis is just being extra nice to Linda because she's depressed about her parents' divorce. We both love her. We think of her as our daughter."
A few months later, Dennis moved out. He married Linda when she turned eighteen, and they now have two children of their own. I bet Linda won't let him drive their babysitter home.
Even if he's innocent, it's his word against hers. My friend Renee always makes sure that she picks up and drops off the babysitter. When she is unable to go, she'll send one of the kids along. Having a third-party ride along is protection for the babysitter and for the husband, because he could be accused of something inappropriate and just the accusations are very damaging.
If you're in a financial position to have a nanny, I recommend an older Mrs. Doubtfire type. But even the actor who played her, Robin Williams, didn't follow that suggestion. He was married to Valerie for ten years, then he divorced his wife and married Marsha, his son's nanny
A foreign exchange student came to live with a woman I met at Bible study The underprivileged girl came with nothing and left with the woman's husband. When you let other people into your home, be very aware that problems like these are distinct possibilities.
We've considered the idea of renting a room to a student, because we have an extra bedroom and we live within walking distance of a college. But we can never agree on a renter. Ron would like a twenty-something/ female/Swedish blonde/massage-therapy student, however I envision a male sun-kissed surfer/weightlifter/police academy cadet who'd help me vacuum. Since we can't agree, I guess we'll keep our safeguards in place.
Just as we are on guard to protect our home from robberies, we want protect our homes from dangerous mental, sexual, and spiritual intrusion too. Your home can be a refuge and a safe haven if you are willing to make this verse your "Power Statement": "But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Josh. 24:15).


Adapted from Avoiding The Greener Grass Syndrome: How to Grow Affair Proof Hedges Around Your Marriage (Kregel 12/1/04) by Nancy C. Anderson.

Nancy C Anderson is an author and speaker who lives in the O.C. with her husband of 26 years and their teenage son. Nancy and her husband love to teach at couples' retreats and seminars. They recently told the story of their Marriage Makeover on the Montel Williams Show. For more information, or to order her book, go to: www.NancyCAnderson.com.

Can't afford gas? Try this!

A man was driving down the road and ran out of gas. Just at that moment, a bee flew in his window. The bee said, "What seems to be the problem?" "I'm out of gas." The bee told the man to wait right there and flew away. M inutes later, the man watched as an entire swarm of bees flew to his car and into his gas tank. After a few minutes, the bees flew out.
"Try it now," said one bee. The man turned the ignition key and the car started right up. "Wow!" the man exclaimed. "What did you put in my gas tank"?




The bee answered, "BP."

Cutesyl sayings perpetuate chain emails

Life happens.
Distance separates.
Children grow up.
Jobs come and go.
Love waxes and wanes.
Men don't do what they're supposed to do.
Hearts break.
Parents die.
Colleagues forget favors.
Careers end.
BUT - Sisters are there,
no matter how much time and how many miles are between you.
A girlfriend is never farther away than needing her.
When you have to walk that lonesome
valley and you have to walk it by yourself,
the women in your life will be on the valley's rim,
cheering you on, praying for you, pulling for you,
intervening on your behalf, and waiting with open arms at the valley's end.
Sometimes, they will even break the rules and walk beside you,
or come in and carry you out.
Girlfriends, daughters, granddaughters, daughters-in-law,
sisters, sisters-in-law, mothers, grandmothers,
aunties, nieces, cousins and extended family all bless our life.
When we began this adventure called womanhood,
we had no idea of the incredible joys or sorrows that lay ahead,
nor did we know how much we would need each other.
Every day, we need each other still.
Pass this on to all the women who help make your life meaningful.
I just did. There are many angels in this world;
some are peacefully sleeping on clouds, some are playing,
and one is reading her email at this moment!

Story idea

There is an old ghost story about a woman who purportedly visited her mother after her death as a ghost to let her know she'd been murdered by her husband. Based on the ghost's appearance and the details she gave her mother, the local prosecutor was persuaded to exhume the body and reopen the case. Her husband was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Prior to her marriage, in November 1895, the woman had given birth to an illegitimate son. What happened to him is unknown because he is not listed with her family in any subsequent censuses.

Are we including hearsay in our genealogies that has not been verified and presenting it as a fact? While we will sometimes have family stories that we just can't verify, we need to remember to clearly distinguish them as such. Otherwise they can be perpetuated and steer us and other researchers down the wrong path.

Soldier of Fortune by Dinah Eng

Soldier of Fortune
Left for dead, Charles D. Holland survived
to become a football star, Green Beret,
Harvard lawyer, studio V.P., and JAG showrunner
Written by Dinah Eng
(From the September 2002 issue of "Written By")
Like most people on the West Coast, Holland was asleep on the morning of September 11. A friend in the military called and woke Holland, who is a former U.S. Army Military Intelligence Officer. He turned on the television just before the second plane hit the towers. Holland, who was writing for Soul Food: The Series at that time, then had a phone conversation with executive producer Felicia Henderson about the need to shut down production in the wake of the tragedy.
"The shock was off enough for me to realize that I knew people in the Pentagon who might have died, and that was a sinking feeling," says Holland. "My ex-wife is a reservist, and I was able to find out within the hour that she was not there during the time. But there were other people who did not make it. I lost someone I went to jump school with."
He wanted to fight. Somebody. Some place. "With 9/11, one thing that went through my mind is that I'm missing it all. I was trained to really defend my country, and I'm missing that."
Holland paces as he talks on the phone in his Sunset-Gower Studios lot office, juggling questions from writers, technical advisors, production assistants. Although he's the new showrunner of CBS' long-running drama JAG, a gold earring dangles from his left ear lobe. Shaped like a Samurai sword, it glints with defiance against any corporate style. But the former Harvard lawyer is also quick to laugh, blunt yet tactful, and clearly relishes being in command. Having left the Army as a First Lieutenant, he knows what it means to manage up and supervise down.
JAG had struggled until its initial cancellation by NBC in the 1995-96 season. After moving to CBS, the only military drama on air climbed from 68th in the Nielsen ratings to a 17th-place tie with Frasier last season, a rise that some media watchers attribute to patriotic fervor in the aftermath of September 11.
Holland joined JAG last October as a consulting producer, after two years on Showtime's Soul Food: The Series. His initial script assignment on the Navy drama was to write "Tribunal," an episode about a military trial of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist. Holland, who remains a member of the California Bar, says, "When I came on the show, Stephen Zito, the head writer at the time, thought I would be ideal to write the script. I couldn't wait to do it. The story was [JAG creator and executive producer] Don Bellisario's idea. The research staff gave me a huge notebook of information on tribunals, and I read the Manual for Court Martials and Geneva Convention, things I hadn't thought about for a while."
PREPARING THE DEFENSE
In the episode Adm. A.J. Chegwidden (played by John M. Jackson) and Cmdr. Sturgis Turner (Scott Lawrence) defend a suspected leader of the al Qaeda, while Cmdr. Harmon Rabb Jr. (David James Elliott) and Lt. Col. Sarah MacKenzie (Catherine Bell) prosecute the case.
To formulate the defense strategy, Holland called on a mentor he'd apprenticed for in Harvard Law School: famed attorney Alan Dershowitz. "Alan takes cases on appeal dealing with civil liberties," says Holland, who worked for Dershowitz for two years, "and we used to get hundreds of letters a week from prisoners, asking him to take their case. I asked him what his dream defense strategy for an al Qaeda prisoner would be. He said he'd work to get any confession [made under excessive duress] thrown out."
For example, while intelligence officials might use truth serum on a suspected terrorist in wartime to learn where nuclear weapons are hidden, it would violate the spirit of the Fifth Amendment to routinely use truth serum or torture to gain a confession from a suspected murderer. The Fifth Amendment deals with the rights of accused criminals, with due process of law, and states that no one may be forced to testify as a witness against himself.
In the "Tribunal" script, defense attorney Adm. Chegwidden argues that the confession of the suspected terrorist on trial should be excluded from consideration because "13 days of torture to obtain an involuntary confession shocks the conscience, violating both the spirit and the letter of the Fifth Amendment." Then prosecuting attorney Cmdr. Rabb responds, ". . . we are at war. The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to our enemies. The very idea is ridiculous."
The judges on the tribunal rule that "the government is correct that the Fifth Amendment does not apply here," says Holland. "However, we're excluding Mister Atef's involuntary confession as lacking probative value to a reasonable person under the circumstances."
In addition to consulting Dershowitz, Holland sought advice on military law and the context of the case from one of the show's technical advisors, who used to be the assistant JAG (Judge Advocate General). "Then the Pentagon had a group of lawyers read through an early draft," remembers Holland. "We have a public affairs official there who always gets copies of our scripts. The military doesn't have veto power, but they will tell us if they think something is incorrect. The first two years of the show, they didn't want to cooperate with us, but then they had a sea change. A technical advisor may think something's embarrassing or incorrect, but we may keep it in the script anyway because it's good drama. It's helpful to have the Pentagon's input. There are so many technical things with the Navy and the law. At least when you have technical advice, you can make decisions from knowledge and not from ignorance."
After reading "Tribunal," the only feedback Pentagon lawyers were specific about was the description of what an actual tribunal would look like, according to Holland. The military attorneys said the trial wouldn't be held like a normal court martial and would probably take place in Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. base on Cuba, or an aircraft carrier. Holland chose the aircraft carrier for the setting of his tribunal and spun a tale that wove both fact and fiction in ways that surprised many.
"The revised rules for military tribunals were published during the second day of shooting [March 21], and our guesses were right," says Holland. "What was spooky was the guy I made up as a terrorist then got caught. He had the same background and even looked like the guy we cast [Marc Casabani]." (Abu Zubaydah, thought to be al Qaeda's chief of operations, is the highest ranking terrorist in Osama bin Laden's network now known to be in U.S. custody. Zubaydah was captured March 28 in a Pakistani raid and continues to be interrogated by U.S. officials.)
When "Tribunal" aired April 30, Holland says the show was "deluged by the media, starting with the New York Times, which had a significant ax to grind," according to the showrunner. "There was some sensitivity that I was getting an inside track to serious things that journalists weren't. We didn't have any information that the media didn't have, but reporters always cut out the part of my interview that said, 'Then I made it up!'"
Along with the media critics, military contacts complained as well.
"I made the strongest argument [in the script] I could that the fighters in al Qaeda were freedom fighters and not terrorists, and the military thought I did too good a job [in the defense strategy dialogue]," Holland says, shrugging and smiling at the same time. "Part of being a lawyer is arguing things you don't believe in order to win a case. It's so important to have both sides told. My belief is that suspected terrorists would get a fair trial here. We have so many differences in this country, but we have great tolerance. We have checks and balances, and the system works."
After writing "Tribunal," Holland was asked to script the season finale, "Enemy Below," which continues the story of what happens after the terrorist in "Tribunal" is convicted and sentenced to death. In "Enemy Below" the convicted terrorist's brother is involved in an effort to attack a U.S. aircraft carrier.
SOUL SURVIVOR
Holland's experiences in the military changed his view of the world and of himself. Born in Chicago, Holland grew up in a tough housing project with his younger brother and mother, who worked as a legal secretary. He also has a half-sister from his mother's second marriage.
"I never knew my father," says Holland. "My mother worked three jobs because I liked books. I had three sets of encyclopedias, which was a lot for poor children. Back then law firms would hire people to work in shifts to type things and prepare cases, and my mother would work those extra shifts."
Holland, as book smart as he was street savvy, played football and ran track in high school. Although he never belonged to a gang, there was little separation between those who signed up for trouble and those who didn't. Everyone knew everyone, and one day, when Holland was 14, trouble found him.
"My best friend was doing something with the wrong girl, a gangbanger's girl," remembers Holland. "I defended my friend and humiliated the gangbanger, and when I wasn't ready, he came back with his gang. I was attacked and left for dead." All but two of Holland's ribs were broken, his nose was broken and he suffered stab wounds that, left untreated, could have resulted in his bleeding to death.
Holland's family, fearful that the gang would return to kill the injured boy, spirited him off to Danville, Illinois, to recuperate with his grandparents. He grimaces, saying the stay with his relatives is not a happy memory, but it was the catalyst that awakened the writer within. "While I was laid up, I had to stay still for long periods of time, and writing was an emotional outlet. It became a thing I did for myself. I'd always make up stories about other people and being in other places. Back home, the savagery of the attack had touched off a war, and the guys who did it were killed or left town. People thought I had died, so when I came back [from Danville], people thought I was cool. I got all this respect and deference, and all I'd done was survive."
He achieved far more than basic survival skills--Holland rebuilt his body into an athlete's, earning a football scholarship to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. There he encountered another setback: His dreams of turning pro turned to ash after suffering a severe shoulder injury during a game in his sophomore year. He lost the football scholarship and paid for his remaining undergraduate education by signing on with Army ROTC.
"ROTC seemed like a snap to me--I already knew how to fight," says Holland, laughing. "The silly, but conscious, reason I joined the military was to be a hero. I was assigned to military intelligence and got a chance to find out what a lot of guys wonder about: How would I do in combat? I found out what the real essence of being a hero in combat is. It's really just about showing up."
He abruptly stops talking, reins in his turbulent emotions, and explains: "You show up when there's a chance people may die. You show up and watch other people die."
Holland declines to share what he did as a military intelligence officer in the Seventh Special Forces Group but says, "I can tell you I was based in Fort Bragg. When I served, I went other places. It gave me an appreciation for other ways of life. I was in places where people feared a knock on the door, and you couldn't walk outside without fearing snipers.
"I never went to Afghanistan, but when the attacks happened, I sure wanted to. I oftentimes hope the things I do on this show contribute. Now, somebody else has to show up for me, and there's a degree of guilt about that."
Although he no longer wears the uniform, an unabashed love of country is clear.
"The military has become a subculture in this country that people don't know much about," says Holland. "What's good is that the military is not as isolated. At least there's respect now. When I hear the national anthem, I don't think I hear it the way other people do. When I go to ball games, I always stand at attention when it's played. A lot of my friends used to tease me about that. Not anymore."
He pauses once again, almost overcome with emotion, then takes a breath and continues: "Let patriotism be a fad, if that's what it takes to let people be patriotic. You can be a liberal or progressive or a conservative and also be a patriot. It's not inconsistent with ideological beliefs. Today, anybody can have a flag on their car without feeling odd about it."
But while he maintains strong friendships and good memories from those years, he also left military life a bit disillusioned. "At the time [he left the military], I didn't think there was enough accountability for covert operations. Now, technology allows real-time oversight. You can micromanage operations by satellite. But back then, you could make decisions, and what happened was what you said happened. I learned the world was far more complicated than I had thought it was. Many times, I really wanted to be a super hero. Yet I felt like I was on the bad guys' side when I looked at the regimes we were supporting. You'd see some people living like kings, while other people lived in squalor."
So Holland decided to get a masters in public administration, thinking he'd pursue a government career to create social change. Along the way he also decided to become a lawyer. At age 22, he was accepted into Harvard Law School. While studying, he served a year and a half on active duty and later eight years as a Military Police Officer in the Massachusetts National Guard and Army Reserve.
"I learned that I didn't know anything," says Holland of his Harvard years. "It occurred to me I'd have to be willing to give up my life just to move the pile a centimeter in government. When you're in the projects as a kid, and it's 20 below, you watch TV and see [California scenes with] sunshine and beautiful women. It was a fantasy to live and work in L.A., so after law school I came here. I'm unconventional, so I was drawn to the entertainment business."
HARVARD WARRIOR
After landing a job as a studio lawyer at Twentieth Century Fox, Holland rose rapidly through the ranks. When the urge to try screenwriting hit, he couldn't convince anyone that he could write and practice law at the same time. So he gave up his position as vice president of business affairs at Fox and started writing feature scripts. After three unproduced screenplays for three different studios, he turned to television.
"My first credit was for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger," says Holland. "My first staff job was on New York Undercover, which was the beginning of a very good run." He quickly knocks on the wood of his office desk. The run has included writing and producing such series as Murder One, Profiler, Vengeance Unlimited, and The Strip.
Holland's legal expertise was also tapped by the WGAw for last year's contract negotiations. Holland, vice president of the Guild, served as cochair (with then Secretary-Treasurer Michael Mahern) of the negotiating committee. "I had a legal background for talking with the Guild lawyers, and I had a context for what the other side was saying from my days at Fox. Writers are exceedingly opinionated, and it taxed one's leadership skills to come up with unanimous decisions and pull people together who don't always agree. But we were able to act with a great deal of discipline, and I had some small part in that."
Victoria Riskin, WGAw Guild president, calls Holland "a remarkable combination of street kid, Green Beret, and Harvard Law School graduate, which means whenever he tackles any problem, it's done with fearlessness, modified with his analytical, legal expertise." Riskin, who has worked with Holland on Guild matters for two years, adds, "He doesn't suffer fools gladly. Yet when he smiles, there's this warm, boyish look that's such a delight. It cracks the seriousness of the moment."
His achievements should make it obvious why Holland, a co-executive producer, filled the showrunner's slot on JAG when Stephen Zito resigned. However, some refer to his skin color as a reason, causing the Harvard Warrior to rise in his own defense.
"I've pushed hard for diversity in this business, but I wasn't hired because of that," says Holland, passionately. "Don [Bellisario] is a conservative, and people tend to equate conservativism with bigotry, and that's not true either. There are two main reasons I was hired. We both have a military background. Don's an ex-Marine. He understands what I'm saying, and I get what he's saying. On paper I'm the most qualified person. I've been a number two for four years. I'm a former military person and a lawyer. It doesn't have anything to do with being African-American, and that's the way it should be. To me, this is what it means to be working to get people the opportunity to do things like this, regardless of race or religion. We have to get to the point where it's not that odd [to have a showrunner of color].
"I've always counseled lower-ranking minorities that there's a perception people have of what people in certain positions are supposed to look like, and rarely is it a minority person," Holland continues. "I tell them, 'You have to create an image for yourself of that competent person.' I remember [Supreme Court Justice] Thurgood Marshall visiting us in law school and talking about how he'd earned his place in legal circles but was always reminded when he tried to get a taxi that he was a black guy. I certainly want to do what I can to move diversity forward in Hollywood."
Conflicts are never easy to resolve, but if Holland has anything to say about it, solutions will be found. And Holland's changes won't just be on paper.

Snow and Subterfuge by Andy Warner

Snow and Subterfuge
A low level MERP adventure
By Andy Warner
(updated 18 Aug 01 with new map)
pdf version (2.8mb) here

Snow and Subterfuge is an introductory adventure for low level characters.
It is set at the end of the winter of TA 1984, around the Last Inn on the great East Road of Rhudaur.

Introduction
The year is 1984, in the Third Age of the Sun. It is early spring and the uplands and hills of Rhudaur lie cloaked in a fresh, unexpected fall of snow. As the days grow slowly longer and the winds loose their cutting edge, the first of the melt waters swell the Mitheithel as it flows past the Inn at the Last Bridge on the Great East Road. Soon, the road will be passable with ease and trade will pick up in the small hamlet that has grown up around the bridge, the Inn and the watch tower that guards them. Haldon the innkeeper looks forward to the coming months when his bar will be packed with thirsty drinkers and the rooms host to weary travelers from far afield. The winter is a lean time for all the folk of the North, and coin is hard to come by and even less willingly spent. The local farmers, trappers and traders are running up hefty slates they hope they will be able to clear in the short spell that passes for summer in these high places, and the season for planting and rearing is about to begin.
It is a crisp night, with a rising moon nearing full casting a silvery light across the bleak land as Ulwarth the hill farmer pushes the door to the Inn open and is welcomed by the warm glow of a roaring fire. But he has not come these five miles at this time of night just to warm his bones, he could have stayed at home and done that. Unstringing the bow he always carries, and stowing the string safely under his cap, he approaches Haldon and calls for a drink and his ear a while.
"I be a bit at unease tonight Halds, things is odd up at the farm, and I not be liking it one bit." He takes a long draft of the slated ale, wipes his mustached mouth clear of the creamy ale froth and continues, Haldon nodding quietly all along. "Bin seein wolf tracks this last week, over the far bank, by the old ruin," scratches his chin and shivers the cold from his bones, "well wolf is what I'm thinkin' though I ain't bin able t' check for sure, what with the risin' of the flood, but I ain't heard much bayin' nor howlin', not much more 'n' usual anyhow, an' I ain't seen no pack runnin' neither, so I gets to wunderin' whats goin' on". Haldon nodded, absent mindedly, thinking of other things. "So I gets to makin' a watch, me and the lad, and you never guess what!" He looks expectantly at Haldon, who by this time is glancing round to see if the odd looking group in the corner need more jugs of ale or a fill up of hot broth. "Halds, .. Haldon!" The barkeep is called to his senses and Ulwarth continues. "You'll never guess! We seen wolves all right, deep into the night, the lad had dropped off, bloody lousy watch keeper 'e always was, but whats this I says to im, whats this?" He has forgotten his ale by now and has a worried look on his weather worn face, a deep breath and he stutters the words out "They was bein' ride-ed, Haldon. Ride-ed I says, by them goblins the Hillboys says live on up the Trollshaws an that." He remembers his ale and downs the lot. "So I come at once here, after I made sure the place was secure and the lad and the wife safe inside, what with Grim an Grist to guard em. So anyway I thought I'd come an see if them travelers was still here, that lot in the corner," he tosses his head back in the direction of the only others in the Inn "see if they might help a farmer out an see what it is is goin on. I don't like to mess wi' it meself Halds, what with me leg playin up these cold months, an', well, they seems handy sorts eh?"
The Plot
The ruins are being used as a drop point for a spy from the North, and the messages he has left lead to an adventure to find an ancient sword of power and might. They also allow you to lead the characters into a dark world of conspiracy, plotting and political rivalry that may bring the North to the brink of war.
Ulwarth is a local hill farmer who lives with his family in a small hill farm about 5 miles North of the Bridge on the west bank. He farms sheep on the sparce moorland, and grows what he can in his farm garden to see himself through the cold months. The sheep are his livelihood, so they are pastured close to the farmstead through the winter months where he and his lad can keep an eye on them, with the help of Grim and Grist, the two huge wolf hounds he owns. The farm lies in a sheltered spot, out of the worst of the weather on the banks of the Mitheithel where it is joined by a tributary in a steep sided valley. Just across the tributary is the ruin of an old keep. Not much is left these days, and Ulwarths lad has whiled away his youth exploring it, fighting battles against imaginary foes, saving Arthedain from the yolk of the Witch king, just like his father and his father before that. However, unbeknown to Ulwarth and his family, the keep has long been used as a place to exchange messages, and is used occasionally by agents of Angmar. They are wise enough to keep their occasional visits secret, and none have ever suspected the nocturnal goings on in that ancient place. The site (and others along the main routes) is checked on a monthly basis by orc scouts. Recently, one of the spies of the North, Hoegwar Hoegs-son, has had cause to leave a message for his masters, and true to form visited the keep a week or so ago. However, with the rising flood water, the promontory the keep sits on has become cut off, and the message collectors cannot get to it. These messengers are a couple of Orcs from a scouting outpost based a little to the North, who ride 2 large war wolves. It was the tracks of these two Ulwarth saw in the fresh snow, and last night on the river bank he spotted them for real. Now we all know that Orcs are ten a penny in the Misty Mountains, but out here in the hills, quite close to civilization and the threat of the local levy, they are not at all common. Especially since their numbers were decimated in the Great War not even 10 years ago. So as you can imagine, Ulwarth is quite concerned. Assuming the party (for that is who the odd group in the Inn must be) agree to help old Ulwarth out, we may as well continue.
A little more background information
Hoegwar Hoegs-son is a rather nasty character. He comes from Hillman stock, but was brought up to the South in Tharbad, where he learnt his trade. Its not a trade most would boast about, but to Hoegwar, it is a trade and a hobby, for he is a spy, an thief and, darkest of all, an assassin in the pay of Groath, Lord of Pen Morva, and ultimately to the powers based in Angmars freezing waste. Hoegwar goes about his business in the guise of a traveling trader, and, as a master of disguise, few recall him in the places he has been. He collects information from all the border towns and villages. He notes troop movements, garrison strengths, political changes, petty squabbles. He visits farms and markets where he keeps his eye on the state of the crops and livestock, the levels of harvest and of lambing, he hangs around the inns, taverns and brothels keeping an ear out for gossip and news from afar. All this he collates and sends back to his task masters, in exchange for all the coin he needs and the promise of great power and riches 'when the time comes to take back the North'. He swaps information for coin at a great many sites along the East Road, and the highways and byways of Rhudaur These locations are mainly old ruins, standing stones and other places mostly ignored by normal folk. Hoegwar has deposited the messages and has since gone on his way along the great East Road towards the Shire where he will gather information about the events of winter. He may have passed the party, and he stayed in the Inn for one night.
The messages were left at the keep, in a concealed hidey hole in the basement, protected in oiled wrappings. They detail recent changes in the militia of Tharbad, highlighting the withdrawal of 50 Gondorian men at arms back to Minas Tireth, in the far South. There are details on the grain supply and crop expectations at Tharbad, and some political news and gossip too. None of this will make any sense to the party at the moment, but may prove useful later in an extended campaign. Along with the papers is a bone scroll tube, well secured and waterproofed, and sealed with wax. It has some runes scrawled on it, but they are not recognisable or translatable. They are in fact totally meaningless, but designed to make the orc messengers wary that they are 'cursed with magics and spellworkings'. The tube contains a rough map, a poem and a brief note.
Map Poem Note

Forged of Fire in ways of Light,
where Dark shall never come,
The One that cuts to deepest core,
the Evil is Undone.
From Rivers fast came quenching thirst
to hiss and spit and boil,
In Deepest Fires the Naugrim smiths
worked in Endless toil. I came across two dwarfs in Tharbad, who had this map and part of a poem. After a few drinks (dwarfs being what they are!) I gathered they were looking for an old Dwarf hold where they believe some old artifacts are still hidden. The map is poor. I could not get any more coherent information even with a large dose of blackfish venom, dwarfs, as I said, being dwarfs. They did mutter about some 'key' it relates to, but the blackfish dose finally was too much even for dwarfs. I have translated as much as I can, but I still guess at some of its meaning.
Your Servant
H

