What do Popples® have to do with Characterization?

I've spent week before last monitoring Popples® on eBay.

Yes, you read right. Popples®.

Anybody out there remember these furry little marsupial-like toys from Hasbro? Back in the day, I had the one pictured, Puffball. 

This vintage toy is going for the low, low price of $49.95. And in a week-long fog of insanity, I nearly pressed the Buy It Now! button several times.

One, because this would serve my need for immediate gratification.

Two, because I love the idea of being reunited with a beloved toy from my childhood. In fact, love it so much that I was almost willing to part with 50 bones for this reunion.

(And would, in fact, have done so if my husband hadn't looked at me and said, "What on earth are you going to do with that?" I didn't have a good answer. I mean, I wouldn't let my daughter play with this "un-matted" vintage toy that I put down major bucks for...so it would likely sit on a shelf or in a drawer. I saw his point and bootlegged the picture for old times sake.)

But it got me thinking about people in general, and of course, our characters, which we model after real folks. Folks who have moments of insanity like this. Folks who have fond remembrances and affinities for things from our childhood. It says a lot about our character to form these attachments.

I'm not big on character forms, but a little character exercise every once in a while never hurt anyone. Answer the questions below to get to know your MC a little better.

1. What decade did your character grow up in?

2. Use this link to search for toys that correspond with that era. [WARNING: Potential time suck.]

3. Select a toy that you could imagine your character being willing to pay $50+ for 25 years later.

4. What feelings does this toy evoke in your character? Why?

Let's Analyze

Learn anything new...about yourself or your character? How many minutes did you just use up exclaiming over some of those old toys that you knew and loved?

How to Develop Your Character's Achilles' Heel

It shouldn't be a newsflash for writers that readers don't want to read about perfect characters. We like 'em flawed, preferably more so than ourselves.

Everybody's Got Problems by Doug Savage

But what does this really mean, to say that something or someone is your character's "Achilles' heel?"

In Greek mythology, Achilles was predicted to die young. His mother Thetis didn't accept this prognosis and took him to the River Styx, where she proceeded to dip him in, as the river offered powers of invulnerability. She, ah, held him by the heel, so it didn't get washed in the water, which was why he was vulnerable from physical harm there.

The term "Achilles' heel" has come to mean an area of weakness or a vulnerable spot. It can by external, such as the oft-cited Indiana Jones' fear of snakes, or it can be internal, such as the evil wizard Voldermort's inability to love and form friendships.

The mythology behind the term is helpful to me. Achilles' mother blanketed him, so to speak, to prevent harm. Characters blanket themselves in the same way, putting on coats of armor to prevent others from seeing the parts of us that need work. And it's the author's job to crack that armor through plot, which is the fun part of writing. (Click to tweet!)

But how do you go about developing this? Here are a few ideas:

1) Hint at the vulnerability early on in the story.

Even within the first few pages, you can give the reader a glimpse that all's not well with your hero or heroine. The character can brush off someone's concern, allude to a secret, avoid a particular person...the possibilities are endless. But throwing the reader a bone early on is a necessity.

2) Have the character share page space with their vulnerability.

What do I mean by this? A character who's oblivious to their problems isn't a character people want to read about. So how do the two meet on the page? You can do this a couple of different ways:

• Character denies the problem itself.
• Character accepts the problem, but sees no need to change.
• Character not only accepts the problem, but wants to change.

All of the above can form interesting character arcs. If a character denies their Achilles' heel, they are, in essence, acknowledging it. (Think about that.) Another good way to have the two share page space it in having your character expend time/money/energy in overcoming the problem. Denial can be expensive and timely to maintain.

3) Your plot eventually has to circle around the vulnerability.

At some point, the vulnerability has to take front and center. The main character duels with his greatest fear or biggest problem in a standoff that usually happens at the climax of the book. It's even better when you bring in the nemesis (if you have one) to capitalize on the opportunity.

4) Work out a realistic resolution.

Not everyone can pull an Indiana Jones and overcome their phobia of snakes in order to defeat the bad guys, get the girl, and save the world. In fact, I'd say most people can't. Character's don't have to overcome their fear, just face it. And it was apparent in later Indiana Jones flicks that he still hated snakes, even after his exposure therapy session in a pit where he faced them.

Just be real with the outcome of your story. If your character's flaw is alcoholism, that's going to be a flaw forever. True addiction doesn't just come and go (aside from miracles). But it could be possible for them to walk into a bar to save an old friend and not get sloshed. It's likely not possible for them to just have one sip. That's not realistic.

Let's Analyze

Do you find internal or external vulnerabilities better to read about? Why?

Revealing Your Character's Vulneralbilities For Maximum Impact

I know I said that I was going to wrap up the Archetype series posts, but I've decided to do that within my new Writer's Guide to Character Archetypes. I'll be sure to let you know when that hits my store.

