The "Dark Passenger" of Writers

Most of you Dexter fans recognize the reference in the post title, but for those who aren't familiar with the show, I'll fill you in with a few research-supported facts:

• Writers have a higher mortality rate (Cassandro, 1998; Kaufman, 2003; Kaun, 1991; Ludwig, 1995)

•  Fiction writers (and poets) have a higher suicidal rate compared to other writers (Preti & Miotto, 1999)

• Writers have a shorter life span than other occupations (Cassandro, 1998; Kaun, 1991; Ludwig, 1995)

• Writers have a higher rate of mental illness, with particular tendency toward bipolar and other affective disorders (Andreasen, 1987)

I included references for those who might not believe me be interested in further research. 

These findings beg the question WHY. There are a couple of reasons, but the biggest two are below:

1) Dysphoric Rumination

This is psychologese for thinking depressive thoughts over and over. The thoughts become absorbing, self-perpetuating and definitely tax the creative process. Writers, by virtue of our profession, have to go through the process of revision. If a writer has a tendency to pull from his or her own inner turmoil (and come on, who of us don't do this?) and write about it, then when going through the revision process, we are in essence ruminating on our distress and anguish. Makes sense, doesn't it?

The health benefits of writing (which will be discussed in a later post) are undermined when we creatively write about the troubles of our life. Don't get me wrong, our torment can make for fantastic, interesting stories. But it's no secret that the seminal masterpieces of many authors/poets were their last published work.

2) External Locus of Control

I did a post just a few short weeks ago about locus of control (along with a writer's quiz to determine if you have internal or external locus of control [LOC]). If a person has a high external LOC, they believe that external forces are primarily responsible for the circumstances in their life.

In a very real way, writers who score high with external LOC are like rats in a "Skinner box." They believe they have very little control, have lots of anxiety, not knowing when the use of their services will expire or whether they will receive positive reinforcement like a food pellet (publication, landing an agent, winning a contest) or a negative reinforcement like electric shock (editorial/agent rejection, bad review, no new contract).

Let's Analyze: Do you think these researchers are on to something? Do you feel that authors who draw from their own internal well of pain and suffering are at a disadvantage when it comes to the inevitable revision process? Have you ever thought about it?

A Good Kind of Reader Manipulation

Two weeks ago I wrote a post about a lesser-known reason why you shouldn't dump backstory up front in a novel. (Click here for the post.) In so doing, I gave a story about how I overheard information pertaining to one of my clients that impeded how I approached/perceived the client.

But I want to direct you to the comment section of that same post. Many of the readers offered really insightful reflections on why or why not to convey certain information about a character up front, and I wanted to capitalize on one in particular.

As authors, we write for a lot of reasons. But we all have stories that we want to persuade readers to read. Every word counts in that persuasion. Sometimes we have to manipulate the information we give to readers for a variety of reasons, some of which would be to entertain, educate, inspire, and convict.

But some stories require a little misleading up front in order to accomplish those ends. (I guess it's true that sometimes the end does justify the means.) I was actually accidentally mislead by the overheard comment about my client. But one of my commenters (thanks Kerry!) made such an excellent point that we might deliberately need to mislead the reader up front.

According to the Information Manipulation theory, we have to mislead a reader by breaking one of four conversational (or literary) maxims/truths:

• Quantity: Information given will be full (as per expected by the listener/reader) and without omission.
• Quality: information given will be truthful and correct.
• Relation: information will be relevant to the subject matter of the conversation in hand.
• Manner: things will be presented in a way that enables others to understand and with aligned non-verbal language.

Think about all the ways you can use this in your stories! You give a little too much info, or not enough. Or you give absolutely irrelevant info that they think is relevant or you sneak in information in such a way that the reader thinks it has to be relevant only to discover it wasn't and they were duped!

Predating the MRU: Was Swain a Fan of Psychological Theory?

I love my job for the very reason that I get to do a lot of research online all in the name of "work." Lucky for me, I run a blog that makes very good use of this research. Cuts prep time down at least by a third.

At any rate, in my "studies," I came across a psychological theory that felt familiar to me. Like, MRU-familiar. It's called the James-Lange Theory of Emotion, and it's been around since 1884. William James and Carl Lange, 19th century scholars, developed this theory independently of each other.

