S.B. Stewart-Laing's Blog, page 9
March 31, 2014
April A to Z Theme
Greetings to everyone joining the April A to Z! If you're new, I hope this will be as fun and enlightening as it has been in previous years and that I will discover even more excellent blogs.
This year my theme is the 'CSI Effect'.
Named after the widespread misconceptions about forensic science originating from the CSI franchise, the effect more broadly refers to when misinformation from the media-- everything from TV news to fantasy fiction-- gets a foothold in the real world and starts to influence real-life opinions and behaviour.
My mom is a librarian and retired documentary filmmaker with a strong interest in media literacy, so I was raised to think critically about what I watch and read. As a scientist, I'm also fascinated by ferreting out the true story.
This month I'll be picking these nuggets of misinformation, from the silly to the serious. Hope we'll all learn something!
This year my theme is the 'CSI Effect'.
Named after the widespread misconceptions about forensic science originating from the CSI franchise, the effect more broadly refers to when misinformation from the media-- everything from TV news to fantasy fiction-- gets a foothold in the real world and starts to influence real-life opinions and behaviour.
My mom is a librarian and retired documentary filmmaker with a strong interest in media literacy, so I was raised to think critically about what I watch and read. As a scientist, I'm also fascinated by ferreting out the true story.
This month I'll be picking these nuggets of misinformation, from the silly to the serious. Hope we'll all learn something!
March 26, 2014
A Long Fall: Social Mobility and Culture Shock, Part II
Compared to the number of characters who make gigantic leaps up the socioeconomic ladder, there are relatively few characters headed the other direction. And unless the character is a villain, and the fall from wealth is punishment, the situation is usually temporary.
Villains aside, characters who are thrust into poverty fall under one of a few tropes:
The 'broke for a day' plotline, which generally appears in comedy;The 'sympathetic poor character' whose main conflict is getting out of poverty;The 'I learned something today' plot, wherein being poor for a short while constitutes an educational experience for the character.
Unlike characters who experience rapid upward mobility, characters who move down in socioeconomic status are shown as experiencing culture shock. Besides the loss of luxuries, they are often shown as having difficulty relating to people they once regarded as inferior, or simply did not acknowledge. There is also the change in their relationships with people who were formerly their equals.
These plots tend to wear thin in a few places, however. First, there is a tendency for the poor character-- that is, characters who start that way and stay in that state over the course of the narrative-- to primarily accessories to the main character's development. They give out survival tips and homespun wisdom, or serve as scary antagonists who block the character's climb back up the social food chain. When the story is done, these characters are discarded while the protagonist cheerfully returns to their former status.
Second, there is no examination of why the main character can clamber back to the top while the other characters are stuck in the poverty spin cycle. There are two possible implications, neither of them good. The first is that there are no greater social forces keeping the secondary characters poor, suggesting the characters stay that way because they are happy with it (given the amount of folksy feel-good advice they dispense in Fictionland, maybe so). The second is that the characters are immutably 'of' their socioeconomic class-- the main character can bounce back from being poor by dint of their moneyed bloodline, but the poor folks are out of luck, no matter their personal virtues. Now, the second one can be true to some degree, in the sense that upward social mobility is much more difficult in real life than in Fictionland. But if there are no broader economic and social mechanisms shown keeping the status quo, the message turns to 'some people are inherently better than others because their family has money'.
If your characters lose their social and economic status in your story, consider letting the change be permanent. Alternately, focus the story on the intricacies of the situation, and pick apart how class works in your setting.
Villains aside, characters who are thrust into poverty fall under one of a few tropes:
The 'broke for a day' plotline, which generally appears in comedy;The 'sympathetic poor character' whose main conflict is getting out of poverty;The 'I learned something today' plot, wherein being poor for a short while constitutes an educational experience for the character.
Unlike characters who experience rapid upward mobility, characters who move down in socioeconomic status are shown as experiencing culture shock. Besides the loss of luxuries, they are often shown as having difficulty relating to people they once regarded as inferior, or simply did not acknowledge. There is also the change in their relationships with people who were formerly their equals.