The note is penned in contemporary Westron and explains the other two items. All items have been drawn by Hoegwar, and he has kept the originals himself. The map shows an area of land with a river and several towns and castles marked on it, but the names are confused and thus not easily identifiable (Hoegwar has made several mistakes. The river is the Bruinen, not Mitheithel, and the place he calls Iant Methed is not the Last Inn, but a ruin east of the bridge on the East Road, south of Minas Brethil - see the MERP maps). The poem is a fragment of a longer work. It describes the forging of a powerful sword by dwarven smiths many many years ago, as an answer to the dark evil that was devouring Middle Earth (see Barad Cam adventure). The map shows the location of the place it was forged (The Dwarven Hold of the Iron Fist, Angacam) and of its current resting place (The Tower of the Fist, Barad Cam). The note tells that Hoegwar came across them in Tharbad last autumn, through some dealings with a couple of Dwarves, and may have some bearing on something referred to as 'The Key'. He used blackfish venom to get more information, but the dose killed one of the dwarves. The other, Daggard Dragon Slayer (well, thats what he calls himself) seemed dead too, but he survived. He has vowed to find and kill Hoegwar himself. Daggard could help locate the places on the map if the party ever meet him.......
The Orcs are waiting for the floods to subside so they can retrieve the messages and take them North East to Grouth at Pen Morva. If the party wait more than 3 days, the flood water will have subsided enough to allow the orcs to retrieve the messages and retreat into the hills. They can be traced back to a small outpost about 10 miles into the hills, where they will hold up for a few nights before setting out again, traveling only at night.
Assuming the party retrieve the messages, the orcs will shadow them a while. They will only attack if there is a reasonable chance of winning a fight, and even then, they will turn and run as soon as things look bad for them. In either case, any surviving orcs will will report back to Grouth, telling how terrible foes stole away the latest messages. They will give descriptions as best they can, and play up the 'formidable skills' of the party. Grouths men will be on the lookout for the party from this point, though not actively seeking them out.
The Journey to the farm
Taking the chance of another warming drink, Ulwarth relates the tale to the party, and asking for their help. He will then urge them to start out now as he doesn't want to wait until morning. If they will not leave, he gives directions and sets out alone. It is a fair distance, along a rough cart track covered with freshly fallen snow. The only tracks of interest are those of Ulwarth himself. Apart from a few animal tracks, there are no signs of others on the road tonight. The full moon and clear sky make stealth difficult, but also means the party can see well. They can be fairly sure they are not being watched along the road. Ulwarth will relate the tale again on his way home, and embellish bits as he sees fit! He is a sturdy character, and makes the pace. He will not want to dally along the way, and is eager to get home. He will happily talk about life here, his family and his farm. He doesn't know too much about other things, as the family do not leave the farm that often.
As they near the farmstead, the sheep in the barn start to bleat nervously, and the hounds in the farmstead start to bark and growl. Both these occurrences are in response to the approach of the party. A crack of light appears at one of the shuttered windows, and movement can be seen inside. Assuming the party decide to scout around to see if anything is lurking nearby, any elves among them may notice a brief movement on the top of the ridge across the river above the ruin (too far for mere men to see at night, even with this moon). This is one of the Orc guards checking to see what has caused the hounds to start barking. He is half a mile away at least. If the party are easily visible, he will notice them. If they have taken care to be sneaky, he may assume it is Ulwarth and the boy he can see, and think nothing more of it. Of course, if he sees a few people, he will tell his comrade, and they will be far more alert and wary in checking the ruins. If the party follow the next day, they will not see the Orc, and will not be seen, as he has bedded down for the day.
Around the farm
A reconnoiter of the farmstead will show no signs of wolves or orcs at all. However, if the party cross the river in Ulwarths small boat, it is a different story. If the boat is checked out, some debris, leaves, grass and dead bindweed will be found in it, - nothing exceptional, except the bindweed grows around the ruin, and not this side of the river. Ulwarth will notice this, but he will get a suspicion that his son used the boat recently, and not point it out. Later, he will rebuke the boy in hearing of the party, 'I told you boy, tis not safe f'r yer ta go dallyin around on yer own, what wi' these wolves an that about!'. The boy will plead innocence, as he hasnt used the boat, which should indicate someone else has..... (it was Hoegwar delivering his message to the ruin). If the dogs are used to track the scent, they will be able to do so for a little way, leading round the back of the farm and onto the track some way away, leading south to the road. The scent is too old to follow with any real success.
The flood water
The river level will drop over the next few days, allowing the orcs to check the ruin for messages and replace the stores there as needed. The longer the party wait, the easier it is for the orcs to make their way clear. The orcs can reach the ruin on the 3rd night after Ulwarth meets the characters in the inn.
On the island
On the far bank, there are several clues to the recent use of the boat. It was tied up to a bush which is now partly under water, but it will be noticeable that some of the branches are broken off. (Remember the water was lower when Hoegwar used the boat so beaching marks, footprints in the mud etc won't be visible). The bindweed around and inside the ruin shows signs or disturbance, and some bits can be found in the boat (from Hoegwars boots or clothing). There are no wolf prints on the island itself. A Very Difficult perception roll will lead to the location of the wolf tracks at the water edge on the northern bank. Taking the boat over will enable the tracks to be followed,
Scouting the ruin will reveal someone has been inside recently, but not spent any time there. A very difficult perception role will be needed to spot the secret hidey hole Hoegwar has deposited the information in unless someone actively searches in the basement area, when only a difficult roll is required. Although they cannot tell this, Hoegwar has retrieved a box of supplies from the ruin too. The orcs would replace it with another box they carry. Good tracking will reveal that only one person has entered here, and wore normal sized boots, thus probably not orcs. A close investigation of the entry where the bindweed grows will show it has been pulled aside then replaced. There is a pendant trapped within the weeds, pulled from Hoegwar as he forced his way in. It is iron, and has a relief of a crude crown on it.
If the party are too late, they will find evidence that two orcs have been here. They will also be able to find a box of supplies in the hidey, replaced by the orcs. It is covered in runes and sigils and contains a pouch of Arthedainian and Gondorian coins to the value of 20 gold, two small vials containing a herb concentrate to aid healing and a single vial of a strong toxin made from the venom of a swamp fish. In the right dose, the spies of Angmar use this to help them glean information from their captives... or to kill them.. The box is not trapped and the runes are not magical in any way.
The wolf trail
The tracks lead west along a game trail up the valley, and then up onto the moors above, but do remember fresh snow has fallen, so they will not be obvious or easy to follow. From there, the party may be able to trace them two ways, depending on their ability. They lead north all the way to the orc lair, several miles away but this will be extremely difficult - event he hounds will have problems as the snow drifts in the wind on the high moor. They also lead east to a bluff overlooking the ruin, from where the orcs are watching the flood water, waiting to resume their quest. They are bedded down here in thick undergrowth on the lee of a rocky outcrop. They will be active only at night, and even then they prefer to stay warm and not venture into the cold. The large wolves will sense any approach, especially if the party approach up wind, which is in the direction of the tracks. This allows the orcs time to organise themselves. They will assume it is Ulwarth unless they have spotted the party at night. If they are aware of the party involvement, they will try and evade them, and resort to conflict as a last option. They are scouts and hence good at their craft, including ambush and sneaky attacks. If they assume it is Ulwarth, they will be confident and confront the party head on, suddenly realising they are outnumbered. They will asses their chances, and act accordingly. They are not warriors, so will probably mount up on the wolves and ride off quickly. They can easily outrun the party, and head back to the lair. They will bring a war party back to fight in a few nights time. If they never return to the lair, the orcs will look for them and if they find them dead, they will attack Ulwarths farm. This will be at least a week or two away though.
If the orcs are caught before they have been to the ruin, they have a small locked replacement supply box with them. The orcs are delivering this to the ruin, as they do every few months.
Orc Lair
The orc lair is home to a few warriors, several riding wolves and a few scouts. The group will be lethargic and bored, happy to keep inside out of the cold, and to keep warm. They will not have any guards posted, though the wolves will be first to raise any alarm. The lair is a small cave among boulders at the base of a steep tor (rocky outcrop) on the moors. It will not be obvious to the eye, as the snows cover the signs of life such as churned up ground, refuse piles and midden pits. If battle ensues, the orcs will fight until it becomes obvious they cannot win. One by one they will run or ride away, trying to escape capture. Eventually they will make their way back to Pen Morva and report to Grouth.
(new map available here - colour high resolution)

Winding up
The adventure successfully concludes when the party are sure there is no danger left to Ulwarth and his family. Assuming they are quick enough, they will find the spy messages. If they are spotted by the orc scouts, but do not follow the orcs, they may be followed and attacked. If they chase or kill the scouts, then the rest of the orcs will be alerted to a problem. They will attack Ulwarths farm to try to keep their presence a secret thinking that a dead man cannot talk. They don't consider the fact that a raid on the farm will alert the local people to their presence. It may be some time before anyone finds out about an attack, due to the isolated nature of the place, but be sure that a levy would be raised and the orcs hunted down. If the orcs escape, then Grouth of Pen Morva will become alerted to the party, and may try to find them. This would take a few weeks as Pen Morva is a good distance away from the Inn, in the high hills.
Ulwarth cannot give much to the party, but he will always be grateful and offer hospitality whenever they need it. If pushed, he will offer a small amount of coin (about 1 gold value) and a ring off his own finger. It is a simple gold band, not worth much at all, and it would sadden him to do this. He would gradually come to resent the party too, if they took it. He will be able to dine off of the tale of this adventure in the Inn for the next few months, as everyone loves a story. Alas, this may alert Grouths men to the party if they visit the Inn and here the tales.
Further adventures
This adventure leads on to an entire campaign, culminating in the party standing against a mighty power in the North. We will publish more parts regularly, with interweaving storylines and plots. The Barad Cam adventure is designed to be played much later in the campaign, but has its beginnings here, with the crude map Hoegwar has drawn.
If you found this adventure useful, or have any comments, please send your feedback to us - we really appreciate it.

Warning Signs of Covert Eavesdropping or Bugging

Others know your confidential business or professional trade secrets.
You have noticed strange sounds or volume changes on your phone lines.
You have noticed static, popping, or scratching on your phone lines.
You can hear sounds coming from your phone's handset when it's hung up.
Your phone often rings and nobody is there or a tone/beep is heard.
Your radio or television has suddenly developed strange interference.
Secret meetings and/or bids seem to be less than secret.
People seem to know your activities when they shouldn't.
You have been the victim of a burglary, even if nothing was taken.
Electrical wallplates appear to have been moved slightly or "jarred."
Dime-sized discoloration has suddenly appeared on the wall paint.
White dry-wall dust/debris is noticed on the floor next to the wall.
Nails and screws previously covered with paint are scraped off or loose.
You notice that the phone company trucks/"employees" are spending a lot of time doing repair work near your home or office.
Telephone, cable, plumbing, or air conditioning repair people show up to do work when no one had called them.
Your door locks suddenly don't "feel right" or are broken.
Furniture has been moved slightly, and no one knows why.
Service or delivery trucks are often parked nearby with nobody in them.
Things "seem" to have been rummaged through.
Indoor pets are mysteriously let outside.

Men and Women

What does it mean to be a man? Is the measure of a man his body’s muscular strength or how much money he makes, or his success in the world? Shall we compare one man to others to measure his worth? Or perhaps what matters most is when a man lives up to the expectations of the One who created him.
Men and women are made in the likeness of God, dependent upon Him and each other, made to serve their Lord and each other willingly and without guile, in honesty, love and faithfulness. Yet male and female are enough different from each other to spark compelling flames of attraction and consuming fires of conflict.
Men are not only physically different from the fairer sex, but their emotions are different. Their minds think differently. Physically stronger, as a general rule, he is more sensitive to light, less sensitive to sound, more likely to be left-handed or nearsighted, is more aggressive, less intuitive and more logical. His language skills and visual perceptions are different.
All of this was part of God’s plan when He made male and female. Man was created and designed first and then shown that he didn’t have what it took to go it all alone.
Women have an unnaturally strong desire to control men, and men end up ruling over women in an unnatural domination. So this is the battle between men and women, God’s punishment because of sin.
Each tried to manipulate and dominate the other for selfish reasons. But a godly woman is not a passive slave, following a man from a distance as the man initiates all ideas and actions. Women make a positive and significant different in the New Testament. Women make a valuable contribution to both social and spiritual life.

A wife is still considered the property of her husband. I don’t care how enlightened you profess to be. Graciously submitting to a man has been a hard thing for women to do. It has to come out of love and respect. A man must not seek to dominate his subservient wife but to humbly protect, provide for and love her as she returns that love in service. They both give of themselves in self-sacrifice and put the other’s needs above their own.
Women are not inferior to men. Neither are they superior. Men and women are of equal value and worth to God our Creator. We are to have a submissive spirit and a servant’s heart. A wife must put herself under the authority of her own husband.
We are taught from God’s word, as equality between the sexes that is expressed in the glorious way they complete each other, not compete with each other. Distinctive male and female roles compliment each other.

The Bargain

The Bargain
Author: Unknown

During one of the many Reformation battles, a young soldier found himself and his army being soundly defeated by the enemy. He and his comrades hastily retreated from the battlefield in defeat, running away in fear of their very lives.

The enemy gave chase. The young man ran hard and fast, full of fear and desperation, and soon found himself cut off from his comrades. The soldier eventually came upon a rocky ledge containing a cave.

Knowing the enemy was close behind, and that he was exhausted from the chase, he chose to hide there. After he crawled in, he fell to his face in the darkness, desperately crying to God to save him and protect him from his enemies. He made a bargain with God. He promised that if God saved him, he would serve Him for the remainder of his days.

When he looked up from his despairing plea for help, he saw a spider beginning to weave its web at the entrance to the cave. As he watched the delicate threads being slowly drawn across the mouth of the cave, the young soldier pondered its irony. He thought,

"I asked God for protection and deliverance, and He sent me a spider instead. How can a spider save me?"

His heart was hardened, knowing the enemy would soon discover his hiding place and kill him. Soon he did hear the sound of his enemies, who were now scouring the area looking for those in hiding.

One soldier with a gun slowly walked up to the cave's entrance. As the young man crouched in the darkness, hoping to surprise the enemy in a last-minute desperate attempt to save his own life, he felt his heart pounding wildly out of control.

As the enemy cautiously moved forward to enter the cave, he came upon the spider's web, which by now was completely strung across the opening. He backed away and called out to a comrade, "There can't be anyone in here. They would have had to break this spider's web to enter the cave. Let's move on."

Years later, this young man, who made good his promise by becoming a preacher and evangelist, wrote about that ordeal.

What he observed has stood by me in times of trouble, especially during those times when everything seemed impossible:

"Where God is, a spider's web is as a stone wall. Where God is not, a stone wall is as a spider's web."

"For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things." - Luke 12:30

The Dress By Margaret Jensen

The Dress
By Margaret Jensen
From First We Have Coffee

Mary was young, filled with dreams of love for God and His service. John, restless and impatient in his new pastorate in the farmlands of Wisconsin, longed for the libraries and action of New York City or Chicago, where he had attended seminary. John's brilliant mind craved books. Mary saw beauty in everything—the smell of the freshly plowed fields, the song of a bird, the first signs of spring, crocuses and violets. Mary sang to the wind and laughed with the birds. But she had one secret longing—a new dress for spring. Not the somber brown or black, befitting a minister's wife, but a soft voile, billowing dress with lace around the neck and sleeves and a big sash.

There was no money! Carefully she laid plans. She would put pennies into a box until there was enough money to buy a new kerosene lamp for John and material for a new dress. She would reuse the lace from an old velvet dress in the trunk. Someday she would make a blue velvet dress for her baby Louise.

The day came when the treadle machine purred like music while Mary sang and sewed. Golden-haired Louise played with empty spools and clothespins. The small house shone clean. The new lamp had a place of honor on John's reading table.

In a playful mood, Mary pulled down her long brown hair and brushed it in the morning sun. Then she put on her new dress—soft pink voile with violets and lace. A sash tied at the back, and Mary swung around, to the delightful squeals of Louise. It was spring! She was young, just 23, with another new life within her and Louise to rock and love. The wilderness church, the somber immigrants tilling the land, and the severe harshness of long winter had isolated the young wife into her world of poetry and song. But she had grown to love the faithful people and shared their joys and sorrows. Today, she danced with abandoned joy in her new billowing dress.

Like the flash of summer lightning, Mary was whirled around by an angry John, whose storm of frustration unleashed the fury within him. "Money for foolishness! No libraries, no books—no one to talk to about anything except cows and chickens, planting and harvest!"

Like a smoldering volcano, John erupted with rage and ripped the dress to shreds. Just as suddenly the storm was over, and the galloping hoofs of John's horse broke the quiet terror. As he rode into the wind, he unleashed the remainder of his fury on the passing fields and their wide-eyed cows and clucking chickens. He longed to gallop from Wisconsin to the heart of New York—his beloved library.

Huddled in a corner, Mary clutched Louise and the shredded dress. Trembling with fear and anger, she remained motionless. Too drained to weep, she was sick with emptiness and an unutterable longing for her family, far away from John. There was no one to turn to in the lonely farmland. She remembered Psalm 34:4. "I sought the Lord, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears." Then she wept, long and deep, and cried out to the Lord.

Mary set her heart to seek a way of escape. She would make a pallet up in the loft and take Louise to sleep with her. John would sleep alone. Then she folded the shredded dress in a small package and hid it in her trunk. Pastor Hansen was coming to visit the surrounding churches and Mary decided to bide her time, to quietly wait and show the dress to Pastor Hansen, then ask for assistance to leave John and return to her mother.

With quiet determination she put on her dark dress and combed her hair into a severe knot, befitting a minister's wife. She set the table for supper. When John returned late in the night his supper was in the warming oven. Mary was asleep in the loft with Louise curled in her arms.

Quietly John ate his supper and then looked for Mary. When he found her in the loft, he ordered her back to their bed and put Louise in her crib. Mary gently tucked Louise in her crib and obediently went to bed. John's storm had passed, but he was unaware of the debris in its wake.

Life went on as usual, but the song was gone and Mary's steps were weighted with bitterness. She quietly waited and thought out her plans.

The arrival of Pastor Hansen brought a new exuberance to John as the two ministers discussed books and theology and the work of the church conference. Mary served quietly. No one would have guessed the anguish behind her gentle face as she worshipped with the faithful congregations, but heard little of the sermons.

The final service was drawing to a close and, as yet, Mary had not had the opportunity to see Pastor Hansen alone. She had to find the opening—perhaps this Sunday afternoon, when John would visit a shut-in member while Pastor Hansen would meditate on the evening message. With a quickened mind she decided to listen to the sermon and perhaps use his comments as an opening.

"The text this morning is found in Mark 11:25. 'When ye stand praying, forgive.' Forgiveness is not optional, but a definite act of the will to forgive, in obedience to God's command. The feeling comes later, the feeling of peace. When we offer to God our hurts and despair, God will pour His love and compassion into the wounds, and His healing will come."

Oh, no, Mary cried inside. I can't forgive, and I can never forget.

The sermon continued, "Someone may be thinking, I can never forget, even if I could forgive. You are right—you can't forget, but you needn't be devastated by the remembering. God's love and His forgiveness can and will cushion the memory until the imprint is gone. When you forgive you must destroy the evidence, and remember only to love."

John and Pastor Hansen rode home with Deacon Olsen. Mary stepped into her buggy, tied her wide black hat with a scarf and carefully secured Louise around her waist. As the horse, Dolly, trotted briskly down the country road, Mary's scalding tears poured forth.
She knew what she must do. She would obey God. Without waiting to unhitch Dolly, she fled from the buggy and placed Louise in her crib. With trembling hands, Mary took out of the trunk the package with the torn dress, but she couldn't let go.

The Sunday dinner was in the warming oven; Mary poked the fire and added more wood. Automatically she put on the coffee pot and set the table. "The evidence must go," rang in her memory.

"I forgive you, John." She finally picked up the tattered dress with one hand and the stove lid with the other. Tears splashed on the fire as she watched the dress burn slowly.
"True forgiveness destroys the evidence," pounded so loudly in her heart that she failed to hear John's footsteps. "Mary, what are you doing?"

Trembling with sobs, she said, "I am destroying the evidence."

To herself she said, "My offering to God."

Then John remembered. Pale and shaken he murmured, "Please forgive me."

Fifty-eight years later, when John had gone home to be with the Lord and she missed him terribly, Mary had a dream. Three angels appeared to her and said, "Come, we are going to a celebration." Over the arm of one angel was draped a beautiful dress.
http://homepages.at/slush/ark/power/CLT37.htm

“So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.” -2 Corinthians 2:7

THE HEARSE SONG

(or “The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out” song)


Don't you ever laugh as the hearse goes by,
For you may be the next to die.
They wrap you up in a big white sheet
From your head down to your feet.

They put you in a big black box
And cover you up with dirt and rocks.
All goes well for about a week,
Then your coffin begins to leak.

The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The worms play pinochle on your snout.
They eat your eyes, they eat your nose,
They eat the jelly between your toes.

A big green worm with rolling eyes
Crawls in your stomach and out your eyes.
Your stomach turns a slimy green,
And pus pours out like whipping cream.

You spread it on a slice of bread,
And that's what you eat when you are dead.

The Kiss of Death

Short story idea

A woman murders a man but is caught because of a lip print left on the body or at the crime scene.

Perhaps she sweetly kissed his forehead as he died and left her lipstick.

Why was she so tender?
Why did she kill him?
What was he to her?
Why didn’t he resist? Didn’t he know she was killing him?

The Standard Deviations of Writing by Roger MacBride Allen

The Standard Deviations of Writing
by Roger MacBride Allen
Introduction
Some years ago, I had a chat with a man who repaired high-end fax machines for a living, back when fax machines were still a bit of a mystery to most people. He reported the appalling statistic that fully 95 percent of the service calls he made were unneeded, because the consumers could have fixed their problems with no help from him. Nineteen out of twenty calls involved such technical challenges as machines out of paper, machines not plugged in, machines not hooked up to a phone line, and machines not turned on. In short, if these folks had used their plain common sense and been willing to read and follow instructions, they would not have needed to call for repairs. The bad news, of course, was that the legitimate service calls only received five percent of the available time and attention of the repair technicians. The folks who needed the help most were denied it thanks to the people who did NOT need help and yet screwed up anyway.
It is in the spirit of preventing such needless service calls that I offer this list of mistakes made in writing. To the degree that you can avoid these standard deviations, you-- and your editor and workshop partners -- will be able to spend more time on other issues of greater substance.
Read over this list. Understand what these errors are, and try and see how they can get you into trouble. Learn to avoid them. I promise you that getting past these errors will represent at least half the battle of becoming a writer. Learning the craft of writing consists in large part of learning how not to do these things.
I have schlepped through a lot of student manuscripts in a lot of venues. I would estimate that the errors listed below comprise at least 90 percent of the problems I encounter. Most are fairly simple to avoid if you are aware of them, and can be easily fixed, once you know how to spot them.
Errors Of Style
The first errors I will discuss are in the area of how a story is written, rather than in what the story is about. You might also call these errors of structure: These are errors involving the structure of the story -- how it is put together, and the parts used to put it together.
Passive voice. This is the single most common error. More people make this mistake, and make it more often, than any other error in the writing of fiction. Let me rephrase that sentence, so as to illustrate the problem: This is the mistake most commonly made in all fiction. Note that in my second rendition, no one makes the mistake. It is simply "made." It is not clear that it is a mistake in writing. You could interpret the second rendition to mean that readers make the mistake. In passive voice, nothing is ever anyone's fault, because people do not do things. Things happen to people. "Irving ate the food" is active. "The food was eaten" is passive. Note that Irving has vanished completely. The food and the action of eating are made more important than the person who does them.
Writers most often drop into passive voice when they are unsure of themselves, when they don't want anything bad to happen to one of their characters, when they don't want their characters to do anything bad.
Remember that you story is all happening on paper. You can change everything later with a stroke of a pen. Don't be afraid. Be bold and adventurous. If you make a mistake, you can fix it later. If you kill a character, you can bring her back to life in the next draft. If your character commits a murder, you can give him a really good lawyer.
Note that passive voice cannot -- and need not -- be completely eliminated. See previous sentence for an example. There are times when it works.
Inappropriate use of summary narration. This is closely related to passive voice -- the two errors frequently overlap each other. Summary, or indirect narrative is the flip side of the coin from direct narration. You sum up events, tell about them, rather than show them. As anyone who has ever stayed awake in a writing class knows, you should strive to show as much as possible, and tell as little.
Direct narrative:
Henry walked toward downtown. He turned left on Smith Street. He stopped into Joe's Diner and he sat at his favorite stool. He ordered a ham sandwich for lunch, and made sure to smile at the waitress … (etc.)
Summary narrative:
Henry went out to lunch. Then he went back to work.
The first version is appropriate when you want to report on all of Henry's actions and his going to Joe's will have some impact on the story. The second is appropriate when the walk and the meal -- and perhaps the character -- are of secondary importance. Perhaps you, the writer, merely want to get Henry out of the way so Bob can be alone in the office to rifle through Henry's files.
Point of view errors & poor (or random) POV selection.
A good, solid rule of thumb: One scene, one point of view (POV) character. Jumping from one POV to another is downright confusing. If we readers have been inside Ned's head for the whole scene, then we are going to be really thrown if we are suddenly in Ted's head, hearing his thoughts and seeing Ned from Ted's point of view. If the point of view has shifted, and then the POV character turns and speaks to Ed, the reader will have no way of knowing if it is Ted or Ned speaking.
Allied with this mistake is the failure to chose an appropriate POV character for a given scene. Don't launch into a scene -- or a story or a book -- without due and careful consideration of the POV character. Who is the appropriate character? Who will have the most illuminating reaction, the most useful things to say, in a given scene? Whose thought would be most worth listening to for the scene in question? See: Bad Planning.
A side-bar, on an issue worthy of discussion on its own: Bear in mind that the narrator, the point of view character, and the protagonist can often be three different people.
Poor choice of tense and person.
You have three basic choices in tense: past, present, and future. Three more in person: First, second, or third. Eighty or ninety percent of all fiction is written in the past tense, third person, with most of the remainder written in past tense, first person. However, there are times when it makes sense to write in the second-person, present tense, or first-person, present tense (I just did a story in first present myself.) Each tense and person has its strengths and weaknesses, a subject beyond the scope of this list of mistakes. Suffice to say that a wise writer will consider the options carefully before choosing which to use. The foolish writer will launch into a story in whatever tense and voice pops into the writer's head (See: Bad Planning), or will write in plural second person future tense just to prove it can be done (See: Show-Off Experiments).
Time-control errors.
The most common variant of this is the needless flashback. I have seen stories that started with a flashback, then jumped forwards in time 30 seconds. What's the point? I am convinced that a great many flashbacks happen because the writer has read lots of books with a flashback and felt the need to conform to a literary convention. Yes, flashbacks can be cool, and dramatic, and exciting. But bear in mind that part of the reason they induce a sense of drama is that they cause confusion and uncertainty. They are intended to make the reader wonder "What the hell is going on?" and read further. But drama based on bafflement and doubt is a tricky thing. Far too often, flashbacks merely make the reader wonder "What the hell?" and give up in befuddlement. Straight flashbacks are only the start of it, of course. I have seen many manuscripts that included flash forwards, a quick "meanwhile" to another locale, a jump back to before the flashback, maybe a dream sequence, and then back into real time. I have seen stories that were little more than nested flashbacks, one inside another, like a Russian doll.
Bear in mind that you, the writer, know more than the reader does about your story. (At least you damn well better know more.) You will be clearer on the state of play than the reader. But just because you know what is going on doesn't mean anyone else will.
Good rule of thumb: The reader will get unstuck in time before the writer does. See: Information Not on the Page.) An even better rule of thumb: Do not violate straight chronology without a good reason. Ask yourself: What purpose is served in the story by violating chronology? Does it make things more exciting? Does it clarify something? Or does it just confuse the hell out of everyone?
Unnamed characters.
Of all the errors, this one puzzles me most. I cannot understand why people commit it so often. I suppose that it is out of a desire to induce a sense of drama, but it rarely works.
The classic example would be a twenty-page story, wherein we follow around a nameless protagonist for 15 of those pages. At long last, it is revealed, with high drama, that her name is -- "Jane." Wow. Or it could be any other name to which neither real life nor the story has attached any special significance. There is nothing surprising in a person's name. Everyone has a name. Revealing that your lead character has one too, and even revealing what that name is, will not likely shock anyone. The ONLY reason to avoid revealing a character's name is if you are doing one of those tired old things where there is a misfit little Austrian boy nearly hit by a horsecart. His life is saved by a kindly Jew and we find out the kid's name is --(what a shock!) Adolf. Even this is a rather tired old gimmick. (I have lost track of the number of stories I have read wherein a character later turns out to be A.H.)
The nameless character would be a harmless trifle were it not for the fact that this conceit requires the writer to perform all sorts of elaborate literary gymnastics to avoid revealing the name. I once read what was otherwise a fine piece of work wherein the lead character's name (and gender!) were hidden through the first 57 pages, including a fairly graphic scene of the character having sex. Neat trick, no? Neat trick, no. See: Show-Off Experiments.) This bit of legerdemain was accomplished by arranging that every person in the book just happened to talk to and about this person without using a name, and by the writer referring to the protagonist as The Ranger, the Leader, the captain of the band, etc., etc., etc.
It did not take long for it to turn stilted and awkward. Nor did the eventual revelation of the character's name and gender have any particular effect on the story, or have any dramatic purpose. The sex scene was especially baffling, as the writer, of necessity, could not reveal the sex of the character's partner in bed. While the writer made it clear what was being done, the writer, trapped by her own cleverness, was unable to make it clear who was doing what to whom. Oy. If your character has no name, or if you keep his or her name hidden with a series of allegedly clever artifices, you will spend 23 pages stuck with damn fool locutions such as "the boy in the shirt." Knock it off. If his name is Fred, say so.
Errors of Substance
Here, I am talking about "substance" in the sense of what the story is about: the ideas, rather than as opposed to the execution of those ideas.
The weird opener & the unintegrated opener.
"Sarah walked down the aisle, still unclear why she had agreed to marry a giraffe. The groom, waiting patiently at the altar, resplendent in black tie, spats and spots, swung his long neck around to watch her approach, all the time placidly chewing his cud." Pretty wild, huh? The whole intention of that opener is to make you, the reader, wonder how such a thing could have come to pass. Well, I wrote it, and I haven't the faintest idea. Don't let this happen to you.
I have sat in on (but not taught, thank God) workshops devoted entirely to the opener, and there is even some reason to focus on the opener that intently. Those few words do have to draw the readers in, get them interested in the story, and all that. However, many writers pay so much attention to the opener they forget all about the rest of the story, with the result that the opener has little or nothing to do with the story. The reader keeps going, eager to find out about that giraffe, and does not discover for 10 pages that (God forbid) it was all a dream, or that the writer has some other equally lame excuse for an explanation.
I have come across an equally unfortunate problem -- the writer who launches in with a wild, randomly selected killer of an opening, having no idea whatsoever where the story is going. (See: Bad Planning.) In fact, this error could have gone under the head Planning Errors.) Yes, the opener should be interesting, intriguing, should draw the reader in. But it should also have something to do with the story, be integral to it. The story itself should be interesting enough that some element of it should make for a good opener. As with all the notes in this essay, this is equally true for a novel or other longer work.
Retread of the same old same old.
There are lots of stories that have been done before, and need not be done again. In science fiction, these include the-nuclear-war-wipes-out-everything-and-it-just-happens -the-last-two-people-left-are-named-Adam-and-Eve story. In mysteries, you have the detective who turns out to be the killer. In The New Yorker, you have stories about people on Long Island who have no problems, whining to each other about their problems. With the exception of the final example, these stories are unpublishable because they have been done to death. (For some reason, The New Yorker just can't get enough of whiny Long Islanders.) Even the surprise twists on these old chestnuts have been done. It has been said, with a great degree of justice, that there is no such thing as a new idea. I have more than once written a whole novel based on something I thought was dazzlingly new and original, only to discover I could fill whole bookshelves with books on similar themes. I at least like to think that my take on those ideas was different enough, fresh enough, that I could get away with it. There is no clear line between a fresh take on an old idea and a hack rewrite of a theme that has been beaten to death. But you should at least try to avoid writing stories about writers writing stories about writers writing stories about writers having midlife crises. At some point, even The New Yorker will say enough, already. God willing.
Errors of Motive and Results
In short, these errors involve the art and science of screwing up on the question of why people do things, or why things happen, and on the question of what happens as a result of whatever the author has dreamed up.
Confusing the author's motives with the character's.
Your character wants to get home and sleep in his own bed. You, the writer, want him to be there when all hell breaks loose. You have a good plot a reason for sending him to the edge of the volcano's crater. But does he have reason? Your plot may require your heroine to fall in love with the sleazy thug -- but doesn't she have more sense than that? Is it in character for her to find such a scuz-bucket attractive? Or think of it another way. You are a lab scientist who puts rats in a maze. You plan to kill them and dissect them to see how learning changes their brain chemistry. This is not the rat's reason for going through the maze. The poor little bastard is just looking for a piece of cheese. Both writer and character must have a motivation for each action in the book. Much or most of the time, their motivations will not coincide.
Failure To Deal With Consequences.
Let me give a prime and recent example. One of my students wrote a story set in a post- collapse world where the U.S. government had ceased to exist, manufacturing and transport had essentially stopped, and the only source of order was local fiefdoms. She still had the characters using paper money. This just would not happen.
Failing to deal with consequences has to do with more than technology. If you write a story about someone who grew up in an orphanage, and that person goes to a big family dinner at a friend's house, the orphan's background will affect his reactions to a roomful of grandparents. It will seem damned odd if he doesn't have some massive emotional response to the family relationship that been denied him. It can something subtle, like a city person using language and imagery that only make sense if you are from a rural area. Of course, science fiction and fantasy are especially prone to this law of unintended consequences. Some other examples, which have, sadly, seen print: knights in armor climbing aboard a starship. A high-tech civilization based on machines operated by uneducated slave labor. A world of cybernetic connection where anyone can assume any guise or appearance at any time -- and yet people are discriminated against for being what no can know they are. If you write a story where they finally do shoot all the lawyers, who'll try the cases when the guilty are brought to justice? Don't just ask yourself what if once. After you get your answer, ask yourself what if about the answer, and then ask it about the answer to your answer.
Development Errors
These are mistakes made in the process of planning a story. Suffice to say they are very tough to fix on page 432of your manuscript. The closer you are to the initial blank page when you deal with issues of planning, the better off you will be.
Bad planning.
After waltzing through hundreds of partial manuscripts, and talking with hundreds of students who have gotten stuck, I have concluded that bad planning, the failure to work things out ahead of time, is the prime cause of stories not getting done.
This happens, in part, because inspiration is overrated. We have all seen the plays and the movies, read the books, where the lightbulb goes off over the writer's head and she suddenly starts cranking out brilliant copy non-stop. This is nonsense. It takes me something like six months to a year to write a book. If I had to be that inspired in order to write, I would have had a heart attack by now. The wise writer takes notes, jots things down, makes a mental note, mutters into a bedside tape recorder those things that seem inspired at two a.m. and are merely incoherent in the morning. Those jottings and mutterings and scribbles are inspiration preserved.
This essay is based on just such written, taped, and mental notes made over a long time. Those notes allowed me to crank this piece out in one day -- once I had the time and the notes and knew what I wanted to do. (However, just for the record, I have gone back and revised this article at least a half-dozen times as I have learned more, and as I have prepared it for different audiences. Don't be afraid to revise.)
Do a plot summary. Do character sketches. Work out the geography and the history of your story. Most importantly, know what the ending is going to be before you start. Know your ending, and you'll be able to get to it. But do not let yourself be locked in by your planning documents. (See: Not letting the story evolve.) A plot synopsis is not a blueprint, where everything is rigidly and precisely positioned, and if you move this pillar from here to there the whole damn thing will collapse. Your plot synopsis is a roadmap, showing where you are and where you want to go, sketching out one of many possible routes that could get you there. You could change direction, or pick anew destination -- or even a new starting point. But you cannot do any of that without first knowing the lay of the land. There is not much point in changing direction if you don't know where you are going.
Not letting the story evolve.
In one of my short stories, the scene that inspired the story in the first place never appeared in the actual text. In one book, a scene intended for chapter one ended up as the start of chapter seven. In another book, a character I intended as a one-shot walk-on ended up as a central figure in the story. Planning is important, but it should not lock you in. If you knew the whole story in immutable detail before you began, writing it would be damned dull. Be prepared to explore the new paths that open on your story as you write. But don't overdo it. (See: Self-indulgent digression.)
Presentation Errors
In short, the question of leaving in what should be cut, and leaving out what belongs.
Failed Exposition.
This typically -- but not always -- happens at the beginning of a story. Instead of getting action, or the story, we get background, told from no particular point of view. Sort of an encyclopedia entry on the subject in question. For some reason, fantasies are particularly prone to this flaw. The story will open with a long explanation of how the castle (or fortress, or bus station) came to be there, and who all the ancestors of the current duke (or king, or wizard, or head chef) were, and how the magic (jewel or ring, or crown, or polo mallet) came to be imbued with its powers and then stolen (or lost, or locked in a spell, or pawned). We then spend the rest of the book in search of the map (or book of spells, or claim ticket).
As in the rather interchangeable example above, most of what goes into such expository lumps is pretty generic. All castles were built, all rulers had some sort of ancestors or predecessors, all macgufffins (that being Alfred Hitchcock's term for the magic jewel or secret formula or other gimmick around which the plot revolves) are important, and if they weren't out of the hero's possession, there would be no story. Much of such material can be assumed, or else you can work it into the story here and there, rather than spewing it all out at once. Rule of Thumb: The only things that should be in your story are those that get a yes to these two questions:
Will this be of interest to the reader?
Does it have something important to do with the story the reader is reading? (It doesn't matter if it is vital to some OTHER story that happened 300 years before your story opens.)
At times, I have caught myself injecting whacking dull history lesson into my books. When I do catch such things, I find that putting all the exposition in a character's head, and letting that person think about the data in question, often makes it more interesting and allows that character to offer his or her opinion on the subject. Othertimes I find it just plain whacking dull no matter what and I cut it completely.
A side-bar on the subject of cutting and pasting and inserting and changing text in this modern computer age: Do it. Don't be afraid to cut and paste ferociously. Hit the save key first, and keep a back-up of your original, but chop the working copy to ribbons. If the original is backed up, you have the liberating knowledge that you can doing anything you like to the working copy without doing any damage to your first version of your deathless prose. If you don't like the changes you have made, you can always print out a fresh copy of the first draft.
Information that does not get on the page.
This is pretty basic, but awfully common. In short, you, the writer, have imagined every element of your story so completely that you assume the reader knows it all too. You might neglect to give a physical description of a place or a person that you can see perfectly in your mind's eye. The only real check against this is to put the story to one side after you finish it, then come back to it a week or a month later, so as to achieve some perspective on it. It's easy to fix: just put in what you've left out.
Ego-Driven Errors
These have much less to do with the story, and much more to do with the writer. These are the mistakes made by a writer in love with every single one of his or her words, who secretly feels that the only possible reaction to his or her work is unalloyed reverence. To such writers, I can only say: Get a life.
Self-indulgent digression.
Just because you are interested in something, that does not mean it belongs in the story. One of my students brought every one of his stories to a screeching halt with an off-the-point diatribe railing against the government for forcing psychotics to take mood-altering drugs. I told him if he was that interested in that subject, he should write a story about that subject, and get it out of his system, rather than injecting it into his otherwise good stories on wholly different topics. And maybe adjust his own medication while he was at it.
Just because you have done six months research on bonsai, that does not mean you should put five pages on tree-shrinking into your Japanese saga. Don't wander off on 23 pages of some off-the-point concept that you happen to find fascinating. If it does not belong in the story, nuke it. (See: Failed Exposition.)
The error that is not an error.
I have lost count of the times a student has explained why something that does not make sense really does make sense, if only I would read the74 pages of information he has on the subject, or if only I were (like the author) an expert on renooberated gravistrans. Whether or not the writer has his or her information right does not matter. The question is whether information feels right -- or wrong. A seeming error is an error because it has exactly the same effect on the reader as a "real" error.
It makes the reader lose confidence in the story, distracts the reader from the story and makes him or her worry about the error, and damages the reader's willing suspension of disbelief. Getting it wrong or seeming to get it wrong will have exactly the same undesired effects on the reader.
While we're on the subject of overdone research, I should point out that it is just as bad to get your research wrong-- or not do it in the first place. Assume that your readers are knowledgeable, and that some of them, at least, will spot what you got wrong.
An example from personal experience: Science fiction and fantasy writers seem to do a lot of stories that concern caves. These really bug me, as I like to go in caves, and most of these stories get every damned detail wrong. Caves in fantasy all seem to be airy, well-lit places full of perfect marble staircases and veins of pure gold -- which generally are not found in the limestone formations where caves usually form. When a story takes me into a cave like that, I ask myself -- Where is the mud? Where is the darkness? Where is cool, slightly clammy air? Where are the loose rocks on the floor, and the smell, and the bats? Even if the writer has, in reality, gotten it right, it is too late. Once I am in that state of mind, it will do no good at all for the writer to have five thousand pages of documentation on the principles of natural cave formation in igneous, ore-bearing, and metamorphic rock.
I always try to assume that someone who knows more than me is going to read my stories. If some detail conflicts with generally held knowledge, I will try and work in a sentence or two that explains my variant idea, or that at least acknowledges the existence of the generally received knowledge. Doing this lets the reader know I have at least taken common knowledge into account. It reassures the reader, keeps the reader from being irritated by what I got wrong, and thus prevents the reader from becoming distracted from the story. In short, I do a little research, and try to avoid both errors -- and seeming errors.
Writing to impress rather than communicate.
I am convinced that this is in large part a product of what passes for writing in school, government, and business. We are taught, over and over again, to impress the boss or the teacher with how much we know, how many big words we can use, how important we can make our subject seem. If the meaning itself is lost in a blizzard of jargon, all the better. Few people have the nerve to admit they don't know what you meant, and if you yourself are unsure, a little bureaucratic vagueness can often serve to hide what you don't know.
Inevitably, something is lost when things are made pompous. "Never enumerate your feathered progeny until the incubation process is thoroughly realized" just doesn't have the same punch as "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched." Do not, under any circumstances, dumb down your work, but why be deliberately obscure? A good rule of thumb: Use the shortest words and simplest sentence structure that will convey the meaning you intend. A side-bar: In these dark days, we are deep in the thicket of politically correct verbiage. Ignore the trend. Say what you mean, not what you think someone would say you ought to have meant. After all, there are times you want to offend people. While there is little to be said in favor of hurting people needlessly, such idiocy has gotten completely out of hand. My favorite recent sample of this nonsense: the term "temporarily able-bodied, "denoting all those persons who unfairly do not have a handicap at the moment. This term was used in deadly seriousness. Fun people.
Show-off experiments.
Someone reading this is going to think something like this: Ha! So Mr. Know-it-all says to follow all these rules. I'll write a story in future tense plural second person with all the characters nameless and of undetermined species. The plot will consist entirely of nested flashbacks, I'll make the whole thing up as I go along, and I'll put in anything I want, whether or not it is related to the story.
I once tossed out the concept of flying pigs in a class exercise wherein I was deliberately dealing with absurd plot elements. Just to show me it could be done, half the students came back with flying-pig stories. Some of them not bad. With one possible exception, every single story could have been improved by removing the pig. "Just to show them" is a lousy reason to write a story, and usually results in a failed story. We readers don't want to see how smart you are. We want a good story. (See: Writing to impress rather than communicate.) A while back, I came out of the theater with a friend of mine and said to her "That wasn't experimental theater -- it was too good, and it worked." In theater, and in fiction, we have developed the myth of the Noble Failure. The artiste struggles endlessly and produces a work so dense, so sophisticated, so brilliant that no one can understand it, and thus it is shunned by the critics and the public alike. The artiste, however, knows it is brilliant and they are all fools.
Very rarely, this myth is true. It is, however, far more common for someone to crank out a mass of technically inadequate, self-indulgent, incoherent drivel, and then hide behind the myth, rather than accept the failure of his or her own work. It's a tempting option. Writing crap makes you look stupid, whereas being a misunderstood artist makes you look cool, sort of the way wearing a beret does.
None of the rules, ideas, theories and so on that I offer in this essay are arbitrary. There are good reasons for all of them. They are based on my personal experience of far too many unpublishable manuscripts. On the other hand, none of these rules are ironclad, and I have broken most of them myself. Back on the first hand, more often than not, I have then gone back and patched things up so as to follow the rules. In short, don't go off into experimental forms and styles until you have mastered the basics. A final rule of thumb: Understand the rules, and know how and why to follow the rules, before you attempt to break them.
This article is Copyright. Reproduction and distribution specifically prohibited. All rights reserved. Reprinted here with the author's permission.

