For those of you who are new to this site you don’t know that I didn’t blog last week. For regular visitors, I’m confident you carried on fine without me. I’ve been busy working on my third novel, Black Ice, and the first draft is almost complete. Book – blog. Book – blog. Duh, it’s a no-brainer. Finishing the novel takes priority over blogging.
I’m not sure how some authors manage to spend all day at the computer but as yet I have both a physical and creative limit. When my back and my butt start aching and my brain goes more numb than is usual, I’ve finished for the day.
Additionally, I’m determined to have a life. Now that I’m off the road and don’t have to be “on” all the time trying to entertain an audience, there are many extracurricular activities that demand my attention; a body to be re-sculptured, golf to be played when the weather is warm enough and there is no snow on the ground, great meals to cook, friends with whom to dine out, books to read, and movies to watch. In comparison, writing a blog seems a chore.
Okay, I hear you. I’ve stalled long enough. It’s time to get back on task.
In the previous blogs, we examined the seven valued motivational styles associated with relationship awareness theory and the Strength Deployment Inventory http://www.typetalk.com/Articles/SDI-Handout_Final.pdf , a tool which I’ve employed during my three-plus decades as an organizational consultant in Fortune 500 and government organizations and that lends itself extremely well to character development for novels. In Parts 1 through 7, I presented the basic mindset of each style and provided examples of fictional characters that demonstrate each.
In creating memorable characters it is important that each have their own unique voice. How each of our characters communicates should sound differently. They should choose words that express their unique internal points of view – their valued relating style. By this I don’t just mean sound like a Democrat or Republican, American or Saudi, male or female. We are talking about words reflecting the core internal driving force that motivates one’s behavior.
To keep today’s discussion simple, we’ll examine the language that persons representing each of the three primary motivational styles (assertive-directing, altruistic-nurturing and analytical-autonomizing) choose to express oneself. The four blended styles construct a language that depicts a composite of one of these three styles in a way that reflects their motivational style preferences.
You may recall that the assertive-directing (red) motivational style is characterized by a concern for accomplishment and for organization of people, time, money, and resources to achieve desired results. Such persons are competitive, action-oriented, risk takers who tend to be opportunistic and persuasive, like to be in leadership positions, and are always looking for a new challenge and personal advancement.
Fictional action heroes, as well as villains, tend to be Reds. Their language should reflect their get-r-done mentality. Mostly, they speak in short, crisp, bottom line-oriented dialogue. Such persons have no difficulty in asking for what they want or speaking first person. “I want.” “I need.” “I did.” “I win.” They don’t desire or possess a need to explain themselves to others because they see themselves as the cream of the crop, deserving of whatever rewards their superior performance earn. There is no time to waste explaining things. Act! Act now! Explain later – if there is time.
Reds are often verbally talented. There are times that they must use these skills to persuade others. To accurately portray this style, their arguments should be goal-oriented not feeling-oriented. Show their cleverness by crafting dialogue in which they present an argument in terms of what is in it for the other person. It is not uncommon for our fictional villains to exploit their verbal skills to browbeat or humiliate those they have bested or intend to psych-out an opponent.
A source of conflict for assertive-directing persons is listening to long, drawn-out explanations and interacting with people who aren’t assertive enough to ask for what they want. They are impatient and easily lose respect for long-winded people who have excuses for poor performance. At these times, they have no compunction about lowering the hammer.
The altruistic-nurturing motivational style is one in which the driving motivational force is a concern for the protection, growth, and wellbeing of others. Such persons are open and responsive to the needs of others, friendly, considerate, supportive, sincere, loyal, compassionate and respectful.
Blues use “I feel” interchangeably with “I think.” Both internal and external dialogue should reflect sensitivity to others and an explicit expression of emotion to complement the physical display of these traits - because allegedly good writers show don’t tell.
Since Blues are other-oriented, they are apt to express personal preferences through such phrases as “we need” or “the team would benefit from.” People who use “I” a lot in conversation tend to annoy them. Our Blue creations are likely to want to slow down the action to make sure that everyone is on board and ready to proceed. They should be thinking about how they might be of help.
Remember from previous discussions that any skill over or misused becomes a weakness. If our story involves a protagonist experiencing an emotional upheaval or overcoming a psychological obstacle, it would be appropriate to craft their dialogue initially as overly emotional, self-effacing, submissive, and displaying a lack of confidence. As the work through their internal turmoil we can reflect that growth in the words they choose.
The third primary valued motivational style is analytical-autonomizing (green). These individuals are driven by a concern that things have been properly thought out and for meaningful order being established and maintained. Our Greens are by nature introspective, objective, practical, cautious, thorough, and logical. They respect intellect and knowledge, strive to be unemotional and self-reliant individuals who pride themselves in rationality and sense of what is just and fair.
Such persons think before they speak and choose their words with extreme care. They are more likely to think about what they would say rather than actually say it. There arguments are logical, rational, and informative and presented void of an emotional component. “I think” or “the data suggest” rather than “I feel.” A clearly presented point of view is data laden and there may be a need to start at the beginning to explain concepts to others who may be intellectually and scientifically challenged.
Dialogue is more characteristically slow and deliberate unless they are having an intellectual epiphany or discussing something that is conceptually arousing to them. Then the use of long, run-on sentences may be appropriate because what they are verbalizing isn’t necessarily meant for the person who is listening. Greens may be merely trying to get all the thoughts out of their heads so they can pick and choose which ones having the most significance. Once the concept congeals and their true interest is to convey that information, it’s back to slow and cautious, well thought out sentences.