These plots tend to wear thin in a few places, however. First, there is a tendency for the poor character-- that is, characters who start that way and stay in that state over the course of the narrative-- to primarily accessories to the main character's development. They give out survival tips and homespun wisdom, or serve as scary antagonists who block the character's climb back up the social food chain. When the story is done, these characters are discarded while the protagonist cheerfully returns to their former status.
Second, there is no examination of why the main character can clamber back to the top while the other characters are stuck in the poverty spin cycle. There are two possible implications, neither of them good. The first is that there are no greater social forces keeping the secondary characters poor, suggesting the characters stay that way because they are happy with it (given the amount of folksy feel-good advice they dispense in Fictionland, maybe so). The second is that the characters are immutably 'of' their socioeconomic class-- the main character can bounce back from being poor by dint of their moneyed bloodline, but the poor folks are out of luck, no matter their personal virtues. Now, the second one can be true to some degree, in the sense that upward social mobility is much more difficult in real life than in Fictionland. But if there are no broader economic and social mechanisms shown keeping the status quo, the message turns to 'some people are inherently better than others because their family has money'.
If your characters lose their social and economic status in your story, consider letting the change be permanent. Alternately, focus the story on the intricacies of the situation, and pick apart how class works in your setting.
March 24, 2014
Up a Long Ladder: Social Mobility Culture Shock, Part I
Fantasyland is crawling with royalty and nobility and other Special Snowflakes who are raised by peasants. Although this trope has annoyed many people by dint of being done to death, I'd argue that like any plot device, it can be used in a fresh and interesting way. Actually, I think the problem is not necessarily overuse, but rather that the trope is rarely taken to its logical extent. One of the most prominent oversights is the culture shock experienced by the character as they adjust to their new role.
Part of this may stem from the fact a disproportionate number of fantasy authors are Anglo-American and from a socioeconomically privileged background. From this perspective-- particularly when infused with the American narrative of a society with high mobility and no class divisions-- it is easy to envision a peasant in a medieval-inspired fantasy society easily joining the upper classes with only a few comedic interludes where they can't figure out which fork to use. In real life, however, abruptly changing socioeconomic environments can be like moving to another country with only a cursory grasp of the local language, even if your society has fairly loose rules on social mobility. If you want a good example of this, look at essays by students who have attended prestigious universities on scholarship (or are just from a different race/culture than the dominant one!).
These examples are nothing when compared to what a character might face in a society with a clearly delineated and harshly enforced class system. For one thing, the ruling class and working class might not even speak the same language, particularly if the rulers are colonisers. There might also be significant differences in appearance if the colonisers are from a very different part of the world. Second, the upper classes-- particularly if they're directly involved in government-- will have had years to learn and perfect the etiquette expected of them. No matter how clever the lower-class character is, they will be trying to cram years of knowledge into days or weeks, with no time to adjust to how to use it. Finally, there is the practical knowledge base involved in how to run a country, the decades of accumulated inside information, contacts, and skills.
An abrupt upward move in socioeconomic status should be portrayed as a life-altering shock for the character, rather than a awkward but pleasant surprise. Let this be an opportunity to dig into the cultural and economic divisions in your setting, and see if you can't breath new life into an old trope.
Part of this may stem from the fact a disproportionate number of fantasy authors are Anglo-American and from a socioeconomically privileged background. From this perspective-- particularly when infused with the American narrative of a society with high mobility and no class divisions-- it is easy to envision a peasant in a medieval-inspired fantasy society easily joining the upper classes with only a few comedic interludes where they can't figure out which fork to use. In real life, however, abruptly changing socioeconomic environments can be like moving to another country with only a cursory grasp of the local language, even if your society has fairly loose rules on social mobility. If you want a good example of this, look at essays by students who have attended prestigious universities on scholarship (or are just from a different race/culture than the dominant one!).