Instead, I wanted to share something personal and then apply it to writing.

Yesterday, in church, my husband and I gave our faith journeys. Now to those outside of religious circles, this might seem mystifying. However, all this really means is being candid about the ups and downs of our life, and how we viewed these events in light of our personal beliefs.

With that definition, everyone has a faith journey. Let's call it our vulnerabilities.

The circumstances had to be just right for us to open ourselves up like we did. We've been attending for over three years, and we had yet to share the majority of what we said with anyone.

This got me thinking about our characters, and how the vast majority of them end up sharing a pivotal point in their past with someone in their present, whether willingly or not, and this is a big part of their character arc. Coming to peace with past sins, rejections, closed doors, disappointments... and communicating this to someone important...easier said than done.

What makes someone ready to share?

Is it external? The character is annoyed or resigned to have to share, brow-beaten by someone to give up their juicy tidbits, or survival demands it.

Is it internal? If the character doesn't share, they'll regret it forever, or they are trying to win the love of someone, or the end outweighs the sacrifice of sharing.

Which is more powerful, at least in terms of character development?

Internal motivations. (Click to tweet!)

If we had been strong-armed into sharing rather than asked and given a choice, it would have been an entirely different presentation. We might have left things out. We might have fudged on a few details...just to get you out of our hair.

Yet, if my motivation of sharing my vulnerabilities was to move you, inspire you, connect with you through the use of my story, my history, my dark moments, then it's bound to be more powerful and come across the written page as such.

Let's Analyze

Have you ever thought about what prompts your characters to finally open up? Situational circumstances? Emotional readiness? What do you think about my opinion as to which is more powerful?

Character Clinic: Lila Oleander

Happy May Day, everyone! I've got the wonderful Jessica R. Patch's contemporary romance character, Lila, on the couch today, courtesy of her having won my last How Does That Make You Feel? giveaway. (There is still time to get a comment in my latest HDTMYF post and win a mini-assessment for one of your character's...click here!)

Here's a bit about Lila: After her mother passed away when Lila was 12, she grew up trying to garner the attention and approval of her Fortune 500 company CEO dad. She took an interest in the company, and was good at it, earning her position. She's a New York city gal, so her dad's request to move to his former hometown of Glory, MS---to "discover the meaning of life" and better understand the values he built his company on---doesn't sit well. Lila is a private 28-year-old, almost aloof, who doesn't like to admit failures or weaknesses to anyone.

Jessica wants to know: How can Lila be likable to readers and gain sympathy while being true to her guarded nature and impersonal behavior?

Gaining reader sympathy isn't the objective so much as making readers relate to your character. (click to tweet!). Characters in books and film have personalities we might not like, or would never associate with in real life, but enjoy reading about and watching on TV.

There will be scores of women who will relate to Lila's drive to succeed, or perhaps to her desperate need for her father's approval. These traits are likely to be apparent from scene 1. But you can also capitalize on the things mentioned in her intake form that give readers a reason to look up to her, such as her love of helping underprivileged women.

To further this point, I still stand by an earlier blog post that touts Steven James as one of the most masterful storytellers in that he gives his evil, serial-killing bad guys this soft spot...one that makes readers totally relate to a PSYCHO. It's actually a bit disturbing, when you're kinda sorta hoping said psycho won't get his comeuppance in the end. Of course we don't like like the guy. He's a murderer. But we do like his love of dogs, or respect of women.

It's no different for your character, at least at the start of the novel when she's in her precontemplative stage. She's guarded, but based on her intake form, it's not real clear why. It's motivation, not execution of action, that make or break a reader's ability to relate to a character (click to tweet!).

For example, if she's reserved because at one point in her history, she stuck her neck out and it got chopped off (to use a cliché b/c it's late and I'm tired), then I believe readers will totally buy in to her reservations...even better, applaud her for them. But you've got to hint at this motivation very early on, so they can suspend disbelief long enough for you to unravel her backstory as necessary.

Hope that Lila has enjoyed her time on the couch today...it was a short session, but fun!

Let's Analyze

How do you make your own character's flaws very apparent at the beginning of the book, yet not so much so that they turn off readers or make your characters hard to relate to?

Wanna Talk About Good Girls and Bad Boys?

Then join me as I guest post on the ACFW blog!

This post coincides with my first column for the ACFW Journal on the same topic (which is a fully interactive digital ezine and print magazine for ACFW members only).

But unlike a magazine, the purpose is to generate a discussion amongst authors and readers about the trend in fiction of good girls "saving" bad boys.

So come show me some comment love! I'll be ever-so-grateful. :)

A New Question to Ask Your Characters

There's a new push in the mental health field, and I'm proud to say that California truly is on the cutting edge of this research. It's being called trauma-focused perspective or having a "trauma lens" with regards to treatment and diagnosis.