Our goal is to make every character their own person with their own unique voice. Applying valued motivational style is a nice finishing touch.
Please feel free to send me your questions or comments. Talk with you again soon.
In the meantime, I have two thrilling novels just waiting for you to latch on to. Check out Troubadour of Peace and Embodiment of Evil on Amazon.
Peace.
Showing posts with label characterization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label characterization. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Writing Memorable Characters: A Psychological Approach (Part 6)
My late mother liked to tell a story about how her three sons had completely different personalities. She was a control freak and in our home it was her way or the highway, a motto that really didn’t work all that well for her. If you remember Part 1 of this series, she was a Red (Assertive-Directing). It wouldn’t be inappropriate to think of her as Conan the Barbarian with an sense of humor. She could have played Tom Cruise’s role in A Few Good Men.
Jill was a fantastic cook who fed us all like kings. Apparently we boys weren’t sufficiently appreciative of her efforts in the kitchen. As part of a scathing lecture on our deficiencies she demanded that when we come to breakfast the following morning we comment on her culinary gifts. The way she tells it is that I comically bounded into the kitchen and sarcastically commented on how wonderful every little thing she said or did was. My brother, Tom, whined and complained about everything she cooked. My brother, Bob, walked straight through the kitchen, out the door, and didn’t bother to even say good morning. My brothers and I are to this day, at least to some extent, those same boys.
I had three children and allegedly fathered all three. They, too, were as different as night and day. They came out of the womb with their own distinctive and unique personalities and gifts that they then modified and refined as they grew.
As human beings we all have a different way of seeing and interacting with the world. According to motivational models in psychology, in order to understand individual human behavior we must understand what motivates any given individual. In the first five blogs in this series we have been employing the model of psychologist Elias H. Porter, Ph.D. to describe seven different motivational styles.
The basic premises of this approach professes that (1) motivation shapes behavior, (2) behavior is generically predictable both in normal circumstances and when the individual is faced with opposition or conflict when we understand one’s valued relating style, (3) misapplying or overusing a personal strength results in a character flaw, and (4) interpersonal conflict arises from the tendency to perceive and judge others through one’s own valued motivational style.
I have proposed that an essential component of writing memorable characters involves allowing the reader to experience what is going on inside the minds of the characters we create. To do so requires going beyond projecting our own motivations or imposing our values on our creations. Painting a realistic portrait of each character involves slipping into their skin in order to understand the subtleties of their motivational style.
In today's blog, let’s look at the defining features of the Assertive-Nurturing or Red/Blue motivational value system, a blend of Red and Blue styles.
One of my all time favorite literary characters is Cyrano de Bergerac, the creation of Edmond Rostand. Cyrano is witty, passionate and full of vitality. He is known for a big nose that preceded him by fifteen minutes and he falls in love with his beautiful cousin, Roxanne. However, a large olfactory organ or unreciprocated love isn’t a prerequisite for an Assertive-Nurturing motivational style. Cyrano, however, did allege that a great nose is the banner of a great man, a generous heart, a towering spirit, and an expansive soul.
Red/Blues are driven to actively seek opportunities to help others and understand the compassionate use of power. They utilize their verbal gifts to support the underdog and persuade others in ways that ensure maximum growth and development. Red/Blues tend to be strong and decisive, enthusiastic, friendly, trusting, compassionate, positive and through leadership tend to pursue progressive initiatives and act promptly in matters concerning other people’s welfare.
J.R.R. Tolkien provides us with two contrasting Red/Blue characters in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Frodo was more dominantly Blue and Aragorn, who favors his Red tendencies. Both feel deeply, are prudent and tenacious in pursuing goals, strive not to be superficial in their relationships or inconsiderate of others, and lead for the betterment of others rather than their personal glory. As Cyrano noted, his life's work has been to “prompt others and be forgotten.”
Another Assertive-Nurturing example in literature is Stephanie Plum, Janet Evanovich’s uproarious series character. Stephanie is outgoing, strong and friendly, a confident risk taker, witty, always looking for a challenge and enthusiastically tackles obstacles to success. She doesn’t like people who refuse to get involved, are self-centered, and who are or indifferent to inconsiderate of the needs of others. Red/Blues don’t exploit people. She is also rebellious and not good at taking advice, can be argumentative, likes to haggle prices and at times has a biting sense of humor. Remember from earlier discussions that when we overuse or misuse our strengths we can turn them into weaknesses.
If you want to see an excellent example of an Assertive-Nurturing type on film, check out Legally Blonde. The protagonist, Elle Woods, portrayed by Reese Witherspoon is a trusted and devoted friend, perpetually enthusiastic, never mean even to those who are mean to her, and achieves every goal she sets for herself with a smile on her face and without doing harm to others. I have found that Assertive-Nurturing types make great managers and leaders and I usually enjoy their joyous humor. They get things done without exploiting others or breaking the necks of their subordinates.
As you sit down to create your next protagonist, remember if you want to create a memorable character go beyond plot driven, external events. Show both in behavior and thought what intrinsically motivates our hero to action.
Next time, we’ll examine another of the seven motivational styles: Flexible-Cohering. Come back to visit me again and please tell your friends about this blog. I’ll look forward with enthusiasm to hearing your thoughts regarding the blog content.
My name is Bill Hubiak and I am a novelist. You can find links on my website to both my novels: my latest, Troubadour of Peace, a political thriller, and my first novel, Embodiment of Evil, a psychological thriller / horror. Currently I’m working on a third thriller, Black Ice.
