Think Tank Tuesdays: What Do You Think?

This has been on my mind for quite some time now, especially now that I'm part of a 15,000 person nation, essentially, where this tends to be a very visible difference between people. Changes of perspective come in different forms. Visiting another country, getting a new experience, becoming politically active, going to college. In fact, just today when I was studying with a friend I was given an 'awareness' survey and asked various questions about on-campus and off-campus happenings. The girls who gave me that survey probably regretted it, because I elaborated on every non-multiple-choice question. But then again, if you're going to ask me about American history and what America has learned from it, sit back and make yourself comfortable because I will talk about it for at least ten minutes.

One of the very vital parts of a person, the part that differentiates one from another, is ideology. What another person thinks, their perspective of how the world works, and how they plan to do in that world are very individual. This part of a person is one of the most important factors in characterization, as well. Why? Someone with no drive and no sense of how the world works is either a badly done character no one will root for or connect to, or they're not long for this world. Diverging ideologies separate hero from villain, families from each other, or even individual people from others.

Take, for example, Anthem by Ayn Rand. Prometheus's diverging ideology that being just like everyone else is a waste of human potential separated him from everyone but his lover, Gaea. He's the hero of the story because his ideology is different. To go a little more contemporary, the ideological difference between the Order of the Phoenix and the Death Eaters shouldn't even need explaining. Magical genocide versus inclusion and support? Are you kidding?

I've been chugging my way through my second draft of TA, and I've noticed that as I write the characters again, they're becoming more distinct. Not because I've decided that Oliver suddenly has freckles or that Collins now seems to have more of a law-abiding nature, but because I've delved into their ideologies. Ideology stems from your background and experiences along with your knowledge, and the more you learn about a character's past the more their ideology stands out. There's always the flat, isolationist 'if it doesn't benefit me, I'm not doing it'. Yawn. That's always part of an isolationist ideology, but it's not very interesting. In fact, it's the basis of just about every 'edgy' character you can find in literature.

Instead of something simple, complexity is important. Take, for example, Collins, my protagonist. She's grown up in impoverished conditions, relying on her brothers to take care of her and feeling responsible to pay it back in spades. Her ideology is shaped by the way she was raised and the experiences she had - be more open to taking care of the family first, if people approach you then they definitely want something, decisions made always need to be made with family in mind, with work and security in mind. This thought process differentiates her from the artists, especially Oliver. Having lived in relative comfort and security most of their lives, their ideologies are varied, but a serious divergence from hers. I mean, the reason they meet is because of Oliver's ideology: Do what you love, make time for what's important, take care of the artists, fly below the radar, but say what needs saying. Collins wasn't going to seek him out, he had to have the mindset to find her.

And I think that this lacks in literature in general. Especially now that I'm in writing classes (for real, not just an English class creative assignment that allows anything with good grammatical structure), and I'm reading about many different protagonists experiencing many different events, reacting to them in many different ways. If you're looking for a great example of divergent ideologies and how that changes characters, I highly recommend the graphic novel Watchmen. It's a masterpiece (won a Hugo award, you know. No graphic novel has done that) and with the format it's very easy to see the differences in thought and how that makes a person act.

Hey, I just made two posts in a row, go me! Stay tuned for more posts on depth, and stay warm, dear followers. I just had my first snow of the year, and it's nineteen Fahrenheit.

Hot cocoa and political discourse,
Brie

Think Tank Tuesday: Us Against the World

Change has always been part of our lives. When we were younger, we watched the seasons change (or watched the weather change every ten minutes if you live in Ohio like I do), and we saw ourselves change as we grew. We got legs we didn't know what to do with, weight gain we didn't know how to handle, and social change that we weren't quite sure how to navigate. But these changes didn't just happen out of the blue like it appeared to us that we did. The whole 'thing' about change is that it is catalyzed - something happens that makes us change. In the case of our bodies, hormone signals tell various body parts to develop, mature, or sometimes come about at all. Socially, environmentally, though, something happens to us that we understand. When the weather gets chilly and the sun hides away, we feel less happy, more tired and stressed. If someone argues with you and you avoid them for a few days, that social change was started by that fight.

The thing is, in young adult fiction, change is necessary. Part of the gig of being a young adult (or any sort of human being, really, but especially at this age range) is that you are constantly changing. Physically, emotionally, cognitively, socially. You go through a period where you are not the same person you were an hour ago, and considering your earlier years of mostly stasis (staying the same), this is pretty freaking scary. You can't exactly tell who you are, much less tell others who you are. Yet it seems to me that in YA literature, especially popular literature, everyone has themselves figured out, it's the external changes they have to navigate. I mean, there are some people who go through the changes early and get at a more stable existence in their late teens, but at sixteen years old pretty much everyone is a Molotov cocktail of hormones, decisions both good and bad, and short-term aspirations. It's why so much realistic fiction lies in getting a significant other or getting a former lover back. These are short-term goals that require a little change but that are very easy to accomplish in the grand scheme of things. It's easier to get a boyfriend than it is to change the world, just ask Tris Prior, Katniss Everdeen, or Harry Potter (girlfriend in this case, but he had the hardest time of the three of them. Poor awkward little nugget.)

