Nervous Quirks For Your Characters

One thing White Collar gets absolutely right and very few other shows do, is that people React to guns.

The reaction varies, depending on their level of training/comfort with firearms, but there's no cool guy bravado* when someone pulls a gun, especially not from Neal. When he sees a gun he always always always reacts like things just got very serious, this is no longer fun and games.

And you know what? Yes please. It also ups the stakes for us when a character reacts to someone pulling a gun on them, and it's also highly realistic. I just really appreciate it that guns aren't a prop to signify "antagonist" but a weapon that should and does elicit fear.

* except for when Kate pulled a gun on Peter, and even then his reaction was warranted.

I also want writers to stop assuming if a male and female character are friends they they have to be dating. Assuming if a m & f are friends they automatically have to like each other it makes for really lazy writing. If you want 2 characters to be in love, to like each other you have to show us why they like each other. Gives us the story of them falling in love two best friends of the same gender should not have more chemistry than the main couple gives us m/f relationships where there is just friendship so we can have the romance stories we deserve and stop assuming m/f together on screen are automatically dating.

NOT ONLY do i want more m/f friendships in media where there's nothing romantic between them, but i want m/f friendships where both characters are SINGLE so that there's no reason there to "justify" why those two can't date. i want the platonicness of their relationship to be something that stands on its own merit.

19 points

Writer Bingo

What’s your final score? 👀

What makes White Collar hold up so much better than other police procedurals:

It was part of the "pretty happy shows with gorgeous ensemble casts and a charismatic weird guy" USA network era but it somehow used that to be about stuff that is so REAL

What is justice? Is our system fair? Can you be a criminal and still be a good man? Can you be a good man and still work for the system?

The bad guys are rich assholes, and people defrauding families out of their homes, and unethical pharmaceutical companies. People manipulating energy supply out of greed resulting in blackouts which are showing *harming a dog,* aka how to show something is monstrous in a pg show written by a white person. Class exists in this universe in more ways than having a cardboard concept of a "rich guy."

The bad guys include police, FBI agents, prison staff, judges, senators. Those people cause real harm, obstruct justice, plant evidence, kill people. It's shown how the system protects them and harms regular people.

The harm that causes the main character to go from wanting to be part of the system, to subverting and working against it, is him finding out about an act of police corruption, brutality, and murder--and what's more, that if he became a cop, that's what he could become.

The harm that causes the main character to be outside the white picket fence is that the system failed his family after that act. What happened to Neal's mom? Why did nobody besides Helen step in? They had to check in with US Marshals, did nobody notice this kid didn't have an adult fit to parent?

So Neal turns to found family. And let's be real, heavily polyamory coded found family at that. But he keeps chasing the idea of a girl who will be everything. But he's got all this attachment trauma so he never does. But because found family is real family, even the people who freaking played the characters are still connected a decade later

There's a post floating around the tumbls to the tune of "stop writing your characters like they're winning at therapy." The overall thrust of this "advice" seems to be that it's not interesting characterization or good fiction to write characters who already have good self-awareness and the ability to communicate with the people around them.  The strong implication of the post was that self-awareness and therapy are boring, so don't put them to paper.  

There's another post that's a kind of follow up, talking in a more nuanced way about how characters, like real-life people, may well have extreme difficulty 1) identifying the emotions they're having, much less 2) being able to talk about them, or 3) being willing or feeling safe enough to say it aloud.  It's not such an intentionally quelling piece of direction about how to write effectively, but it still comes down on the side of "conflict makes for more interesting reading in the end." 

The other implication of "this isn't good writing" is that those kinds of stories do not hold value, and that conflict has a very narrow meaning.

It's true that people grow up in all kinds of situations that affect their understanding of their feelings, much less their ability to communicate them or ask for help. Those folks may struggle alone for a long time before they are in a place where it's safe to slow down and think things through.  Some folks may never get to that place, and it's important to read their stories and struggles.

It's true, too, that there are people who are naturally more self aware, who are able to speak up for themselves regardless of any past trauma or any ongoing anxiety disorder or whatever other thing might have otherwise hampered their insight and communication about their needs and desires. Their current success doesn't mean their story isn't worth penning.

Here's what the "don't write it, it's not realistic" crowd and the "don't write it, most people don't have these skills" folks fail to answer: why is it wrong to write and read stories where the characters behave like self-actualized people who love themselves enough to spend the time doing the work getting over their shit, and who love and respect the people around them enough to communicate clearly with them?  Why is it wrong for a writer to give a reader a lens into a world where some people reach a point in their life where they don't have to deal with drama, understand why they feel a certain way, and take affirmative steps to solve their problems?  Why is it wrong for some writers and readers to want a story where there isn't conflict, and where there is a calm, peaceful ending for everybody involved?

"Conflict's more interesting!" 

Maybe, but it also contributes to stress, anxiety, depression, physical health issues, sleep disruption, anger issues, violence, crime, self-harm, and suicide.  Acting like everyone ought to be writing conflict instead of healthy communication is racist, ableist, and classist as hell-- pretty mean-spirited, too, if all you care about is the drama.  It's also incredibly intellectually lazy.

It's pretty rude to assume you know what all writers ought to write, or what all readers must read.

People write for all kinds of reasons, and people read looking for all kinds of things-- mirrors of their own life, but also windows with views onto something they might not have been able to imagine before reading your story. 