These examples are nothing when compared to what a character might face in a society with a clearly delineated and harshly enforced class system. For one thing, the ruling class and working class might not even speak the same language, particularly if the rulers are colonisers. There might also be significant differences in appearance if the colonisers are from a very different part of the world. Second, the upper classes-- particularly if they're directly involved in government-- will have had years to learn and perfect the etiquette expected of them. No matter how clever the lower-class character is, they will be trying to cram years of knowledge into days or weeks, with no time to adjust to how to use it. Finally, there is the practical knowledge base involved in how to run a country, the decades of accumulated inside information, contacts, and skills.
An abrupt upward move in socioeconomic status should be portrayed as a life-altering shock for the character, rather than a awkward but pleasant surprise. Let this be an opportunity to dig into the cultural and economic divisions in your setting, and see if you can't breath new life into an old trope.
March 21, 2014
Code Switching
Take a moment to think about your behaviour styles throughout the day. Do your mannerisms and speech patterns and body language vary depending on who you're with and where you are-- at work, at school, alone, with your partner, with family, with a group of old friends? Most likely you do. If you speak more than one language, particularly if you live in a highly diverse area, or come from a different background than the dominant culture, you may also pick your language or dialect with care for different situations. You may even change your appearance by altering your clothes, hairstyle, or other personal adornment.The phenomenon of switching between modes of speech and non-verbal communication based on the social environment is known as 'code switching'. While the term was originally developed to describe the process of multilingual individuals changing languages depending on the setting and subject matter, it can be more broadly applied to all kinds of communication, including the messages we send with our physical appearance.
Weirdly, this doesn't seem to be addressed in Fictionland. While I can understand characters in an entirely novel situation (like the ubiquitous peasant who discovers their noble lineage and gets hauled into the aristocracy) might be totally lacking in a social script. But characters who have experience navigating between different subgroups will most likely have become skilled at code-switching, perhaps to the point where the two groups have fully accepted them. In fact, they may be seen as a particularly valuable vector for communication between groups, rather than an interloper. Incorporating a character's code-switching behaviour-- and their feelings about it-- in depth can be an interesting way to examine both the character's personality and individual identify and the relationship between different groups in your setting.
It's also important to note that all your characters will most likely code-switch, sometimes in more subtle ways, throughout your story. Someone's interaction with their children in terms of words and body language should be markedly different from their interaction with their best friend, which should be different from their interaction with a business rival. We all adapt to our ever-changing social environment, and so should your characters.
March 19, 2014
Mix It Up
One of the often-touted bits of writing advice out there is that one should write every day. While I agree wholeheartedly that practicing the craft and actually writing one's stories are critical, I also know we all get writer burnout. We get tired of our characters, or can't sort out a thorny plot problem, or just can't seem to find the right words.
Personally, I don't think these snags reflect poorly on one's dedication or writing ability. Sometimes stepping away from the problem or even giving yourself permission to fail is the best way to gain new perspective and find a solution or revive your inspiration. Here are some things that work for me:
Do something completely different. Set your writing aside and do some household chores, go for a jog, draw, socialise. It doesn't matter what you're up to, as long as it's not writing.Mental challenges. Learning different subjects stimulates areas of the brain you don't generally call on for writing. Browse a free online maths course, read a nonfiction book on Tibetan history, or practice a language.Write something completely different. It's easy to get stuck in a genre rut, and giving yourself permission to be dark, silly, dryly expository, or weird allows you to explore your full range as a writer. Brainstorm. Throw out random ideas to keep the plot moving forward, the weirder the better. You may hit inspiration.
Anyone have any favourite tips for unsticking their wordflow? Share in the comments.
Personally, I don't think these snags reflect poorly on one's dedication or writing ability. Sometimes stepping away from the problem or even giving yourself permission to fail is the best way to gain new perspective and find a solution or revive your inspiration. Here are some things that work for me:
Do something completely different. Set your writing aside and do some household chores, go for a jog, draw, socialise. It doesn't matter what you're up to, as long as it's not writing.Mental challenges. Learning different subjects stimulates areas of the brain you don't generally call on for writing. Browse a free online maths course, read a nonfiction book on Tibetan history, or practice a language.Write something completely different. It's easy to get stuck in a genre rut, and giving yourself permission to be dark, silly, dryly expository, or weird allows you to explore your full range as a writer. Brainstorm. Throw out random ideas to keep the plot moving forward, the weirder the better. You may hit inspiration.