The Tactics of Intimidation

In the book Agents of Repression, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall successfully argue that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's crime-fighting activities serve as a calculated ruse to cover-up and divert public attention from their true purpose which is maintaining the status quo by disrupting and crushing grassroots movements for social justice. They base this conclusion on the thousands of pages of classified files that a group calling itself the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI liberated from the FBI's Media, Pennsylvania office in March 8, 1971.
These documents included internal memos about Counter Intelligence Operations -- or COINTELPROs -- designed to "disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize" the leaders and groups of social justice causes. From these files, activists have gained insight on what types of activities the Feds -- in conjunction with local police units and reactionary "private" groups -- carry out against those of us trying to change society for the better.
Below is a list of their tactics so you can prepare for, identify, and lessen their impact when they are being used against you or other activists. This information is excerpted from the book Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret War Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall. Published by South End Press, 116 Saint Botolph St, Boston, MA 02115. No Compromise strongly encourages all activists to read this book so that we are all better prepared to counter the government's actions against us.

Eavesdropping - A massive program of surveillance was carried out against organizations and individuals via wiretaps, surreptitious entries and burglaries, electronic devices, live "tails" and mail tampering. The purpose of such activities was never intelligence gathering per se, but rather the inducement of "paranoia" among those targeted by making them aware they'd been selected for special treatment and that there was "an FBI agent behind every mailbox."
Bogus Mail Fabrication - of correspondence between members of targeted groups, or between groups, was designed to foster "splits" within or between organizations; these efforts were continued -- and in many cases intensified -- when it became apparent that the resulting tension was sufficient to cause physical violence among group members.
"Black Propaganda" Operations - "Black Propaganda" refers to the fabrication and distribution of publications "in behalf of" targeted organizations/individuals designed to misrepresent their positions, goals or objectives in such a way as to publicly discredit them and foster intra/inter-group tensions.
Disinformation or "Gray Propaganda" - The FBI systematically releases disinformation to the press and electronic media concerning groups and individuals, designed to discredit them and foster tensions. This was also seen as an expedient means of conditioning public sentiment to accept Bureau/police/vigilante "excesses" aimed at targeting organizations/individuals and to facilitate the conviction of those brought to trial, even on conspicuously flimsy evidence.
Harassment Arrests - The repeated arrests of targeted individuals and organization members on spurious charges was carried out, not with any real hope of obtaining convictions (although there was always that possibility, assuming public sentiment had been sufficiently inflamed), but to simply harass, increase paranoia, tie up activists in a series of pre-arraignment incarcerations and preliminary courtroom procedures, and deplete their resources through the posting of numerous bail bonds (as well as the retention of attorneys). Again this was so pervasive a tactic that it is impossible to give a comprehensive summary of its use during the 1960s.
Infiltrators and Agents Provocateurs - This widely used tactic involved the infiltration of targeted organizations with informers and agents provocateurs, the latter expressly for the purpose of fomenting or engaging in illegal activities which could then be attributed to key organizational members and/or the organization as a whole. Agents provocateurs were also routinely assigned to disrupt the internal functioning of targeted groups and to assist in the spread of disinformation.
"Pseudo-Gangs" - There is some indication that the Bureau had begun to spawn "pseudo-gangs", phony organizations designed to "confuse, divide and undermine" as well as do outright battle with authentic dissident groups by the end of the COINTELPRO era.
Bad-Jacketing - "Snitch-jacketing" or "bad-jacketing" refers to the practice of creating suspicion -- through the spread of rumors, manufacture of evidence, etc. -- that bona fide organizational members, usually in key positions, are FBI/police informers, guilty of such offenses as skimming organizational funds and the like. The purpose of this tactic was to "isolate and eliminate" organizational leadership; such efforts were continued -- and in some instances accelerated -- when it became known that the likely outcome would be extreme physical violence visited upon the "jacketed" individual(s).
Fabrication of Evidence - A widely used FBI tactic has been the fabrication of evidence for criminal prosecution of key individuals and the withholding of exculpatory evidence which might serve to block conviction of these individuals. This includes the intimidation of witnesses and use of coercion to obtain false testimony.
Assassinations - The bureau has been implicated as cooperating in the outright physical elimination -- assassination -- of selected political leaders, either for "exemplary" reasons or after other attempts at destroying their effectiveness had failed. The Bureau almost always used surrogates to perform such functions but can repeatedly be demonstrated as having provided the basic intelligence, logistics or other ingredients requisite to "successful" operations in this regard.

Brunette jokes

WHAT'S BLACK AND BLUE AND BROWN AND LAYING IN A DITCH?
A brunette who's told too many blonde jokes.

WHAT DO YOU CALL GOING ON A BLIND DATE WITH A BRUNETTE?
Brown-bagging it.

WHAT'S THE REAL REASON A BRUNETTE KEEPS HER FIGURE?
No one else wants it.

WHY ARE SO MANY BLONDE JOKES ONE-LINERS?
So brunettes can remember them.

WHAT DO YOU CALL A BRUNETTE IN A ROOM FULL OF BLONDES?
Invisible.

WHAT'S A BRUNETTE'S MATING CALL?
"Has the blonde left yet? "

WHY DIDN'T INDIANS SCALP BRUNETTES?
The hair from a buffalo's butt was more manageable.

WHY IS THE BRUNETTE CONSIDERED AN EVIL COLOR?
When was the last time you saw a blonde witch?

WHAT DO BRUNETTES MISS MOST ABOUT A GREAT PARTY?
The invitation

WHAT DO YOU CALL A GOOD LOOKING MAN WITH A BRUNETTE?
A hostage

WHO MAKES BRAS FOR BRUNETTES?
Fisher-Price

WHY ARE BRUNETTES SO PROUD OF THEIR HAIR?
It matches their mustache

Numerology and birth dates

Birth Test
Your birth date describes who we are, what we are good at and what our inborn abilities are. It also points to what we have to learn and the challenges we are facing. Once you have discovered your birth number, forward this e-mail to the rest of your friends, including the one who sent this to you. Put your "number" in the "Subject" and Pass it on! Have fun! To figure out your birth number, add all the numbers in the birth date together, like in the example, until there is only one digit.
A birth number does not prevent you from being anything you want to be, it will just color your choice differently and give you a little insight.
Example March 25, 1971
3 + 25 + 1971 = 1999
1 + 9 + 9 + 9 = 28
2 + 8 = 10
1+ 0 = 1
1 is this Birth Number, which makes that person an ORIGINATOR!
#1 THE ORIGINATOR
#2 THE PEACEMAKER
#3 THE LIFE OF THE PARTY
#4 THE CONSERVATIVE
#5 THE NONCONFORMIST
#6 THE ROMANTIC
#7 THE INTELLECTUAL
#8 THE BIG SHOT
#9 THE PERFORMER
[**] WHAT YOUR ANSWER MEANS ABOUT YOU:
# 1 - THE ORIGINATOR
#1's are originals. Coming up with new ideas and executing them is natural. Having things their own way is another trait that gets them the reputation as being stubborn and arrogant. 1's are extremely honest and do well to learn some diplomacy skills. They like to take the initiative and are often leaders or bosses, as they like to be the best. Being self-employed is definitely helpful for them.
Lesson to learn others' ideas might be just as good or better and to stay open minded.
Famous 1's: Tom Hanks, Robert Redford, Hulk Hogan, Carol Burnett, Wynona Judd, Nancy Reagan,
# 2 - THE PEACEMAKER
#2's are the born diplomats. They are aware of others' needs and moods and often think of others before themselves. Naturally analytical and very intuitive they don't like to be alone. Friendship and companionship is very important and can lead them to be successful in life, but on the other hand they'd rather be alone than in an uncomfortable relationship. Being naturally shy they should learn to boost their self-esteem and express themselves freely and seize the moment and not put things off.
Famous 2's: President Bill Clinton, Madonna, Whoopi Goldberg, Thomas Edison, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Lois Warren.
# 3 - THE LIFE OF THE PARTY
#3's are idealists. They are very creative, social, charming, romantic and easygoing. They start many things, but don't always see them through. They like others to be! happy and go to great lengths to achieve it. They are
very popular and idealistic. They should learn to see the world from a more realistic point of view...
Famous 3's: Alan Alda, Ann Landers, Bill Cosby, Melanie Griffith, Salvador Dali, Jodi Foster.
# 4 - THE CONSERVATIVE
#4's are sensible and traditional. They like order and routine. They only act when they fully understand what they are expected to do. They like getting their hands dirty and working hard. They are attracted to the outdoors and feel an affinity with nature. They are prepared to wait and can be stubborn and persistent. They should learn to be more flexible and to be nice to themselves.
Famous 4's: Neil Diamond, Margaret Thatcher, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tina Turner, Paul Hogan, Oprah Winfrey.

# 5 - THE NONCONFORMIST
#5's are the explorers. Their natural curiosity, risk taking and enthusiasm often land them in hot water. They need diversity and don't like to be stuck in a rut. The whole world is their school and they see a learning
possibility in every situation. The questions never stop. They are well advised to look before they take action and make sure they have all the facts before jumping to conclusions.
Famous 5's: Abraham Lincoln, Charlotte Bronte, Jessica Walter, Vincent Van Gogh, Bette Midler, Helen Keller. Tom Berenger.
# 6 - THE ROMANTIC
#6's are idealistic and need to feel useful to be happy. A strong family connection is important to them. Their actions influence their decisions. They have a strong urge to take care of others and to help. They are very
loyal and make great teachers. They like art or music. They make loyal friends who take the friendship seriously. 6's should learn to differentiate between what they can change and what they cannot.
Famous 6's: Albert Einstein, Jane Seymour, John Denver, Meryl Streep, Christopher Columbus, Goldie Hawn.
#7 - THE INTELLECTUAL
#7's are the searchers. Always probing for hidden information,they find it difficult to accept things at face value. Emotions don't sway their decisions. Questioning everything in life, they don't like to be questioned themselves. They'r! e never off to a fast start and their motto is slow and steady wins the race. They come across as
philosophers and being very knowledgeable, and sometimes as loners. They are technically inclined and make great researchers uncovering information. They like secrets. They live in their own little world and should learn what is acceptable and what is not in the world at large.
Famous 7's: William Shakespeare, Lucille Ball, Michael Jackson, Joan Baez, Princess Diana.
# 8 - THE BIG SHOT
#8's are the problem solvers. They are professional, blunt and to the point, have good judgment and are decisive. They have grand plans and like to live the good life. They take charge of people. They view people objectively. They let you know in no uncertain terms that they are the boss. They should learn to exude their decisions on their own needs rather than on what others want.
Famous 8's: Edgar Cayce, Barbra Streisand, George Harrison, Jane Fonda, Pablo Picasso, Aretha Franklin, Nostrodamus.
#9 - THE PERFORMER
#9's are natural entertainers. They are very caring and generous, giving away their last dollar to help. With their charm, they have no problem making friends and nobody is a stranger to them. They have so many different
personalities that people around them have a hard time understanding them. They are like chameleons, ever changing and blending in. They have tremendous luck, but also can suffer from extremes in fortune and mood. To be successful, they need to build a loving foundation.
Famous 9's: Albert Schweitzer, Shirley MacLaine, Harrison Ford, Jimmy Carter, Elvis Presley. Amy Potter. Woody Potter.

Numerology
The study of the occult significance of numbers.

Some people who identify themselves as Christians overemphasize the real or alleged meaning of numbers in the Bible, and often erroneously base teachings upon this understanding. In so doing, they ignore sound principles of interpretation.

BUILDING FICTIONAL CHARACTERS FROM THE GROUND UP by Kit Ehrman

BUILDING FICTIONAL CHARACTERS FROM THE GROUND UP
by Kit Ehrman copyright 2005

What's so important about character, anyway?
Character is the reader's ACCESS to the story. CHARACTER IS EVERYTHING.
Character interprets everything. The story comes from character
Things to keep in mind as you consider character:
Introduce primary characters early in the book. If you wait to introduce the antagonist at the end, that’s a cheap shot.
Flesh out primary characters in your prep work. Know what they think and feel, know what makes them tick.
Make the primary character distinguishable, remarkable, memorable, lovable/hateable.
Don’t confuse the reader by giving them a character that changes too much. Make them consistent.
Make them principled, honorable, and most important, flawed. Make your primary character believable. Real people have lisps, warts, false teeth, a limp. Very few people look good with their clothes off.
Characters that are too good to be true won’t be believed.
Don’t rely too heavily on physical descriptions to identify characters because you’re not going to describe them every time they come onstage.
But, give your characters certain trademark mannerisms that you can use occasionally so your reader remembers them: a tic, habit of brushing hair out of face, fidgets, clears throat, an overbearing demeanor, a loud voice ...
Make your hero a hero. If evil wins the reader will be disappointed. The reader invests time in the character. Don’t let them down.
Study real people—this is very important. Sit back and observe, record, watch people. Take notes. Use your powers of observation, then apply your imagination.

What’s your job, anyway?
You are writing for the reader. You need to know what the reader wants—to be entertained. The reader needs at least one likeable character, and they want to be intrigued. They want to find out what’s going to happen next, but what happens needs to be logical.
Where to Start?
Okay, you need to develop a character to carry your short story or novel. Where do you begin?
The tendency is to make every character like yourself—DON’T.
1. Use a photo of a person as an aid to develop that character.
2. Chose a name. Many writers need this to get going.
3. Consider the story premise, idea, or concept. Do the “What if?” scenario. What character will work best for this story?
4. The opening situation is a good place to start thinking about the kind of character you’ll want to use. What kind of person would likely find herself in your opening scene?
5. What’s an ordinary day like for your character?
6. What does she keep in her purse? What credit cards does she have? Clothing, jewelry? What type of car does he have? Go from there.
7. Start with stereotype, then go beyond that.
8. Think of the story’s opening dialogue. What kind of character will you use?
9. What major or minor decision will your character need to make? Have your character dare to make a change in his/her life.
10. What’s your character’s speaking voice sound like?
11. What dialect, idiom, regional phrases, grammar, cadence, does he use?
12. What Zodiac sign is she?
13. Use a character profile worksheet as a starting point and to get you thinking.
14. Is there a character in book or TV show who is similar to your character?
15. What single physical trait would you use to describe your character?
16. Begin with the character’s world setting, then think, who lives there?
17. Create another character to act as a balance –a sidekick.
18. Use people-watching, eavesdropping to help you develop character.
19. Incorporate an element of yourself. Sometimes this will only be expressed in the theme of the book.
20. Sum your character up in a motto, then go from there.
21. What’s your character’s family position, sibling rank, black sheep?
22. Has there been a tragedy--personal, national, worldwide that has affected your character?
23. What’s your character’s job--pick something different.
24. Consider your plot finale--work back from there--what kind of person would be in this situation?
25. You’ve decided on a story location. Who would live here? How would setting affect them?
26. What piece of technology helps define the character. Or not?
27. Does the character have a handicap, general health issue?
28. What are his bad habits--smoking, drinking, controversial habits? Does he have the ability to break bad habits?
29. What kind of food does he eat? Junk food? Health nut?
30. How old is your character? What are his life experiences?
31. Opening line can suggest character. Start your book a with good opening line.
32. Just as the story’s opening can suggest a character, so can the end. Plot the end—you need someone who can pull the ending off. Need someone to whom the ending matters.
33. Tags--good way to start a character. Tags are one or two adjectives that describe a character. Aloof, lonely, depressed, nervous, polite.
34. Nothing happens in history without a person attached to it. History can give us lots of ideas.

Live through your characters.
Have them do things you would like to do but are afraid to do

Character Profile Worksheet
Basic Statistics
Name:
Age:
Nationality:
Socioeconomic Level as a child:
Socioeconomic Level as an adult:
Hometown:
Current Residence:
Occupation:
Income:
Talents/Skills:
Salary:
Birth order:
Siblings (describe relationship):
Spouse (describe relationship):
Children (describe relationship):
Grandparents (describe relationship):
Grandchildren (describe relationship):
Significant Others (describe relationship):
Relationship skills:

Physical Characteristics
Height:
Weight:
Race:
Eye Color:
Hair Color:
Glasses or contact lenses?
Skin color:
Shape of Face:
Distinguishing features:

Personality
Habits: (smoking, drinking etc.)
How does he/she dress?
Mannerisms:
Health:
Hobbies:
Favorite Sayings:
Speech patterns:
Disabilities:
Style (Elegant, shabby etc.):
Greatest flaw:
Best quality:
Learning Experiences:
Character's short-term goals in life:
Character's long-term goals in life:
How does Character see himself/herself?
How does Character believe he/she is perceived by others?
How self-confident is the character?
Does the character seem ruled by emotion or logic or some combination thereof?
What would most embarrass this character?
Intellectual/Mental/Personality Attributes and Attitudes
Educational Background:
Intelligence Level:
Any Mental Illnesses?
What would the character like to change in
his/her life?
What motivates this character?
What frightens this character?
What makes this character happy?
Is the character judgmental of others?
Is the character generous or stingy?
Is the character generally polite or rude?

Spiritual Characteristics
Does the character believe in God?
What are the character's spiritual beliefs?
Is religion or spirituality a part of this character's life?
If so, what role does it play?
Emotional Characteristics
Strengths/Weaknesses:
Introvert or Extrovert?
How does the character deal with anger?
With sadness?
With conflict?
With change?
With loss?
What does the character want out of life?

How the Character is Involved in the Story
Character's role in the novel (main character? hero? heroine? Romantic interest? etc.):
Scene where character first appears:
Relationships with other characters:
Describe relationship with this character and changes to relationship over the course of the novel:
How character is different at the end of the novel from when the novel began:

Additional Notes on This Character:


What Makes Character Appealing?

1. Fascinating character with interesting goals.
2. Principles--hold them dear.
3. Self sacrifice is strength of spirit.
4. More reality than you can ever hope to know from a real person. Reader can know character better than she knows real people in her life.
5. Secrets appeal to readers. We all like to find out secrets.
6. Emotion--find out about something by character’s emotions.
7. Caring--empathy, and root for someone.
8. Want hope. Reader wants to look in a mirror, not at what they are but what they hope to become.
9. Make it difficult for the main character.

Writer’s Exercises--Getting to Know Your Character

Fill out a character profile worksheet on any character you’re having trouble with. Then, answer the following questions:
Who am I?
What am I doing in this story?
What do I want?
What is my goal(s)?

Share the character profile worksheet with members of the critique group who are interested in doing this exercise. They will write as many questions that come to mind, for your character to answer. Have your character answer the questions, then return. Keep repeating the process until the questions are exhausted (or you are). You should really know your character by the time you’re finished.