Jill was a fantastic cook who fed us all like kings. Apparently we boys weren’t sufficiently appreciative of her efforts in the kitchen. As part of a scathing lecture on our deficiencies she demanded that when we come to breakfast the following morning we comment on her culinary gifts. The way she tells it is that I comically bounded into the kitchen and sarcastically commented on how wonderful every little thing she said or did was. My brother, Tom, whined and complained about everything she cooked. My brother, Bob, walked straight through the kitchen, out the door, and didn’t bother to even say good morning. My brothers and I are to this day, at least to some extent, those same boys.
I had three children and allegedly fathered all three. They, too, were as different as night and day. They came out of the womb with their own distinctive and unique personalities and gifts that they then modified and refined as they grew.
As human beings we all have a different way of seeing and interacting with the world. According to motivational models in psychology, in order to understand individual human behavior we must understand what motivates any given individual. In the first five blogs in this series we have been employing the model of psychologist Elias H. Porter, Ph.D. to describe seven different motivational styles.
The basic premises of this approach professes that (1) motivation shapes behavior, (2) behavior is generically predictable both in normal circumstances and when the individual is faced with opposition or conflict when we understand one’s valued relating style, (3) misapplying or overusing a personal strength results in a character flaw, and (4) interpersonal conflict arises from the tendency to perceive and judge others through one’s own valued motivational style.
I have proposed that an essential component of writing memorable characters involves allowing the reader to experience what is going on inside the minds of the characters we create. To do so requires going beyond projecting our own motivations or imposing our values on our creations. Painting a realistic portrait of each character involves slipping into their skin in order to understand the subtleties of their motivational style.
In today's blog, let’s look at the defining features of the Assertive-Nurturing or Red/Blue motivational value system, a blend of Red and Blue styles.
One of my all time favorite literary characters is Cyrano de Bergerac, the creation of Edmond Rostand. Cyrano is witty, passionate and full of vitality. He is known for a big nose that preceded him by fifteen minutes and he falls in love with his beautiful cousin, Roxanne. However, a large olfactory organ or unreciprocated love isn’t a prerequisite for an Assertive-Nurturing motivational style. Cyrano, however, did allege that a great nose is the banner of a great man, a generous heart, a towering spirit, and an expansive soul.
Red/Blues are driven to actively seek opportunities to help others and understand the compassionate use of power. They utilize their verbal gifts to support the underdog and persuade others in ways that ensure maximum growth and development. Red/Blues tend to be strong and decisive, enthusiastic, friendly, trusting, compassionate, positive and through leadership tend to pursue progressive initiatives and act promptly in matters concerning other people’s welfare.
J.R.R. Tolkien provides us with two contrasting Red/Blue characters in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Frodo was more dominantly Blue and Aragorn, who favors his Red tendencies. Both feel deeply, are prudent and tenacious in pursuing goals, strive not to be superficial in their relationships or inconsiderate of others, and lead for the betterment of others rather than their personal glory. As Cyrano noted, his life's work has been to “prompt others and be forgotten.”
Another Assertive-Nurturing example in literature is Stephanie Plum, Janet Evanovich’s uproarious series character. Stephanie is outgoing, strong and friendly, a confident risk taker, witty, always looking for a challenge and enthusiastically tackles obstacles to success. She doesn’t like people who refuse to get involved, are self-centered, and who are or indifferent to inconsiderate of the needs of others. Red/Blues don’t exploit people. She is also rebellious and not good at taking advice, can be argumentative, likes to haggle prices and at times has a biting sense of humor. Remember from earlier discussions that when we overuse or misuse our strengths we can turn them into weaknesses.
If you want to see an excellent example of an Assertive-Nurturing type on film, check out Legally Blonde. The protagonist, Elle Woods, portrayed by Reese Witherspoon is a trusted and devoted friend, perpetually enthusiastic, never mean even to those who are mean to her, and achieves every goal she sets for herself with a smile on her face and without doing harm to others. I have found that Assertive-Nurturing types make great managers and leaders and I usually enjoy their joyous humor. They get things done without exploiting others or breaking the necks of their subordinates.
As you sit down to create your next protagonist, remember if you want to create a memorable character go beyond plot driven, external events. Show both in behavior and thought what intrinsically motivates our hero to action.
Next time, we’ll examine another of the seven motivational styles: Flexible-Cohering. Come back to visit me again and please tell your friends about this blog. I’ll look forward with enthusiasm to hearing your thoughts regarding the blog content.
My name is Bill Hubiak and I am a novelist. You can find links on my website to both my novels: my latest, Troubadour of Peace, a political thriller, and my first novel, Embodiment of Evil, a psychological thriller / horror. Currently I’m working on a third thriller, Black Ice.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Writing Memorable Characters: A Psychological Approach (Part 5)
I love to eat. No, really I mean I love to eat. So much so that Carole has expressed some jealously about my relationship to food.
Despite – or maybe because of - her concern about my lascivious obsession with food, we eat at the best restaurants, take cooking classes together, and have a ball trying new recipes and cooking together in our kitchen. We are constantly looking for new tastes that tingle our senses.
I look for that same primal, sensuous experience when I read a novel and thrive on tension building titillating action like that offered by J.A. Konrath. I just finished Shaken and hated to put it down.
Adrenaline junkie that I am, however, what I find most memorable about any book are the characters. Flavoring a story with interesting and unique personalities is like eating at Bella Bistro – our favorite restaurant in Arvada, Colorado. I want to savor every last morsel and can’t wait to be served up another course.