Anyone have any favourite tips for unsticking their wordflow? Share in the comments.
March 17, 2014
Instant Unique Powers, No Effort Required
It seems impossible to open a fantasy book these days and encounter a character who is not Special. This means not just Chosen Ones, but the characters who are somehow different in a glamorous way. No fantasy protagonist, it seems, is devoid of either supernatural ancestry, or the ability to acquire unprecedented superpowers at a whim.
On some level, this is part of what makes the genre work. We expect characters in fantasy to have lives that are intertwined with their environment, and that often means they get all kinds of cool magical or sci-fi powers. But at the same time, there is no requirement that the protagonist have some unique gift or never-before-seen power. It's different if the the protagonist has gained a special skill through their own effort and worked hard to become amazingly good. There are also stories in which the protagonist is born with a superpower but must struggle to use it or to control it ( Avatar: The Last Airbender and its sequel The Legend of Korra are series which do this extremely well). The key is that the protagonist has to earn their awesomeness, rather than having awesome powers above and beyond the norm for their world handed to them effortlessly.
I find the Special-by-lineage protagonists particularly problematic, because the implication is that no ordinary person could elevate themselves by a combination of opportunity, luck and hard work. The protagonist gets their cool abilities because someone in their family tree got busy with an elf, angel, faerie, or what-have-you*, or worse, because someone in their family had a roll in the hay with royalty (because obviously no dirty commoners could have courage or leadership skills or magic or any other desirable attributes all by themselves).
I'm not saying you need to take away the traits that give your character their extra dose of awesome. But think about making them work for it-- having their powers come with a steep price, or having to work hard to control them, for example. Or have the characters learn a cool skill all by themselves, without the benefit of supernatural ancestry or just plain inborn uniqueness.
*Notice the emphasis on pretty creatures-- we need more half-giants or half-trolls running around.
On some level, this is part of what makes the genre work. We expect characters in fantasy to have lives that are intertwined with their environment, and that often means they get all kinds of cool magical or sci-fi powers. But at the same time, there is no requirement that the protagonist have some unique gift or never-before-seen power. It's different if the the protagonist has gained a special skill through their own effort and worked hard to become amazingly good. There are also stories in which the protagonist is born with a superpower but must struggle to use it or to control it ( Avatar: The Last Airbender and its sequel The Legend of Korra are series which do this extremely well). The key is that the protagonist has to earn their awesomeness, rather than having awesome powers above and beyond the norm for their world handed to them effortlessly.
I find the Special-by-lineage protagonists particularly problematic, because the implication is that no ordinary person could elevate themselves by a combination of opportunity, luck and hard work. The protagonist gets their cool abilities because someone in their family tree got busy with an elf, angel, faerie, or what-have-you*, or worse, because someone in their family had a roll in the hay with royalty (because obviously no dirty commoners could have courage or leadership skills or magic or any other desirable attributes all by themselves).
I'm not saying you need to take away the traits that give your character their extra dose of awesome. But think about making them work for it-- having their powers come with a steep price, or having to work hard to control them, for example. Or have the characters learn a cool skill all by themselves, without the benefit of supernatural ancestry or just plain inborn uniqueness.
*Notice the emphasis on pretty creatures-- we need more half-giants or half-trolls running around.
March 14, 2014
Lust and Relationships
As a frequent reader of advice columns*, I can say with some confidence that one should not underestimate the importance of mutual attraction in maintaining a romantic relationship. Even couples that include one or more asexuals need some additional romantic spark, even if it's not 'sexual' in the conventional sense of the word. That said, a relationship needs a lot more than mutual lust to make it successful as a partnership beyond an extended 'vague acquaintances-with-benefits' arrangement.Fictionland appears to have missed this memo. There are legions of couples who appear to have little in common, or even be seriously incompatible, even though the audience is assured they are each other's One True Love. Then again, these couples have usually spent much of the story arc in an extended game of 'will they or won't they' and don't get together until the end, so we don't get to see whether or not their union makes it past the 8-year mark.