Examine How Others Develop Character in the Story

Read a published novel in the genre you’re interested in and do the following exercise, (choosing those elements you are interested in and need to improve in your own writing).
In different colors, underscore:
a. sections that define VOICE
b. sections that demonstrate CHARACTERIZATION
c. sections that show BACK STORY
d. sections where things are happening SHOWING
e. narration TELLING
f. any other aspect that you’re working on
g. sections of DIALOGUE you particularly like

Do this one with your own manuscript, too!
Character must be a risk-taker to be compelling.
WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS TO FIT IN—THAT’S WHAT YOUR CHARACTER WANTS, TOO.

Creating a Character That Will Carry a Story
Create characters with a past, present and future.

PAST

What happened in the past to the character is not the same as back story. What happened in the past shades how the character will react to the present and the future. Back story is part of the plot.

What happened in the past is usually not relevant to the story but it affects the character by contributing to the character’s voice and point of view.

Meshing of the past and present helps you express the character on the page.

Components of the Past

Family: parents, siblings, is the family together? How together were they? What did the family do on holidays?
Religion: How does the family feel about religion? If you give your character a religious, spiritual, or philosophical base, it makes them a more complete person. Then you are writing top notch stuff. All the best authors give their main character some kind of philosophical base. It makes the character more complete.
Friends: best friends, lost friends. Enemies--are flip side of same coin. Enemies probably interact with your main character as much as friends.
Home: class, social/economic location, suburbs, city, country, location in the United States.
Self Image: VERY IMPORTANT
Self image is NOT reality, but you believe it more. Parts of self image are:
successes
failures
level of beauty (this is known at an early age)--how you act comes out of your feeling of beauty
Success: kids who were not successful when young don’t expect it later.
Failures: also define the character.
Death: what kind did the character experience and how did it affect them?
Secrets: what secrets does character have? Did character have to admit secrets or is he still carrying them around?
Key Moments in Characters Life: These key moments are very individual, personal.
Events (actions). Something that you didn’t do; something that you should have done.
Romance/Sex
Work: depending on the age of character, it can be an entire resume, or very little.
Academics: level of achievement
popularity
smarts and what you did with them--did you waste them--did you hide them?
common sense

PRESENT

Age: means a lot. What we know. What we experience.
Emotions: What is your first emotional response to things? Emotions--predisposition to outlook on life. What is the character’s range of emotions? What is his temperament?
Conflict: What are current conflicts in character life? Ask you character this, then do some free writing. Anything that defines character’s life can be a conflict.
Code: The code that a character lives by will help decide how they respond to an event.
1. values
2. beliefs
3. ethics
4. politics
5. morals
6. attitudes
7. religion
Religion of childhood (PAST) is not necessarily religion of present.
Ethics: principles of right conduct.
Morals: character’s conception of what is right and wrong.

Attitude: often comes out of personality type.
Interests: hobbies
passions
relaxations
all three are shaded differently
Jobs
Current family: has it multiplied, divorced?
Current friends
Appearance: social/economic apparent in appearance, dress, as character grows older, usually stops worrying about keeping up with new trends in hairstyles, dress.
Current Romances
Current Home
Money: How much does character have, how much does character want, what does character do with it when he has it?
Change: There should be a gradual change in the character all the way through the book until the change has solidified at the end.

FUTURE

Goals: Figure out what’s meaningful. There are goals, and there are personal goals.
Happiness: if character has goals that don’t have anything to do with what they want, than that in itself is interesting. They might have been taught that “you’re not supposed to be happy.”
Expectations of the Future
family--plan to get married?
plan to have kids?
security--example: “I’ll own my own house.”
health--want to live a long healthy life
potential--will character realize their potential
self image--if someone has a low self image, or high expectations of themselves this affects them.
dreams--little or no grounding in reality?
people--character expects people they love to be alive tomorrow
money

Thoughts on Naming

Most writers put too much emphasis on name; however name is important, significant.

Size matters: There are several things that matter from a reader's perspective. It’s not a good idea to have names that are all the same length, either very long or very short. They run together.
Shape matters: It’s bad if all the shapes of the letter are the same.
Endings matter: Don’t have all your names end in “Y”
Patterns matters: Don’t let every name have the same pattern of letters.
Sound matters: Think of the sound of the name. Fred, Ted, Ned
First letters of each character name should be different. Only use first letter once, if you can.
Clichés matter: Watch clichés in names. ex: Mary is good, Vinnie is bad.
Don’t make names symbolic.
Meaning matters: Consider meaning of name. Also, think about meaning name has for character and reader.
Date matters: You can date people by their names.
Does your character like her name?
Different forms of name show relationship between characters.
You can use given names in a way that is insulting or a form of it that isn’t respectful.
Names are our identity.

Characters Fill Different Functions
hero helper
villain hindrance or obstacle
protector reflection--character exists to mirror other people
users or manipulators guides or mentors--new trend is for this to be a woman
teacher leader or inciter--someone who nags main character
cheerleader or supporter walk-on or placeholder
window to the world savior--hard to pull off

A trend is for the hero to be the leader, but it’s more interesting if the hero is not the leader. Victims make a bad main character, unless an event causes them to act in certain way, and if they grow out of it. A victim works well as a side character and gives the hero a reason to do something.

Okay, You Know Your Character. Now What?

Once you know your protagonist so completely that he seems like a real person, how do you get the reader to know him? First off, the reader is going to come to know him gradually, just as we come to know people we meet in real life. Don’t dump a lot of information all at once. Let the reader gradually come to know your protagonist’s beliefs, problems, hang-ups, issues, etc.

FOUR WAYS READERS COME TO KNOW YOUR CHARACTER

1. The Physical

a. Physical Description
Physical description of a character’s body type, face, hair is often the first thing that comes to mind, but its importance is often overrated. When describing a character’s physical qualities, pick something specific and memorable and unique. Do not list features. The reader’s not going to remember them, anyway, and they’re not going to want to read them in the first place. Give them enough specific and interesting physical descriptions and let them fill in the blanks.

Don’t stop the story to describe. Combine description with action and you’ll get two things done at once, and the description won’t seem obtrusive.

b. Tags
Similar to physical description is a physical tag that helps the reader place secondary characters. Physical tags such as greasy hair, wrap-around sunglasses, hunched shoulders, thin hair combed across a balding crown, even action tags or habits such as squinting or adjusting glasses or chewing fingernails help the reader keep your characters straight—especially secondary characters. With a main character, habits can help you define personality or just make them seem more human. A tag word might be, “right-o” or “geez” or “whatever.”

Tags--descriptive, action, favorite words--help the reader keep characters straight.

c. Dress ’em Up
What your character chooses to wear tells us a lot about their personality. T-shirts, dirty jeans, work boots, tell us one thing about the character, his personality, socioeconomic station. Pressed shirts and slacks, tasseled loafers, leather briefcase, neatly trimmed hair all tell us something else.
2. Deeds of the Character

Facial expressions, posture, body language, and speech all convey character. Even the way a character moves tells us a lot. Is he athletic? A klutz? Stiff with arthritis? The environment your character has chosen to live and work in tells us a lot, too. And the way they maintain that environment tells us even more. Is he a slob, fastidious, disorganized? Show the reader the world your character inhabits, and you’ll be telling them a great deal about the character without actually telling them.
Writer’s Exercise: Watch a favorite movie and take note of all the little details that tell you about character, then make use of what you’ve learned as you write.
3. Introspection

Combined with a bit of physical description, most writers use internal thoughts to convey characterization.

The character’s thoughts, attitudes, vocabulary, world view, mannerisms (traits, habits, nonverbal communication) are all used to reveal character. How does the character relate to other people? We relate differently to every person we meet. Show this in your character.

You need to keep in mind how the character is presented—that the reader interprets character. Unless you are a very strong writer, everyone will come away with different interpretation of your character. Ask readers what they thought about your character. Have a reason for everything the character does in the story. Have a reason for everything you write in the story.

Internal conflict is a key ingredient of introspection. Without external conflict (what makes this period in your character’s life different from his everyday life) there is no plot. Without internal conflict, characters have no depth. Internal conflict is inherent to the characters. It’s part of their psyche—a problem they may not be aware of or have not faced until the external conflict forces it into the light. Resolving this internal conflict is how your characters grow. And a character that doesn’t grow is not worth reading about. However, if you’re writing a series, you need to consider how your protagonist will come to grips with this conflict. You’ll want to spread it out over several books.
Leave room for characters to grow.
Sometimes, having your character not express an emotion is a way of expressing emotion. We are trained by the screen and try to overdo it. What else could the character do when upset? Hug themselves, rock—going back to childhood, breathing changes—faster, shallow, raspy, restlessness, especially if you’re waiting for news, repetitive action, temperature change—getting hot. Denial—if they don’t acknowledge the loss, it isn’t happening. How can you show emotion in a way that’s less obvious, but more dramatic? An undercurrent. Silence—what’s happens when people are not talking. We as writers want to fill the space, but you don’t always need that. Silence can be dramatic. Silence can be weightier, frightening. How do you say it in a way that’s new?

If you are portraying the non-emotion of a character or of a culture, it can be non-engaging for the reader. Restrained emotion is a problem for dramatics. Be careful if you develop a protagonist who is extremely reticent or unemotional. He may not engage the reader.

4. Attitudes of Other Characters

You can show character through the words and actions of other characters.

The most important thing to remember about these four steps is that you should use all of them – often, from Chapter One to The End.

Viewpoint

Viewpoint is about character. It is a powerful tool.

Viewpoint duplicates the human experience. You are locked inside your brain. You can only see from your viewpoint.

We are also in the reader’s brain--very powerful thought.

You need to decide:
1. between first and third person
2. how true will you be to the boundaries of that viewpoint
3. if you want to get a physical description across, you need to make it incidental
4. how deep to go in duplicating character’s thoughts. If you go deep you need to go deep through out the entire book.

What would I know or experience if I were that character. It’s like acting. What do I want reader to know.

What moves the story forward. What is the purpose.

Viewpoint--you have to establish your set of rules and then stick to them throughout.

Line Break * * * indicates change in location
time
point of view

BUTTINSKIS by Alicia Rasley

BUTTINSKIS:
MENTORS, MEDDLERS, AND MATCHMAKERS
c. 2002 by Alicia Rasley
Secondary Characters Who Help Too Much
Outtake from a synopsis:
.... As always, Julie turns to her mentor Nancy for advice. Nancy shows her how to hack into the DA’s computer network, and suggests that when she completes her mission, she enroll in computer training. In the meantime, Rome’s matchmaking father takes him aside and explains why Julie disappeared, drives him to the hiding place and insists that he go tell her his feelings. When Rome gets tongue-tied, Dad sighs and writes out a speech for him on an index card and shoves him up the steps to Julie’s door. Julie refuses to emerge from her room, so Rome hands the index card to Nancy, and waits. Finally Julie, led by Nancy, comes out. When she sees Rome, she flings herself into his arms, and cries, "Nancy explained all about your sister! I’m sorry I didn’t trust you!" And then, under the benevolent gaze of Nancy and Dad, they kiss.
But the wedding has to wait. First Rome and Julie must remove the hard copy of the criminal record from the DA’s office. Unfortunately, as they are speeding to City Hall, the malevolent Cretchley intercepts them and forces their car off the road into a ditch. But Nancy and Dad have been following in Dad’s car, and manage to call the police to come to the rescue. While Rome and Julie must go to the emergency room for tests, Nancy and Dad break into the DA’s office and retrieve the hard copy. Rome and Julie find themselves holding hands on adjacent gurneys, and vow to stay side-by-side for life.
Okay, who’s the hero? Who’s the heroine?
If you said "Nancy and Dad", you’d be wrong... but you’d be right. Nancy, the meddling mentor, and Dad, the meddling matchmaker, are by far the most effective characters in this plot. They also, I might argue, have the more intriguing relationship, and the more entertaining future. Can’t you just see them opening up an Internet dating service together?
Rome and Julie, on the other hand, probably won’t be able to check out of the hospital without help. They have failed at the essential task of protagonists: being the prime movers of the plot. But this is actually the author’s failure, for supplying too much help from secondary characters. As Barbara Keiler, who writes for Harlequin and Mira as Judith Arnold (Love in Bloom’s), comments, "I try to avoid using buttinskis and matchmakers because they seem kind of ‘deus ex machina’ to me -- an unseen hand manipulating the course of the story, rather than the protagonists taking control of their own story."
Mentors, meddlers, matchmakers– the menace of these secondary characters is that they can take over the story, guiding the main characters with their helpful advice, their sage counsel, and their timely interference. It’s a short-term fix but a long-term disaster– because protagonists who don’t work hard enough, who don’t show enough initiatives, aren’t heroic. If they get too much help, they aren’t challenged enough to change and grow, and they don’t earn love or reader respect.
That’s not to say we should do without buttinskis altogether. Unless the main characters live on a desert island, they will have friends and families who, just like real life friends and families, offer advice, aid, and blind dates. We just need to keep them in their place. They can supply information, inspiration, interference, as long as their actions aren’t determinative at most stages of the story– as long as the protagonists remain the prime movers of the plot.
Christie Ridgway (Then Comes Marriage, Avon) agrees there’s a place for secondary characters, but she limits their role. "My secondary characters often help illuminate the hero or heroine’s character, for example, the sister who makes the remark about the heroine, ‘You don't like cops because of those 14 speeding tickets you got last year.’ But I tend to not have them comment on what the hero or heroine should do."
Jo Beverley (Hazard, Signet) likes to use secondary characters as sounding boards for the protagonists: "A sounding board helps avoid introspection. The sounding board character can also signal reactions (Hero: I'm thinking of moving to Guatemala. Sounding Board: Are you crazy?) If the sounding board character is ‘normal’ for this world, then the reader knows the speaker is contemplating something way out there."
Here are some other ways to make meddlers meaningful while keeping them in their place:
¤"Protagonist" comes from the Greek for "prime actor."
Your central characters should the ones who cause most of the action, make most of the decisions, and do most of the growing in the stories. An active protagonist might ask for advice, demand aid, blackmail someone to get his cooperation– but passive acceptance of being pushed and pulled by A Mentor Man or a Wise Woman? I don’t think so. A hero relying too much on a meddler’s aid would be like taking the elevator and thinking he’s getting the same calorie-burn as from running up the stairs.
So keep the protagonist’s journey central as you plot. This psychological journey requires many steps from embarkation to destination, and no one else can make those steps.
I like to chart the steps in the journey, for example:
distrust—>alienation ---->forced cooperation -----> revelation ----->voluntary cooperation ---->suspicion of betrayal ----->choice to trust.
The meddler might be helpful at that third step, to force the hero and heroine to cooperate in some mission, but intervention after that could halt the growth. For example, let’s say near the end of the book Julie does something that triggers the hero Rome’s suspicions. He has the choice to give into his suspicions or take a gamble and trust her. But what if Dad steps in with his usual sage judgment. "Trust her," he says. "I have proof she’s telling the truth."
What’s wrong with that? Well, if Dad provides proof, Rome’s not learning to trust Julie. Anyone can "trust" when there’s proof. He needs to gamble, to put aside his fear of betrayal and trust his own understanding of who she is– and for that to happen, Dad has to butt out.
So whenever you’re tempted to bring on a meddler to do the plot work, consider what your protagonist needs – and it’s not an assistant protagonist.
¤ Give buttinskis their own agendas.
I’m sure there are altruists out there, lending a hand just for the sheer joy of helping. But these saintly creatures seem implausible in fiction, especially next to the protagonists with their clearly defined goals and powerful motivations.
It’s much more interesting to imagine meddlers and mentors as real people, with their own selfish reasons for wanting the protagonist to act. That way, the meddling can be a source of conflict as much as aid, and perhaps even create an ironic subplot to support the protagonist’s journey.
St. Martin’s Press author Jenny Crusie (Faking It) says, "Secondary characters can actually be extremely useful as ficelle characters (that's from Henry James): characters who ask the right questions because they need the knowledge for themselves, but in asking give the protagonist a reason to explain something the reader wants (to know), too." The key here, however, is that the secondary character has her own reason to ask the question– she’s not just there as a prod to the heroine’s thought process. Crusie adds, "Meddlers in my books are control freaks who are interfering in other people's lives, so I'm not kind to them."
To take a classic example, Friar Lawrence helps Romeo connect with Juliet not so much because he wants them to be happy, but because he sentimentally believes that the romance might bring an end to their families’ feud. In fact, he actually succeeds at his goal, though at great cost– the last moment of the play has Lord Montague shaking hands with Lord Capulet over the bodies of their star-crossed children.
You can also deepen the mentor’s character by creating a conflict between mentoring and his private agenda. FiveStar author Cathy McDavid (Real Men Sell Bras) mentions the Salingeresque figure played by Sean Connery in the film Finding Forrester: "He mentors the young high school student with his writing. Problems arise because he makes the boy promise never to reveal their relationship." Later Forrester finds himself forced to choose between his own cherished solitude and the reputation of his protegé. In fact, this helps the young writer Jamal, who learns the complications of human nature when he chooses to trust his mentor and forgive his weakness.
¤Make mentors a pain in the neck.
If mentors are annoying, obscure, or incompetent, the protagonist will have to suffer for whatever help she gets from them. Suffering is salubrious, remember. In fiction, as well as in life, nothing good should come easy, especially for those who need to be challenged to grow and change.
Forrester is an example of the annoying mentor, and his very curmudgeonliness encourages the protagonist to become more active. Budding novelist Jamal realizes he can learn a lot from this Pulitzer-Prize winner– but unlike so many mentors, Forrester doesn’t make it easy. Jamal has to prove himself worthy of the apprenticeship, in the process overcoming his inner-city insularity and realizing he’s tough enough to enter the wider world. After all, if he can impress the hypercritical Forrester, he can impress anyone. So Forrester’s mentorship isn’t an aid so much as an ordeal– a challenge Jamal must surmount in order to earn greater skills and confidence. (He also manages to coax Forrester out of a decades-long depression, by providing his own challenge to the old man.)
Stephen King often uses mentors to help guide his characters on their quests– but the mentors aren’t always very helpful. In Insomnia, Ralph’s mentor is a senile old man who insists on giving clues in the form of poetry quotations and brings more frustration than enlightenment: "It occurred to Ralph that this was his chance to grab Dorrance and maybe get some answers out of him... except that Ralph would likely end up more confused than ever." Dorrance’s advice is so loony that Ralph comes to question his own sanity in attempting to find its meaning. Paradoxically, that teaches him to let go of his need for rationality and order, and trust his own heightened senses and new-found telepathy.
Incompetent mentors can provide comedy, but also force the protagonist to cut the umbilical cord and venture forth alone.
For example, let’s say Julie in our synopsis above turns to Nancy for romantic advice. After all, Nancy knows all about computers, so naturally she’ll be an expert on romance– that’s what Nancy thinks, anyway. But think how much fun it could be if Nancy’s advice leads to disaster. Maybe she suggests that Julie make Rome jealous by pretending to still be involved with her ex-boyfriend, and ex-boyfriend’s current girlfriend hears about this, and comes calling with a couple of her big sisters. Then Julie might realize that she can do no worse on her own.
¤Make meddling interactive.
Interactivity creates action, conflict, and creativity. It’s more work for the characters, and so more entertaining for the reader.
Jenny Crusie says, "The (typical) advice scene is just one character lecturing another, no give and take, no dialogue. That kind of scene is static -- I keep thinking of Polonius who gave really good advice that nobody listened to because he kept lecturing -- whereas the scene where people discuss and argue and work together to figure something out is dynamic."
Consider ways to energize an "advice" scene by making it interactive. For example, if Rome desperately needs advice on a birthday gift for Julie, lock All-Wise Dad in the attic and let Rome’s macho best friend Mark arrive with a six-pack and a video game. You know the sort of gifts Mark would suggest– they’re all featured in last month’s catalog from Frederick’s of Hollywood.
Mark: "How about one of those crotchless panties?"
Rome: "We haven’t even slept together!"
Mark: "Definitely crotchless panties then! You know, it’s like a hint that you want to get closer."
Rome: "I’m not going to insult her like that. She’s – not the crotchless panties type. She’s... you know. Sort of classy."
Mark: "Classy, huh? I had a chick like that once. She liked poetry, so I got her a book of dirty limericks."
A few go-rounds like this, and Mark will be dismissed as a gift consultant. More important, however, his cluelessness will have sparked Rome to think about who Julie is and paradoxically lead to the discovery of the perfect gift.
¤Too many matchmakers spoil the match.
The matchmaker is a traditional romantic device because it affirms the community’s intense interest in getting young people together. After all, without successful romances, the village or the culture or the species will die out. But just as traditional is the young people’s defiance of such manipulation. An example is in Fiddler on the Roof, where Yente the matchmaker matches the meek girl Tzeitel with a brutish butcher. Tzeitel proves her inner courage by insisting on a marriage with the poor tailor she loves.
Why is resistance of matchmaking so common in fiction? It’s because matchmakers so often make their decisions rationally, valuing finances and social success more highly than passion. So Yente the matchmaker matches the poor girl with the rich butcher, and the social-climbing Lady Capulet matches Juliet up with the prince’s kinsman Paris. But romance is about love, not about economic and social union, so it falls on the young people to affirm the primacy of passion over pragmatism, and heart over head.
So traditional and current romantic comedies often use matchmaking failures as a way to get the "wrong" (that is, the right) couples together. Signet author Allison Lane exploits the comic potential of this in a book titled Too Many Matchmakers: "The efforts of a dozen people resulted in everyone winding up betrothed to the wrong people (three couples). The hero and heroine had to work hard to straighten out the mess."
That’s not to say every matchmaker has to choose the wrong mate every time. After all, sometimes it does take a village to get a couple stubborn young people together, and readers have shown over and over again that they like a good matchmaker plot as a staple of romantic comedy.
The danger is that with everyone knows how right Rome and Julie are for each other from the very beginning, there will be little romantic growth– no real challenge for them to earn this love. No conflict, that is. But the course of love has to be more than just gradually accepting the reality that is blindingly obvious to everyone else in the book.
So consider making the matchmaker right, but for the wrong reasons. The matchmaking grandmother in the film Gigi, for example, wants young Gigi to entrance the rich young Gaston. Her motive isn’t to make Gigi happy so much as to carry on the family tradition of supplying adept and accomplished courtesans to the aristocracy. Gigi and Gaston overcome this mercenary plan and find real love together– but they do it despite, not because of, the elderly matchmaker.
In fact, the matchmaking machinations can become a conflict of sorts. Bridget Jones is predisposed not to like Mark Darcy for the very good reason that she can’t believe her controlling, materialistic mother and her friends could conspire to fix her up with a plausible man. "Being set up with a man against your will is one level of humiliation," Bridget thinks, "but being literally dragged into it by Una Alconbury while caring for an acidic hangover, watched by an entire roomful of friends of your parents, is on another plane altogether." It takes her time to see past the maternal manipulations to the real Mark, and that only happens when Mark reveals the man behind the mother-pleasing externals of professional success and financial security.
Fiction is all about change, and change doesn’t happen without conflict. Protagonists change in response to conflict, and grow in order to overcome it. Buttinskis like All-Wise Dad and Ever-Helpful Nancy and Matchmaking Mom are shortcuts that can short-circuit that essential process. Instead of bringing in meddlers to resolve conflict, use them to deepen it. Instead of endowing mentors with all the wisdom and experience, force the protagonists to earn their own. And instead of having matchmakers make the match happen, challenge the hero and heroine to make their own version of romance.
And if the buttinskis protest too loudly, promise to give them a book of their own if they’ll just butt out.

10 Types of Movie Villains by Philipp Lenssen

I might be wrong, but I think there are only 10 kinds of Hollywood movie villains:
1. The wild beast: He usually has only one eye or only one arm, long unwashed hair, and he’s creeping in smelly dark alleys. He carries a big gun to attack people at random, and sometimes drives a bike. He will visit a shady bar during the movie to have someone unsuspecting pick a fight with him.
2. The gentleman killer: He’s well-educated (he knows French words), has a sense of arrogant humor, a suit, and often sports a well-trimmed beard. He usually has muscular henchman to perform killings but also kills himself at least once to prove how cold his heart is (very, very cold).
3. The small-time crook: He’s small-time (bank robber and similar), but kills a lot and without second thoughts. His down-to-earth brutality serves to add realism (hence suspense) to the movie.
4. The super villain: A super hero needs a super villain to compete against in near-eternal rivalry. Super villains are always the opposite of the super-hero and mostly have special reasons to hate him. They will always fall in, inhale or drink some poisonous green substance in the beginning of the movie to make them “super” (mostly, super-schizophrenic). The super villain is highly intelligent, usually a scientist, and feels his acts are justified.
5. The pseudo-buddy: You won’t know he’s the bad guy because he seems to be the good guy’s best friend (or his cop colleague, or his mentor, or his satanic child). Well, at least you won’t know the first time you watch this kind of movie, so once you are around 10 years old you probably do know.
6. The nemesis: He’s a big corporation kind of guy, bullying our hero within the realms of the perfectly legal (albeit immoral). A more harmless version of the nemesis didn’t quite qualify as a villain; it’s the kind of annoying career-oriented news reporter who gets knocked unconscious by the hero in the end.
7. The psycho: He’s a maniac with a smile on his face and hunts people, especially the movie hero. What separates him from other types of evil-doers is that he doesn’t want money (he’s just crazy). Sometimes the psycho is also partially a gentleman killer (see type 2).
8. The gentleman burglar: He’s actually a good guy posing as bad guy. He’s into stealing jewelry but leaves notes for the good good guy to track him down in a sort of love-hate relationship. A somewhat more brutal variant of the gentleman burglar is the mafia hit man.
9. The nice guy: This man will pose as clown or family man, but always starts to kill. You will see him handing candy to kids on the street during sunset, while our hero (the only one with inside knowledge) runs towards him in slow-motion, uttering a hyperdramatic “Noo-o-o-o....”
10. The sports villain: OK, the sports villain – a boxer, Karate black-belt etc. – is not really evil, he’s just trained by Russians (or whatever is the evil du jour) to beat the brains out of our hero, repeatedly.
By the way: variants 1-4 will always die at the end. 5 and 6 may die, 7 never does, and 10 mostly only ends up in hospital. 8 and 9 escape to Morocco.
10 Types of Movie Villains by Philipp Lenssen |

Archetypes for writing

Removed at the request of the author.