Providing our readers the opportunity to crawl around in the grey cranial matter of our fictional characters to experience the motivational core that drives behavior is equivalent to adding a to-die-for icing or sauce to any already mouth-watering thriller. In Part 1 through 4 we employed Dr. Elias Porter’s relationship awareness theory as the model for understanding motivational value systems.
We have already discussed the three primary and one of the blend motivational styles utilized in the Strength Deployment Inventory: Assertive-Directing (Red), Analytical-Autonomizing (Green), Altruistic-Nurturing (Blue) and Judicious-Competing (Green-Red). I provided examples of fictional characters from novels, television, and movies of each of these motivational styles and hopefully conveyed how each style motivates behavior, presents unique points of view, and presents potential pitfalls for persons with such personal preferences. If you missed out on reading the earlier blogs I invite you to visit them in the archives section.
The goal of today’s blog will be to examine the Cautious-Supporting (Green-Blue) motivational value system. Green-Blues are driven by a concern for affirming and developing self-sufficiency in themselves and in others. Such persons are thoughtful and helpful and have a strong regard for justice. At work, they are likely to build effective, user-friendly processes, provide resources to enhance the welfare of others, and support intelligent activities that facilitate personal growth and bring forth the best in others.
If you ever had a science teacher in school that provided entertaining experiments that made the class laugh and provided humorous memory aids to help students internalize complex ideas, chances are they were a Green-Blue. A real feel-good comedy that Carole and I enjoy to watch on gloomy days is Multiplicity, starring Michael Keaton. Keaton plays a contractor stretched to his limits by work and family obligations. A scientist convinces him to clone himself so he can be in more that one place at the same time. One of the clones, meant to represent his feminine side, portrays the Green-Blue style beautifully. In one scene he instructs his wife on the proper technique for wrapping meat products to avoid the meat going stale. TTF. Tuck, tuck, fold. Two tucks and a fold. Think of Elizabeth Taylor. A tuck here and a fold there. For Greens there is a right way to do everything. Blues want to help you succeed. Green-Blues are motivated to facilitate your growth, to enable you to become independent and self-sufficient.
I’ve read all the Alex Delaware mysteries by Jonathon Kellerman. The retired psychologist, Alex Delaware, is a consultant to the LA Police Department. He is a warm and compassionate person who combines compassion and intellect in solving child related crimes and to provide enlightened guidance for others. He is thoughtful and respectful of other’s feeling and goals and thorough in whatever he undertakes on another’s behalf.
The ranks of certain areas of specialization (e.g., child psychology and family therapy) and schools of thought in psychology (e.g., humanistic psychology) are filled with Green-Blues. Other psychology specializations, such as behaviorism and Freudian therapists, are often dominated by persons who are more Analytical-Autonomizing (Green).
Mikael Blomkvist from Stieg Larsson’s popular Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is another popular character that fits into this category. Like Alex Delaware, he is not driven by a need to be top dog or to win at all costs and his involvement in intrigue is a side effect of a burning desire to know the truth and be of assistance, not of a competitive psyche. He can be overly trusting and his blind faith in others has nearly ruined his career.
Leonard on the situational comedy, The Big Bang Theory is another character from this mold. A congenial and brilliant physicist, he is conscientious in his work and habits, patient with his anal retentive roommate, respectful of the Sheldon’s oft outlandish rules, and a devoted friend dedicated to acting in a fair and just manner that is considerate of all concerned parties.
As is true for all Green-Blue blends, Leonard must be on guard against the amplifying effects of overusing or misusing any of his personal strengths. Both Green (Analytical-Autonomizing) and Blue (Altruistic-Nurturing) types strive to maintain harmony. In order to avoid conflict, Leonard often withdraws from confrontation or submits to other’s arguments when he cannot overrule them with his logic. He can be overly cautious in his relationships, not wanting to offend.
I often find that in real life where blends include a Green component, Green is more dominant of the two styles. Many of the high tech companies in which I have consulted have a Green-Blue organizational culture. Intelligence and techie-ness are essentially but there is no reason we can’t have fun doing this work. The biggest differences between Greens and Green-Blues is that the latter often has a more external focus (an authentic concern for people based on empathy rather than a reserved emotional logic and appreciation for justice and fairness). They are often much more openly funny and usually deliver a punch line to a joke with more enthusiasm.
Greens are more common character types in thrillers than are blends. If you can think of some others, I hope you comment on this blog and share your insights.
As always, I’ll look forward to your comments. Don’t forget to take a look at my novels if you need reading material for your next vacation or business trip. I’m making terrific progress on my third thriller, Black Ice, and hope to have the first draft complete by the end of February. Talk with you again on Thursday.
Despite – or maybe because of - her concern about my lascivious obsession with food, we eat at the best restaurants, take cooking classes together, and have a ball trying new recipes and cooking together in our kitchen. We are constantly looking for new tastes that tingle our senses.
I look for that same primal, sensuous experience when I read a novel and thrive on tension building titillating action like that offered by J.A. Konrath. I just finished Shaken and hated to put it down.
Adrenaline junkie that I am, however, what I find most memorable about any book are the characters. Flavoring a story with interesting and unique personalities is like eating at Bella Bistro – our favorite restaurant in Arvada, Colorado. I want to savor every last morsel and can’t wait to be served up another course.
Providing our readers the opportunity to crawl around in the grey cranial matter of our fictional characters to experience the motivational core that drives behavior is equivalent to adding a to-die-for icing or sauce to any already mouth-watering thriller. In Part 1 through 4 we employed Dr. Elias Porter’s relationship awareness theory as the model for understanding motivational value systems.