A key part of this problem is that much attention is spent on building up the idea that these characters have physical chemistry, at the expense of showing any other aspects of their relationship. Furthermore, for the sake of sustaining a 'will they or won't they' tease, the sexual attraction is usually portrayed as bickering (and sometimes downright antagonism). I have a sneaking suspicion that this is a nod to Much Ado About Nothing. However, those bickering characters worked because the bickering was a manifestation of their similarly witty personalities-- they don't bicker because they fundamentally get on each other's nerves, but because they have a similar communication style (snarky banter) and find this fun.
Yes, fictional romances have an element of wish fulfillment. But on some level remembering this makes the incongruity of the mismatched 'True Love' even more apparent. The writer has full control over their story, and can make their characters compatible enough for a believable relationship if the reader is going to believe the pair has truly fallen in love.
*Everyone is allowed a strange guilty pleasure. It also helps me in writing dysfunctional characters.
March 12, 2014
Squeezing In Writing
Our collective consciousness likes to picture writing as something of a leisure profession. Writers, as portrayed in popular media, have many unbroken hours to chip away at a masterpiece, preferably in solitude. These characters are typically upper-middle-class*, and appear to have materially comfortable lives free of day jobs (unless the character is a starving artist, who will have freedom within their chaotic existence).For someone just beginning a writing project, this image is intimidating. We're told, by collective implication, that this is the one and only way to be a writer-- if you don't have the time to sip tea while contemplating sentence structure for hours, you're out of the game. It's especially frustrating when a hundred and one other tasks are clamoring for your attention.
Although the average person might have more challenges on their way to completing a story than someone with fewer obligations, it doesn't mean it's impossible. In my experience, a little creativity in finding time to write goes a long way. Here are some things I like to do:
Carry a mini notepad. You can brainstorm or write while on the bus, standing in a queue, or if an idea strikes while you're at work.Outline and brainstorm before you write. If you have a limited time for putting words on the page, you can make the most of things by as much as possible beforehand. Schedule writing times, if possible. Even if it's only 10 minutes, blocking out time to write will help you write regularly. Write now, revise later. Second-guessing as you write the first draft is a time suck, so save that for the revision stage.
Anyone have tips for sneaking writing time into an overloaded schedule? Please share them with everyone in the comments.
*White, upper-middle-class, and male is a highly over represented demographic in writing and publishing.
March 10, 2014
It's Treachery!
Fictional characters who change sides in the central conflict are subject to an enormous double standard. Convert to the protagonist's way of thinking, and you've redeemed yourself by 'seeing the light'. Go over to join the villain, and you're the scum of the earth.
This makes complete sense. If we didn't sympathise with the protagonist (no matter how flawed they may be), that character wouldn't be able to fill that role in the story. When the villain is particularly nasty-- their agenda includes, say, bringing about the end of the world, wiping out dissenters, and banning delicious pastries*-- it can be extremely difficult to see how anyone would willingly sign up to join them. At the same time, when the protagonist's point of view seems obviously right, we assume any sensible person would agree, and that someone who defects from the Dark Lord must have simply seen the facts and had a complete change of hard.
Real life, of course, is more complicated. Although history occasionally drops some Obvious Good Guys vs Obvious Bad Guys conflicts into our laps, it's the exception rather than the rule. And even those reasonably clear 'good vs evil' showdowns can include questionable tactics in the name of admirable causes. When the moral lines are blurrier, people often choose the side that benefits them or their pet causes, whether or not they have any strong feelings about the bigger conflict at hand.
The other thing to remember is that genuinely changing sides is a difficult proposition. An opportunist who joins the hero or the villain simply because it's the best choice for them is very different from someone who makes an actual ideological shift. Changing one's belief system means changing a part of one's self-identity and reworking the way one sees the world. It's a big undertaking, and for an adult character will require some external trigger. The larger that shift, the more significant the event or realisation that has to precede it.