An oddly friendly yet gothic writing style example

Arkenlight Dynasty A Family of Tragic Proportions.
Oh... you've found our little corner of the universe... how delightful....... :: the voice is both chipper and childish. In a flash of blond and pastel she is now standing beside you, tugging on your arm like a child wanting to show off a new and favorite toy:: Come on, come on...don't just stand there looking like......ummm....some old fuddy-duddy. Grab a chair....no, not like that...Sit down...but please do be careful of my books.. :: everywhere around you are piles and piles of books, the shelves full to the max, the only clear space being the large writing desk that just so happens to have two chairs.
Fearing for the lose of your arm in her exuberance, you seat yourself comfortably as she skips to hers, delicately lands in it and smiles at you vaguely while batting her eyelashs owlishly::
My name is Tala. And you are? No, that's not really important...well I mean it is buuuut if we sat around telling names we'd be here for....centuries...and there's too much to tell...and I'm babbling aren't I? In any event......from here until you tire of listening to me, I will be your guide....niffty, huh? So, if you tell me which of us you wish to learn about, I will dispense what I have gathered over the......ummmm...I forgot...so let's just say....the really long time I've lived, kay?Of course I suppose you cooould just hear the short version ...well... shorter... kind of... :::blinking owlishly once more at you with that same blank sort of look::::
DarkHeart Arkenlight a.k.a. The Moron
::: a small grimace crosses her face as she blinks at you silently for a few moments::
The Moron??? Are you positive...I mean there's more interesting things to talk about than him...I mean...come on....::with a small resigned sigh she begins::
Fine....fine...Dark is the only one of us to have denied his nature. He spent most of his life in service to Talon and never really had the chance to grow and learn as he should have....why work for Talon you ask? Well it's simple really....Talon had hired him to eliminate someone for him....and dear sweet Talon had set Dark up to fall and fall hard...only to save his life at the last minute and use Dark's sense of honor to extract a life-debt from him. So Dark spent his time killing those that stood in Talon's way.... ::she half-shrugs::
Anyway...it wasn't until Talon decided to try to eliminate Night that Dark was freed from this debt....a nice enough bard by the name of Sun stepped in and freed him.....Dark and her kind of had a thing...it didn't go anywhere...but it wasn't meant to be...he didn't understand her nature and he wouldn't accept his.
He eventually settled down with a woman by the name of Jemina. Together they had four little children of . He was going to retire from the buisness of killing for cash...and take up a job as Minister of Defence. All that changed about a few years ago...he left home for a short time only to return to a house filled with the dead bodies of wife and children...he picked back up his blades and garotte and took off like a bat from hell with the devil on it's tail in search of those that took from him. And at that point finally accepted what and who he is
::she sighs slightly::
Sure he's a moron and all, but I'd never wish that on him, ya' know? He's my baby brother and I love him...however give him a wiiiiiide berth, unless you really like being choked and all.
Recently, though, with many thanks to that brilliant niece of mine, DayStar, he rejoined the world of the living. You see she sort of...badgered him back to the here and now. Anywaaaaay, Nickodemus Bedlam and Stalker helped him track down the fiends responisble for the whole sale slaughter of his family, and he like met a girl and they're like dating or something? :::hopeful grin with a vacant blink:::
Salinith Arkenlight
Oh! You mean Mr. Morose???? That's not quite fair I suppose...caaause he has good cause for most of it...buuuuut... most people still want to shake the teeth out of him. Annnnywho.... he's the eldest, not that he acts it or anything... and he's got a looooooooooong history... most of which is fairly depressing.
Basically... Sal's been in and out of supposed love more often than a bunch of kittens in a creamery...Funny though...always seemed the wrong sort for him. I mean... Sal is sweet... weepy and emotional, but sweet... yet it's like...I dunno...all the bitches and cold-hearted wretches of femaledom sought him out to screw over... weird huh? Annnnywho.... he used to be a really good bard...but...well...he got a bit melancholy when the last of the coldhearted bitches just walked away from him..and so Night kinda...well... squished him??? At least as far as powers go..and I kinda was baby-sitting him for a bit in my tower... luckily he was really quiet... Morose people tend to be though huh? Especially when gagged..
He's better now though.... and he's kinda given up on the bard thing... but he paints really pretty pictures now... but he has this strange objection to doing bunny rabbits and butterflies... which is really sad, cause the hopping and fluttering is so fascinating and fun and... Oh..there I go again.
Annnyway.... like I said, he's better now...running with a bit of a different crowd... Oh, he still gets morose... and probably always will I suppose... Maybe Night is right saying that..." Chicks dig the sad guy."
Oh!!!! He's got a bunch of nicknames now too... I mean besides Mr. Morose and Goomba... He's also a PFB... buuuut... I honestly don't think calling him that would be healthy... Weeeeeeel, he's not a PFB anymore, you see he met a girl, a Bedlam girl. Her name is Ariel, and one thing let to another, and now they're life-bonded and living happily together...heck they even had a son, his name is Ashlyn and he's certainly interesting.
In Walks The Night..
Here we have Night... Umm.... He's... well.... and the girls, and the chasing and the.... and umm...:::a vague, sweet look falls across her face as she blinks owlishly at you...as if there wasn't a single coherent thought in her head.
A soft clearing of a throat causes her to start, even as you both look to the source of the noise, finding a tall, dark haired woman leaning against the door, arms crossed and a grin on her face::: Tala dear.... why don't you let ME explain Night... as I usually can manage to do so without turning burgandy...::turning to you, the woman continues to grin:::
Forgive the interruption, but she really doesn't handle explaining Night well... Me..? :::half snorting chuckle, those dark eyes dancing::: Just someone that knows Nightwind Arkenlight fairly darn well... Now then... :::taking a deep breath::: He's the charmer of the family in a sense.
Self-admitted philanderer, and womanizer. If it wears a skirt Night deals with it with a wicked delight.
:::cocks her head thoughtfully for a moment:::: And he's a pretty nice kisser too... :::shrugs:::: Though I suppose that's neither here nor there is it?? Eh... :::looks over at Tala and winks with a grin::: I think going into any more real detail on Night might be a bad idea... sufficent to say, he's a force unto himself more often then not and trouble all the time... A lover of wine...or rather martinis... women....Virgins for some silly reason...myself being I suppose the exception to That... and song... :::rolling her eyes a bit and turning to go, with a wave of her hand:::I think I'll just stop before I start this family as a whole off on some sort of disaster... and leave Tala to finish up on things... Nice talking with you dears... :::Stops in the doorway and looks back:::: Oh... silly me... I almost forgot... for all his past philandering... he's mine, so hands off! His past doesn't dictate his present now... and our children probably would take some sort of umbrage (if you don't know what that word means ask Tala) to anyone other then family saying dirt on him. ::::with a light wave of her hand she departs, leaving you once more with an owlishly blinking, and slightly blushing Tala:::
Razor Arkenlight
::a vague, blank, sweet look meets this inquiry:::Razor...?? Oooo.... creepy... very creepy.... doesn't talk much... grunts though...:::blinks several times::: and well...kills things...he's not nice actually. He's... kinda... well.... and... :::sighs a small almost exasperated sigh:::: I suppoooooose the kindest sort of thing that I can say is that he's... well... hard to communicate with? :::bright but vague smile::::I mean...I've tried to keep some sort of tabs on him...buuuuut.... like I said..he grunts... :::blinking:::: Grunts are kind of hard to spell... and I try not to misquote people...especially family... makes things so messy and noisy.... and then I end up having to go back and correct the spelling...and it never looks just right and ... ::pauses to take a deep breath, and blinks again in that irritating vague way::: and I was babbling again wasn't I?
What was I saying..?? Oh..yes.. Razor... there isn't much... except that..well... just don't go there okay?:::offering another one of those vague sweet smiles::::
Tala Arkenlight
::her tone going absent, almost like she's not there and was only watching::It was years ago, too many to count... I left home...having learned all I could from my parents and having grown to the point that the powers fully mature and my soul reaches the level that sends us all out into the world.
I thought I would go look up Night, he was always the nicest to me... That and he knew the area very well, and I needed his help in placing my keep...so anyway...I followed his trail of angry fathers, broken hearts and broken, as he'd say, cherries. Each time I mentioned his name, I could see the rage and various other emotions build, but I didn't think anything of it, really...maybe I was too naive to just go looking on my own, maybe I should've just done it some other way....buuuuut the child in me wanted to see things....and people....It wasn't a very large village by most standards, but it was the largest I had seen. I asked a few tavern goers if they had seen a man matching Night's description....they directed me to where the elders met...Anyway, I made my way over there, ignoring the leers and cat calls, as just mortal nature. I knocked on the door and was greeted by a nice older man, I'd say he was a butler of some sorts...when I inquired about Night he took me to the room where the elders had gathered...I should've been scared when the door locked behind me as it was an inward locking door, but the need to find Night kind of overruled all else...
They were dressed in the finest clothing I had seen since my arrival, and they smiled at me...they seemed nice enough. They were, I'd guess...middle-aged...I described Night and asked if they'd seen him....they said they had and inquired why I sought him...I guess they thought I had fallen prey to him...
::her face pale, almost doll like in its stillness, the only disturbance is when she speaks::
I told them that I was his sister. They asked, no demanded, "Older or Younger?" I didn't think too much of this and just answered truthfully. They smiled again and leaned in closer...I didn't dare intrude into their conversation, I mean what if it was something important about their village, that and I really didn't enjoy eavesdropping. They chatted then nodded in unison, then turned to me. I asked them if they knew where my brother was and they said yes but first they wanted to ask me something...
I thought, what harm is there in a question...so I waited around. They stood up and invited me to the table for something to drink for the long journey I'd have ahead of me...well, they had been nice to me so far so I had a seat at the table and had a glass of wine...they just smiled at me, one of those unreadable smiles.. They made idle chitchat and told me a bit about the surrounding area and what troubles they've been having with bandits in the forest....and the usual lines..."A pretty thing like you could get hurt out there alone, are you sure you don't want an escort?"
I declined their offers...I was so caught up in the information that I didn't notice or feel the hand in my hair till my head had hit the table....Needless to say I was dazed, as I still didn't have full grasp of my powers, nor truly know I could send for help from my brothers. There were 5 of them, four equals and one "leader" to break the tie in a vote...well to make a long story short as details I'm not going into....all five of them, as Night would say, took a ride on the Arkenlight express....but instead they just well... stole the damn train. :::a single, crystalline tear finally falls, though there is still little expression to her face::::It was two hours at least....till Night felt it......and know what? :::weak laugh through her tears:: He killed every single one of them....then their familes...and if they had sisters he went off and took their lives. I told him not to, that it won't change things, but he's really stubborn sometimes...I think he did it more for himself, though..... and he still blames himself for what happened...:::blinks rapidly for a long moment, and seems to give herself a shake, before smiling brainlessly once more at you:::My life has changed a lot since then, I met a man, a wicked nasty grumpy man, but he's a real sweety. He helped my get myself back together...and :: bouncing in her seat:: Guess what???? Give up yet??? We're life-bonded and have two beautiful daughters Karma and Kismet. But enough about me...
Scythe Arkenlight
:::regarding you with a strange look for a long moment... absently chewing on the stray ends of her hair::::Scythe... Mmmm.... well...if I left the description of her up to saaayy...my brothers... I'd never be able to repeat it...:::actually giving a slight giggle:::: So maybe I should try to do this huh? Of all of us... as I think got mentioned in the overview...but you didn't read that...or did you..? :::blinking blankly at you for a long moment::: Not that it matters... I mean... it does buuut... it doesn't. Aaaaanyway.... Scythe... she's umm... well kinda like me...but... not as pretty? :::batting her eyes at you whimsically for a moment, before bab...err...plunging on:::She's into the learning and knowledge thing too...just... well... darker... :::fidgets with her fingers for a moment:::: Night would call it...kinky? But Nights..well... the girls and the chasing...and...and I'm doing it again aren't I?:::sighs a bit:::: I try not to...buuut.... it's like...well... like the story of the man that used to...::stops and blinks:::: Oh...wait... wrong story huh? Annnnyway.... Scythe...ummmm....ok....like picture a dark room....and then add in a few candles...but then it wouldn't really be dark, would it?? Okay scratch the dark comment...and let's say a not so well lit room. Add in a few...errrrrrr....nasty sort of things....the kind of things that like the guy with the mask and the hot pokers would have...like thumbscrews...and all those sorts of thingy-ma-jobbers. Ok...got the picture? Goody! Add in a few screams or rather howls of shear pain...then throw in a long,soft, dark and definitely feminine laugh...and you have my sister. And yes she's the one laughing.
She's twisted...but she is my sister...so I guess that makes her my...twisted sister???
::she falls into a fit of delicate giggles at her little pun:: Get it??? Twisted Sister???? Sal would call her gothy...very veeeery gothy.....Buuuuuuut, recently she sort of...ummm....errrrr...."got her act together", ::delicate giggle:: You see I sort of nudged her in the direction of a man named Bedlam....THE Bedlam, to make a long story short. They're in love, got married and now have a daughter by the name of Tatiana, a nice child, definatly dark, but nice though.

Bad Guys Need Love, Too by Alicia Rasley

Bad Guys Need Love Too c. 2004 by Alicia Rasley
When I remember the film Silence of the Lambs, I don't think first of Jodi Foster holding her own against the serial murderer. I think of Hannibal the Cannibal, chortling as he delivers his punch line about "having an old friend for dinner". You can't help liking a guy who gets such a kick out of being evil.
Hannibal's creator liked him too, enough that he gave him a happy ending. That's one reason why Hannibal lingers in our imagination– because the author liked him as much, if not more, than he liked his protagonist, and so made sure he was a three-dimensional character with flaws (of course) but also great strengths.
Villains and antagonists are important characters because they move the plot action by creating conflict. So we writers should treat them with the respect due to prime plot movers. I'll go even further, however. I think we should love them, warts, psychopathic tendencies, and all. (Just don't join them for dinner!)
Bad Guys Defined
Antagonist: Anti-agonist... the one who acts against the protagonist. This is not necessarily a bad person, and in fact, might be a force for right in the story. The only requirement is that the antagonist act against the protagonist's goals; for example, if John wants to stay single, and Mom keeps trying to fix him up, then she's an antagonist. As far as she's concerned, she's just trying to secure the dynasty and get her some grandkids, but from his viewpoint, she's an obstacle to his goal of staying free. In a case like this, it's possible the reader will side with the antagonist– if the antagonist is actually right about what's best for the protagonist.
Villain: An antagonist who is also a bad guy, at least as far as the reader understands. This person doesn't need to be evil. In fact, villains often have heroic traits– they are determined, effective, and sometimes idealistic. But they use their power and skills in a way the reader will find offensive, or in the furtherance of a cause that the reader doesn't like. In other words, the villain will do bad things, or have bad goals, or both. The reader is not going to side with the villain (if she does, maybe you've loved Villain a bit too much!).
The purpose of the antagonist or villain, structurally speaking, is to provoke conflict for the protagonist. And the prime purpose of conflict is to make the protagonist grow and change. So in a perverse way, the bad guy is beneficial for the protagonist, who might otherwise fail to grow and change. That's another reason to love the villain, because whether he knows it or not, he's a force for good in the protagonist's life.
In fact, the antagonist is useful for embodying the external conflict, making it concrete and combatible. Sometimes that's what's needed to turn an amorphous "conceptual" conflict into something sharp and immediate, as it's hard to come up with truly striking events when the conflict is just a concept. Consider a young woman who is fighting against conformity. Her fight would be made more focused and clear if conformity was embodied in her grandmother, the perfect lady who never wears white after Labor Day, even in Florida.
So if you're worried that your conflict is too nebulous or unformed, see if you can find one member of "the opposition" to serve as an antagonist, taking a front and center role interfering with the protagonist's plans. An antagonist might be all you need to embody the conflict, especially in a lighter book with less-intense issues. No need to use a serial murderer when Grandmother and her prohibition against winter white will provide plenty of friction for the heroine.
Villains Have Their Place
But consider a young man fighting against "oppression". Oppression is the sort of deep issue that might be better embodied by an actual villain, someone willing to commit real evil. Consider that young man as a slave on a plantation, waging an intensely personal, and very dangerous, secret war against the brutal overseer. All of a sudden that conflict has shape and power– and this conflict embodiment is going to hit and hit back, reacting to the actions of the protagonist.
A real villain is also useful because he can force the protagonist to make moral choices. Ruthless disregard for moral rules is, after all, a characteristic of the villain. But heroes and heroines can't be like that, no matter how much they might want to be. Once again, the villain becomes a force for good, by challenging the protagonists to come up with a way to defeat evil without becoming evil themselves. The villain is part of their journey to heroism.
This is important because many of the best villains have heroic qualities and sometimes even heroic motivations. A villain has to be effective, even powerful, to provide enough of an adversary to bring out the best in the protagonist. And so what, in the end, makes the hero a hero? It's not just that he's the one standing in the end, but that he has won the day without resorting to the sort of evil the villain is willing to use.
But a villain like this really needs love to come to life. We need to think of villains as people who have their own value systems, motivations, and inner needs. Villains, in fact, see themselves as heroes– and for just a moment, not long enough to become morally corrupted, we ought to see them that way too.
In Their Own Evil Words
A good bad guy isn't just a robot playing out some destruction program. Being a "killing machine" might be good enough for the shark in Jaws, but your own villain has a reason for doing what he's doing beyond mere malice. Let him talk, and he'll justify what he does. You don't have to agree with his justification, but you ought to know what it is.
And a good villain doesn't spend the book committing random acts of chaos. She's acting on a plan to achieve her goal. The villain's actions are "the story behind the story". This hidden story includes not just the crime or evil deed, but the motivating events leading up to it and the protective events resulting from it. You should know this story even if you never feature it on the page. The villain's actions must make sense from her viewpoint. So just as you identify a motivation and goal for the protagonist, identify a motivation and goal for the villain– and make sure she acts in furtherance of that goal.
That's why it's enlightening to write a summary of the villain's story in the villain's
viewpoint that explains how and why the malfeasance happened, and how the villain tries to evade the consequences. Just ask– she'll tell you why she does what she does. Let her tell you what humanizes her. Let him reveal his secret little vulnerability, his hidden vanity, his suppressed virtue– whatever secret aspect within that makes him more than a killing machine. Try free-writing from the villain's first-person viewpoint, answering this question: So, (name), tell me what happened and why?
Here's an example. (You'll probably recognize this villain!)
I am the younger brother. You know what that means. My big brother got it all– the money, the inheritance, the woman we both loved. Naturally I resented him. Wouldn't you? His success was just an accident of birth. He wasn't any better or smarter than I am. He was just born first. The resentment grew. He and his wife– the woman I loved first and best– had a son, so I wasn't even sure I'd ever inherit anything at all. It wasn't till the boy went away to college that I realized I had to act now, or I'd lose my chance.
I poisoned my brother. I made it look like he'd just died in his sleep. I told you I was smart. I mourned just as long and loudly as everyone else. But I also took advantage of his wife's grief, played on her fears of abandonment, her terror at being alone, and confessed– this is the absolute truth, by the way– that I'd always secretly adored her. I guess you could say I swept her off her feet. I'm sure people were scandalized when we got married– maybe that was a mistake on my part, but I couldn't help it. I had to have her. Besides, once I was married to the widow, I got control of the family business. My nephew came home to a fait accompli– he didn't even get a chance to take over. Unfortunately, that just meant he hung around sulking for the next few months. What a little drip. He wasn't really man enough to stand up to me anyway. He started to lose it. Acting crazy– I still don't know if he was acting or he really was going a little nuts. His mother was all worried, and started feeling guilty and saying maybe we should have waited. I tried to be tolerant, but then I started noticing... he'd started suspecting me. I don't know where he got the idea, but pretty soon he was following me around, spying on me.
Then he tried to trick me by writing a skit for the annual company dinner, which showed a man killing his brother. I didn't handle it well, I admit it. I should have just sat there and watched like the others, but I couldn't stand it. I made them stop the play. Afterwards my nephew used this to try to convince my wife that I was the murderer– in fact, he tried to get her to confess she was involved! (She wasn't– trust me on this.) I'd arranged to have a trusted aide– his girlfriend's father, as it turns out– eavesdropping to find out how much the boy actually knew.
Unfortunately, the boy heard him moving and stabbed him. Well, then even his mother agreed something had to be done. So I had himkidnapped and taken somewhere else. I knew the owner there, and he owed me a favor, and he was supposed to make sure the boy never came home...but that damned kid figured it out and next thing I knew, he was back like a bad penny. He was madder than ever now, because his girlfriend had killed herself. She just couldn't deal with him killing her father. It was his own fault, but guess who got the blame for it? That's right. Me. Well, her brother came back– he'd been abroad– mad as hell, ready for revenge, and I realized he could do the job for me. No one could object to a brother avenging the deaths of his sister and father, after all. But I wasn't taking any chances this time. I laid in another supply of poison....
(I'm sure you recognized Hamlet's evil uncle/stepfather Claudius.)
This isn't easy– putting yourself in the head of an evildoer, expressing his twisted motivations and rationalizations. It's like giving your Id free rampaging room. But that's how you come to understand him, why he does what he does, what his favored methods and vulnerabilities are. See how much he's told us about himself:
Goal: Prevent revelation of his crime.
Motivation: Keeping the wife and kingdom he killed to get.
External Conflict: Hamlet is trying to avenge the murder.
Internal Conflict: Resentment of brother and guilt at killing him.
Vulnerability: Love for his wife.
Preferred method: Delegation (Ophelia, Laertes), and if that's unavailable, deniable murder (poison, boat trip to England).
This gives the plot events a coherence they would otherwise lack, because both villain and protagonist are engaged in a cause-effect relationship, each taking actions that affect the other. We understand why Claudius must kill Hamlet– not because he hates him, but because he knows Hamlet will avenge the crime if he gets a chance. We can have confidence that his actions are well-motivated (by his own value system, that is) and that he is a worthy adversary for our hero. Indeed, we can almost sense that he's embarked on his own journey, whether he likes it or not, from envy to sin to punishment, with Hamlet as the external conflict that drives him down the road.
I'm not advising that you need to tell the villain's story from his perspective in your book, only that you know it and provide enough glimpses of it that the reader can discern a real person behind those dastardly deeds. Look at it this way: Your protagonist needs a real challenge, and a villain strong enough to provide that challenge– and that means someone capable of countering the protagonist's moves and forcing the occasional change of tactics... and thus growth.
The Hero... From the Villain's POV
So go back to your protagonist, and see if you can provide the villainous challenges throughout the plot to test her and teach her what she lacks, and force her to grow. For example, let's go back to Claudius's– I mean, Hamlet's– story. Who knows better what Hamlet needs to learn than his adversary? So ask:
Hey, Claudius, what does Hamlet need to learn?
Well, I guess he needs to learn to stop dithering and act. At first it's only sensible to wait and make sure that what the ghost said was true, but once that's established, he should have done what he was supposed to do and avenge his father. He spends too much time worrying about whether he's doing the right thing or not, whether he should even exist or not– he's too much the intellectual and not enough the man of action. He ought to learn from my example. I mean, did I sit around and moan and groan about how terrible my lot was? No. I acted. Evilly, yeah, but I seized the day, didn't I? Took the old bull by the horns. Horns, get it? You know, cuckolding the old bull. My brother, I mean. Hamlet needs to do that– needs to stop thinking and start acting.
A real villain would not stop his villainy just because the protagonist reacts. Rather he'd try to escape the consequences of his evildoing. This is another example of accepting the reality of your characters by giving them the potential to act in response to plot events. The villain acts, the protagonist reacts, and the villain responds. Each adapts to the actions of the other– a symbiotic dynamic of cause-effect.
So how can your actions force Hamlet to change?
Not sure why I should tell you. But okay. I keep delegating to others, see, the task of spying on Hamlet, and I'm learning you just can't get good help these days. Polonius and Ophelia and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern– I thought they'd be good spies, but noooooo. They all screwed up. And they all ended up dead. What Hamlet ought to figure out is that the longer he dithers, the more he insists on certainty, the higher the body count goes. Yeah, I suppose you can lay all those bodies at my door, but you know what? If Hamlet would have done what his daddy ghost told him, what any red-blooded son would have done, and killed me right off, all those people would still be alive. It's his inaction that killed them. And he's not going to kill me, the real cause of his pain, unless he decides he can live with a bit of guilt. Hell, I've lived with a lot of guilt. But Hamlet's not the man I am.
Hoist on His Own Petard
You can also use the villain's confessed weakness to discover the way to conquer him.
So, Claudius, you said that delegating has been a problem for you. How come?
Oh, you know, I've had to rely on people who weren't competent. I mean, Ophelia. Pretty girl, but what a ditz. And some people have their own agendas. I thought I really chose well in Laertes. Talk about red-blooded. This kid, hey, I tell him about how Hamlet killed Laertes's father and drove his sister to suicide, and he's all hot to do my bidding, that is, kill Hamlet. And I made sure of it, by poisoning his rapier. Well, who would have figured Laertes for the honorable sort? Soon as he finds that out, he tells Hamlet, and Hamlet uses that rapier to kill me. I'm telling you– you can't count on anyone these days.
The Villain as Tragic Hero (Well, Sort Of)
Villains are a lot like heroes: They are active, powerful, dynamic, and capable of change. They are not always willing to change, and that's where you might find their eventual downfall. Aristotle observed of tragic heroes that what makes them great, brings them down. The same can be true of villains– that what they're best at, what they hesitate to change, might lead to their defeat.
For example, they might face the choice to evolve into a new strength, but choose to stick with the old one, and the hero can defeat them because of that. Also consider that while the hero will usually make the morally-appropriate choice in the end, the villain will probably make the morally-inappropriate choice, and that might give the protagonist an opening, as when Claudius, always resourceful, added dishonor to murder, and offended the honorable Laertes.
But to know this much about the villain, you have to love him. Here are a few villain-love tips:
Humanize your villain first by getting to know him or her, especially the motivation.
Find the vulnerability, what he's afraid of, what she's ashamed of.
Show this character making moral choices, not just automatically doing the bad thing, but choosing to do that bad thing for "good" reasons (good according to HER measure, anyway!).

Alicia Rasley is a 16-year member of Romance Writers of America and Indiana RWA, a writing teacher, and a RITA-award winning Regency author.

Secret Baseball Signals

Taps, touches, swipes, claps all mean something on the baseball diamond BY PATTI ARNOLD
Cox News Service Sunday, April 24, 2005
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — Tom Berenger signaled his own bunt in the movie "Major League," a "hell of an idea," his manager said, who relayed the signs to the third base coach. He, in turn, let Willie Mays Hayes know what was on so he could score the winning run from second base and get the Cleveland Indians into the American League playoffs.
Geena Davis and Tom Hanks went through a thigh-slapping version of dueling signals, much to the dismay of poor Marla Hooch in "A League of Their Own," who danced in and out of the batter's box, trying to figure out who was in charge. Davis wanted Hooch to bunt, Hanks wanted her to swing away. Hanks, in the end, won, although the Rockford Peaches eventually lost the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League World Series to Racine, Wis.
All those touches of the nose, cap, swiping a hand across the letters of a jersey, tapping a leg, tugging on a belt — they all mean something to the guy at the plate. Other signs tell the pitcher what play is on.
Same for the second baseman. And the shortstop, third baseman and first baseman.
The trick is to relay what needs to be done without letting the other team know what you're doing.
An even better trick is to figure out what the other team is doing by cracking its signs.
On the Mesa State College baseball team, ranked No. 7 in the Collegiate Baseball Division II poll, that job falls to assistant coach Landon Wareham, a former shortstop for the Mavs.
"He's good at it," head coach Chris Hanks said of Wareham's ability to decipher opposing coach's signs.
"Earlier in the year we picked two runners at first. Both of them, Wareham said, 'They're running.' So we signaled in to pick to first and got them both."
Baseball signs start in Little League. Coaches, obviously, keep them pretty simple so young players can keep up while they learn the game.
"Steal the cap, bunt the belt," Hanks said of the signs his Little League coach used.
Here's another one: tug the earlobe, then swipe the hand across the nose = hit and run.
Hanks, who played in the Boston Red Sox organization, said there's a big difference between signs in college and professional baseball.
"When I was with Boston, we only had about four signs," Hanks said of the big leagues. "They're not going to win on strategies."
But in the college ranks, everything has a sign. It's not just hitting and running, bunting or swinging away.
Everything, from who takes the throw at second base on an attempted steal to bunt defenses to how many times a pitcher looks back a runner is signaled. But it's not just a tug of the cap — oh, no, that's way too easy. When Hanks puts on a hit and run, for example, there are 16 touches, all rhythmically patterned in a matter of seconds.
"Right chest, right leg, left chest, left leg, left arm, right arm, right leg, right chest, right cheek, left arm, left leg, left chest, left leg, right chest, right cheek (clap)," Hanks said, going through a series of signs that may or may not have been the actual ones he uses in a game.
Most teams use an indicator, one touch that lets the batter know that the next sign is the play.
"Sometimes you go with an indicator," he said. "Sometimes it's an indicator and a hot spot, but it's not on until the hot spot is touched again to close the sign. When you mix it like that, it's pretty hard for people to crack those."
There are signs that must be "closed," done by touching another spot in a certain order, before a play is on. There are signs that stay on until Hanks wipes them off.
"That makes it hard to crack," Hanks said. "The other team is wondering, 'Is the kid doing it on his own? Is he stealing, bunting on his own?' A bunt play is one that can go on four or five pitches."
With Wareham's prowess at cracking the code of opposing teams, Hanks knows there's someone in the other dugout who has the same duty. In fact, Wareham told Hanks a couple of weeks ago that he was being too predictable with his signs, telling him he could crack his signs if he didn't know them already. Hanks, like all young coaches, had to practice his signs early in his career, but now they're second nature.
"A long time ago we used to have a rotating indicator," Hanks said. "Every inning the indicator would change (from the cheek to the leg to the belt to the leg to the chest).
"I could go through everything but if I don't go to my right cheek in the first inning, the minute I go there, that meant something and (clap) the sign's on.
"That system is almost impossible to crack. We don't do that any more because there are more missed signs."
Missing a sign is a cardinal sin in baseball, about as bad as making the last out of an inning at third base.
You miss the sign for a squeeze bunt, the runner comes barreling down the third-base line and there's no way he's going to score.
If you're on second and the coach calls for a double steal, you're asking for an easy out, probably two, when the runner on first takes off and you're still standing on the bag he's trying to steal.
"We try not to do that very much," Mesa State second baseman Sean McKinney said of missing signs. "We know when something's on. We've only missed one or two signs all year. The whole team has done a great job at that."
Early in the season, the Mavs actually go through signs live at practice. Before every game, the team brushes up on signs and indicators in the clubhouse just before returning to the field. Signs in baseball aren't just reserved for hitters. Catchers signal every pitch — when you're starting out, one is a fastball, two is a curveball. They get more complicated as players grow up, with a pattern of flashing fingers telling the pitcher to not only throw a split-finger fastball, but to throw it up and in on a right-handed hitter.
Before that, though, the pitching coach has a series of touches that tell the catcher what to tell the pitcher to throw. Mesa State catcher Jesse Elam calls his own pitches most of the time, but there are instances when, if you watch pitching coach Jeff Rodgers closely, you'll see him tapping his nose, chin and cheek in various patterns. Things change with a runner on second — he can look in and steal the catcher's signs.
But still, there's more. With runners on first and third, many catchers will step out in front of the plate and run through a set of signs, tapping the forearm of his glove hand with his bare hand. That tells the infield that, if the runner goes, he'll either throw through to second or he wants the shortstop to cut off the throw before it gets to the bag, because they think the runner on third will try to steal home.
With a runner on first, the shortstop and second baseman communicate to one another who will take the throw on a stolen-base attempt.
"Willie (Hinojosa) and I have a system we use," McKinney said of he and the Mavs' shortstop. "Usually it's open mouth, closed mouth, but sometimes we throw different things in there because the third base coach is over there trying to pick up what we're doing. We try to vary it each game.
"Then we have signs coming from the third baseman and Willie and I relay what pitches are coming to the outfielders so they know every pitch what's coming.
"That helps them out, they can get positioning. If it's a fastball, they'll play this way or that play, or a , it's the other way. It's that extra step that can help you make those great plays, diving plays."
Brad Quick and Jared Burek, who rotate at third for the Mavs, will signal bunt defenses to the rest of the infield after Hanks sends it in from the dugout.
Hinojosa signals to the pitcher how many times he wants him to look runners back to second.
There's no way any one person can pick up all the signing that's going on at any one time.
"The neatest scenario to look at that a lot of people don't realize is runners at first and second and it's a possible bunt situation," Hanks said, grinning at the thought of the activity before each pitch.
"You have Rodgers giving a sign for a pitch to the catcher while the opposite coach is giving an offensive sign to their team. While that's going on, the pitcher's looking at the shortstop for looks on how many times to look at second base to hold the runner.
"Then he looks to the third baseman to get what bunt defense is on, and then the pitcher looks to home plate to get the sign from the catcher.
"While that's happening, Willie and McKinney are giving open mouth-closed mouth on who's got the bag if the runner goes and after they do that and the pitcher comes set, the middle infielders are looking at the catcher to see what pitch is coming to relay that to the outfielders so they can anticipate, based on odds, whether the kid has a better chance to pull the ball or if he's going to be late.
"While all that is going on, I'm giving the bunt defense to the third baseman.
"The new pitchers get overloaded at first until they get used to that process."
Marla Hooch had it easy.
Patti Arnold writes for The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, Colo.).