With the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th Edition, coming out in the next month or so, changes are being made to how trauma is defined, determined, and dealt with.

It's becoming very clear that most people have some sort of trauma in their background. It's not so much a question of IF the person has trauma, but HOW MUCH trauma they have. Therapists who do not assess for trauma are doing their clients an injustice.

So how should this inform your writing?

The medical model influences the way we think about a lot of things. Instead of looking at positives and strengths, we often focus on areas of weakness or symptoms. As a result, a typical question to our characters (and to other people) is couched this way:

What is wrong with you?

There is an assumption when reading (and writing) a book that something is wrong with the characters...something that needs to be fixed before the end of the book.

Character's can't remain static, they have to change. We use the character flaw to inform our writing and the character arc process, much like a therapist uses a diagnosis to inform treatment. Flaws need to be "healed" or at the very least improved upon by novel's end.

But I'd like to propose another question that you should ask your character, based on the field of psychology and the trauma lens that we need to view people (and characters!) through:

What has happened to you?

This is a huge shift from thinking about symptoms (flaws, if you will) and thinking about story. No one develops a flaw in isolation or out of the blue. Their environment, family, friends, etc., all play a role in shaping that character, giving them a reason to do what they do, or think the way they do.

What this question is really asking for is BACKSTORY.

Having a solid understanding of your character's background, their upbringing, their family dynamics, whether or not they had an attachment to caregivers, their social supports...all of this factors into the development of their flaw, which is where your story starts, in medias res (in the middle of things), before their world gets rocked by the call to action.

A character's flaw does not define them. Their backstory gives context to the flaw's development. (Click to tweet!)

So take time to understand your character's backstory. It'll be the skeleton on which you hang the muscles and skin of your story. Just like a real skeleton, the readers will never see it, but it will govern and guide the story start to finish.

Let's Analyze

What do you think about asking the new question of "What happened to you?" instead of "What's wrong with you?" How might this impact your understanding of characterization...and people in general?

Character Flaws: When is Too Far Too Far?

Have you ever put down a book because the issues the author gave the main character pushed the envelop too far?

I think as authors, our minds are more than capable of producing evil that would curl Satan's toes. But if we let it all out, no holds barred, would our readers eat it up or toss it out? Reading is a personal past time, and we all come to the written page with baggage that might effect whether we enjoy a book's premise.

Still, I'm curious about which flaws my readership think are too heavy or too evil to include in fiction. Is everything game, or are there some flaws that are over-the-top?

Here's a list of character flaws, compiled by Dark World RPG. Take a look and see if any jump out at you as "too bad," then put your thoughts in the comment section. 