Here it is in a nutshell:

Event ==> Arousal ==> Interpretation ==> Emotion

Look familiar? Here's the broken down version of Swain's MRU (since the second half of the MRU, Character Reaction, has four parts):

Motivating Stimulus ==> Visceral Reaction ==> Thought ==> Action ==> Speech                                             [  -------------CHARACTER REACTION-----------------  ]

If you take away the Action and Speech elements, which aren't part of the original theory, as the theory was focused on emotion, not action, they read essentially the same. James and Lange posited that the emotion came from the interpretation of the arousal. (You can read a bit more detailed explanation, including a quote from James, here.)

For example, My dog died and I'm crying, so I must be sad. This would be instead of the dog dying, feeling sad, and then crying. You gotta admit...it makes sense! Lange actually said that the vasomotor changes (arousal) was the emotion, essentially starting over a century-long psychological chicken v. the egg debate of which comes first, the physiological arousal or the emotional feeling.

Regardless, I have to think that Swain must have heard of these two fellas and tweaked their work to make it writing related, since writers definitely have to configure actions and speech into literary works.

Lends credence to Ecclesiastes 1:9 - "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

Q4U: What do you think? Did Swain lift a few principles from ol' James and Lange?

Why You Shouldn't Be a Closet Writer

I was reading about psychology theories, and one came across that just made some sense to me in the writing world.

Justification of effort is a theory that says, "If I have to work hard to achieve something, I will afterward find it more attractive." We all understand this. The thought of wasting time and energy toward a particular end would prove us to be sort of daft, right? Consequently, it would damage your self esteem and confidence.

The research that proves this phenomena cracked me up. Aronson and Mills (1959) recruited students for a discussion group. For every third person recruited, they made the process more difficult to get "in." Afterward, when all the participants of the discussion group were asked to rate a boring tape recording they were asked to listen to, those who had a harder time getting into the group rated it higher.

Tell me you don't think that's funny!

But how does this apply to writers?

The reality is that writing is all one long process of getting "in" the publishing industry. Contests, conferences, critique partners, proposals, agents...consider it much the same way you would an examination to get into an exclusive Ivy League school, or perhaps like an initiation period into a fraternity/sorority/gang.

Those who successfully make it through the enlistment look back with very real pride (as they should) on this accomplishment. There is an air of exclusivity to those who have passed through the flaming hoops, at least to those who have yet to traverse the hallowed published grounds.

I propose that if you're at all thinking about being a writer, getting published, and making your millions relatives and friends smile that they know an "author," then you should tell people your goals! Part of the research indicated that if other people know about the effort a person is making, the cost of backing out is even higher.

Gangs and mobs have used this knowledge for years. If the process if hard to get in, people are less likely to quit. I mean, there must be a reason for all their sacrifice--whether it's blood, sweat, or tears. Is that any different from writing?

Let people know your goals, and then you'll have built in accountability to press on for the goal and finish your path to completion.

Q4U: Have you ever had to work hard for something only to later justify it to yourself or others for why you worked so hard?

T3 - Ammo for Family Gatherings: Detecting False Memories

It seems that when we get together with family at the holidays, old memories resurface about times gone by. Funny thing is, a lot of these "memories" really bare little resemblance to what actually happened.

So now, armed with the below, you can nip those embarrassing confabulations in the bud! (I use the term confabulation, which some of you might not know, because I'm at a loss for a better lay term. A confabulation is a fabricated imaginary experience used to compensate for memory loss. It's not necessarily intentional or malicious...it's the "I walked 13 miles up hill, in the snow, barefoot" syndrome--stretching the tale a bit as time passes.)

When Grandpa starts in about how you did such-and-such, with the intent to embarrass you a bit in front of your significant other, ask him to relay some of the following:

1) Sensory data. What color shirt did I have on when that happened, Gramps? What did that smell like again?

2) Detail. Can you remember where Butch kept the lighter fluid back in those days? Which book did you always keep on the nightstand? Irrelevant stuff, but it can sometimes be the difference between a real memory and a false one.


3) Association. See if you can get Gramps to recall another memory that might be logically connected to the one he's confabulating. Maybe something directly preceding or following the event he's going on about. If he can't, that would be a point in your corner.

Head to those family gatherings without fear. You always know when someone is giving a false memory or confabulation about you, but now you can call them out. Good luck!

T3 - Sunk-Cost Effect

I'm about to tell you why it can be so hard to let go and move on from your unpublished manuscripts that didn't garner an agent or editor's attention. The Sunk-Cost Effect can actually be applied to a variety of areas in a person's life, from financial investments (which many authors would agree their writing is) to emotional/relational ones.