Being, Doing, Becoming by Alicia Rasley

Being, Doing, Becoming: The Heroic Strength, the Heroic Flaw, the Heroic Journey
c. 2003 by Alicia Rasley
Nature abhors perfection– and so does the novel.
Fiction, like nature, is all about change. So in a novel, heroism requires more than being perfectly heroic, even more than committing heroic acts. It also requires the ability to change under pressure, to grow into someone better even if it hurts.
In the same way, creating a heroic character requires more of the author than merely creating a perfectly brave protagonist and inventing exciting events to showcase those powers and skills. It requires providing the protagonist the need to change, the courage to change, the opportunity to change, and the motivation to change.
Aristotle understood this 2500 years ago. (Aristotle understood almost everything about fiction!) He said that it's the peripety or reversal of fortune that causes dramatic tension, by changing the rules and forcing the protagonist to choose a new course. The purpose of the plot, in fact, is to challenge the protagonist to change, to become something new.
The imperfect protagonist makes the three-dimensional story possible. The character moving through the external plot is a story of only two dimensions. The internal journey, the process towards psychological or emotional or life change, provides the depth that takes this story into three dimensions.
But just any old imperfection won't do. Too many authors give protagonists flaws that have little to do with the plot– a fear of heights, a tendency towards parsimony. But everything in your story should contribute to the plot, especially something as central as the protagonist’s “room to grow” element. The imperfection should be something causes her to have trouble immediately resolving the external problem. That is, her internal conflict gets in the way of fixing the external conflict. Only by learning to deal with that internal conflict can she successfully tackle whatever the external plot throws at her.
Now what can really make this process of conflict-resolving exciting is to make this flaw a heroic flaw – the flipside of the protagonist’s greatest strength. That’s right out of Aristotle: That which makes him great brings him down.
This is elegant, and complex, and... sadistic. It means the quality that provides the greatest power poses the greatest danger. It means that what is most central to the identity is most in need of changing.
That's going to hurt– a lot.
Let's say I'm your best friend, and, like most best friends, I know exactly what your central strength is– your generosity. But I'm also well aware of the problems that strength creates for you, having witnessed this in action. Maybe I say to you, “Sometimes, though, you’re too generous. Really. Your first impulse is always to help, and so you're always letting people take advantage of you. As your friend, I hate to see you be so giving and loving to people who don’t deserve it. You’re going to have to learn to be less trusting.”
I’m telling you that the very thing that you value most about yourself, your kindness, your generosity, your openness to others, is what is going to get you hurt.
And worse, you suspect I’m right.
Now that’s going to create some conflict, don’t you think? No longer will it seem easy to grow and change and become a fully realized person. Now it sounds like you’re going to have to give something up. Something important. Something that is essential to the you you love.
We want our heroic characters to have the potential for heroism, from the very start of the book. Identifying a heroic strength focuses attention right away on power, force, and action– essential ingredients in a protagonist. And we don't want our protagonists to end the book by giving up what's best about them. We don't want the generous, loving heroine to become selfish and suspicious. But people so often go to extremes. We emphasize our strengths to the point that we get overbalanced and don't develop other qualities ("You're generous, but you have no judgment"). In a novel, the heroic journey challenges the protagonist to choose another path, to invent another strength, to add to the heroic arsenal– without ever losing that central strength.
So here's a way to add dimension to your plot using the heroic strength, heroic flaw, and heroic journey: • Identify a central strength and show this strength in action in the early stages of the plot.
• Define the problems and issues– or the heroic flaw– that comes along with this strength.
• Generate conflict from these issues arising in events (especially in the middle of the story). The heroic flaw can get in the way of solving the external conflict or achieving the goal.
• Show the protagonist changing in response to the rising conflict, and developing a new strength to supplement the old strength. (The dark moment is a good place to force this change.)
• Use the process to chart a journey of psychological or emotional or life change for the protagonist.
Here's an example from a television show that's a favorite with romance writers for its epic themes and star-crossed love stories– Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Buffy demonstrates that heroines too can have traditional heroic strengths, and embark on dangerous heroic journeys. Buffy's journey is a long one, as it's played out over seven seasons of TV episodes. But at every point, her struggle is unique because it reflects the force and conflict of her central strength/heroic flaw.
Identify the Strength and Initiate Action
We always lead with our strength. Makes sense, right? So whenever the situation calls for the character to do something, look to the central strength to define the default action– the character's instinctive first step in dealing with any situation.
For example, a curious person will investigate.
A recklessly courageous person will plunge in.
A caretaking person will look around for someone to help.
An ambitious person will take advantage of the situation to further her goals.
Buffy's central strength is literally strength– she is the Chosen One, the one with the super powers that make her strong enough to rid the world of vampires and demons. She can slice and dice the bad guys with her superb reflexes, powerful punches and kicks, and super-fast healing ability. Her strength is shown immediately and often– in every show, she dispatches at least a few demons with a flurry of violence and sarcasm.
Buffy's default action is always to take over, charge in, and hit things. Her Watcher constantly stresses research and preparation, but Buffy generally resorts to physical action. Only when punching and kicking don't work does she try something else, and she's convinced she's no good at it. "I suck at undercover," she mutters, when someone sees through her less-than-convincing disguise. When she finds herself drawn to the sexy vampire Spike, she's not one to puzzle through the complexities of cross-species love and her own addiction to the dark side. She just tries to kill him.
Define Issues/Heroic Flaw to Create Conflict
The character will use the default action until it's clear it's no longer the best course. It's the author's job to quickly produce situations where the default action not only doesn't work, but also causes some of the "heroic flaw" problems associated with this strength.
So what's associated with super-strength? Super-responsibility. Buffy quite literally takes responsibility, over and over, for saving the world– and she's just a teenager. This responsibility limits her life considerably. Early on, she tries out for cheerleading, and her mentor, the Watcher Giles, castigates her for wasting her time on "a cult" when she should be out killing demons. Whenever she has a bit of teenaged fun, she's called away to save the world again. Getting grounded by her mom doesn't just damage her social life; it could cause the end of the world as we know it.
Super-strength also gets in the way of romance. Normal guys just can't handle a girl who can break them to pieces. One boyfriend feels so emasculated, he starts a regimen of steroids and other power-drugs, increasing his strength but destroying his health. She ends up with a vampire lover, because only a vampire is strong enough to be her mate– even though Spike is her sworn enemy, and has already killed two Slayers.
But super-power makes her super-reckless. She's so used to being the strongest one around, she charges into ever more dangerous situations, even as Spike warns her that all it will take to kill her is for a vampire like him to have "one good day".
Most important, super-strength alienates her from her friends and family. They try to help her in her mission, but she's isolated by her own power and what it makes her do. "Death is my art," she says, and she metes it out daily, at a cost to her psyche she can't confide even to her loved ones. Only Spike, with the deaths of hundreds on his vestigial conscience, can begin to understand– but identifying with him is too dangerous, as he tempts her towards the darkness he has chosen as his world.
She has become so alienated, in fact, she verges on bully-hood. Spike is the only one who can survive the most heedless violence from her, and she abuses that privilege, even after he has fallen in love with her and won't fight back. She eventually becomes so frightened by her brutality that she rejects his love– the love that could heal her and redeem him.
The responsibility becomes ever more oppressive, so that when she is forced to choose between saving the world and saving her sister, she sacrifices her own life– in the process, freeing herself (she thinks forever) from the terrible choices brought by her role as the Chosen One. But her alienation from her friends keeps them from understanding how much she craves the peace of death, and against her will, they bring her back to life.
Evolve a New Strength and Map a Journey
Heroic characters are heroic because they can change. Once it's clear that the central strength is causing problems, and the default action is causing even more conflict, the heroic character regroups, analyzes, and modifies. It's not easy– modifying what's best about you is much harder than giving up what's bad about you– but given sufficient motivation, a hero or heroine will moderate the central strength and build up new strengths to meet a changed situation. This is where the author can use the strength and its associated problems to map a journey towards change.
Buffy's journey from isolated power to true leadership is mapped by the process of evolving the new strength of delegation – the ability to identify and use the strengths of others. But she comes to this realization through pain. In her dark moment, her little army rejects her as a leader because she refuses to reach out to them. Only Spike stands with her, and from his unquestioning loyalty, she understands that she has survived longer than any other vampire slayer because she has never had to fight alone. She decides to trust the powers of her allies– a friend's magic, her Watcher's wisdom, Spike's absolute devotion.
The end of her journey is a sharing of the power in a literal way: She orders the witch Willow to give Slayer-like powers to other girls in her ragtag army and throughout the world. She also learns to share the cosmic responsibility, though it breaks her heart. When faced with the final apocalypse, she accepts the necessity of Spike sacrificing himself in her place– for the first time, trusting someone else to save the world, and in the process completing Spike's own journey from sin to redemption.
Your Own Journey
Here are some questions to help you chart your character's heroic journey. The examples are from the classic film Casablanca.
1) What is the character's central strength, and why is this interesting?
Rick's central strength is detachment. Two observations of interest about this strength:
A) It is a new strength for him, created in the previous year to protect him against the pain of losing his lover Ilsa. Before the fall of Paris to the Nazis (when she left him), he actually had romanticism/idealism as a central strength– so he's veered to the opposite extreme.
B) Most of us wouldn't think of detachment as a positive. But Rick does. It's the force that keeps him from falling apart, that protects him through his encounters with others. The author and the reader don't have to consider the strength a good thing, as long as the character gets some kind of power from it.
2) How is the central strength set up early, within the first couple times we see the character?
In an early Casablanca scene, Ugarte, a con man and something of a pal, confess that he has murdered two German couriers and wants Rick to hold some extremely valuable "letters of transit" that will allow the bearer to leave Nazi-occupied Casablanca. Rick doesn't object to the murder or even Ugarte's practice of selling exit visas to desperate refugees. Even the corrupt Ugarte calls Rick a cynic, though another a-moral friend, the French police captain Renault, diagnoses him more precisely as a disappointed romantic.
3) What event shows this to be a strength, something that benefits the character?
Under informal Gestapo interrogation, detachment allows Rick to stay cool and unintimidated. He doesn't care enough to worry, and he doesn't reveal anything he doesn't want to reveal.
4) What are some problems and issues associated with this character's strength, and what events show them causing conflict to rise in the story?
Rick is detached. This creates the heroic flaw of alienation. His friends admire him but don't feel close to him. When his girlfriend Yvonne demands more intimacy, he rejects her, driving her into the arms of a Nazi. He does not show his emotions; in fact, he tries hard not to feel his emotions. He tries to stay neutral at a moment (just before Pearl Harbor) when evil is taking over Europe, because caring about the world now would mean he would have to feel horror and despair. He cuts himself off from people of conscience and associates mostly with rogues who won't challenge his cynicism. While he is generally a man of action, his detachment has made him passive, because taking action would mean taking a stand.
5) What is the default action arising from this strength? What action or event first shows the default action?
Rick's default action is backing away. When Renault tells Rick that he's going to arrest Ugarte, Rick starts to protest, knowing that the little con-man will be executed. But then he stops himself. "I stick my neck out for no man," he declares. That's his new motto. Notice that he does hesitate before asserting his detachment. It's often effective to show the character realizing he has a choice, and then making the choice to go with the default action. This lets the reader know he's not a robot and is capable of change, given sufficient motivation.
6) When does the situation change and challenge the central strength and make the default action unworkable?
Sufficient motivation for change arrives in the shape of Ilsa, his former lover, and her Resistance-hero husband Victor Laslo. Rick doesn't know that Ilsa left him in Paris only because the supposedly dead Victor turned up alive, ill, and pursued by the Gestapo. Seeing her again, and with the idealistic hero Laslo, challenges his detachment. Rick can't deny he still wants Ilsa, though he tells himself he wants her out of revenge, or just for sex. He finds himself unable to resist feeling– he gets angry when Sam, his piano player, plays "their song", he gets drunk when he realizes she is now Laslo's woman, and he vindictively insults her. His detachment is no armor at all against his pain, at least when she is around. His detachment is also threatened when he watches as Laslo rallies the entire bar to sing La Marseillaise, drowning out the Nazis singing their national anthem, and sees firsthand how Laslo's passion and idealism cause others to find courage to defy evil. Detachment does not seem so cool and brave after that.
7) What is the first pivotal moment that leads to a new action – not just a reaction, but a proactive step towards change? And what new strength does this action reflect?
When a young Bulgarian refugee asks him if she should sleep with Captain Renault to get exit visas for her and her new husband, Rick at first tells her to go ahead, that Renault can be trusted. But the girl, worried that in trying to save her husband, she will have to betray him, asks, "If a woman loved you so much that she would do something bad for you, would you be able to forgive her?" Rick responds in a tight voice, "No one ever loved me that much." This is the pivotal moment, when he recognizes the source of his pain. Immediately, he tries to put the girl off– but then he arranges for her husband to win enough at roulette to buy the visas. His detachment is diminishing, and the strength of empathy– the ability to feel what others feel– is increasing.
8) Look at the dark moment. How does the central strength come back into play there?
In the dark moment, Ilsa comes to beg him for the letters of transit that will save her and Laslo to continue their fight against the Nazis. Rick angrily refuses, and she pulls out a gun. His despair is so great that the old protection of detachment is all he has, only this time it leads to suicidal behavior. He walks up to her and demands that she shoot him. She cannot, and breaks down into tears. For the first time, he lets himself feel her feelings, her terror and sorrow, and takes her in his arms– not to seduce her, but to comfort her. Only when he offers her this empathy can she tell him the whole truth about why she left him in Paris, that she did it to protect him as well as Laslo, and that she never stopped loving him.
9) What decision, combining the new and old strengths, arises out of this dark moment and how is it put into effect in the climactic scene?
Ilsa tells him she cannot know anymore what is right, and that she trusts him to decide what is best "for both of us... for all of us." You can actually see the expression on his face change when she amends "both" to "all"– when she charges him with responsibility for Laslo's well-being too. He decides to make it appear he is going to run off with Ilsa, because he knows that the Gestapo will be glad for them to abandon Laslo. In fact, he sets it up so that she and Laslo escape. This combines his empathy for Ilsa and Laslo with the power of his detachment. Now he is no longer detached from other people, but from his own pain and anger. His detachment allows him to see the big picture: "The problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." And his empathy draws him back into the fight against evil– he and Renault (redeemed by Rick's example) decide to join the Resistance.
Heroism isn't a simple matter of being heroic, of walking around being strong and brave and big-shouldered. Heroism is in the doing and the becoming, in the action and the journey. Our protagonists become heroes by their actions and reactions, manifested in the events of the plot, but most of all, because they go beyond what they are, and risk their identities to become something more.
All great truths are paradoxes, Jung would say. So I'd like to add a corollary to Aristotle's paradox: What makes us great brings us down– and in risking what is greatest about ourselves, we are challenged to achieve a new greatness.

Creating Memorable Characters

Character is the backbone of any work of narrative, more important than plot, more important than message; without believable characters with whom an audience can sympathize, no story will be as effective as it might. "Who is the story about?" is always a more important question than "What happens in the story?" If we care about people, we'll listen to tales in which seemingly nothing happens, just as you and your friends and family might trade accounts of your days over dinner. Here are some things to remember about creating the people who will populate your stories.
Characters need a past history.
Called "backstory" in dramatic writing, this history tells us a great deal about who a character is and where he or she has come from. Think about yourself and the many ways in which your life experience has shaped you and you'll recognize the importance of creating a backstory for your characters. Although it may take additional effort--and you may, especially in a novel, still be finding out things about your characters as you write--knowing your characters well before you begin can help dictate some of their responses and help you tell your story.
Did a character have a former girlfriend who loved the song "Copacabana"? Was the character abused as a child by a family member? Did the character drop out of school at age seventeen to go to Hollywood, only to return home defeated and desolate? Any of these factors can make a character come alive in your mind, whether the reader ever knows about them or not. In fact, it's best if you don't tell them everything; remember Hemingway's iceberg principle: You only see one tenth of an iceberg, but it's the hidden nine tenths that holds it up.
Writers use many different techniques to make characters seem real.
When you read a story like Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" or Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried," note how many different ways these talented writers reveal information about their characters. Some basic ways: character names; setting; characters' likes, dislikes, personal preferences; thoughts and actions; dialogue; interaction with other characters; things said about the character. There are other techniques, but you can see how these may have an effect on how well-depicted your character seems to the reader. Here's how it might work: Imagine a disabled Gulf War veteran named Bo who drinks Old Milwaukie, lives in a green clapboard house that lists slightly to starboard, drives a Dodge Dart, and daily tells the mailman--as he sits on his porch plotting to bomb the U.S. Capitol so that he can get his revenge on the government--to "Get out my yard, flunky." The more different methods of character depiction you can work in, the more vivid your character will be.
Characters should be three-dimensional to be believable.
Rarely in life is anyone all one thing--all good, all bad, completely cerebral, completely ruled by her passions. Since few people are completely one-sided, it helps the plausibility of your characters if they seem human as well. Your hero should have human flaws; they will make him both more sympathetic and give him obstacles to overcome. Your villain, likewise, should have a few points of sympathy as well. The greatest villains--John Milton's Satan, Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter, Bram Stoker's Dracula--are all articulate and cultured creatures.
Remember also Walt Whitman's "Do I contradict myself?/Very well then, I contradict myself." A man who hates everything and everyone might have a family of birds living in his oak tree that he cherishes. An atheist might be fiercely moral. A person afraid of heights might be driven to rock-climbing. A Vegan Buddhist might smoke Marlboros.
Contemporary literature is fill of examples. In Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, the butler Stevens, a man seemingly closed off to emotion, reveals himself as a man deeply affected by love and loss. Thomas Keneally's Oskar Schindler is a mercenary failed Catholic who risks his life and spends his fortune to preserve the lives of his Jewish workers. Almost all interesting characters you discover will have contradictory impulses at war within them. Although your characters typically will act in well-established ways, be open to the possibility of inconsistency in them. Human beings encompass great contradictions; it is what makes them interesting, and it is what makes them human.
Characters need to want something, and they must be given the opportunity to make a choice.
To create a useful conflict in a story, your characters have to have a deep-seated want or need that the story is about--either the gaining of that need or the frustration of it, possibly forever. In some sense, that need must drive the character and define the character. It can be many things: revenge, love, the need for acceptance, the desire to get the girl, the desire to get into a drive-in movie without paying; the character may not even know what he wants. But you must know. You character has to want something or the story will not work.
Likewise you have to treat your characters with enough compassion to recognize that they must be given a choice. I hate the deterministic fiction of Naturalists like Emile Zola and Theodore Dreiser because I don't feel their characters are really given choices; Fate paints them into a corner and they are stuck there. Characters should always be given a choice of paths, of actions, of decisions, even if they choose the wrong one or choose not to make a choice. This is much more satisfying than the feeling that Fate/God/the Author has decreed that this story can only end in one way and so every other avenue must be blocked.

Characters

Modern: general
The technician with a knack for trouble.
The tough, unambitious boatman.
The young, unambitious beggar.
The tough gambler who is considered the worst in his/her profession.
The reporter with a chemical dependency.
The unconfident, unfriendly archivist.
The unheroic, brave salesperson from a bad family.
The acrobatic garbageman.
The acrobatic librarian who is given to moments of deep introspection.
The clumsy, vocal clerk searching for truth.
The disorganized heroine who is considered the worst in his/her profession.
The aged, cynical, opinionated spy who is prone to odd statements.
The agile, kind, self-righteous lawman with an odd birthmark.
The nimble, serene, righteous media technician.
The athletic, vicious, antisocial pharmacist from a small family.
The hypocritical doctor who fell in with the wrong crowd.
The uncreative, hateful nurse who lost meaning in life.
The plain gigolo searching for purpose.
The weak, unheroic traitor with big dreams.
The logical heroine.
The enduring student.
The poised, sleazy technician with a lot of friends.
The aloof, biased clerk on the run from the law.
The philandering garbageman with a lot of friends.
The actor escpaing the past.
The withdrawn traitor who is seeking meaning in life.
The graceful pretender.
The kind boatman who fell in with the wrong crowd.
The boastful lawman with an unexpected destiny.
The agile, cowardly, clinging computer programmer.
The unhealthy businessperson who is dependent on medication.
The wanderer with repressed memories.
The young, brutal, ugly advertising executive who hates children.
The tireless murderer.
The patriotic bodyguard.
The friendly hacker.
The graceful, posturing bodyguard.
The weak, boastful, mean-spirited scientist.
The strong psychiatrist haunted by flashbacks.
The boring, unheroic spy.
The agile, odd fence.
The philandering media personality who fears the future.
The athletic boatman.
The mature, striking corporate official.
The cruel salesperson trapped by the past.
The poised, dispirited hermit.
The smuggler with a false identity.
The unhappy, eccentric thief with repressed memories.
The tireless, smooth mentor.
The weak, brave manager with a knack for trouble.
Science Fiction: star ship crew
The focused medical technician.
The tough communications officer from an infamous race.
The dexterous, educated, promiscuous first officer who tragically misunderstood an alien custom.
The naive technician whose species has odd reproductive habits.
The sickly, irrational, moralistic medical officer.
The hysterical, extraverted communications technician.
The disillusioned, short-tempered communications technician.
The unremarkable xenobotanist who is a crossbreed of two species.
The shifty starship captain.
The cunning, generous starship pilot.
The weary, intimidating weapons officer.
The playful life support technician who is seeking meaning in life.
The confident medical officer.
The nimble, complacent, unjust starship navigator.
The strong, antisocial starship navigator.
The xenoarcheologist with a rival in his/her profession.
The awkward, materialistic, heroic computer techician.
The patriotic xenosociologist whose world is run by a computer.
The depressed, selfish operations manager infected with an alien disease.
The unwise fighter pilot.
The dexterous, confused, unpopular life support technician.
The mean-spirited medical officer.
The starship navigator hitch-hiking across the known universe.
The moral xenoarcheologist.
The philandering chief engineer who had a near-death experience that changed them significantly.
The striking, antisocial shuttlecraft pilot.
The persuasive chief engineer.
The dexterous, educated, moralizing starship pilot hitch-hiking across the known universe.
The burnt-out shuttlecraft pilot who loves animals.
The innocent planetologist.
The materialistic first contact specialist who is actually an alien entity.
The charismatic starship navigator who is fighting an alien occupation force.
The altruistic medical technician whose body was infected by an alien seeking to reproduce.
The attractive shuttlecraft pilot with a lot of friends.
The acrobatic, contemplative, domineering shuttlecraft pilot.
The vicious xenoarcheologist who was victimized by an artificial intelligence.
The serene shuttlecraft pilot.
The poised, unambitious, domineering xenoarcheologist.
The dexterous, frustrated, promiscuous life support technician.
The clueless xenomedical expert.
The communications technician needing a friend.
The awkward, shiftless, bloodthirsty starship engineer who is a crossbreed of two species.
The aged, spiritual first contact specialist.
The communications technician addicted to virtual reality.
The quiet, sadistic communications technician hiding a dark secret.
The broken-hearted xenosociologist.
The charismatic xenosociologist.
The clumsy, frustrated starship engineer.
The social operations manager.
The slovenly fighter pilot with little money.
Fantasy: general
The healthy, whiny, righteous druid.
The tireless elementalist.
The comic who secretly worships forbidden gods.
The sickly wanderer.
The persistent prophet.
The graceful, mean-spirited dutchess who suffers from a chronic disease.
The tireless, wild ambassador.
The unhealthy, mean-spirited barbarian who fears people think he/she is a fraud.
The boring impostor who is estranged from family members.
The sarcastic rascal with a peculiar affinity for magic.
The intelligent, rude blacksmith with a strange rapport with supernatural beings.
The mysterious, broken-hearted heroine.
The crippled, burnt-out exorcist.
The scatterbrained ranger who lost meaning in life.
The confident alchemist with an odd birthmark.
The nervous arch-druid with a peculiar lack of affinity for magical items.
The diabolical, moralizing trader from a small family.
The nimble, smart circuit priestess.
The unathletic, tolerant, bloodthirsty dungeon delver searching for justice.
The opportunistic, moral coachman.
The pragmatic, chaste circuit priest who is considered the worst in his/her profession.
The addled, odd ambassador.
The selfish archivist with unexpected depths.
The violent archivist.
The sarcastic actor who is seeking meaning in life.
The tough, sadistic beggar.
The optimistic pretender with unusual luck.
The clumsy, innocent, pompous teacher needing a friend.
The duke living on borrowed time.
The unathletic, nurturing gigolo.
The nimble farmer.
The tireless, clinging, selfish archivist who suffers from a chronic disease.
The diabolical, brave fence.
The scatterbrained miner who tends to annoy demonic beings.
The agile, lazy astrologer.
The striking, alienated teacher.
The plain philanthropist who seems insane.
The acrobatic bodyguard.
The misguided leader.
The sickly, fearsome poet who has annoyed the gods.
The necromancer with a strange rapport with supernatural beings.
The tough, persuasive pretender who is estranged nobility.
The graceful laborer with a knack for trouble.
The anxious assassin with a peculiar lack of magical talent.
The mentor who is heir to a kingdom but doesn't know it.
The strong, realistic, heroic beggar.
The slovenly circuit priestess.
The awkward, mean-spirited seer.
The aged, amiable barbarian who lost meaning in life.
The obsessive healer.
Science Fiction: all kinds
The plain, popular assassin.
The awkward, fearsome jock who is seeking meaning in life.
The aloof planetologist.
The agile, unheroic xenobotanist.
The apathetic football player.
The healthy, sleazy mutant.
The illogical, withdrawn marine.
The plain, nostalgic media technician.
The graceful first contact specialist.
The poised, charismatic physicist.
The athletic chief engineer from a distant colony.
The healthy, self-righteous xenolinguist who was exiled to another dimension.
The sadistic planetary explorer.
The withdrawn ambassador with a false identity.
The clumsy jailer who is considered the worst in his/her profession.
The sickly, driven jock.
The agile, religious, immature leader searching for purpose.
The acrobatic, patronizing traveler.
The promiscuous doctor.
The aloof xenomedical expert.
The lonely baseball player with a lot of friends.
The tolerant vetrenarian in posession of coordinates to a great secret.
The educated scientist.
The athletic, experienced, aloof artificial life form.
The moralistic security agent.
The striking, worldwise smuggler.
The clumsy, sleazy official.
The poised, striking xenosociologist whose species is being exterminated.
The industrious, gentle starship captain searching for a family member.
The clerk who is a complete fraud.
The bitter philosopher who loves animals.
The strong bartender.
The funny pedlar infected with nanites.
The educated, vicious astronomer with repressed memories.
The strong, philosophical, generous biologist from nowhere.
The tactful psychiatrist who seems insane.
The awkward, pure, manipulative hermit searching for truth.
The unhealthy, tireless xenobiologist.
The weak, watchful, patriotic planetologist who is from a parallel dimension.
The tired, tolerant architect.
The unbalanced, cruel nurse whose species has odd reproductive habits.
The ugly time travel technician who tragically misunderstood an alien custom.
The biased, manipulative weapons master with a heart of gold.
The industrious outlaw who was exiled to another world.
The tireless medical technician who was genetically engineered.
The clumsy, lonely boatman with a rival in his/her profession.
The unheroic, moralizing linquistics expert who is estranged from family members.
The healthy first officer who hates children.
The crippled, whiny librarian.
The starship pilot with unusual luck.
General
The tough, clinging comic trapped by the past.
The clumsy, righteous priestess.
The athletic official who is seeking meaning in life.
The unhealthy, biased philosopher who hates animals.
The awkward marine.
The sickly, sloppy, cooperative trader with a heart of gold.
The official with repressed memories.
The young merchant.
The tolerant bartender who fears people think he/she is a fraud.
The funny mercenary.
The sickly, watchful cleric.
The businessperson searching for purpose.
The manipulative priest.
The hateful, biased impostor.
The unbalanced, humble priestess who had a near-death experience that changed them significantly.
The happy, corrupt traitor.
The wise, social singer with a heart of gold.
The poised sailor.
The slothful, manipulative prospector.
The wise bounty hunter.
The unhealthy, inhibited smuggler escpaing the past.
The clumsy, tolerant singer.
The healthy archivist who fell in with the wrong crowd.
The weak, charismatic poet.
The serious, social traitor searching for employment.
The clumsy, irrational, moral mercenary.
The dexterous, arrogant mercenary.
The strong, watchful, inhibited priestess.
The enduring, aloof rabble-rouser.
The tough, heroic, patriotic outlaw who is given to moments of deep introspection.
The hermit with a knack for trouble.
The just, ethical poet.
The unathletic, cowardly, lonely comic with unexpected depths.
The strong, ignorant, cooperative midwife trapped by the past.
The attractive weapons master hiding a dark secret.
The unhealthy servant living on borrowed time.
The tough teacher from a good family.
The enduring, lonely laborer with unexpected depths.
The weak, charismatic spy with a lot of friends.
The sickly, whiny ambassador who is considered the best in his/her profession.
The intimidating wanderer with a lot of friends.
The wise, sarcastic actor.
The moralizing outlaw.
The plucky rabble-rouser.
The heroic farmer.
The religious explorer haunted by dark memories.
The dexterous gigolo searching for a family member.
The striking, weary, boring merchant who fell in with the wrong crowd.
The dexterous adventurer who has an odd way of speaking.
The priestess who is prone to odd statements.