So we've covered the fact that change is the only reason books are written or that people encounter different scenarios, but what about characters? Half of the whole book (or more if you're into classics like Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) is about the character becoming a different person. There's even a term for a book that talks about coming of age: bildungsroman. Not exactly the prettiest name, but there are so many books that explore the young adult age range and how people change during that time they have their own term. And if you've seen a Joyce book, his bildungsromans are thicker than my arm. The elements of change a person experiences during their time as a preteen and adolescent are so complex people write whole books about it. So why don't we have that in young adult literature as a minor element? People change, of course, but is that it? Someone becomes more compassionate, another learns about loss, but there's no way that's all the changing they do. Look around, check out books filed under 'bildungsroman' or 'coming of age'. Embrace the fact that characters at this age are changing drastically, just as we are. Does that mean they can't save the world? No, but to write them like an adult and focus mostly on how their decisions change based on experience is to shut out a beautiful and extensive part of what it means to be a teenager. We are still changing, forever and always. Maybe it's about time we stopped pretending like we don't.

Still changing too,

Brie

Think Tank Tuesdays: The Muse

I read a really interesting article on tumblr the other day about a psychological study that was conducted at the Iowa Young Writers program - a program similar to the Kenyon Review Young Writers program but a plane flight for me instead of a short car ride. Basically, the point was that the stereotype that writers are moping wallflowers is wrong, and it was proven by young writers including Kurt Vonnegut.

Basically, the way a person's mind works when it comes to mood is that there is eurythmia (the sort of baseline, feeling normal) and mania or depression, where the balance of your mood escalates to either a high (mania) or a low (depression). You'd think that all the writers waited until depression or mania struck to write, right?

Wrong. In fact, it was found that during periods of mania or depression it was impossible for the writers to find inspiration or write. It wasn't until after they were back in their normal flow, their eurythmia, that they could write. However, when the writers were in a normal mood state, they could reflect on their periods of depression or mania without being attached to them personally, being able to perfectly describe these periods without the effects returning to them.

I think it's really interesting, but also unsurprising. Writers are generally thought of as brooding or otherwise not sunny, happy creatures frolicking in meadows. (What I do in my spare time is not yours to judge, okay?) But the reason this is isn't because everyone knows a writer that sits in corners with their tea and stares listlessly out the window, it's because the literature describing depression and how it feels and acts on a human being is so vivid. I mean, writers are supposed to be able to make a reader feel how we want them to feel using description, so this comes as no surprise.

What's the point of this entire thing, you ask? Am I attempting to start a support group for depressed writers? Of course not. What I'm trying to say is, writing isn't all about the craft in your words or your character arcs or your ability to cause emotional trauma with your deaths. Part of it is the technicality of it all. I mean, good runners don't eat two Big Macs and a large Coke and expect to run a good time on their five miles. As writers, it's up to us to make sure our machinery is working. And more than many other pursuits in this world, that requires that we take care of our brains. Obviously there's no real 'cure' for this roller coaster of emotion - it's a natural alteration of serotonin and other chemicals in your brain. But there are things that you can do to keep yourself inspired, focused, and ready to write. Eat right, exercise a little, get good sleep, those are pretty common. But don't forget to give yourself a little lovin' every so often.

Everyone is so stressed nowadays with work or school or whatever else that it's easy to drop into these high or low periods because they're so busy with everything else. But as a writer you have to maintain your brain machine. Watch your favorite show, make yourself some cookies, lie on the floor, people watch. Do whatever you need to make you happy. When you're running at full steam, so is your brain. Let out those lovely ideas and ground-shattering philosophies, and don't worry if it's not coming for a little while. Like the study shows, that's just natural. I know a lot of writers who are slaves to their work, and I think we could all take this lesson to heart (especially myself). When you're good, your writing is good. Simple as that.

Brain food and good sleep,
Brie

Think Tank Tuesday: The Dark Side

So I promised that I would start updating the blog more, and hopefully I'll be able to pull through on that by naming days and deciding what I'll do on each. Lo and behold, Think Tank Tuesday. If you think that's great, you should see the other ones I have planned, ahaha.

Oh, and NOTE before I go onto my TTT:

I'm now part of a collaborative blog called Inked, and I'll be posting on there, as well! So head on over there and follow to hear not only from me but from all my other fine writerly ladies who I'm pleased to call friends. Together we can slowly take over the blogosphere one post at a time ;)

Back to TTT.