The idea behind this psychological theory is that when a person has "sunk" a lot of effort, time, and money into something, they are reluctant to cut their losses, even if cutting their losses will lead to less loss in the long run. No one wants to admit that they made a mistake, as this brings cognitive dissonance, so they would rather hang on to the blind hope that things will get better.

Research has shown that investors will hang on to their shares in a company even when the market tanks because they desperately hope the shares will rise again in price. Same goes with intimate relationships. People aren't clicking emotionally anymore, but they stay together because they have invested so much time in them or have children together.

Cults operate on this system, as well. Cults often have inner elite circles that can only be accessed if considerable money, time, and effort are given by the congregational member. Some elite cult members have learned lengthy texts by heart, have gone through bizarre rituals, or have given heavily of their funds, all of which serve to ingratiate the cult to the person, drawing them in deeper. In other words, the cult sinks their teeth in further the more they can get the person to invest.

This theory is also helpful in looking at relationships from all angles. Most people look at their satisfaction in a relationship as a result of 3 things:

• Rewards and costs and what they see as a fair balance.
• A comparison with potential alternative relationships
• How much they have already invested in the relationship (the Sunk-Cost Effect).

Abusive characters intrinsically know this. The more invested the woman is in the relationship (the more children, the more the abuser makes the woman feel he can't live without her), the more likely she is to stay and keep on getting abused. They will continually remind the woman what all she has invested, to make sure that cost is uppermost in her mind so that leaving is put on the back burner.

Can you see how this might apply to your manuscripts? You go through critiques, conferences, and contests, all of which you paid for. You labor hours after your day job to get scenes just right. You diligently prepare a synopsis and proposal and revise and edit. All of this represents your time, love, energy, dedication. When that's not received glowingly by an agent or editor, it can be hard to accept...and thus writers can spend an inordinate amount of time trying to market a finished book rather than starting on a new one.

How To Move On

In the abusive relationship example above, there must come a time in the victim's life when she will stop thinking of everything she has already invested and will look to the future, and what all she might be able to save if she jumps ship. The past is the past, and rather than dwell on what you can't get back, it's better to look ahead to what you might potentially get.


See how this can apply to moving on past your finished manuscript? Looking ahead to the next big story you roll out is far better than ruminating on the perceived "wasted time." No time writing is wasted. It's all going to aid in making you a better writer. Book Two (or Twenty) will be even better because you will have learned how to keep additional "costs" at a minimum from Book One.

So go ahead and file that manuscript away in a drawer. It's served it's purpose.

T3 - Group Polarization Phenomenon

This week's theory is useful when considering how often our characters wind up in some sort of group situation in which they are advocating for one position over another. In romance, the hero and heroine will usually be on opposite sides of the fence, and this theory will help you be bold and confident in developing your plots and upping the ante.

In essence, the theory states that in groups, people tend to be more extreme when making decisions. Research has shown that people in groups will exaggerate their position in an attempt to make a point (or counterpoint) and to separate their statements and ideas from others that have been offered.

So imagine it. Your heroine goes toe-to-toe with the hero in a conference room about an issue and hears herself saying something she never intended to say that's above and beyond what she had intended. Now she's obliged to stick by her position, even if she think it's a bit over the top.

For those who write YA, groups of young people perhaps make some of the stupidest decisions ever. Often, they'll regret these decisions later, but because of the group polarization that this happens (and even the immature idea that one side has to one-up the other or risk not being cool). 

And another interesting fact is that people who tend to grab life by the horns and thrive on risk will make even riskier decisions in a group because some of the responsibility of the risk is shared. Vice versa for people who are conservative. In a group, they will make ultraconservative decisions that even they think are extreme. Just FYI.

You might want to consider having a voice of reason for the character if they do get too risky or too extreme. A nice elderly neighbor or post office worker or barber will do just fine. Someone who will speak the truth to them through unbiased eyes will turn the plot around toward the end to bring about resolution.

Happy writing!

T3 - The Drama Triangle

The psychological theory of the Drama Triangle was developed by Dr. Stephen Karpman, a Transactional Analysis psychotherapist. Get this: he developed this theory by studying fairy tales! And what are fairy tales if not fictional stories? Writers, read on.