Celebrities Real Names

SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 2007
A lot of celebrities change their names when they go into show business. Here is a list of some of them.
A
Alan Alda = Alphonso D'Abruzzo
Woody Allen = Allen Konigsberg
Muhammad Ali = Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.
Julie Andrews = Julia Elizabeth Wells
Fred Astaire = Frederick Austerlitz
Chet Atkins = Chester B. Atkins
Frankie Avalon = Francis Thomas Avalonne

B
Lauren Bacall = Betty Joan Perske
Anne Bancroft = Anna Maria Italiano
Brigitte Bardot = Camille Javal
Pat Benatar = Patricia Andrejewski
Tony Bennett = Anthony Benedetto
Jack Benny = Benjamin Kubelsky
Tom Berenger = Thomas Michael Moore
Chuck Berry = Charles Edward Anderson Berry
Billy The Kid = William H. Bonney
Robert Blake = Michael Gubitosi
Jon Bon Jovi = John Francis Bongiovi
Bono (U2) = Paul Hewson
Sonny Bono = Salvatore Phillip Bono
David Bowie = David Robert Jones
Boy George = George Alan O'Dowd
Charles Bronson = Charles Buchinski
Albert Brooks = Albert Einstein
Mel Brooks = Melvin Kaminsky
George Burns = Nathan Birnbaum
Ellen Burstyn = Edna Gilhooley
Richard Burton = Richard Jenkins

C
Nicholas Cage = Nicholas Coppola
Michael Cain = Maurice Micklewhite
Maria Callas = Maria Kalogeropoulos
Eric Carr (Kiss) - Paul Charles Caravello
Vikki Carr = Florencia Casillas
Ray Charles = Ray Charles Robinson
Chubby Checker = Ernest Evans
Cher = Cherilyn Sarkisian
Eric Clapton - Eric Patrick Clapp
Patsy Cline = Virginia Patterson Hensley
Claudette Colbert = Lily Chauchoin
Nat King Cole = Nathaniel Adams Coles
Chuck Connors = Kevin Joseph Connors
Robert Conrad = Conrad Robert Falk
Alice Cooper = Vincent Furnier
Gary Cooper = Frank James Cooper
David Copperfield = David Kotkin
Howard Cosell = Howard Cohen
Elvis Costello = Declan Patrick McManus
Lou Costello = Louis Cristillo
Joan Crawford = Lucille Le Sueur
Michael Crawford = Michael Dumble-Smith
Bing Crosby = Harry Lillis Crosby
Tom Cruise = Thomas Cruise Mapother IV
Tony Curtis = Bernard Schwartz

D
Rodney Dangerfield = Jacob Cohen
Bobby Darin = Walden Waldo Robert Cassotto
John Denver = John Henry Deutschendorf
Donovan = Donovan Phillip Leitch
Doris Day = Doris von Kappelhoff
James Dean = James Byron
John Denver = Henry John Deutschendorf Jr.
Bo Derek = Mary Cathleen Collins
Danny DeVito = Daniel Michaeli
Angie Dickinson = Angeline Brown
Bo Diddley = Otha Elias Bates McDaniel
Vin Diesel = Mark Vincent
Phyllis Diller = Phyllis Driver
Fats Domino = Antoine Domino
Kirk Douglas = Issur Danielovitch
Bob Dylan = Robert Zimmerman

E
Sheena Easton = Sheena Shirley Orr
The Edge (U2) = David Howell Evans
Elvira = Cassandra Paterson
Eminem - Marshall Bruce Mathers III
Enya = Eithne Ni Bhraonain
David Essex = David Albert Cook

F
Morgan Fairchild = Patsy McClenny
Adam Faith = Terence Nelhams
Fatboy Slim = Quentin Cook (aka Norman Cook)
Sally Field = Sally Mahoney
W.C. Fields = William Claude Dukenfield
Jodie Foster = Alicia Christian Foster
Michael J. Fox = Michael Andrew Fox
Connie Francis = Concetta Rosa Maria Franconero
Billy Fury = Ronald Wycherley

G
Greta Garbo = Greta Gustafsson
Judy Garland = Frances Gumm
James Garner = James Bumgarner
Crystal Gayle = Brenda Gayle Webb
Bobbie Gentry = Roberta Streeter
Kathie Lee Gifford = Kathie Epstein
Whoopie Goldberg = Caryn Johnson
Cary Grant = Archibald Leach

H
Hammer = Stanley Kirk Burrell
Laurence Harvey = Laruschka Skikne
Rita Hayworth = Margarita Cansino
Jimi Hendrix = Johnny Allen Hendrix
Pee-Wee Herman = Paul Reubenfeld
Barbara Hershey = Barbara Herzstine
Hulk Hogan = Terry Gene Bollea
Billie Holliday = Eleanora ****
Buddy Holly = Charles Hardin Holley
Bob Hope = Leslie Townes Hope
Harry Houdini = Ehrich Weiss
Rock Hudson = Roy Scherer Jr.
Engelbert Humperdinck = Arnold George Dorsey

I
Janis Ian = Janis Eddy Fink
Ice Cube = Oshea Jackson
Ice-T = Tracy Morrow
Billy Idol = William Broad
Iggy Pop = James Jewell Osterberg, Jr.
Burl Ives = Burle Icle Ivanhoe

J
David Janssen = David Meyer
Elton John = Reginald Dwight
Don Johnson = Donald Wayne
Al Jolson = Asa Yoelson
Brian Jones (Rolling Stones) = Lewis Brian Hopkins-Jones
Jenny Jones = Janina Stranski
Tom Jones = Thomas Woodward
Wynonna Judd = Christina Ciminella

K
Boris Karloff = William Henry Pratt
Danny Kaye = David Kaminsky
Diane Keaton = Diane Hall
Michael Keaton = Michael Douglas
Chaka Khan = Carole Yvette Marie Stevens
Carole King = Carole Klein
Larry King = Larry Zeigler
Ben Kingsley = Krishna Banji
Nastassja Kinski = Nastassja Naksyznyski
Billy J Kramer (The Dakotas) = William H Ashton
Kris Kristofferson = Kris Carson

L
Cheryl Ladd = Cheryl Stoppelmoor
Veronica Lake = Constance Ockleman
Dorothy Lamour = Mary Kaumeyer
Michael Landon = Eugene Orowitz
Mario Lanza = Alfredo Arnold Cocozza
Queen Latifah = Dana Owens
Stan Laurel = Arthur Jefferson
Steve Lawrence = Sidney Leibowitz
Brenda Lee = Brenda Mae Tarpley
Bruce Lee = Lee Yuen Kam
Spike Lee = Shelton Jackson Lee
Jay Leno = James Douglas Muir Leno
Huey Lewis = Hugh Cregg
Jerry Lewis = Joseph Levitch
Liberace = Wladziu Lee Valentino
Jack Lord = John Joseph Ryan
Sophia Loren = Sophia Scicoloni
Peter Lorre = Laszio Lowenstein
Courtney Love = Michelle Harrison
Bela Lugosi = Bela Ferenc Blasko
Lulu = Marie Lawrie

M
Shirley MacLaine = Shirley Beaty
Elle MacPherson = Eleanor Gow
Madonna = Madonna Louise Ciccone
Lee Majors = Harvey Lee Yeary II
Karl Malden = Mladen Sekulovich
Mama Cass Elliot (Mamas & Papas) = Ellen Naomi Cohen
Manfred Mann = Manfred Lubowitz
Barry Manilow = Barry Alan Pincus
Jayne Mansfield = Vera Jane Palmer
Marilyn Manson = Brian Warner
Walter Matthau = Walter Matuschanskayasky
Dean Martin = Dino Crocetti
Groucho Marx = Julius Henry Marx
Meat Loaf = Marvin Lee Aday
Freddie Mercury (Queen) = Frederick Farookh Bulsara
Ethel Merman = Ethel Zimmerman
George Michael = Georgios Panayiotou
Joni Mitchell = Roberta Joan Anderson
Moby = Richard Melville Hall
Marilyn Monroe = Norma Jean Mortenson (later Baker)
Demi Moore = Demetria Guynes
Rita Moreno = Rosita Alverio
Harry Morgan = Harry Bratsburg

N
Chuck Norris = Carlos Ray
Andre Norton = Mary Alice Norton
Notorious B.I.G. = Christopher Wallace

O
Ozzy Osbourne = John Michael Osbourne

P
Jack Palance = Walter Palanuik
Bernadette Peters = Bernadette Lazzaro
Edith Piaf = Edith Giovanna Gassion
Slim Pickens = Louis Lindley
Mary Pickford = Gladys Smith
Stephanie Powers = Stefania Federkiewicz
Prince = Prince Rogers Nelson

R
Tony Randall = Leonard Rosenberg
Johnnie Ray = John Alvin
Donna Reed = Donna Belle Mullenger
Della Reese = Delloreese Patricia Early
Cliff Richard = Harry Rodger Webb
Joan Rivers = Joan Sandra Molinsky
Edward G. Robinson = Emmanuel Goldenberg
Sugar Ray Robinson = Walker Smith, Jr.
Ginger Rogers = Virginia McMath
Mickey Rooney = Joe Yule Jr.
Axl Rose (Guns N Roses) = William Bruce Rose
Johnny Rotten (Sex Pistols) = John Lydon
Winona Ryder = Winona Horowitz

S
Susan Sarandon = Susan Tomaling
Telly Savalas = Aristotle Savalas
Jane Seymour = Joyce Frankenberg
Del Shannon = Charles Weedon Westover
Omar Sharif = Michael Shalhoub
Charlie Sheen = Carlos Irwin Estevez
Martin Sheen = Ramon Estevez
Talia Shire = Talia Coppola
Sinbad = David Atkins
Eric Singer (Kiss) = Eric Mensinger
Slash = Saul Hudson
Slim Dusty = David Gordon Kirkpatrick
Dusty Springfield = Mary Isobel Catherine O'Brien
Suzanne Somers = Suzanne Mahoney
Robert Stack = Robert Modini
Barbara Stanwyck = Ruby Stevens
Sylvester Stallone = Michael Sylvester Enzio Stallone
Ringo Starr = Richard Starkey
Cat Stevens = Yusef Islam
Connie Stevens = Concetta Ingolia
Sting = Gordon Sumner
Donna Summer = La Donna Gaines

T
Mr. T = Lawrence Tero
Robert Taylor = Spangler Arlington Brugh
Danny Thomas = Muzyad Yakhoob
Tiny Tim = Herbert Khaury
Rip Torn = Elmore Rual Torn Jr.
Randy Travis = Randy Traywick
Sophie Tucker = Sophia Kalish
Tina Turner = Annie Mae Bullock
Mark Twain = Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Twiggy = Leslie Hornby

U
The Undertaker = Mark Calloway

V
Rudolph Valentino = Rudolpho D'Antonguolla
Frankie Valli (Four Seasons) = Frank Castelluccio
Sid Vicious = John Simon Ritchie

W
John Wayne = Marion Morrison
Sigourney Weaver = Susan Alexandra Weaver
Raquel Welch = Raquel Tejada
Gene Wilder = Jerome Silberman
Shelley Winters = Shirley Schrift
Stevie Wonder = Stevland Morris
Natalie Wood = Natasha Gurdin
Bill Wyman (Rolling Stones) = William Perks
Tammy Wynette = Wynette Pugh

CHARACTER AND SETTING INTERACTIONS by Alicia Rasley

CHARACTER AND SETTING INTERACTIONS Copyright 1999 by Alicia Rasley
Here is a quick exercise to help you explore your protagonist's relationship with the setting. Just free-write on the questions. Look for conflict and character-building opportunities. Also look for possible events and places where events might take place. See if you can make your setting more than just a backdrop for your dramatic events. Think instead of your plot and protagonist interacting with the environment. I give an example exercise in italics.
1. Note what your plot requires of the setting: i.e., must be a big city, must be winter, must be during wartime. Consider the likely consequences of these requirements: A big city means a large population, an underground economy, lots of museums, diversity. The plot requires a city exploding with growth, as real-estate development plays a role in the story. It's one of those new high-tech cities, with hundreds of little software companies and a couple of megamonsters like Microsoft. This means a highly educated populace, lots of new buildings, bike trails, an impatience with tradition... but there's also an "old guard" of the city's founding families, who remember fondly when it was just a sleepy affluent town. One thing both the new money and the old money would agree on- there are no poor people in this town. They don't even notice the elderly and destitute evicted by the need for more land.
2. Decide your protagonist's relationship to the setting: Native? Alien? Secret rebel? Mover and shaker? Nobody? Consider the consequences in his/her life: A secret rebel will live a life of danger and deception, and agonize about the hypocrisy of pretending loyalty to the enemy. Meggie is from the east, a working class town like Hartford. Her family is working class, but she went to Brown, so she can do the Mensa routine. She's a bit of an outsider even after 20 years- this is her husband's domain. He grew up here, and he knows everyone, and it's his quest to ring it with gleaming new towers of steel and glass, to make it more of a real city like Chicago. She goes along with that, but mostly because she hasn't ever seen Concord as anything but his city, so she accepts his vision of it. Once he's gone, she starts seeing the real town without his filter- the old gracious areas, the poor areas, the remnants of farms. She's never really taken root here, but maybe she will if she finds a cause, like historical restoration.
3. Why is your protagonist in this relationship with the setting? A mover and shaker might have been born into a powerful family, or clawed the way up from the lower class. An alien might be visiting to gather military intelligence, or to check out the best redlight district in the galaxy. Meggie moved here when she married. It's a good place to raise a family. But since it was Don's hometown, she always was just something of a hanger-on, and that felt uncomfortable, so she distanced herself. "It's a pleasant enough place," she'll say, "but not really MY sort of town." I might think about having her planning to move somewhere, anywhere, when her son is grown. She's here because it's where her kid is, not because she's chosen it as her home.
4. What is going to change in your story? For example, a woman who has sacrificed her own interests to build a community might decide she must leave to find herself elsewhere. A rebel might grow up and sell out. A dictator might be overthrown, or a war might end, or it might start to rain. I think she's going to decide she has to invest herself in the place. One thing that's going to happen is she's going to get into "renewed-use" or "recycled" buildings- instead of tearing down old buildings to make way for new, she's going to start restoring them for the software entrepreneurs to use as offices, etc. She'll be able to save buildings while making a concession to progress. She'll work on transforming City Hall (about to be torn down) into studios and offices. Brad, the old-money fella, might be eager to get the space for a parking garage or something... will have to see. Maybe a new symphony hall.
5. How big is the setting, and how controlling? A setting can be as small as a boarding school or as big as a galaxy. But if it's a real setting, it will attempt in one way or another to control its inhabitants. How hard is it to leave? How much deviation from the norm is allowed? What are the sanctions against those who don't conform? How will this affect your protagonist? The sanction against a nerd in high school is social ostracism-- no big deal, right? But short of imprisonment, that's one of the most devastating of punishments a culture can impose. This is a pretty circumscribed place. It's bounded on one side by the river, and the other by the Interstate, and there's nothing but farmland around it. And it's always been peculiarly focused- insurance for a century, and now software- a one-industry town. The big no-no is poverty, I guess. You're not supposed to be poor here, not really poor like the intractable poverty of urban areas. You can be poor until you take your software company public and become a millionaire overnight. Also progress is important. There's not much discussion about whether another farm should be sacrificed to an office complex. Be careful to set up Meggie's rebellion- don't make her a naif who just discovered poor people and the need for human space in the urban parking lot. Show her early somehow embarrassed or angry about the high-rises or something.
6. What aspects of this setting would seem strange to an outsider? A woman from a polygamous society might well shake her head over how much work a wife must do in a monogamous society. A peaceful man visiting a nation which has been at war for generations will be struck by the paucity of young men. How will these aspects affect your protagonist? I think the old-money vs. new-money aspect would interest an outsider. The new rich live either in huge, tasteless palaces in former cornfields, or in expensive but unfurnished condos (depending on whether they're married or not- the young men software entrepreneurs probably sleep on bare mattresses on the floor). The old rich live in beautiful, graceful mansions- not as large, but far better built, and surrounded with gardens and trees. The twain seldom meet, except maybe in a few charity things. How can I bring this out with Meggie? She's neither, really- she's plain old upper-middle, and doesn't really participate in this. I guess she can go to the symphony gala, and the founder of Netmore might be there, along with Brad. Maybe the founder of Netmore can be more of a character?
7. What is the basic family unit? This might vary even within a setting-- Little Italy will be filled with extended multigenerational families, while an executive bedroom-suburb a few miles away will be home to small families with working parents from somewhere else. Consider the impact on the protagonist to have grown up in that sort of family. A boy from a large extended family might feel lost in the crowd and determine to make more of an impression in the rest of his life. We react to our backgrounds even as we are shaped by them, and this can be a handy source of conflict. The basic family unit is either the two-income couple, maybe with kids, and the single mom. I could have Meggie notice that most of her son's friends come from divorced homes. They are tentative and a bit wary, and very committed to friendship, but seem to have no interest in dating. Contrast this with the image of teenagers as sex-obsessed etc. These kids are very cautious. Meggie too is cautious now- no more throwing her heart away, no more committing to another for life. She expects to be casual in her relationships, once she gets going with them. She too is much more committed to her friends now than to the illusion of love.
8. What does this setting value most in its citizens? Running shoes? Piety? Wealth? Community spirit? Reproductive prowess? Does your protagonist possess this quality? Does he/she want to? What will he/she do to get it? What are the consequences of not having it? No doubt about it- money matters in this town. But so does initiative and smarts and ideas. Some of this could come out through Mike talking about his practice- mostly high-earning but miserable and empty people. You're a failure in this town if you don't make twenty million by twenty-five. The old guard is horrified at this attitude, but don't even understand that money is just a matter of keeping score. (The old guard is much more into money in a way, as money- they keep score with those other things- where you went to school, who your cousins are.) Meggie doesn't care all that much about money, but she likes the challenge of earning it. She's secure enough financially but could get swept up in the game aspect of money. The consequences of not having money in this town are simply that you don't matter, and you have no power. You're essentially invisible.
9. What is your protagonist's goal, and how does the setting interfere? For example, a police state will restrict a citizen's freedom to move around; a desert will make it hard for a farmer to grow crops. What resources does the setting give the protagonist? At the same time, the protagonist has to find some weapons or allies or talents lying around somewhere. Perhaps a fugitive can hide in the forest at the center of the province, or the diplomat can draw on the negotiation skills she learned growing up in a highly rational, communal society. Meggie's overriding goal is to solve the murder. The setting interferes because the police don't want her "help". They'd prefer to handle their way. But since she's in real estate and knows everyone practically, she has resources unavailable to the police. She can also get in and out of buildings because she is a real estate agent.
10. How can the conflict with the culture be resolved? Must the protagonist leave? Change the culture? Change him/herself? Buy the running shoes, irrigate the desert?
Meggie must eventually either commit to this place as her home, or decide to make her home elsewhere. She can't go on as an interested bystander. If I get her involved with the City Hall project, maybe that will help. She can invest herself that way, at some risk to her relationship with Brad (who wants to tear it down). She'll win this fight, anyway, or it will seem like it. Maybe the Netmore guy can ask her for help in starting his foundation, and she'll suggest that he fund the City Hall restoration.

Character Moods or Emotions

Your character can be more than just "happy" or "sad." Check these lists for emotions that are stronger, more exact, or just plain more interesting than overused emotional tags.
Happy: festive, contented, relaxed, calm, complacent, satisfied, serene, comfortable, peaceful, optimistic, joyous, ecstatic, enthusiastic, inspired, glad, pleased, grateful, cheerful, excited, optimistic, lighthearted, carefree, playful, elated, jubilant, thrilled
Sad: depressed, low, dismal, dreary, dull, moody, sulky, defeated, pessimistic, hopeless, melancholy, somber, despairing, miserable
Hurt: offended, upset, disappointed, heartbroken, crushed
Angry: annoyed, irritated, cross, frustrated, grumpy, angry, provoked, offended, indignant, hostile, irate, furious, fuming, enraged
Afraid: fearful, frightened, timid, cautious, concerned, apprehensive, alarmed, nervous, anxious, worried, hesitant, threatened, scared, petrified, terrified
Loving: accepting, understanding, sharing, affectionate, close, warm, tender, passionate
Interested: eager, enthusiastic, intrigued, absorbed, excited, inquisitive, intent, earnest, fascinated, engrossed
Confident: calm, secure, independent, brave, loyal, courageous, strong, respected, empowered
Doubtful: uncertain, hesitant, indecisive, wavering, insecure, skeptical, dubious, suspicious, distrustful
Shame: uncomfortable, embarrassed, humiliated, dependent, weak
Miscellaneous: puzzled, confused, torn, jealous, envious, distant, evasive, stubborn, impulsive, cruel, preoccupied, bored, powerless, helpless, humble, shocked, uninformed, disregarded
Physical Indicators of Strong Emotion: tense, breathless, nauseated, fatigue, shaky, cold or hot, fast heartbeat, headaches, lack of appetite

Character Jobs or Occupations

Most people think of themselves in terms of their jobs. "I'm a veterinarian." "I'm a writer." Your characters probably do too. This is the beginning of a list of jobs/professions/careers which you can give your characters. Right now my main list is contemporary jobs. The medieval/fantasy and future/science fiction jobs lists are pretty sketchy. If you want to add to this list, please do! E-mail me at juliaw-nospam@attglobal.net (of course, remove "-nospam" to use this).
Contemporary
Accountant
Actor
Actress
Actuary
Advertising executive
Airline pilot
Airplane test pilot
Ambassador
Ambulance driver
Anthropologist
Appliance repairman
Archaeologist
Architect
Artist
Astrologer
Astronaut
Astronomer
Athlete
Attorney
Auctioneer
Auditor
Auto mechanic
Babysitter
Baker
Bank president
Bank robber
Barber
Baseball player
Basketball player
Beautician
Bishop
Bookkeeper
Boxer
Bricklayer
Bum
Bus driver
Butcher
Cake decorator
Car salesman
Carpenter
Cartographer
Cashier
Cat burglar
CEO
Chauffeur
Chef
Chemist
Chiropractor
Circus performer
Clerk typist
Clergyman
Clown
College professor
Company President
Computer hacker
Computer programmer
Computer repairman
Construction worker
Cook
Correctional officer
Counselor
Cowboy
Dance teacher
Dancer
Daycare operator
Dentist
Designer
Detective
Dictator
Dietitian
Diplomat
Director
Dishwasher
Disk jockey
Ditchdigger
Doctor
Gynecologist
Pediatrician
Podiatrist
Surgeon
Economist
Editor
Electrician
Elevator operator
Engineer
Aerospace
Chemical
Civil
Electrical
Industrial
Mechanical
Metallurgical
Nuclear
Farmer
FBI Agent
Fighter pilot
Filmmaker
Firefighter
Fisherman
Football player
Forester
Funeral Director
Garbage man (sanitary engineer)
Gardener
Gas station attendant
General
Geographer
Geologist
Geophysicist
Golfer
Graphic designer Grocer
Gymnast
Handyman
Helicopter pilot
High school teacher
Historian
Homemaker
Hotel maid
Housekeeper
Housewife/husband
Infantryman
Insurance Salesman
Interior designer
Janitor
Judge
Kindergarten teacher
King
Lab assistant
Landscape artist
Lawyer
Librarian
Linguist
Longshoreman
Mail carrier
Maitre' d
Medical technician
Meteorologist
Midwife
Miner
Minister
Model
Monk
Mortician
Movie star
Musician
News announcer
Newspaper reporter
Nun
Nurse
Occupational therapist
Paramedic
Parent
Pharmacist
Photographer
Physical therapist
Physican Assistant
Physicist
Plumber
Policeman
Porn star
Postal worker
President
Priest/ess
Producer
Professor
Prostitute
Public Relations Specialist
Queen
Racecar driver
Radio announcer
Radioman
Realtor
Receptionist
Rock star
Rocket scientist
Roofer
Sailor
Sales clerk
Scientist
Sculptor
Secretary
Security Guard
Ski instructor
Skier
Spy
Statistician
Steelworker
Stewardess
Stonemason
Street person
Street sweeper
Streetwalker
Student
Swimming instructor
Taxi driver
Teacher
Adult Education
Elementary
Secondary
Special Education
Televangelist
Tennis player
Toymaker
Truck driver
TV announcer
Unemployed
Used car salesman
Veterinarian
Waitress
Weatherman
Webmaster
Wrestler
Writer Medieval/Fantasy
Alchemist
Archer
Aristocrat
Astrologer
Baker
Barbarian
Barber
Bard
Beekeeper
Beggar
Blacksmith
Bookbinder
Bookseller
Butcher
Carpenter
Chandler
Chatelaine
Chieftain
Chirurgeon
Clergyman
Cooper
Counselor
Cowherd
Cutler
Daimyo
Dairymaid
Doctor
Emperor/Empress
Farmer
Fighter
Fishmonger
Footman
Furrier
Galley slave
Gardener
Geisha
Gladiator
Groom
Hatmaker
Healer
Hearthwitch
Herbalist
Highwayman
Illuminator
Jester
Jeweler
Jongleur
King
Knight
Lady
Lady in Waiting
Locksmith
Longbowman
Lord
Maidservant
Man at Arms
Mason
Mercer
Minstrel
Monk
Necromancer
Noble
Nun
Painter
Pastrycook
Peasant
Pigkeeper
Priest/ess
Prince/ss
Pursemaker
Queen
Ratcatcher
Ronin
Ropemaker
Saddler
Samurai
Scabbardmaker
Sculptor
Servant
Shepherd
Shoemaker
Slave
Sorcerer/Sorceress
Squire
Stablehand
Steward
Swordsman
Tailor
Tanner
Thief
Viking
Warlock
Watercarrier
Weaver
Wineseller
Witch
Wizard
Woodcarver
Woodseller Futuristic/Science Fiction
(Many of the contemporary jobs will fit this category as well)
Alien
Astrogator
Genetic Engineer
Starship pilot
Superhuman
Telepath
Xenobiologist
Xenobotanist

Characterization Study

Defining the Basics
What is the character's name?
Is the character male or female?
How old is the character?
When is the character's birthday?
What is the character's height?
What is the character's weight?
What is the character's hair color?
What is the character's eye color?
What is the character's racial orientation?
What is the character's religion?

Defining the Physical
Does the character have any disabilities?
What is the character's physical build?
How is the character's posture?
Is the character graceful or awkward?
Is the character comfortable with his/her body?
Is the character attractive? Does he/she think so?
Does the character have an accurate physical self-image?
Is there any part of the character's physicality that he/she is ashamed of?
Is there any part of the character's physicality that they are proud of and perhaps flaunt?

Defining the Past
Where was the character born?
Are his or her parents still alive?
How old were the parents when the character was born?
Was the character adopted?
Are there any brothers or sisters?
What is the birth order of the children?
Did the character have his/her own room while growing up?
Where was the character raised?
Did the family have a habit of relocating?
Was the character close to his/her mother when growing up? How about the father?
How close is the character to his/her mother now? Father?
Did the character suffer abuse (physical, emotional, sexual) at the hands of either parent?
Did the character suffer abuse from any of the siblings or other family members?
Are the parents still married? Was this their first marriage?
Were there any deaths in the family while the character was growing up? Any significant illnesses or accidents?
What illnesses did the character have as a child?
How religious were the parents in the upbringing?
What was the role of religion in the character's life?
What hobbies did the character have when he/she was growing up?
What was the family's financial situation when the character was growing up? How did he/she feel about it?

Defining the Present
Does the character live in the city or in the country? Where exactly?
In what environment does the character live (a house, an apartment, a military base)?
Does the character live alone? If not, with whom does he/she live?
Is the character married? (see RELATIONSHIPS WORKPLATE)
Does the character have any children? (Sexes and ages.)
Defining Education
How far did the character go in school? Did he/she go to college?
How was the character's scholastic performance?
Did they like school?
What were their favorite subjects? Least favorite?
What, if any, extracurricular activities did they engage in?
Was the character involved in athletics?
Were they popular in high school? College?
Did the character have any learning difficulties (attention deficit, conduct problems, etc.)?
Did the character have any problems with teachers or authority?

Defining Work
What was the character's first job?
At what age did the character start working?
What is the character's present job?
Does the character's occupation satisfy him/her?
Describe the character's financial situation.
Did the character choose this occupation, or was it thrust upon him/her?
Does the character do his/her job well?
Does he/she work extra hours?
Does any other part of the character's life (the home life) suffer due to devotion to the job?
Is there a possibility of advancement in the character's career?
Are the demands of the character's job intellectual?
Do they take their work home with them?

Defining Health
Does the character smoke?
Does the character exercise? How often and what kind?
What is the family history with regard to illness?
Is the character afraid of illness and disease?
Does the character take precautions against any diseases?
Does the character suffer from any allergies?
What are the characters eating habits?
Does the character have any eating disorders?
Does the character have a problem maintaining his or her weight?
Is the character on any medications? If so, what kind and for what ailment?
Does the character have any problems sleeping?
Does the character drink alcohol?
Does the character have a problem with alcohol? (see DRUGS & ALCOHOL)
Does the character take any illegal drugs? (see DRUGS & ALCOHOL)

Defining Speech
Does the character have a speech impediment?
What is the character's native language?
What was his/her parents' native language?
Does the character speak with an accent?
Is the character articulate?
Does the character use slang?
Is the character's speech excessively formal?
Does the character think before speaking?
Does the character speak inappropriately, either using swear words or endearments?
Is the character loud? Is he/she soft-spoken?
Does the character listen well?
Does the character monopolize the conversation?
Does the character have a sense of humor??
Does the character ever have a joke at someone else's expense?
Is the character's humor always appropriate?
Is the character sarcastic? Silly? Playful?

Defining Cognition
Can the character keep a train of thought, or is he/she easily distracted?
Is the character's IQ high? Or low?
Does the character display a logical progression of thought?
Is the character stymied by any religious restrictions?
Is the character prone to daydreaming?
Does the character tend to think in concrete terms or in abstract?
Is the character prone to fanciful thought or language?

Defining the Personality Type
What personality type does the character most represent?
Narcissistic • Borderline • Histrionic • Antisocial • Schizoid • Masochistic • Obsessive/Compulsive • Paranoid • Other Mental Disorder
What aspects of that specific personality type does the character seem to adhere to?
How might have the characters childhood contributed to his specific personality type?
What personality types might have the character's parents been?
What type of relationships is the character attracted to?