• Absentminded- Preoccupied to the extent of being unaware of one's immediate surroundings. Abstracted, daydreaming, inattentive, oblivious, forgetful.
• Abusive- Characterized by improper infliction of physical or psychological maltreatment towards another.
• Alcoholic- A person who drinks alcoholic substances habitually and to excess or who suffers from alcoholism.
• Addict- One who is addicted, as to narcotics or a compulsive activity. (gambling, drugs, sex, etc. List specific addiction.)
• Aimless- Devoid of direction or purpose.
• Anxious- Full of mental distress or uneasiness because of fear of danger or misfortune; greatly worried; solicitous.
• Arrogant- Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. Inclined to social exclusiveness and who rebuff the advances of people considered inferior. Snobbish.
• Audacious- Recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; braze, disobedient.
• Bigmouth- A loudmouthed or gossipy person.
• Bigot- One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
• Blunt- Characterized by directness in manner or speech; without subtlety or evasion. Frank, callous, insensitive, brusque.
• Bold- In a bad sense, too forward; taking undue liberties; over assuming or confident; lacking proper modesty or restraint; rude; impudent. Abrupt, brazen, cheeky, brassy, audacious.
• Callous- They are hardened to emotions, rarely showing any form of it in expression. Unfeeling. Cold.
• Childish- Marked by or indicating a lack of maturity; puerile.
• Complex- An exaggerated or obsessive concern or fear. (List specific complex.)
• Cruel- Mean to anyone or anything, without care or regard to consequences and feelings.
• Cursed- A person who has befallen a prayer for evil or misfortune, placed under a spell, or borne into an evil circumstance, and suffers for it. Damned.
• Dependent- Unable to exist, sustain oneself, or act appropriately or normally without the assistance or direction of another.
• Deranged- Mentally decayed. Insane. Crazy. Mad. Psychotic.
• Disloyal- Lacking loyalty. Unfaithful, perfidious, traitorous, treasonable
• Disorder- An ailment that affects the function of mind or body. (List the disorders name if they have one.) See the Mental Disorder List.
• Disturbed- Showing some or a few signs or symptoms of mental or emotional illness. Confused, disordered, neurotic, troubled.
• Dubious- Fraught with uncertainty or doubt. Undecided, doubtful, unsure.
• Dyslexic- Affected by dyslexia, a learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words.
• Egotistical- Characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance. Boastful, pompous.
• Envious- Showing extreme cupidity; painfully desirous of another's advantages; covetous, jealous.
• Erratic- Deviating from the customary course in conduct or opinion; eccentric: erratic behavior. Eccentric, bizarre, outlandish, strange.
• Fanaticism- Fanatic outlook or behavior especially as exhibited by excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions on some subject.
• Fickle- Characterized by erratic changeableness or instability, especially with regard to affections or attachments; capricious.
• Fierce- Marked by extreme intensity of emotions or convictions; inclined to react violently; fervid; "fierce loyalty"; "in a tearing rage"; "vehement dislike"; "violent passions".
• Finicky- Excessively particular or fastidious; difficult to please; fussy. Too much concerned with detail. Meticulous, fastidious, choosy, critical, picky, prissy, persnickety.
• Fixation- In psychoanalytic theory, a strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life. Fetish, quirk, obsession, infatuation.
• Flirt-To make playfully romantic or sexual overtures; behavior intended to arouse sexual interest. Minx. Tease.
• Fools Love- A person who is always falling in love or believes they are in love, for the wrong person or even multiple people (usually one after another), and typically love at first sight. Star-crossed, ill-fated-love.
• Frail- Physically weak and easily broken or damaged. Having delicate health; not robust. Feeble, breakable, sickly, dainty, brittle, fallible, imperfect, weak.
• Fraudulent- Given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest. Deceitful, deceptive, crooked, underhanded.
• Gluttonous- Given to excess in consumption of especially food or drink. Voracious, ravenous, wolfish, piggish, insatiable.
• Gruff-Brusque or stern in manner or appearance. Crusty, rough, surly.
• Gullible- Will believe any information given, regardless of how valid or truthful it is, easily deceived or duped.
• Habit- A rather revolting personal habit. (List habit- picks nose, spits tobacco everywhere, drools profusely, bad body odor, etc.)
• Hard- A person who is difficult to deal with, manage, control, overcome, or understand. Hard emotions, hard hearted.
• Hedonistic- Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
• Hoity-toity- Given to flights of fancy; capricious; frivolous. Prone to giddy behavior, flighty.
• Humorless- The inability to find humor in things, and most certainly in themselves.
• Hypocritical- One who is always contradicting their own beliefs, actions or sayings. A person who professes beliefs and opinions for others that he does not hold. Being a hypocrite.
• Idealist- One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations. One who is unrealistic and impractical, guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.
• Idiotic- Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless.
• Ignorant- Lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge.
• Illiterate- Unable to read and write.
• Impatient- Unable to wait patiently or tolerate delay; restless. Unable to endure irritation or opposition; intolerant.
• Impious- Lacking piety and reverence for a god/gods and their followers.
• Incompetent- Unable to execute tasks, no matter how the size or difficulty.
• Indecisive- Characterized by lack of decision and firmness, especially under pressure.
• Indifferent- The trait of lacking enthusiasm for or interest in things generally, remaining calm and seeming not to care; a casual lack of concern. Having or showing little or no interest in anything; languid; spiritless.
• Infamy- Having an extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous act that affects how others view them.
• Intolerant- Unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion and narrow-minded about cherished opinions.
• Immature- Emotionally undeveloped; juvenile; childish.
• Impish- Naughtily or annoyingly playful.
• Judgmental- Inclined to make and form judgments, especially moral or personal ones, based on ones own opinions or impressions towards others/practices/groups/religions based on appearance, reputation, occupation, etc.
• Klutz- Clumsy. Blunderer.
• Lazy- Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness.
• Lewd- Inclined to, characterized by, or inciting to lust or lechery; lascivious. Obscene or indecent, as language or songs; salacious.
• Liar- Compulsively and purposefully tells false truths more often than not. A person who has lied or who lies repeatedly.
• Lustful- Driven by lust; preoccupied with or exhibiting lustful desires.
• Masochist- The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
• Meddlesome- Intrusive in a meddling or offensive manner, given to meddling; interfering.