He proposed that there are three sides to every character, the Persecutor, the Rescuer, and the Victim. Various stressors in life can ping us back and forth between the different roles. The more pinging going on, the more drama. (read: tension)

Let's look at the Pied Piper. (I know, not the happiest of tales, but you'll get the drift quicker.)

In the Pied Piper, the hero begins as both Rescuer of the city and Persecutor of the rats. He then becomes Victim to the mayor’s double-cross, because the mayor withheld the Piper's fee (which makes the Mayor the Persecutor). In revenge, the Piper switches to Persecutor of the city’s children. 

The mayor switches back and forth from Victim (of rats), to Rescuer (hiring the Pied Piper), to Persecutor (double-cross), to Victim (his children dead).  The children switch from Persecuted Victims (rats) to Rescued Victims, to Victims Persecuted by their Rescuer (The Piper). (This later bit increases the drama because of the great contrast...makes it more unforgettable.)

Now let's look at Cinderella. (I hear the collective sigh after bringing up the Piper. Take it up with Karpman.)

In Cinderella, the heroine switches from Victim double Persecuted (mother then stepsisters), to Victim triple Rescued (fairy godmother then mice then prince), to Victim Persecuted again (losing it all after midnight; not being thought worthy to try on the slipper) then Victim Rescued again (the glass slipper fit). 

Karpman proposed that the intensity of the drama for Cinderella was the sum total of adding up every time she switched roles and the magnitude of the switch (her being rescued by the fairy godmother, mice, and the prince would be a magnitude of 3). He came up with this little formula:

Vpp --> Vrrr --> Vpp --> Vr = 8 switches.

In the Cinderella example, she never switches to a persecutor. It was more about life enacting upon her. The Pied Piper is a better example at how all the characters in the tale switch back and forth.

So the more your characters can switch between the roles, and the greater the magnitude of the switch, the greater the tension and drama in your book. Novel idea, don't you think?

If you want to download and read Karpman's original paper on the Drama Triangle, click here. Be forewarned: it's only 5 pages, but there is a lot of vocabulary non-psychology aficionados won't understand. However, the general concept can be gleaned.

T3 - Ben Franklin Effect

Found something a tad bit fascinating that I hope you find useful when writing. Ben Franklin said, "He that has once done you a Kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged."

Paraphrase: Someone that has already done you a favor will be more likely to do you a favor than someone you did a favor for.

We tend to like people more once we have done them a favor, because normal people will justify to themselves that they did the favor because they liked the person. Conversely, a villain will come to hate his victim and possibly de-humanize them, as this makes it easier on their mind to kill or ruin the object of their hate.

The reason behind this is cognitive dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. In other words, in order to do positive things for people when you don't necessarily like them, the person doing the good deed has to change their mental thoughts and feelings about the person they helped, in order to ease their cognitive dissonance.

A classic example from literature is from Aesop's fables. In The Fox and the Grapes, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour (where we get the expression "sour grapes" from). This criticizing is to reduce his cognitive dissonance.

How can you use it to your advantage in writing? A few different ways:
1) Have a wary heroine do a favor for the hero that was imposed upon her (like at church or from some other social necessity). Just by doing the favor, she'll be less disposed to dislike him, even if the hero didn't ask her to do the favor. (But it will be particularly strong if you have the hero ask the heroine for a favor in front of someone the heroine feels obligated to be on her best interest for!)

2) Have a hero decrease his cognitive dissonance after desiring a date with the heroine, asking her out and getting rejected, and then have him start to postulate about what all misfortunes he has likely avoided by not going out with her. (Substitute anything for the woman: a new job, car, suit, new restaurant booked solid, etc).

3) Have your villain increasingly think of the protagonist as an object, dehumanizing him or her. it makes it easier for the villainous acts to escalate (and for the tension to ratchet up in your book) if you do so.

4) The Foot-in-the-Door technique is a modern example of the Ben Franklin effect, and you could use it as a great secondary plot in a book...and bring in some comic relief if your writing leans that direction. Think about it: your do-gooder heroine gets a phone call to ask if she'd sign a petition about a cause. She says yes, just wanting to get off the phone. Then they show up at her door, and because she said yes on the phone, she goes ahead and signs the petition. Then a week later they ask her to donate to the cause she so obviously shares with them. Well, geez! She goes and gets her purse. Next month, they have her knocking on doors for the "cause" and she's wondering, "How did I ever get into this?"

Have fun with this!

**Click here for a chance to win Andrea Boeshaar's Uncertain Heart!**