Defining Behavior
Is the character more outgoing or reflective?
Does the character accept responsibilities readily, or does he/she avoid them?
Is the character harshly self-judgmental?
Is the character uncritical of his/her own behavior?
How would you rate the character's impulse control?
Does the character tend to be superficial?
Is the character decisive? Does he/she weigh and consider all options before acting?
Is the character honest?
Does the character trust others? Do others trust him/her?
Does the character find starting a conversation easy?
Who does the character find easiest to converse with? Who is the hardest?

Defining a Sense of Identity
Does the character possess the ability to distinguish between what is internal? And what is external or is there a pattern of delusional behavior?
Does the character expressing their fantasy life in a realistic fashion?
Does the character defend against their sexual or aggressive desires?
Is the character driven by impulses to the point where there is danger to self or others?
Can the character posses the ability for judgment and adequately anticipate the consequences of their actions?
Does the character see problems as having an internal origin or are all difficulties externalized and blamed on others?
Is the character utilizing such defense mechanisms as repression, projection, or denial?
Does the character espouse realistic ideals or is the character driven by unreachable fantastic goals?

Defining A Sense of Self
Is the character in possession of a durable sense of self? Or is it prone to fragmentation in response to the smallest slight from a friend or family member?
Does the character need to be in the spotlight? Do they need to continually receive affirming responses from others?
Does the character possess the ability to create long term relationships?
Is the character capable of a stabile lifestyle?
Is the character conscious of different social boundaries? Body boundaries?
Is the character capable of industry and enthusiasm? Or is the character subject to feelings of inferiority and inadequacy?
Has the character found "meaning" in their life and are they able to express this sense of meaning in their relationships or vocation?
Is there a defensive manner in the possibility of being observed and judged? Or is the character open to criticism?
How aware is the character of his/herself?
Does the character continually seek the approval of others?
Does the character seek stability in his/her life? Does he/she avoid it?
Does the character ever experience a separation of mind and body?
Does the character ever feel inadequate? When?

Defining Hope and Dreams
What is the worst thing that ever happened to the character?
What is the best thing that ever happened to the character?
What does the character do to relax?
What does the character do for a good time?
What are the character's life goals?
Does the character ever take risks? Does he/she ever take dangerous risks?
How realistic or achievable are the character's goals?
Who is the character's hero? Why?
Does the character ever wish he/she were someone else? Who?
What superstitions does the character have?
Does the character believe in destiny?
How would the character imagine a perfect life?
Is the character's life, as he/she would've imagined?
Does the character think that he/she has lived up to his/her parents' expectations?
Does the character remember his/her dreams?
Is your character an optimist or a pessimist?
Is the character confidant or shy?
If the character had three wishes, what would they be?
Have the character describe himself.

Defining Emotions
How aware is the character of his/her feelings?
How aware is the character to the feelings of others?
How comfortable is the character in expressing his/her feelings?
How does the character express his/her feelings?
What particular emotions is the character most comfortable with?
What particular emotions make the character uncomfortable?
What makes the character depressed? How often is he/she depressed?
What makes the character anxious?
Does the character cry easily? What would make the character cry?
What is the character afraid of? Is this a valid fear, or is it a phobia?
Is the character conceited or vain?
Is the character openly affectionate?
Do people tend to believe the character, or is he/she seen as a phony?
Is the character kindly?
Does the character have an emotional support system? If so, who?
How does the character take care of their emotional needs?
Is the character self-indulgent?
Is the character impulsive?

Defining Social Skills
Are the anti social aspects of the character realized?
Is the character capable of starting a conversation?
Is the character capable of completing a conversation?
Does the character choose the appropriate time and place when engaging in conversation?
Does the character pay attention when someone else is talking?
Does the character pay attention to instructions and carry them out appropriately?
Does the character appreciate things that others have done for them?
Does the character tell others that they are sorry after doing things that are wrong?
How does the character dress?
Which of the character's attributes does he/she accentuate? Which does he/she hide?
Is the character sloppy or neat?
Does the character dress appropriately for his/her age? For the situation?
Describe the character's personal style.

Defining Expression of Feelings
Is the character aware of their feelings?
Does the character appreciate the feelings of others?
Is the character capable of expressing feelings in a socially acceptable manner?
Does the character figure out the reasons for failing in particular situations?
What defenses does the character rely upon to hide their feelings?
Is the character critical of others?
How does the character respond to criticism?
Does the character tend to seek approval?
What does the character refuse to think about?
Who does the character hate and why?
What does the character do in uncomfortable situations?
Does the character have any habits?
Does the character engage in any repetitive behavior?
Does the character tend to avoid eye contact?

Defining Assertiveness
Does the character assert their rights by letting others know where they stand?
Does the character offer help to others who may need or want it?
Does the character tell others when they are responsible for creating a particular problem?
Does the character work towards a fair solution to someone else's complaint?
Is the character capable of controlling his or her temper?
Does the character carefully consider another person's position?
Does the character decide on their own what to do when others pressure him or her to do something?
Can the character communicate feelings and ideas assertively rather than aggressively?
Does the character effectively communicate where he/she stands on an issue?
Is the character fair when it comes to handling a dispute?
How persuasive is the character? What does he/she do to persuade others to come around to his/her way of thinking?
Is the character rash in making decisions?
Is the character realistic in judging his/her own abilities?
How much does the character think ahead and plan?
How much does the character act spontaneously?

Defining How a Character Problem Solves
Is the character capable of deciding which of the number of problems is most important and should be dealt with first?
Does the character consider alternatives and make decisions in his or her best interest?
Does the character realistically decide what he or she can accomplish before beginning a task?
Does the character make those preparations, which will help get the job done?

Defining a Character's Anger
Can the character include anger as part of their personality and allow anger to be expressed naturally?
Is the character able to express anger in a direct fashion?
Are the characters feelings of anger exaggerated or unreasonable?
Can the character appropriately communicate anger to others?
Can the character communicate feelings assertively rather than aggressively?
Can the character regulate their feelings of anger?
When does the character get angry?
Is the character's anger always reasonable? When isn't it?
Does the character have a problem showing anger?
How does the character release his/her aggression?
How does the character show his anger indirectly?
Has the character ever solved a problem through violence?
Defining Mental Health
Is the character able to manage their anxiety? If unmanageable, is it expressed in a hysterical manner or a fixated phobic reaction-like agoraphobia?
Is the character living their life? Or are they in a depressed state of mind?
Does the character suffer from delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, or catatonia?
Is the character an alcoholic or substance abuser? If so, is their abuse impacting their lives? (see DRUG & ALCOHOL)
Does the character suffer from any sleep problems that are impacting their lives?
Are there any medical problems that are affecting the character's mental health behavior-such as Dementia, Cancer, and AIDS?
Has culture, social economic status, gender, sexual orientation, or genetics had a major impact on the character's development?
Has the character been a victim of child abuse, elder abuse, domestic violence, or self-abuse-including suicide attempts?
Is there any major life factors (such as divorce, marriage, death, or job displacement) that have had a role in determining the character's well being?

Defining Drugs and Alcohol
What drugs does the character take? How often?
Has the character ever been in an alcohol or drug treatment program? Should they be?
When does the character use drugs or drink?
What prompts that indulgence?
Does the characters friends and family use drugs or drink too much?
Does the character ever lie about how often they use drugs or alcohol?
Does the character ever use drugs or alcohol to overcome shyness or gain confidence?
Does the character feel he/she should quit using drugs or alcohol, or at least cut down on the frequency or doing so?
Does the character drink too much at the wrong time?
Did the character ever drink or do drugs in the morning?
Are drugs or is drinking causing the character to have problems with his/her family?
Are drugs or is drinking causing the character to have problems at work or in school?
Does the character ever drink or do drugs to escape his/her problems?
Has the character ever been told that he/she drinks too much or has a problem with drugs?
Does the character hide their drinking or drug-taking from family and friends?
Has the character ever been in trouble with the police because or alcohol or drugs?
Has the character ever required medical attention because of drinking or drug taking?
Does the character have to keep using or drinking once they start?
Does the character ever have a blackout?
Does the character drink or do drugs at a particular time every day?
Do either of the character's parents have a problem with drugs or alcohol?
Has the character ever unsuccessfully tried to stop using drugs or alcohol?
Does the character drink or do drugs when he/she is alone?
Is the character getting a bad reputation because of drugs or alcohol?
Is the character's health suffering due to drinking or taking drugs?
Does the character ever go to work or school under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
Does the character ever feel guilty or sad because of drinking or drug taking?
Does the character have money woes because of drinking or drug taking?
Does the character have problems sleeping because of drinking or drug taking?
Does the character put him/herself in dangerous situations because of drugs or alcohol?

Defining a Character in Relationships
Has the character developed the capacity for healthy relationships?
Has the character developed the capacity for intimacy with an appropriate aged partner or is the character still bound to satisfying parental needs?
Do the parent's marital problems play a factor in the character's personality?
Is the character always taking care of others who are less functional and more in need of care taking?
Is the character repeating an old relationship?
Is the character behaving like the person that he wished to be in his parent's eyes?
Does the character view others as being all good or all bad?
What is the character's sexual orientation?
Is the character very sexually driven?
How often does the character have sex?
Does the character find sex satisfying? Why and why not?
Does the character have any fetishes or peccadilloes?
Is the character dating anyone?
Is the character in love?
Is the character married?
Is the character's marriage reflective of his/her parents' marriage? Are the same problems repeating?
Is the character capable of sustaining long-term relationships based on commitment?
What does the character find attractive in another person?
What are the character's most attractive qualities?
Does the character have problems with intimacy?
Is the character monogamous?
Is the character jealous? Possessive?
Has the character ever abused a mate? How?
Has a mate ever abused the character? How?
Why did any previous relationships fail?
Is the character trying to be the person he/she thinks that his/her parents want them to be?
Who are the most important people in the character's life?
Does the character tend to avoid people?
Does the character hate to be alone?
Does the character have a problem with meeting people and making friends?
Is the character comfortable in social situations?
Is the character the life of the party?
Does the character have a lot of friends?
Who are the character's friends?
Who is the character's best friend?
Who is the character's hero? Why?
Does the character tend to enter into relationships where he/she must take care of the other person?
Does the character choose partners and friends who are harmful or manipulative?
Does the character ever display masochistic tendencies in relationships?
Is the character usually a victim?
Does the character tend to be self-destructive?

Characterization 101 by Nancy Carter

Characterization 101
by Nancy Carter
Characterization is the most important element in storytelling. Great characterization is the number-one reason editors buy new authors, and weak characterization is the number-one reason for rejecting a manuscript. All 15 of the eHarlequin.com community members who sold novels last year had one thing in common: they created strong characters that readers could engage with.
Editors know that (most) plot problems can be fixed, but the fundamentals of building strong characters have to be in place before they get interested and excited about a manuscript from a new author.
We read to emotionally engage with the characters in the story. Their emotional growth and change is what keeps us turning the pages. Brilliant characterization makes us want to shake Scarlett O'Hara and ask "What the heck are you thinking to be stuck on Ashley Wilkes when Rhett is so obviously your soul mate?" It's why we know to our bones that Jane Eyre is the perfect mate for Rochester.
Like plotting, there's no one way to go about the process of creating characters with depth and dimension. Every author has her own approach with her own set of tools in her writer's toolbox to help her. And, like plotting, characters evolve and emerge as you write — and rewrite — your story. This process develops your ear for when your characters are coming alive.
Growth Is Everything
The first novel Sharon Sala sold, Sara's Angel, begins with: "Mackenzie Hawk watched in silence as the only person he had ever loved was buried beneath six feet of the driest, rock-hard earth in Oklahoma. It was oddly fitting that the old woman's final resting place was where she had existed in life: between a rock and a hard place." In two short sentences, the reader learns nearly everything they need to know about the hero: his grandmother is dead, he's had a troubled life, and now he's alone in the world.
Nobody writes wounded heroes better than Sharon. "One night I had this vivid dream and I just got up and wrote this scene where a woman stands in a bar and sees this man walk out of the shadows with a duffle bag hung across his shoulder that 'looked like a cross between a chip and the weight of the world.' I love the tough guy with the core vulnerability: he'll fight to the death, but that one little thing will break him."
Dreaming is Sharon's key writing tool. "I dream all of my stories: literally everything — the dialogue, the characters, the plot. I see them like movies in my dreams." She has honed and developed this skill over the years. "If I'm having a problem with something in my story, I'll think about that just before I fall asleep. During the night I will dream the solution to the problem."
The other tool she relies on for every new main character is the list: "I make a list with how tall they are, how old they are, what they do for a living, their favorite color, their favorite food, something that makes them angry, something that makes them laugh, their special skill, what pisses them off, and the one thing they're afraid of." From here she can layer in all the nuances that give her characters so much depth and dimension. "And if you make a big issue out of the thing they're afraid of, you better make sure that they have to face and overcome it in your story."
A turning point for beginning writers is when they really learn the concept of showing, not telling — particularly when it comes to characterization. "It's the difference between writing 'He went jogging,' and writing 'The sun was hot on his face and the sweat burned his eyes. He wished he'd worn his headband. The ankle he'd turned last week still ached.'"
Her characters' need to grow is at the heart of her stories. "Even if you've got a kidnapping, you've got a big old tornado, you've got floods, whatever, for them to overcome, it's what's inside that makes us care about them. Whatever conflict or crutch or block they have to begin with, they have to learn it, face it, maybe grieve it if that's what's called for, and overcome it by the end."
"Maybe you've given the reader a picture of a woman who was physically abused by her husband. She doesn't have a thought in her head that she's capable of anything. Then somewhere in that story she's going to have to grow beyond that. She's got to learn to stand up for herself. Not in some piddly, 'I'm going to tell my boss off' way, but in very dramatic circumstances. She may be bawling all the way through it, she may be shaking and throwing up, but she's got the guts to do it. That is the growth the reader wants from a character. Always."
Keeping It Simple
For Kathleen O'Brien, getting to know her characters when she starts a story is like going on a blind date. "You've done your research; you know their name and their basic stats, but you don't really feel comfortable with them. Things are stilted at first. You write those opening scenes, and as you continue, you find yourself going back and readjusting your view of this person. Once you get to know each other better, you're more comfortable. They can make jokes, you can make jokes with them, and you can allow them to let their hair down."
Eventually, Kathleen wants to know her characters as well as she knows her best friend. "When I first started writing, I made up this fifty point questionnaire. Answering this can be a weeklong process, and you have to have answers that make sense, but I still use this if I find myself stuck with a character."
One of Kathleen's secret weapons for creating great characters is the "defining sentence." "It's ultra simplistic, but it's where I always begin. For example, I would describe Jane Eyre like this: 'Jane is a timid orphan who must finally find a home of her own.'" The sentence structure is always the same: an adjective, then a noun, concluding with a clause that describes where the character will end up when the story ends. "The noun is easy because that will be whatever career or life situation they're in, like mother, daughter, aunt, orphan, etc. The adjective is the hardest: this is where you must find the one characteristic that truly defines them; that constitutes their dilemma that they must overcome. There are dozens of adjectives you could use for Jane, but timid best describes what she has to confront. This is followed by where they'll end up. This is your character arc." And once she finds this sentence, everything else will fall into place.
Keeping focus on this simple and specific arc has two benefits: it ensures that her characters will grow, and it prevents them from being burdened with too many traits. "The characters we remember so well, like Scarlett O'Hara, have this simple, defining trait. Scarlett's intense selfishness as she goes on that journey toward caring about someone else is really dramatic and effective. Margaret Mitchell didn't try to soften it or mitigate it — she was fearless in letting her be that one thing: selfish."
Balancing characters' flaws with likeability can be a tricky juggling act. Hannibal Lechter will never be a romance hero. In the case of Scarlett, Mitchell also gave her flawed heroine a kind of street smarts and grit that the reader can admire and engage with. "I think apathy is the worst emotion you can invoke. Readers need characters they want to spend time with. Writers who create characters who walk that tightrope have created magic."
Putting limits on the amount of work you put into creating characters ahead of time is smart. "Go ahead and write the scenes. See what your characters do, listen to what they say, watch how they react, then be ready to throw some of the early scenes away if you have to. The blind date is often the date you want to forget, even if you go on to marry that person. Getting too bogged down in questionnaires may distract you from watching how they act on the page — the place where they really come alive. This is where the two of you will get to know each other, and you can take this and start over."
Trust Your Subconscious
Bronwyn Jameson also uses a character template, but, like Kathleen, she has pared down the amount of preparation she does before writing. "I need answers to questions about goals and aspirations, needs and wants, values and attitudes, since they're the things that will shape the story." Armed with this background, she starts writing. "I love that sense of discovery, where I'm writing along and suddenly there's a line of dialogue, spoken or internal, that exposes a whole new aspect of the character. Maybe it leads to a different or better story angle I hadn't thought about before. The subconscious works in magical ways."
That's not to say that you don't develop your character's back story. "I usually start at the situation or setup and then work backward, asking the necessary questions to find out what got them into this situation, why it's important to each character, how they feel about what's going on. The crucial things I need to know about each character: what is most important to them? I'm talking the big concepts here: security, home, family, love, acceptance, respect, wealth — and why? One of my favorite questions is, 'What is the worst thing that could happen in your life right now?' The answer's handy not only for characterization but also for plot development."
Writers, like readers, bond with characters through their struggle to overcome their vulnerabilities and fears. "I like proactive characters who make decisions, maybe not always the right ones, but understandable ones, and then act upon them: characters who drive the story action, rather than letting it all rain down upon them." This is the key to writing characters who will come alive for the reader.
"There will be a point when I actually hear her voice or see the tilt of his smile and it's different from any other character I've written before. I'll know I'm connecting when I start to feel the same visceral reactions — like I'm feeling sick with worry, or tense with anxiety, and my heart is racing or my chest is tight."
When writers know how to listen, characters can also send signals. "I've learned that when my story progress stops it's because I've taken a wrong turn. I've had my character do something he or she wouldn't and it's brought my writing to a halt. Rather than a negative, I see this as a positive sign that my characters are alive and objecting!"
Practice Makes Perfect
Character sketches are Cathy Yardley's starting point with every new story. "I use a process where I write about a random day in the life of this character. What does she do? Where does she go? What does she see? I'll also describe her favorite room. This gets me in touch with who this person is under the surface stuff, and allows me to find the details that will bring out that characterization."
Getting beyond stereotypes is vital. "You want your characters to have their own agendas, no matter how much you plan. They have to be empathetic, but they shouldn't be always admirable — that can be boring. But you always want to know what their goal is and what they will do to achieve it. This will dictate how your story runs. And it's got to be the same goal throughout your story, no changing goals in the middle."
Cathy's key tools for creating characters that jump off the page are prewriting and practice writing. "Prewriting is all the work you do before you start writing your story: all your research. Some people are seat-of-their-pants writers, with the result that their prewriting is an early draft: simply working with the book and getting the details that they need. Practice writing actually has nothing to do with the story. This is writing about the time when you were most frightened in your life, or writing about your feelings for the first love of your life, and your first broken heart; anything that is emotionally big and difficult to write about. The more you get used to working with this kind of emotion, the more it translates into your fiction writing."
She knows her characters are really coming alive when she laughs at their jokes. "Or, if it's a dark scene, I know I'm doing something right when it's hard to write." Getting characterization right is fundamental to writing good fiction. "If you don't have strong characters, there's no reason for the reader to keep turning the pages. I don't slight the importance of plot, but I think all plot comes from character. If your characters aren't alive and emotionally engaging and driving the plot, your story's going nowhere."
Characterization 101
April Homework
Make sure you know your characters.
1) Create detailed character worksheets for your main characters. This usually means your heroine and hero, but could include one or two key secondary characters depending on the type of story you're telling.
Use whichever template you like, we have one here. Along with all the details, make sure you have answered the questions that will help you define your character's goals, motivations and conflict:
- What are they most afraid of?
- What do they want most in life?
- What would be the worst thing that could happen to them right now?
While experienced writers often find that they can pare down on this preparation, this is a very useful process for writers learning how to give their characters depth and believability.
2) Try to write the single defining sentence about your heroine and your hero.
This won't be easy, but it's a great exercise. Actors use this to find their way into their characters. Make it something that packs an emotional punch. For example, Cate is a struggling single mom and waitress who secretly dreams of a more secure life for herself and her daughter. Jake is an unsettled undercover cop who, having grown up in foster homes, is trying to figure out where he belongs.
3) Are your hero and heroine the yin to her yang? Do their personalities, conflicts, required growth elements make them each others perfect romantic partner?
4) Create brief character worksheets for your key secondary characters.
You want to be able to see and hear them, so make sure you know what they look like and their personal style (of dress, what car they drive, etc.). You also want to be able to hear their pattern of speech, so where are they from? How old are they? What is their relationship to the hero and heroine? What are their basic wants in life?
5) If your story has a villain — whether a murderer or the land developer or the other woman — make sure he or she isn't a stereotype. Fill in a character worksheet for your villain. This prevents you from falling into the trap of making him/her a cardboard cutout. Does he like dogs? Does he send his mother flowers on her birthday? Does he eat a cinnamon donut and coffee for breakfast every day?
Great villains are always fascinating. These are the characters who make heroines and heroes out of otherwise average folk, so the more dynamic your villain, the better your heroine will be. Get to know your villain as a human being, albeit a deeply flawed one.
6) Find pictures of your main characters.
Flip through magazines until you find the photographs that jump out at you as your heroine and hero. Look for expression and attitude more than face and figure. Attach this to your character template.
If you've already done all of the above, then step back and look at where you're at with your manuscript. Have you broken through the blind date anxiety and started to feel comfortable with your main characters? Maybe you need to keep writing a few more scenes, or maybe you need to go back and review or revise some of the steps above.
Keep Writing
By now, beginners should be well into their first draft. You will find that this character homework will give you new insights and a better feel for your characters' voices. If you're in the 'blind date' stage, trust that this is the normal getting-to-know-you awkwardness that most writers face at the start of a new story.
If you're working on revisions, or further along in your writing process, double-check to make sure your characters are indeed driving your plot, not letting it "rain down on them." Are they proactive in the face of all external events; making choices and decisions that keep them moving forward? Have you followed up action scenes with an "emotional mirror" that shows us how the character feels about what's happening?

INTENSIVE CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONS

Psychogenic Inventory

A psychogenic inventory is the general guideline, an evolving method, individual to each psychiatric professional, which is the basis for psychological analysis. The following 312 question inventory was implemented in the 50's by psychoanalyst Benjamin Karpman who studied criminal sexual psychopaths at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Washington D.C.

...and is a general overview of the actual Inventory and does not include, for example, certain questions specific, unique and structured for each individual case.
Family History (1-7)
1. Describe each of your paternal grandparents. If they are dead and you have no memory of them or had no childhood association with them, tell whatever you have heard about them from others. If possible, state the age at which each died, the age you were at the time of their deaths, and the cause of death in each case.

2. Describe each of your maternal grandparents. If they are dead and you have no memory of them or had no childhood association with them, tell whatever you have heard about them from others. If possible, state the age at which each died, the age you were at the time of their deaths, and the cause of death in each case.

3. Describe your father. Tell something about his characteristics, personality, habits; his attitude toward you and your attitude toward him, taking this through various stages of your development; also his attitude toward other children in the family (if there are other children), through various periods of his life. If he is dead, state his age at the time of death and the cause of his death. Describe in detail the reaction of the family to his death and the effect his death had on the subsequent fortunes of the family. If he is living, but suffers from any particular disease, handicap, or chronic ailment, give some account of this. In the event that you have a stepfather, describe him to the same extent that you have been asked to describe your father, stating the age at which he became your stepfather, and the circumstances under which your mother remarried.

4. Describe you mother. Tell something about her characteristics, personality, habits; her attitude toward you and your attitude toward her, taking this through various stages of your development; also her attitude toward other children in the family (if there are other children), through various periods of her life. If she is dead, state her age at the time of death and the cause of her death. Describe in detail the reaction of the family to her death and the effect her death had on the subsequent fortunes of the family. If she is living, but suffers from a particular disease, handicap, or chronic ailment, give some account of this. In the event that you have a stepmother, describe her to the same extent that you have been asked to describe your mother, stating the age at which she became your stepmother, and the circumstances under which your father remarried.

5. Describe: (a) any paternal and/or maternal uncles and aunts who have lived in or visited your home and who played any appreciable part in your life, or in the life of your family, in the same manner as you have described each of your parents, (b) any other relatives -- cousins, nephews, nieces, in laws, etc.

6. Describe each of your siblings, in the order of their birth, stating in each case how much older or how much younger they are than yourself. Include any brother or sister that has died, stating in each instance your age at the time of their death as well as the age he or she died and the cause of death. In the event that you have half-brothers, half-sisters, stepbrothers or stepsisters, describe them also, stating your age at the time of your first association with them.

7. Do know whether any member of your family, or any near relative, suffered from heart disease, tuberculosis, cancer, epilepsy, or from any kind of physical or mental disturbance? Was any member of your family, or any near relative, ever confined to a mental hospital, either private or public? If so, tell whatever you know concerning the reason for such confinement. Did any member of your family, or near relative, commit suicide? If so, tell whatever you know about this. Did any member of your family, or near relative, ever serve a prison sentence? If so, tell whatever you know about the circumstances. Has any member of your family ever been charged with, or committed a murder?
Family Situation (8-10)
8. Give a full and detailed account of your home life, the general atmosphere which prevailed in the family circle, including the following:

(a) Your parents' attitude toward each other;
(b) Your parents' attitude toward the children; any special favoritism or its opposite shown toward any of the children;
(c) The economic circumstances, the influence of money or the effects of lack of money;
(d) Your parents' attitude toward religion, and its effects on the children;
(e) The relations which existed among the children;
(f) The family activities, amusements, cultural interests, etc.;
(g) The effects of alcohol, gambling, social climbing, or any other unusual factor which influenced the family life.

9. As a child, did you have a distinct fondness for one parent over the other; or were you equally fond of both of them? If you had a decided preference for one, which one and why?

10. As a child, did you have a decided preference or dislike for any one of your siblings? If so, for which one, and why? Did this preference or dislike subsequently undergo a change or modification, or did it persist into adulthood?
Personal History (11-50)
A. Birth and Infancy

11. What have you been told, if anything, about your birth? Do you know whether it was normal, easy, difficult, instrumental, premature, Caesarean, etc.?

12. What have you been told, if anything, about your nursing period in infancy? Do you know whether you were breast-fed or bottle-fed or both? If both, do you know when you were switched from breast to bottle? Have you been told anything about the weaning period? Do you know at what age you were weaned, and whether you were weaned easily or with difficulty? Have you been told anything about any other aspects of your infancy, e.g., whether you were a generally contented or an irritable infant, a cry-baby, or anything about any other personality traits, characteristics, etc., which you exhibited as an infant?

B. Early Childhood

13. Can you remember anything about, or can you recall anything that you have been told about, the period of toilet training? Can you remember any thoughts or feelings about, or reactions to, urine, feces, or toilet functions? Have you any childhood memories associated with the bathroom?

14. Do you know whether you have suffered from enuresis ( bed-wetting )? If you did, have you been told anything about this difficulty, e.g., the measures taken to combat it; how long it lasted, etc.? If you have any conscious memory of this, tell as much about it as you remember. If bed-wetting was a problem which persisted to a comparatively late period -- pre-puberty, puberty, adolescence, etc. -- give a full and complete account of this, and state the precise age at which it ceased to become a problem.

15. Did you have during any particular period of childhood any manifestations of nervousness, e.g., nail-biting; any peculiar mannerisms, etc.? If so, at what age did these occur and how long did they last?

16. Do you know, or have you been told, whether or not you sucked your thumb as a child? If so, how long did you persist in this habit? Were there any thumb substitutes that you know of or have been told about?

17. Did you as a child have any particular difficulties in connection with eating? Did you have to be urged to eat? Did you have a tendency to overeat? Tell whatever you can remember, or whatever you have been told, about this, and state the age represented by the period in question.

18. What can you remember, or what have you been told, about your disposition as a child? Did you have temper tantrums? Did you sulk? Did you have fits of obstinacy? Tell anything and everything that you can remember, or that you have been told, about you childhood disposition.

19. What were the sleeping arrangements that existed in your home when you were a child? Did you sleep in the same bed with your parents, or with either of them, and if so, for how long? For how long did you sleep in the same room with one or both of them? Did you sleep in the same bed with any of your siblings, and if so, for how long? For how long did you sleep in the same room with any of them? Describe any other sleeping arrangements not covered by the preceding questions.

20. What was the general state of your health as a child? What childhood diseases did you have? Did you have any serious illnesses in childhood? If so, give an account of it. did you have any serious accidents as a child? If so, describe. How did you react to various sicknesses? Did you enjoy the attention given to you on such occasions; or did you have an indifferent or even painful reaction? Did you suffer any disabilities as a result of sickness?

21. Did you at any time during childhood develop the habit of "running away"? If so, where would you go and for how long would you be gone? What age is represented by this period? Have you any memory of the reasons which you thought you had for this behavior?

22. As a child were you bashful or bold; timid or fearless? Were you seclusive, or did you make friends easily? Tell as much as you can about how you reacted in the presence of others.

23. Can you remember any outstanding childhood fears? If so, describe them, and state your age at the time you had them. Do you know of any particular experiences which caused them, or was their development independent of any external circumstances that you can remember?

24. Did you have any terrifying dreams or nightmares as a child? Of so, can you remember the general nature of these, or can you remember them in any detail? At what age did they occur? How did you react to them? Were you comforted or reassured afterwards by either of your parents, or by any other person? If so, give some account of the manner in which you received such comfort or assurance.

25. Were you troubled at any time during childhood or youth with insomnia ( inability to
sleep )? Did you ever walk or talk in your sleep? If so, give a full account of these sleep disturbances -- year of origin, frequency, duration, etc. Did you ever get into any difficulty on account of that? Can you recall any special circumstance which started you on sleepwalking?

26. As a child, were there any particular things which you particularly liked or disliked to do; any places where you particularly liked or disliked to go; any substances which you particu