• Meek- Evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness.
• Megalomaniac- A psycho pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
• Murderer- One guilty of murder; a person who unlawfully kills a human being. Killer, butchered, cutthroat.
• Naive- Lacking worldly experience and understanding, simple and guileless; showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment.
• Nervous- Easily agitated or distressed; high-strung or jumpy.
• Nonviolent- Abstaining from the use of violence. (can double as a merit)
• Nosey- Given to prying into the affairs of others; snoopy. Offensively curious or inquisitive.
• Obsessive- An unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone.
• Oppressor- A person of authority who subjects others to undue pressures, to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.
• Overambitious- Having a strong excessive desire for success or achievement.
• Overemotional- Excessively or abnormally emotional. Sensitive about themselves and others, more so than the average person.
• Overprotective- To protect too much; coddle.
• Overconfident- Excessively confident; presumptuous.
• Overzealous- Marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea.
• Pacifist- Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. (Can double as a merit in certain cases)
• Paranoid- Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.
• Peevish- Expressing fretfulness and discontent, or unjustifiable dissatisfaction. Cantankerous, cross, ill-tempered, testy, captious, discontented, crotchety, cranky, ornery.
• Pest- One that pesters or annoys, with or without realizing it. Nuisance. Annoying. Nag.
• Pessimist- A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view.
• Perfectionist- A propensity for being displeased with anything that is not perfect or does not meet extremely high standards.
• Phobia- They have a severe form of fear when it comes to this one thing. (Dark, Spiders, Cats, tight spaces, etc. List specific phobia.) See The Phobia List.
• Practical- Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative. No-nonsense. (can double for a merit)
• Precarious- Dependent on circumstances beyond one's control; uncertain; unstable; insecure.
• Predictable- Easily seen through and assessable, where almost anyone can predict reactions and actions of said person by having met or known them even for a short time.
• Proud- Filled with or showing excessive self-esteem, and will often shirk help from others for the sake of pride.
• Rake- An immoral or dissolute person, acting without moral restraint, who defies established religious, social, expected precepts; a freethinker.
• Rebellious- Defying or resisting some established authority, government, or tradition; insubordinate; inclined to rebel.
• Reckless- Heedless. Headstrong. Foolhardy. Unthinking boldness, wild carelessness and disregard for consequences.
• Remorseless- Without remorse; merciless; pitiless; relentless.
• Rigorous- Rigidly accurate; allowing no deviation from a standard; demanding strict attention to rules and procedures.
• Sadist- The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others. Deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.
• Sarcastic- A subtle form of mockery in which an intended meaning is conveyed obliquely.
• Sadomasochist- Both sadist and masochist combined.
• Skeptic- One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
• Seducer- To lead others astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; corrupt. To attempt to lead or draw someone away, as from principles, faith, or allegiance.
• Senile- Showing a decline or deterioration of physical strength or mental functioning, esp. short-term memory and alertness, as a result of old age or disease.
• Scoundrel- A wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberately.
• Selfish- Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.
• Self-Martyr- One who purposely makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy from others, as a form of manipulation, and always for a selfish cause or reason.
• Self-righteous- Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic. Exhibiting pious self-assurance. Holier-than-thou, sanctimonious.
• Shallow- Lacking depth of intellect or knowledge; concerned only with what is obvious.
• Smart Ass- Thinks they know it all, and in some ways they may, but they can be greatly annoying and difficult to deal with at times, especially in arguments.
• Soft-hearted- Having softness or tenderness of heart that can lead them into trouble; susceptible of pity or other kindly affection. They cannot resist helping someone they see in trouble, suffering or in need, and often don't think of the repercussions or situation before doing so.
• Solemn- Deeply earnest, serious, and sober.
• Spineless- Lacking courage. Cowardly, wimp, lily-livered, gutless.
• Spiteful- Showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt; motivated by spite; vindictive person who will look for occasions for resentment. Vengeful.
• Spoiled- Treated with excessive indulgence and pampering from earliest childhood, and has no notion of hard work, self care or money management; coddled, pampered. Having the character or disposition harmed by pampering or over-solicitous attention.
• Stubborn- Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bullheaded. Firmly resolved or determined; resolute.
• Squeamish- Excessively fastidious and easily disgusted.
• Superstitious- An irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear from an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
• Tactless- Lacking or showing a lack of what is fitting and considerate in dealing with others.
• Temperamental- Moody, irritable, or sensitive. Excitable, volatile, emotional.
• Temptation- They have something that tempts, entices, or allures them, that is hard to resist. This could be anything, and can drive the character to do things of ill nature.
• Theatrical- Having a flair for over dramatizing situations, doing things in a 'big way' and love to be 'center stage'.
• Tongue-tied- Speechless or confused in expression, as from shyness, embarrassment, or astonishment.
• Timid-Tends to be shy and/or quiet, shrinking away from offering opinions or from strangers and newcomers, fearing confrontations and violence.
• Troublemaker- Someone who deliberately stirs up trouble, intentionally or unintentionally.
• Ugly- Very unattractive or unpleasant to look at; offensive to the sense of beauty; displeasing in appearance. Uncomely, unsightly, unlovely, homely.
• Unlucky- Marked by or causing misfortune; illfated. Destined for misfortune; doomed.
• Untrustworthy- Not worthy of trust or belief. Backstabber.
• Unpredictable- Difficult to foretell or foresee, their actions are so chaotic its impossible to know what they are going to do next.
• User- A person who uses something or someone selfishly or unethically.
• Vain- Holding or characterized by an unduly high opinion of their physical appearance. Lovers of themselves. Conceited, egotistic, narcissistic.
• Weak-willed- Lacking willpower, strength of will to carry out one's decisions, wishes, or plans. Easily swayed.
• Withdrawn- Not friendly or Sociable. Aloof.
• Whore- Harlot. A prostitute, a person who is considered sexually promiscuous, considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
• Zealot- An excessively zealous person; fanatic.