Think Tank Tuesday (noun) - Tuesday blog posts that refer to writing craft, character development, and the other nitty-gritty wonder-bits of writing that so many people seem to overlook.

Not to be confused with My Thoughts Thursday.

We're talking about the Dark Side today. And not just any old Luke Skywalker 'use the force' dark side. Characters' dark sides - much more interesting. To put it another way, Carl Jung said that "Where love rules, there is no will to power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other." This shadow, which is another term for a character's dark side, is what makes characters so awesome.

Because when they've got shadows, they're just like us. No one can relate to someone who is never selfish or rude or angry or vengeful. Even the kindest and most angelic of us have little shards of dark in our souls. This darkness is what intrigues us about other people, and about characters, too. What a person, fictional or not, does with this darkness tells about them.

Lemme break it down for you.

Let's just build ourselves a nice character. We'll name him Dan. Hi Dan. You're looking swell today. Dan is kind, relatively intelligent, generous, likes long walks on the beach, dipping his toes in the sand, and poking dead things with a stick.

My guess is, you probably got to 'generous' and stopped because you saw that I was just rattling on good traits about him until the end. I tried to get you with the stick thing. But that's not bad. Better to know it's dead than be unpleasantly surprised. But you got bored, right? Dan is no fun just being a good guy. That's why Superman isn't as popular as Batman or Spiderman, because Superman is an all-over do-gooder who really doesn't have many flaws. But Batman is about as close to his shadow as he can get while still being considered a 'good guy', and Spiderman...well he battles his demons, too.

Let's get a little creative with Dan. Good-looking guy, an accountant, brings home bacon for his lovely wife and adorable little two-year-old son Ned. (Why Ned? Why not Ned. Let him make his choices.) But what we neglect to share with the lovely lady and their bouncing offspring is that Ned isn't necessarily always accounting for some good people. He's had a few mafiosos come in, ordering him to clean their money. Dan wasn't into it, but after some well-placed threats regarding his new family, he does as he says. More interesting, right? And that's just the gateway. Before he knows it, Dan's busting kneecaps, has mafia bosses on his speed dial, and can get anywhere in the city without so much as a nod to the right guy. Dan has become someone we're curious about now, right? But how did a well-meaning, moral man end up in the mafia? His dark side. Dan wants to protect his family, and will go to questionable lengths to get it. His dark side is his ability to shirk morals, his 'the ends justify the means' mentality. Keep in mind that this is basic and generally a character's dark side is a bit more involved than that.

Let's try a character we're all familiar with at this point. Hmmm....Katniss. Katniss Everdeen, Girl on Fire. Her dark side is gorgeous. Don't mind me, crazy characterizing nut here. But we see the good in Katniss as we follow her through the books - courageous, protective, logical, intelligent, resilient, survivalist. But she's also got herself a smattering of bad traits - cruel, suspicious, manipulative, quick-tempered, cunning. She is willing to use the parts we consider 'bad' to supplement her goals towards her good parts, even though she admits that she's not a good person. (That's debatable. We'll talk.) But why she makes for such a relatable character is that she's selfish sometimes, she says things she shouldn't that set her back from her goals, she fights, she loses, she gets up and she essentially gives the Capitol the finger and says 'You've taken everything from me, you can't stop me anymore.' Her ability to kill without a second glance is capitalized on.

And then there's her sister. Darling little Primrose Everdeen. Even though you probably should know what happens by now, if not to at least prepare yourself for J. Law's rendition of her in Mockingjay Parts 1 & 2, we can definitely say that Katniss gives all for her sister's safety, to keep protecting her and allowing her to have the childhood and freedom that Katniss didn't get. To (futilely) keep Prim from developing a dark side. But Katniss has no problem using all of her 'dark' traits that she's generally ashamed of in order to help Prim, Peeta, or anyone else she loves. She's not always kind and polite and good-natured. Sometimes, she's downright villainous.

Characters need that, as much as you may hate to make them anything other than perfect or ridiculously evil. Everyone is a mixture of light and dark - in different proportions, obviously, but it's still true. Katniss is loving but cruel. Gale is righteous but dogmatic. Peeta is a persuasive speaker but angers easily.

So I'll wrap this up before this gets too long, but this is what characters need. In the immortal words of Kelly Clarkson, "Everybody's got a dark side/Do you love me, can you love mine?" (answer: Yes. Especially if you have cookies.) People are capable of beautiful and terrible things. Light and dark. Love and cruelty, rebuilding and destruction. Characters that stick with people do that, too. 

Got something to say?

Tell me what you think about my first TTT. Too long, not long enough, have a subject you'd like me to talk about? Hit the comments below.

Complexes and neuroses,

Brie