We have already discussed the three primary and one of the blend motivational styles utilized in the Strength Deployment Inventory: Assertive-Directing (Red), Analytical-Autonomizing (Green), Altruistic-Nurturing (Blue) and Judicious-Competing (Green-Red). I provided examples of fictional characters from novels, television, and movies of each of these motivational styles and hopefully conveyed how each style motivates behavior, presents unique points of view, and presents potential pitfalls for persons with such personal preferences. If you missed out on reading the earlier blogs I invite you to visit them in the archives section.
The goal of today’s blog will be to examine the Cautious-Supporting (Green-Blue) motivational value system. Green-Blues are driven by a concern for affirming and developing self-sufficiency in themselves and in others. Such persons are thoughtful and helpful and have a strong regard for justice. At work, they are likely to build effective, user-friendly processes, provide resources to enhance the welfare of others, and support intelligent activities that facilitate personal growth and bring forth the best in others.
If you ever had a science teacher in school that provided entertaining experiments that made the class laugh and provided humorous memory aids to help students internalize complex ideas, chances are they were a Green-Blue. A real feel-good comedy that Carole and I enjoy to watch on gloomy days is Multiplicity, starring Michael Keaton. Keaton plays a contractor stretched to his limits by work and family obligations. A scientist convinces him to clone himself so he can be in more that one place at the same time. One of the clones, meant to represent his feminine side, portrays the Green-Blue style beautifully. In one scene he instructs his wife on the proper technique for wrapping meat products to avoid the meat going stale. TTF. Tuck, tuck, fold. Two tucks and a fold. Think of Elizabeth Taylor. A tuck here and a fold there. For Greens there is a right way to do everything. Blues want to help you succeed. Green-Blues are motivated to facilitate your growth, to enable you to become independent and self-sufficient.
I’ve read all the Alex Delaware mysteries by Jonathon Kellerman. The retired psychologist, Alex Delaware, is a consultant to the LA Police Department. He is a warm and compassionate person who combines compassion and intellect in solving child related crimes and to provide enlightened guidance for others. He is thoughtful and respectful of other’s feeling and goals and thorough in whatever he undertakes on another’s behalf.
The ranks of certain areas of specialization (e.g., child psychology and family therapy) and schools of thought in psychology (e.g., humanistic psychology) are filled with Green-Blues. Other psychology specializations, such as behaviorism and Freudian therapists, are often dominated by persons who are more Analytical-Autonomizing (Green).
Mikael Blomkvist from Stieg Larsson’s popular Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is another popular character that fits into this category. Like Alex Delaware, he is not driven by a need to be top dog or to win at all costs and his involvement in intrigue is a side effect of a burning desire to know the truth and be of assistance, not of a competitive psyche. He can be overly trusting and his blind faith in others has nearly ruined his career.
Leonard on the situational comedy, The Big Bang Theory is another character from this mold. A congenial and brilliant physicist, he is conscientious in his work and habits, patient with his anal retentive roommate, respectful of the Sheldon’s oft outlandish rules, and a devoted friend dedicated to acting in a fair and just manner that is considerate of all concerned parties.
As is true for all Green-Blue blends, Leonard must be on guard against the amplifying effects of overusing or misusing any of his personal strengths. Both Green (Analytical-Autonomizing) and Blue (Altruistic-Nurturing) types strive to maintain harmony. In order to avoid conflict, Leonard often withdraws from confrontation or submits to other’s arguments when he cannot overrule them with his logic. He can be overly cautious in his relationships, not wanting to offend.
I often find that in real life where blends include a Green component, Green is more dominant of the two styles. Many of the high tech companies in which I have consulted have a Green-Blue organizational culture. Intelligence and techie-ness are essentially but there is no reason we can’t have fun doing this work. The biggest differences between Greens and Green-Blues is that the latter often has a more external focus (an authentic concern for people based on empathy rather than a reserved emotional logic and appreciation for justice and fairness). They are often much more openly funny and usually deliver a punch line to a joke with more enthusiasm.
Greens are more common character types in thrillers than are blends. If you can think of some others, I hope you comment on this blog and share your insights.
As always, I’ll look forward to your comments. Don’t forget to take a look at my novels if you need reading material for your next vacation or business trip. I’m making terrific progress on my third thriller, Black Ice, and hope to have the first draft complete by the end of February. Talk with you again on Thursday.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Writing Memorable Characters: A Psychological Approach (Part 1)
So this guy walks into a psychiatrist’s office. . . and he has a duck on his head. The psychiatrist looks the man up and down while pensively stroking his beard and asks, “Can I help you?” The duck says, “Hey, Doc. Can you get this jerk off my ass?”
The duck’s unanticipated response in this joke is what I most enjoy in the plotting of my favorite novels, movies, and television programs. I instantly want to know more about this odd duck. When I open a book, the story must instantly grab my attention but I won’t keep turning the pages unless the author hooks me on a protagonist and an interesting supporting cast. Characterization drives the plot and makes for more engaging storytelling.
Introduce me to Dean Koontz’s genetically enhanced Golden Retriever, Einstein, and the unfinished lives of Travis Cornell and Nora Devon in Watchers and I’m your friend for life. Give me a peek at weird duck Johnny Smith in Stephen King’s Dead Zone or Firestarter heroine, Charlie McGee, and I’ll pick up a half dozen more of your books without blinking an eye. Invite me into the dysfunctional lives of any of Pat Conroy’s characters and I’ll wait with baited breath for the next installment. I can still remember first discovering Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf and not wanting to put The Hobbit down for a second, and then years later reading it out loud to my children with the same enthusiasm.