Let's Analyze: Should fiction writers focus on writing where the muse leads them, trusting that their story will reach the readers who need to read it, regardless of how "bad" their characters are?

Using Revenge in Novels

Many novels hinge on revenge as the core motivator for one or more characters. Usually the revenge is either an unfounded or over-the-top coping mechanism, jerking our character from reality to a world where his/her misconception is their alternate reality.

I'd like to suggest that there are more ways to incorporate jealousy in our novels, rather than through unstable, slightly "off" villains or heroes with chips on their shoulders.

The article I wrote this month for Nicole O'dell's Choose Now Ministries focuses on how parents can help teens navigate resentment. Especially toward the end, I think you'll see some good suggestions for a different kind of character arc for heroes/heroines dealing with jealousy.

Here's a teaser:

On Emotions: Navigating the Green-Eyed Monster

“Resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other person dies.”

– St. Augustine

The Lord made us emotional beings, but in so doing, he didn’t screen certain emotions from our range of experience. Would that he had, right? Most people don’t exactly thank God for giving us jealousy.

But could it be that jealousy has gotten a bad rap?

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Character Clinic: Ally and Sam Knight

I've got two of May's triplet siblings on the couch today. They are both found in her YA fantasy novel involving mythological gods. The two of them lost their mother of the flu when they were young, and their father raised them. They have another sibling, Nico, who is in the middle of Ally (the oldest) and Sam (the youngest). Both Ally and Sam exceedingly excel at sports. Ally wants to save her best friend, but the gods are getting in her way Sam just wants to figure out what happened to his mother.

May wants to know for Ally: What other personality traits do you think she possess? Any greatest weakness, suggestions? And for Sam: How should his life play out in this book? What, if anything, should I add to him?

Well, the premise of the book is intriguing. I don't know of many recent YA releases that deal with gods like Apollo, Set, and Horus. (By the way, Apollo is a Greek god and the others are more Egyptian...just an aside. Actually Horus--or Heru--is the Egyptian equivalent of Apollo.) So that's an interesting angle.

Ally seems to be a vivacious, outgoing teen. Her lack of maternal support while growing up should have some sort of effect on her. You mentioned that Sam is the one who wants to find out what happened to his mother, but Ally should, too. Unless she has some other female mentor? Growing up with just males, her relationship with her girlfriend would be of extreme importance...a connection to the feminine world she doesn't have in her own home.

I love that you've given Sam the fear of thunder, even though he comes across as a very courageous and brave guy who would do anything for his family. It's awesome that you've got him interacting with Set, the god of storms and chaos. I mean, this is built-in tension, which is great.

Of the two, Sam seems the weakest, but in all honesty, both your characters would benefit from you reading Debra Dixon's Goal, Motivation and Conflict. (This is the cheapest link I could find it priced at.) It will help you beef up their conflicts and motivations, as you seem to have very clear inner and outer goals lined up. Your answers for the rest of the intake form were brief and a bit on the surface level. You've got to take these characters deeper!

I welcome any questions you might have in the comment section. Best of luck to you!


If you missed my post yesterday on why being a writer can be like carrying Dexter's "dark passenger," click here to join in on the discussion!

Traits of Self-Destructing Characters

I have had a hard week. I had started this blog post yesterday, but fell asleep too exhausted to finish it. I have a client who is the epitome of self-destructing. It's one thing to read about them, but it's quite a different thing to be their therapist.

As a result of my interactions and observations while in session with this client, I'm bringing you--straight from the trenches--a glimpse into the mindset of someone like this. I've noticed some general characteristics that will definitely help make your self-destructing characters more realistic.

1) They will have an obsession, and it will be their Achilles's heel. The character will live and breathe for a particular person, achievement, desire. It usually consumes them, and reality fades as to how unbalanced they are becoming in their quest for this obsession.

2) They will put their welfare below their desire for the obsession, even if it means their death. Whether they are addicted to drugs or a person (think Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction), the means to their end are always justified. They can't see beyond the next tree to see the forest, so consequences are minimized or they are completely blind to them.

3) They likely will have a personality disorder or serious mental disorder. This one is on my list by default. Anyone who exhibits the first two will probably qualify for something like borderline personality disorder, bipolar, schizophrenia....something pretty major.