Some people have already been through the wringer and did the work, and want to write a world where they can remind ourselves and other people that it's possible to do the work-- even when it's hard-- and end up on the other side of things in a better place.  We've been through conflict, and we don't want anyone else to have to go through it, either. We want to share our tools and coping mechanisms and reframing devices so that others who are having a hard time while they are reading have at least one positive view that gives the reader permission.  Stories that write about winning at therapy are important, because they say this: 

"Go ahead, you're allowed.  Acknowledge that what's happening to you isn't fair or healthy.  Admit that you deserve better, because you know that the character in this story is like you and you can see clearly for them what's still hard to accept for yourself.  Understand that you're not a failure for having strong feelings. Know that it's not selfish to take care of yourself and to read the books/see the therapists/erect the boundaries/take the meds you need in order to feel like life can be better."

Getting better and staying that way isn't boring or unrealistic, and neither is writing about it. One of the hardest stories I ever wrote was a story about communicating about mismatched needs. When it was done, I reread it and saw-- oh, I need to do the thing I just put my characters through the therapeutic exercise of figuring out for themselves.  It was embarassing, to know myself better through fiction writing than through therapy-- but the process of writing let me figure out on paper what I wanted to happen. The kick in the teeth of realizing it wouldn't happen was what let me make a hard decision-- that my story gave me permission to make.  And then I published the fic, which was more embarrassing because there were several folks IRL who realized what it meant for my offline life. I published it anyway, and few years ago, someone read the fic and commented something along the lines of:  "I'm going to therapy and making X decision because of reading this fic." 

My uninteresting story about a character telling another character that they needed to talk some things through and get help?  It helped someone else.  And it was a popular story, because lots of people who read it understood-- the struggle to understand yourself and your needs is one of the hardest conflicts all of us face, and coming out on the other end of it is a victory that we deserve to share with others, in the hope that they'll see a way through too. 

So, dearly beloveds-- please be assured that you have at least one writer's permission to write boring, uninteresting stories about people who know how to solve their own problems and put on their own emotional oxygen mask before helping others.  I, for one, can't wait to read your story and tell you how much I enjoyed it, and how happy I am that you're sharing that kind of success and the hope it might give to others.  

Jumping on the recent string of "is magic real" asks to ask: do you believe there is a magical way to curse someone (without affecting their material reality) that would reliably cause negative consequences for that person?

No I don't think a curse will cause any reliable consequences for someone. But I also don't think that's necessarily why people make curses.

Sitting down and assembling a curse jar is an activity with a definite end. You put in the herbs and pop the cap and say the incantation and it's DONE. There is something meditative about it, psychologically satisfying. Instead of sitting around and seething while doing your laundry, you pour all that emotion into some symbolically significant artistic activity that has a big ceremonial finish. It helps you move on.

List of “unrequited love but turns out!! it’s actually requited” prompts

“What, did you think I kissed you all these times because I was doing it for the shits and giggles?” “…Let’s be real, you did have a lot of fun shoving your tongue down my throat in public.”

“Oh my God, why are you crying? Does me liking you disgust you that much?” “No, you dumbass, it’s because you like me back but I spent all of this time thinking you’d never like me that way!”

“Look, we can pretend I never confessed if it means you’ll stay—” “What?! No! You can’t just take back your confession! That’s such a coward move and I’ll not allow that! Especially when I feel the same way towards you.” 

“I’ll get over you. I promise. These feelings, they’re— they’re only temporary, I swear. I—I’ll get over you. Just please don’t leave me—” “Did you ever think, that maybe, I don’t want you getting over me? What if I don’t want these feelings to be only temporary? That maybe I… Like you, too?”

“I didn’t mean to fall for you.” “And neither did I.” “…Fucking pardon?” 

“So according to _____, you’re in love with me, too?” “Oh, that fucking bast— wait, did you just say too?” 

“You need to stop kissing me like you mean it; I’m going to read into things wrong and end up breaking my own heart.” “That’s because I do mean it every single time. You’ve just been too dense to realise.” 

“Why are you apologising for liking me back?” “Because I don’t want to ruin— wait a second. Pause and rewind, what did you just say?” 

“You don’t have to like me back, you know? I just wanted to let you know how I felt, that’s all.” “Well, too bad! Because these feelings are mutual, and now you can’t get rid of me.”

“Why are you lying to me? You can tell me the truth, it’s okay. I’m strong enough for the truth, I swear.” “What? I’m not lying to you! You’d think you’d pick up on the signs that I’ve been in love with you, for fucking forever, but apparently someone’s too obtuse to realise that!” 

Reminder not to edit while you write. You want to finish that story someday? Then stop editing while you write!

Fixing an obvious error/typo in the sentence you just wrote is fine, but we're not talking about that. Do not reread, do not continue searching for errors, do not even spellcheck in case that leads you down the editing rabbithole.

Finish the story. The clock is ticking on that muse and distractions waste precious time!

The Iberian peninsula prior to the Carthaginian invasion and partial conquest was a melange of different tribal influences, with the Celtic influx being the most  recent and most pervasive as this map shows.

Accurate

Naming characters in your books is like:

This is Mischa Ernst Townes III: I made a list of thirty-two possible names and narrowed them down through careful evaluation of which phonetic sounds and letter combinations invoked his energy, which etymologies most emulated the spirit of the character, and which names had connotations or allusions that would foreshadow or contrast his inevitable arc while simultaneously harking back to his history in an interconnected web.

OR

This is Roger Halifax it came to me in a dream.

There is no inbetween.