Writer vs. Stockholm Syndrome

As writers, our passions are double-edged. We are often hostage to our muses and it is always our burden to attempt to describe it. We are warring egos struggling to be unique. There are also behaviors that border on mass hysteria that I... Avoid like the plague. I use that phrase a lot but when I wade through writers' communities populated by the thousands, there are some attitudes that make me quick to retreat to the villages and wash the city stink off. Might as well get some things out of the way.

1) most writers are depressed and/or disabled

I don't make this statement lightly because I'm not excluded. I don't however use it to try to win arguments or garner sympathy. I stumbled onto a conversation where the guy was clearly being elitist about why people should write and he was firmly put into place but didn't continue to argue, just explain what he meant. It didn't exactly strengthen his argument but it was clearly an opinion, unpopular or not, and harmless to have. The girl continued to argue and even insult him, all the while reiterating over and over that she was mentally ill and insinuating that he was insensitive if he hurt her feelings. Writers' support groups are full of people working out mental health challenges and this girl turned hers into a hypocritical argument using the very elitism she was supposedly against. May it be said now and over and over again; if you use your perceived disadvantages as a way to silence others, you are no longer the oppressed but the oppressor. You are not unique among writers to have some such issue and it is quite possible he has his own demons but he also wasn't required to defend himself by telling a hostile stranger his life story.

There's an article I've been meaning to read on Medium that says just that-- no one is entitled to your life story.

2) sometimes the fruit is just a fruit

Among novelists, you will always find people who should have warned you that they are really writing epic poems. Oy, the purple prose. If you know me you know I don't have the patience to sit through four pages of describing the beauty of a rose. I've been personally accused of even being telling. There are certainly times were I don't want to waste chapters telling backstories that will never ever become relevant again.

Don't get me wrong-- I enjoy a good back story but I'm also able to recognize when my character's back story wouldn't be that interesting. Most first person story telling is already tedious because the ego of the character assumes that every sensation they have is something you haven't properly considered until they've described it in painstaking detail.

I don't mind a smidgeon of creative writing but I draw the line at a colorful scene that does absolutely nothing to move a story. B-b-but it fleshes out the character! Does it though? Or is it just the narration of a writer that desperately begs you to love everything about how they see the character? What makes reading a piece so captivating isn't the bias of the writer, it's the strength of the story. Your beloved MC may be widely hated so if you, as the writer, are constantly insisting that they are the most loved, you only force the reader out of your story with insecurities on why they would prefer a different character. Belabor a scene with too much flowery detail and your pacing goes with it.

Sean Penn is getting a lot of heat from his novel Bob Honey Who Just Do Stuff (a title that always makes me giggle with genuine glee). He uses a lot of large flowery words that come out to so much garbled nonsense. When you use those big money words, be damned sure it's making the scene crystal clear. He could take a page from from friend Antonio, who uses descriptive words with the perfect amount of context. Describe the quirks of a scene but don't linger too long. I promise, if done well, those vivid adjectives in small doses are still lingering in their vision and you don't need to constantly remind them. Even the most clueless people are better at understanding context than you think.

Let's assume a character blushes after taking a bite after someone. If you're not aware that the cultural upbringing of this character means that this is considered a second hand kiss, how do you convey it quickly without coming straight out with 'she blushes because her upbringing means this act is considered a second hand kiss. How would you write it? I might approach it like this.

He sees the color of her skin rise to the challenge of matching the skin of the fruit.

"You're not allergic, are you?"

Her eyes widen but a flash of understanding cuts through on a nervous giggle.

"I told you where I'm from, right? We don't share food unless..."

"Unless?" He urges her to finish, no sign of teasing in that curious tone.

She sighs heavily, frustration making the task less daunting.

"Unless you're very close. Family. Lovers. Children."

She shifts the cool fruit between her hands, feeling the juices turn dry in her mouth. She tosses it back with more force than necessary. He catches it and the slow smile on his face smacks her with the realization that he had teased that confession out of her. He takes a triumphant bite directly over the spot he had taken a more conservative nibble. A traitorous smile pulls at her lips, but she makes a show of pretending to wipe at her mouth.

-----

Keep in mind, this is skeletal, but it does pull in the fruit and the psychological components of the character development. This isn't a deep scene and it's even cliche. We see a blushing girl and a seemingly oblivious guy. He urges her to say a thing that she realizes he already knows and in her humiliation she lashes out. She does like him and at this point probably doesn't want to. It's a short scene but it uses simple dialogue and gestures to both shed some light on her past and develop their relationship.