4) Attempts to reason with this person will fall on deaf ears. As mentioned before, reality takes a back seat. As a therapist, I am obligated to do what I can to help my client see a different, better way.  A more healthy way. I usually receive a blank stare or feel like I'm talking to a wall. But writers should give one to two scenes over to someone trying to talk sense into this character.

5) Their demise probably will not be satisfactory to any involved, as it's more tragic. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the bad guy has to die, and I know this. But if you've done your homework and included the above, their end will resonate with the reader more in a reflective way, not necessarily a "awesome, he/she is dead" way.

If any of this gives you a clue to what my week has been like, then I'll ask for prayers! Dealing with someone like this exhausts you emotionally and physically. In the end, I go home and go to sleep with their name on my lips in a prayer to God to keep them safe and watch over them, because there is only so much I can do and there is only so much the person will let me do.

Let's analyze: Ever had interactions with someone who was going one-way down a dead-end road? What other characteristics of someone like this might you see fit to add?

I'm still giving away a copy of my Writer's Guide to Creating Rich Back Stories...all you have to do is comment on this post about my tentative foray into vlogging.

And click over to read my therapeutic review of Ashes to Beauty: The Real Cinderella Story. Leave a comment to be entered to win a copy of the book for a special girl on your Christmas list!

Does Your MC Get the Best Lines?

I signed up to receive Friday email updates from writer Holly Lisle. I'm glad I did, because frequently, I'll garner a little nugget from them, and today finds me expanding on this thought Holly gave me.

Her email newsletter was about giving your protagonist the best lines. In theory, this is a given. The protag is who we're cheeering for, rooting for. He or she is the reason we're writing the book in the first place! They should be the most interesting, the most important, and the one with the most problems, quite honestly.

What Holly said was that she sees the same mistake over and over in both manuscripts and published books: "The villain gets all the good lines. Or the sidekick does. Or the guy in the market who doesn't even have a NAME, for crying out loud." Holly believes that this shows the writer likes the other characters better than the protag.

My first Genesis entry (in '09, the one I most certainly did not final in) was returned to me with comments like, "Your heroine isn't as interesting as her best friend," and "Your heroine isn't very likeable." I was totally offended, of course, until I came down off the mountain to realize that I had made her sidekick more personable, more funny, more in-your-face and opinionated.

Holly indicated that the writer who does this, deep down in side, thinks his or her main character is bland. "Too perfect, too pure, to good to get in there and get clobbered by the bad guys or fall down the stairs and come up with a good smart-a$$ comment when he lands." It's as if the writer is protecting the MC...from the bad things in the world, from the consequences that can happen if he or she is offensive or misunderstood.

In truth, the combined effects of all of the above is that the character is bland. Not interesting. Not memorable. Which is a crying shame!

If you had the chance to read my review of Stephen James' newest book, The Queen, you read that I think he's a master at giving his hero some weaknesses that are pretty powerful and threaten to overwhelm him as well as giving his villain a strength that almost--but now quite--puts him on par with being a normal, non-serial-killing crazy person.

When we put our character on such a high pedestal, we run the risk of not being able to write the very good scenes that show them falling off! When they aren't politically correct, when they lose their temper, when they get sarcastic and snarky, when their halo falls off. We are easier to give in to a secondary character doing these things, because they aren't on the page as longer and we feel a false sense of security that if the reader doesn't like them and their antics, they won't have to read about them very long.

Problem is, when we have fun with these secondary characters--let it loose and let it hang out--it throws are hero or heroine into sharp contrast and makes them appear very dull.

So, as Holly suggests, check your dialogue. Read it through and decide for yourself who you've given the best lines to. If it's not your MC, make some adjustments!

Q4U: Any of you out there have this problem like I did? What did you do to overcome your fear of letting the halo slip?

For a chance to win Julie Lessman's latest, A Heart Revealed, click here!

For a chance to win Alice Lynn's Scattered Pieces, click here!

Character Clinic: Brynn Wright with Donald Maass Workshop Notes

Today I've got Lydia's character Brynn on my couch. Brynn inhabits a Christian fantasy. She was orphaned at a young age and ended up being adopted by a single painter...whose paints (get this!) are portals into different times! [How cool is that?!]

Lydia wrote in wanting to know: How do I make Brynn more REAL? Right now, she's as 3D as a blank page.

Lydia, I normally write to the characters in my Character Clinic posts, but due to our last couple of emails, this post is just for you. First off, you've got Brynn fleshed out farther than you think you do. She's a 14-year-old orphan whose been let down too many times to want to trust again. I think girls the world over will be able to relate to that.

You've got a rocking concept for the fantasy, with Brynn and her adoptive father and tutor being trapped in the parallel universe without knowing the way out of the paintings...pretty way cool. So there's intrigue, suspense...all the necessary ingredients.