In writing someone who changes sides-- whether they're joining the protagonists or antagonists-- it's best to focus on their personal motives. Maybe it's fear. Maybe it's the discovery of game-changing facts. Maybe it is simply grabbing a material opportunity. Or maybe it is a combination of all of these. Whatever drives your character, it should make sense, and perhaps add more depth to the conflict driving the story.
*For everyone who's not a European history nerd-- this person existed.
This makes complete sense. If we didn't sympathise with the protagonist (no matter how flawed they may be), that character wouldn't be able to fill that role in the story. When the villain is particularly nasty-- their agenda includes, say, bringing about the end of the world, wiping out dissenters, and banning delicious pastries*-- it can be extremely difficult to see how anyone would willingly sign up to join them. At the same time, when the protagonist's point of view seems obviously right, we assume any sensible person would agree, and that someone who defects from the Dark Lord must have simply seen the facts and had a complete change of hard.
Real life, of course, is more complicated. Although history occasionally drops some Obvious Good Guys vs Obvious Bad Guys conflicts into our laps, it's the exception rather than the rule. And even those reasonably clear 'good vs evil' showdowns can include questionable tactics in the name of admirable causes. When the moral lines are blurrier, people often choose the side that benefits them or their pet causes, whether or not they have any strong feelings about the bigger conflict at hand.
The other thing to remember is that genuinely changing sides is a difficult proposition. An opportunist who joins the hero or the villain simply because it's the best choice for them is very different from someone who makes an actual ideological shift. Changing one's belief system means changing a part of one's self-identity and reworking the way one sees the world. It's a big undertaking, and for an adult character will require some external trigger. The larger that shift, the more significant the event or realisation that has to precede it.
In writing someone who changes sides-- whether they're joining the protagonists or antagonists-- it's best to focus on their personal motives. Maybe it's fear. Maybe it's the discovery of game-changing facts. Maybe it is simply grabbing a material opportunity. Or maybe it is a combination of all of these. Whatever drives your character, it should make sense, and perhaps add more depth to the conflict driving the story.
*For everyone who's not a European history nerd-- this person existed.
March 7, 2014
The Hypercompetent
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, comand a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."— Robert Heinlein
We like competent characters. As readers, we enjoy watching them come up with clever or forceful ways to solve their problems. As writers, we rely on them to take action and drive the plot.
Because these characters are so much fun, it's tempting to move them from the zone of 'competent' into 'hypercompetent'. I'm not talking about characters who are experts in their chosen field, but about characters who are an expert in absolutely everything, usually before the age of thirty. In and of itself, the trope is not bad. It can be effective in certain genres, most notably those which run on exaggeration and wish fulfillment. Also, it's instructive to note that a character with an endearing personality and numerous well-developed shortcomings, or a character who is a mass of fascinating personality flaws, can get away with a lot of hypercompetence in otherwise more mundane genres simply because their faults give them a level of realism and allow the reader to actually identify with them.
In more realistic settings, however, there needs to be a cap on characters who are the masters of absolutely everything. First of all, there is a difference between a character who is reasonably good at a number of things-- many such people exist, after all-- and a character who has taken all of those skills to a world-class-expert level. There just isn't enough time in the day for a character to put in their 10,000 hours of practice in biochemistry, aeronautical engineering, dog training, classical piano, five languages, and three martial arts. This goes triple if the character is under 25, or Ceiling Cat forbid, under the age of 18.
Unless you're in one of the more over the top genres, it's best to constrain your character to glowing expertise in only one or two areas, and to accomplishment in only a few more. Then make sure there is a plausible and well-considered reason the character has that skill set, particularly if it is not an obvious extension of their established background. For example, if a character is known to have grown up on a remote Colorado ranch, a through understanding of cattle husbandry comes as no surprise; if they're revealed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of 18th-century Chinese literature, the reader will want an explanation, most preferably a succinct and believable one.