As in life, not all characters are as innately intriguing as you and me. As writers it takes a lot of hard work to develop interesting personas for our creations. At first glance, the “guy” in our opening joke is predictable and potentially a boring character; but he possesses a character flaw off of which to play. He doesn’t realize that his problem isn’t the duck. The guy is the problem.
Look all around. Life is teeming with interesting people, each with flaws that add dimension and conflict to what might be an ordinary or even dull existence. Aren’t most of us in some way odd ducks, different even if we don’t recognize or acknowledge it (well maybe you’re odd but not me)? It’s that odd quality in each of us - a strange belief, unique set of habits or quirks - that can make almost anybody interesting. Isn’t that what makes reading so much fun – meeting new and interesting people that you can’t wait to know better?
While every fictional character has their own story, they must also possess a unique point of view to make them distinct and hopefully multidimensional enough to maintain the reader’s interest. Good and evil, gender perspectives (uh-huh, men and women are different – check out Brain Sex by Anne Moire , PhD for a scientific research-based explanation or come visit my wife and I), backstory and cultural differences are excellent starting points for developing our characters. However, among the reasons real life humans find themselves in conflict with one another reflects also subtle differences in motivational styles.
Even the most psychologically challenged among us believe our point of view is correct and others have it wrong. Do you know anybody who says, “I watch that news channel because I know its perspective is biased and warped, and I listen to that pontificating bag of flatulence because I’m certain he is a lying sack of dung who makes up most of the venom he vomits and I want to be just like him when I grow up?” Duh, I think not.
We are missing a great opportunity for character development if we haven’t taken the time to truly understand the characters about which we are writing. Maybe we can get away with presenting minor characters as stereotypes, but our heroes and villains cannot simply be caricatures of good and evil. By providing our readers with a glimpse of the internal workings of their pure or evil minds, the motivational styles that shape their world and their behavior, we layer additional dimension to our creations.
I’ve spent three decades as an organizational consultant in Fortune 500 and government organizations (ergo: I’m balding and have nearly lost faith in the innate goodness of humankind). During that time I have employed the Strength Deployment Inventory as a tool for helping workshop participants to learn how to manage conflict and improve interpersonal relationships. The relationship awareness theory upon which it is based is easy to comprehend and lends itself extremely well to character development for novels.
It rests upon four simple concepts. First, people behave the way they do in order to feel good about themselves; that is, motivation shapes behavior.
Secondly, while individuals may behave differently, behavior is generically predictable both in normal circumstances and when the individual is faced with opposition or conflict, if only we understand one’s valued way in dealing with the world.
Third, a personal weakness is simply misapplying or overusing a personal strength; our biggest strength is often also our biggest weakness.
Finally, people tend to perceive and judge others through their own valued motivational style. In psychology this is known as projection. We project our motivations - especially our least desirable intentions - onto others, thinking they do things for the same reason we do. Of course, others don’t measure up to our standards because they are lesser evolved then we and would be more right if only they could see the world from our higher, more universally correct POV. In case no one has told you yet – and I hope I’m not bursting your bubble here - nobody on the face of the earth wants to be you when they grow up. Especially your kids. Now your children may very well turn into mini-you, but for the most part they go kicking and screaming.
This motivation-based model identifies three pure motivational styles and four blended styles. The remainder of this article addresses the first of the pure styles, the assertive-directing or red style. Future installments on characterization will examine each of the others.
The Assertive-Directing Motivational (Red) Style is characterized by the “git-r-done” mentality made popular by Larry the Cable Guy. Such persons are results-oriented and driven to succeed, their eye always on the prize to be won and opportunities to prove their mettle. Like Bull Meechum, in Conroy's The Great Santini, Reds want to be in control and prefer to be in the leadership role. Life’s inconveniences are challenges to be overcome, not problems (sound like anybody’s boss – “Don’t give me problems, give me solutions”). They tend to be assertive, dynamic and innovative, excel in competitive environments and are great game players and risk takers. Verbally talented, clever and persuasive, they also can be evocative and controversial. Persons who are indecisive, gullible, incompetent, or whiny, are losers who just piss them off. You’ll hear them say, “I’d rather you ask for forgiveness than permission,” and “Grow a pair.”
In William Diehl’s Primal Fear, attorney Martin Vail will do everything it takes to win his case because, after all, it’s all about winning. When he, on occasion, steps over the line, from his perspective he is not doing wrong. He’s getting around an imperfect system, an obstacle to achieving his goals. For reds, one side of the balancing scale is winning / getting results / achieving goals and on the other side is most everything else – including you and me. The scale is weighted on the achieving goals side above all else.
Captain James Tiberius Kirk of Star Trek fame is the paragon of redness. Does he ever lose? The Klingons could blow up the Enterprise and leave Kirk with nothing but a single nut and bolt and still he will find a way to win. On every planet he finds a woman and regardless of her color or the number of arms or legs she may have, he scores. Do we ever see her again on another episode? Of course not, it’s just another notch on Kirk’s belt. Been there, done that, he’s off to find a new challenge. And how did Jim initially make his mark as a young cadet? The ever-clever Kirk broke in to Star Fleet Academy’s computer and reprogrammed the no-win Kobayashi Maru battle simulation to become the only cadet to ever defeat the exercise. Now from some people’s perspective he cheated. Not so if you understand motivational style. The goal was to win, to be the best, “to go where no man has ever gone before.” There is no such thing as a no-win scenario; one merely needs to think outside the box, the mantra of the assertive-directing. Inside their heads, assertive-directing characters are thinking that for every winner there are dozens of losers and odds are you are one of them because it sure as hell isn’t me.