So, I'd like to share with you an exercise from Donald Maass, who wrote Writing the Breakout Novel [book and workbook]. I was fortunate enough to sit at his feet at the 2009 American Christian Fiction Writer's conference when he was the Early Bird presenter. The following are some of my notes (with my own MC's character removed and Brynn's inserted) from that incredible workshop:

The heroic characters sometimes can be too perfect. You have to give them one way in which they are profoundly human and just like the rest of us. To they have one bad habit? One thing they feel funny about themselves? Something they do exactly the way we would do? Show this “flaw” or human trait in the first 5 pages. What’s the first thing someone would notice about Brynn? How would they sum them up when talking about them to someone else? What would anyone say is the exact opposite of this? If you choose to reverse some traits later in the book, the character becomes multidimensional and more involving to read about. Work on inner conflict. Pull them in two opposite ways. This engages the reader because it’s interesting. NOT the same thing as inner turmoil, which is wearisome to read about…a character who constantly waffles is no fun to read. The conflicts that the author constructed still linger with us, even thought he events of the story are over. It echoes with us and makes the character memorable.  Answer these questions: One thing Brynn would never, ever say b/c it’s completely contrary to her? One thing Brynn would never ever conceivably do? One thing Brynn would never ever think or feel? An emotion just out of range for her? An idea that wouldn’t take hold in her mind? Now write scenes working these very answers into your novel! This makes Brynn more multi-dimensional. RAISING THE STAKES What would make this problem that Brynn has matter more – even more than it does now? Why does the protag care? What makes it more personal? What is it about this problem that gets under the skin of the protag? What is it about the problem that bothers them more than anything else? What do they see in the problem that other people don’t see, discern that’s deeper? What principles are at stake? Why is this problem one that the protag feels personally responsible for? He or she must do this for what reason? How can this reason be made stronger? Something that happens in the past is typical – the protag has to make up for it. How can the protag be hopeless in the face of this problem? What already has the protag defeated? What does the problem say about them? The hardest, most painful problem for them to deal with – impossible for them. The deeply personal, unresolved thing from their childhood that makes this problem ten times worst? The answer should be emotional. What defeats her? Gets under her skin? Why? In what way is this problem deeply personal? How does it go to their childhood? How did it shape them? Gets to them every time? Pushes you over the edge?

Once you work through some of these concepts, Lydia, Brynn will fly off the page as a girl as real as your readers are. Give it a try...and please email me to let me know how it goes! Best of luck!

Making Characters Multi-Dimensional

I read an incredible article this week, courtesy of my Writer's Digest newsletter and author Steven James (The Pawn, The Rook, The Knight, The Bishop, and most recently, The Queen). I'd like to summarize it below, but for those who want the full monty, click here. His article is psychology sound...and since I personally think James' suspense books are amazing, we could all stand to read his suggestions of how to raise our characters above status quo.

James references acting instructor Keith Johnstone, who talks about the importance of dominance and submission, and finding a balance for your characters. James calls this tip: VARIABLE STATUS IS THE KEY TO DIMENSIONALITY. 

In every social situation, one person will have or attempt to have dominance. Novelists have to show this shift through dialogue, posture, pauses, communication patterns, body language, inner dialogue, and action. James goes on to give examples of various status ques, such as lack of eye contact indicating submissiveness and stillness and control indicating dominance.

Status can vary according to three things: relationship (parent over a child), position (boss over an employee), and situation (anytime a character is out of his or her element, they would be in a more submissive state). Still, a person has choices within these categories, such a child manipulating a parent and therefore having dominance over them.

The key to working status in your favor is to never let the character maintain the same status in every situation. It's just not realistic. In real life, there are relationships that we absolutely have dominion over, and then there are those we don't, such as a business man who exudes confidence in the board room but can't hold a candle to his Goth teen. James mentions that even Superman had his Kryptonite to overcome...so too do our heroes and heroines need a weakness or weak area that challenges them and throws in sharp contrast the areas that they excel.

James goes on to say that WORD CHOICE DETERMINES CHARACTERIZATION. We wouldn't want our hard work to go to green by choosing one wrong word to describe our character's action or manner of speech. The best way to explain this is to simply copy/paste his example below:

1. Adrian drew the blade across Sylvia’s arm. She shrieked and begged him to stop. 2. Adrian drew the blade across Sylvia’s arm. She clenched her teeth, refused to give him the satisfaction of seeing her cry. In the first example, Sylvia’s uncontrolled reaction lowers her status beneath that of her assailant. In the second, however, her resolve raises her status above that of Adrian, who has evidently failed to intimidate her. Rather than appearing victimized, she has become heroic. Your protagonist must never act in a way that lowers her status below that of the antagonist.

That last line is the gold nugget takeaway, so I hope you had your mining hats on today! There was more to the article, so I encourage you to read the whole thing, but these two points struck home with me.

Q4U: What are some of your favorite ways to show dominance for a character? Do you have them make a particular gesture, make their speech measured and controlled?