But does this scene become relevant again? If I write a scene like this, I would make a note. At some point later in the story, there could come a point where he has to betray her and they become enemies. There's a storm brewing and the sky is black but they stand next to a tree bobbing with the weight of overripe blood red apples. He takes one, his eyes cold as he takes a bite and tosses it at her. She catches it on instinct but makes a show of letting it fall from her hands and kicking it away. Or maybe his eyes are sad and when he tosses the apple, her heart still holds some hope and her bite covers his this time. This is the beauty of storytelling. Simple subtleties change everything.

Don't keep a scene because it's sweet and sentimental. What made my short scene useful was how loaded it became later. If the fruit is just a fruit, let it be eaten and forgotten. You can use objects to color a scene but don't make it the star. Maybe the apple feels cold and hard because the character is bitter. Maybe it's bright and shining because the character is hopeful. Just like you don't describe every bite, remember it is a tool and not a feature.

3.) My characters don't do whatever they want

Back to the gripes, a necessary evil. Many writers will claim they are in distress because their characters are hiding things from them or not cooperating. I went through this same stingy inclusionary thinking as a doll enthusiast and I'm going to say the same thing here that comedians say about identity politics: how far are outside observers supposed to go to protect your identity? Hey, I can relate in a sense. I dream about my characters, have a place in my head where they seem to develop on their own, but ultimately I am not a vessel for people far more interesting than me. I am not the whisperer of jealous ghosts begging me to give them a platform to be liked in this world. These characters are pieces of my experiences and observations and they are mine to command.

As a personal example, I'll bring up UnNamed again. When I was consciously planning the characters I had a very specific relationship in mind and one I was rather set on. I had a vivid dream that night that made them very very different from that idea and it heavily conflicted with a rather huge main plot. I was heavily conflicted but I didn't think it was particularly cute to hop on the 'my character is being stubborn' bandwagon. Even when I was younger and laden with quirks, this thinking was repulsive to me. I should explain that this isn't an exaggeration since we writers are prone to those. By way of comparison, I've met quite a few religious zealots in my life, people who have made me feel less than dirt for being a faithless doubter (to understate what was really being said). These are people who never accept blame or guilt because their god is a forgiving god. These are people that pretend they don't feel pride or vanity because it was their god that did it, not them. All glory goes to God, after all.

One such person was even convinced that their god gave them a sign that they were meant to have an expensive Coach bag.

I don't deny people their beliefs or even their delusions, but when you use different vocabulary or attempt to assert your point of view, they often counter with a personal attack-- that you aren't imaginative, compassionate or even moral. The real problem is only when you can see an underlying arrogance and the person is actually avoiding any real virtue, be it humility, guilt, etc. there is a lack of ownership for one's actions to the tune of 'the devil made me do it.' As with the personal attack, when they attempt to make it about them and their worlds, they virtue signal but fall short, deciding to attack on their assumptions of your flawed logic, not theirs. As you can see there are general parallels with zealots of all kinds, but I'm not pretending to have all of the answers nor am I smug with superiority.

It's never really worth the confrontation. It's precisely why I don't ever bring up I'm an atheist unless someone assumes I'm going to play into their belief system. I'm really okay with people playing hostage to their imaginary friends when it's harmless and inspiring, but just like with religion, I'm also not going to play along. One thing I did learn from the Bible was in the story of the deniers where Jesus told his disciple that he would deny him x amount of times before they met again and the great guilt that disciple felt when the prediction came true. To me, there is no amount of acceptance worth denying my own ideas and logic. Unpopular or not, I'm going to be the anti-denier. I can also understand why the denier would lack the faith to speak up. He was asked to operate on blind faith and even intelligent people are led astray by false prophets. The lessons there at least hold logic. I'm not going to argue schizophrenia with stubborn writers because, well, see point 1. It's par for the course.

------

A few points I had to get off of my chest. I'm often immersed in my ambitions so when I scour social media, it's imperative that I analyze what I'm getting out of it. I can admit, I've always been stubborn, bossy and that's off-putting to a lot of people, but this is largely BECAUSE I've humbled myself to learning from others, not because I'm shouting endlessly from the same high ground. I've wavered on labels, my own identity, my own mental and physical health challenges. I've pissed people off and made some amazing friends. Ive been pegged as a bimbo and shamed as a nerd. If I took too much time being offended, I'd never get anything done.

 And yes, I've had my writing kicked in the dirt. My blog is about my tastes, not about what should be mainstream or hailed as absolute. I consider it a blessing that everyone who reads my work is not a yes-man. I don't intend to be hostage to an echo chamber or a hug box.

I want you to be offended, or not, and keep writing regardless. Make your own standards and set out to break a few. We're all in a craft that no one masters after all.