Reds dominate action novels and movies. Pick up David Morrell’s The Protector. For Cavanaugh, protecting a brilliant scientist at all costs is just another assignment, the pursuit of another goal / challenge. Clive Cussler’s action-oriented hero, Dirk Pitt, is a red but a blended one (we’ll discuss blends on a later installment). There’s more to his world view than winning. Do you ever ask if Arnold Schwarzenegger will attempt to save his kidnapped daughter in the movie Commando? Does Arnold hesitate to act in this situation? Of course not, his character strives to take immediate action. She’s only being held captive on an island by an entire army. Git-r-done! And how about Conan the Barbarian’s answer to the question, “What is best in life?” He tells us, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!” I win; you lose.
If you are a visual learner, watch the climactic courtroom scene in A Few Good Men to view two assertive –directing types engaged in a discussion. Tom Cruise’s character is a winner willing to risk his entire career on one roll of the dice. He knows that Jack Nicholson’s character, the poster child for the over-the-edge assertive-directing stereotype, would love to tell the court that his success has earned him the right to takes whatever steps he deems necessary to protect freedom and democracy, regardless of the “mamsy-pamsy” rules. It’s so easy to simply view Nicholson’s character as the bad guy, but is he? He certainly doesn’t think so. Somebody has to pick up a gun and stand on those walls. Anybody not on his side, just “can’t handle the truth.” Which brings us back to one of the basic tenets of relationship awareness theory: a personal weakness is simply misapplying or overusing a personal strength; our biggest strength is often also our biggest weakness.
Within each of our strengths lays a weakness. If we were to make of list of positive traits for each character we create, we can make a corresponding list that represents how these traits manifest themselves if overdone. Ambitious becomes ruthless; self-confident overdone becomes arrogant; persuasive is now abrasive; quick to act – rash; competitive – combative; and forceful – dictatorial.
On one side of an invisible line in the sand is the appropriate application of one’s motivational style and on the other, misapplication or overuse of that same talent. Step over that line, overuse our strength, and our successful risk taker becomes a gambler, taking unmanageable risks, believing they cannot lose. Organizations rise to the top of the economic food chain because assertive-directing leaders take manageable risks. These same organizations crash because in their arrogance these same risk takers take on projects or pursue courses of action that were doomed to fail from the start.
We can use this same list-making approach in reverse to sketch out more human antagonists. The other side of the coin of being a competitive jerk is someone who is driven to succeed, generally considered a positive trait. In my second novel, Troubadour of Peace, Lonnie Wolfe, has manipulated and taken advantage of his best friend, left him for dead, spied on him for decades, orders his assassination, and intends to murder his family all in the name of creating a new world order free from the influence of corrupt power brokers. Is he an evil man? Sure as hell is! He’s a real son of a bitch! But if the reader understands his point of view, he becomes more of a real person and less of a caricature of evil.
To amp up our assertive-directing protagonist’s inner conflict, the author must show how the character guards against wanting to win so badly that they step on others along the way, disregard how others feel, or become dictatorial. Such steps over the line we reserve for our antagonists. Perhaps we allow our assertive-directing hero a tragic flaw – in a past life experience, they acted rashly to achieve some prize, ignoring pertinent facts or other people’s feeling, or doing harm to someone dear. Our good guy learned from that experience and struggles not to fall short again in the future. Our bad guy couldn’t give a crap that somebody got hurt along the way. Past failures are the result of the incompetence of others who lacked the cajones to do what was required to win. “If you can’t stand the smoke then get out of the kitchen, loser.”
An essential component to developing good characterization comes down to helping the reader understand what is going on inside the mind of our characters. We could simply project our own motivations or impose our values on our creations, but as is true in real life, we would be doing an injustice to others. Furthermore, we’d be painting an inaccurate description of reality. To preserve the integrity of each of our characters, we must help our reader understand the subtleties of their motivational style.
Next time, we’ll examine another of the seven motivational styles. Come back to visit me again and please tell your friends about this blog. I’ll look forward with enthusiasm to hearing your thoughts regarding the blog content.
My name is Bill Hubiak and I am a novelist. You can find links on my website (www.billhubiak.com) to both my novels: my latest, Troubadour of Peace, a political thriller, and my first novel, Embodiment of Evil, a psychological thriller / horror. Currently I’m working on a third thriller, Black Ice.
Here are a couple of resources on characterization you may not have yet stumbled upon:
• Visit http://storyfix.com/ for an excellent and concise discussion on building three-dimensional characters.
• One of the most heavily attended workshops at the 2010 Rocky Mountain Fiction Writers Gold Conference was conducted by Kirt Hickman, author of Revising Fiction: Making Sense Out of Madness. If you want a step-by-step cookbook for engineering characterization and plotting, check out this resource.
The duck’s unanticipated response in this joke is what I most enjoy in the plotting of my favorite novels, movies, and television programs. I instantly want to know more about this odd duck. When I open a book, the story must instantly grab my attention but I won’t keep turning the pages unless the author hooks me on a protagonist and an interesting supporting cast. Characterization drives the plot and makes for more engaging storytelling.
Introduce me to Dean Koontz’s genetically enhanced Golden Retriever, Einstein, and the unfinished lives of Travis Cornell and Nora Devon in Watchers and I’m your friend for life. Give me a peek at weird duck Johnny Smith in Stephen King’s Dead Zone or Firestarter heroine, Charlie McGee, and I’ll pick up a half dozen more of your books without blinking an eye. Invite me into the dysfunctional lives of any of Pat Conroy’s characters and I’ll wait with baited breath for the next installment. I can still remember first discovering Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf and not wanting to put The Hobbit down for a second, and then years later reading it out loud to my children with the same enthusiasm.
As in life, not all characters are as innately intriguing as you and me. As writers it takes a lot of hard work to develop interesting personas for our creations. At first glance, the “guy” in our opening joke is predictable and potentially a boring character; but he possesses a character flaw off of which to play. He doesn’t realize that his problem isn’t the duck. The guy is the problem.
Look all around. Life is teeming with interesting people, each with flaws that add dimension and conflict to what might be an ordinary or even dull existence. Aren’t most of us in some way odd ducks, different even if we don’t recognize or acknowledge it (well maybe you’re odd but not me)? It’s that odd quality in each of us - a strange belief, unique set of habits or quirks - that can make almost anybody interesting. Isn’t that what makes reading so much fun – meeting new and interesting people that you can’t wait to know better?
While every fictional character has their own story, they must also possess a unique point of view to make them distinct and hopefully multidimensional enough to maintain the reader’s interest. Good and evil, gender perspectives (uh-huh, men and women are different – check out Brain Sex by Anne Moire , PhD for a scientific research-based explanation or come visit my wife and I), backstory and cultural differences are excellent starting points for developing our characters. However, among the reasons real life humans find themselves in conflict with one another reflects also subtle differences in motivational styles.
Even the most psychologically challenged among us believe our point of view is correct and others have it wrong. Do you know anybody who says, “I watch that news channel because I know its perspective is biased and warped, and I listen to that pontificating bag of flatulence because I’m certain he is a lying sack of dung who makes up most of the venom he vomits and I want to be just like him when I grow up?” Duh, I think not.
We are missing a great opportunity for character development if we haven’t taken the time to truly understand the characters about which we are writing. Maybe we can get away with presenting minor characters as stereotypes, but our heroes and villains cannot simply be caricatures of good and evil. By providing our readers with a glimpse of the internal workings of their pure or evil minds, the motivational styles that shape their world and their behavior, we layer additional dimension to our creations.
I’ve spent three decades as an organizational consultant in Fortune 500 and government organizations (ergo: I’m balding and have nearly lost faith in the innate goodness of humankind). During that time I have employed the Strength Deployment Inventory as a tool for helping workshop participants to learn how to manage conflict and improve interpersonal relationships. The relationship awareness theory upon which it is based is easy to comprehend and lends itself extremely well to character development for novels.
It rests upon four simple concepts. First, people behave the way they do in order to feel good about themselves; that is, motivation shapes behavior.
Secondly, while individuals may behave differently, behavior is generically predictable both in normal circumstances and when the individual is faced with opposition or conflict, if only we understand one’s valued way in dealing with the world.
Third, a personal weakness is simply misapplying or overusing a personal strength; our biggest strength is often also our biggest weakness.
Finally, people tend to perceive and judge others through their own valued motivational style. In psychology this is known as projection. We project our motivations - especially our least desirable intentions - onto others, thinking they do things for the same reason we do. Of course, others don’t measure up to our standards because they are lesser evolved then we and would be more right if only they could see the world from our higher, more universally correct POV. In case no one has told you yet – and I hope I’m not bursting your bubble here - nobody on the face of the earth wants to be you when they grow up. Especially your kids. Now your children may very well turn into mini-you, but for the most part they go kicking and screaming.
This motivation-based model identifies three pure motivational styles and four blended styles. The remainder of this article addresses the first of the pure styles, the assertive-directing or red style. Future installments on characterization will examine each of the others.
The Assertive-Directing Motivational (Red) Style is characterized by the “git-r-done” mentality made popular by Larry the Cable Guy. Such persons are results-oriented and driven to succeed, their eye always on the prize to be won and opportunities to prove their mettle. Like Bull Meechum, in Conroy's The Great Santini, Reds want to be in control and prefer to be in the leadership role. Life’s inconveniences are challenges to be overcome, not problems (sound like anybody’s boss – “Don’t give me problems, give me solutions”). They tend to be assertive, dynamic and innovative, excel in competitive environments and are great game players and risk takers. Verbally talented, clever and persuasive, they also can be evocative and controversial. Persons who are indecisive, gullible, incompetent, or whiny, are losers who just piss them off. You’ll hear them say, “I’d rather you ask for forgiveness than permission,” and “Grow a pair.”
In William Diehl’s Primal Fear, attorney Martin Vail will do everything it takes to win his case because, after all, it’s all about winning. When he, on occasion, steps over the line, from his perspective he is not doing wrong. He’s getting around an imperfect system, an obstacle to achieving his goals. For reds, one side of the balancing scale is winning / getting results / achieving goals and on the other side is most everything else – including you and me. The scale is weighted on the achieving goals side above all else.
Captain James Tiberius Kirk of Star Trek fame is the paragon of redness. Does he ever lose? The Klingons could blow up the Enterprise and leave Kirk with nothing but a single nut and bolt and still he will find a way to win. On every planet he finds a woman and regardless of her color or the number of arms or legs she may have, he scores. Do we ever see her again on another episode? Of course not, it’s just another notch on Kirk’s belt. Been there, done that, he’s off to find a new challenge. And how did Jim initially make his mark as a young cadet? The ever-clever Kirk broke in to Star Fleet Academy’s computer and reprogrammed the no-win Kobayashi Maru battle simulation to become the only cadet to ever defeat the exercise. Now from some people’s perspective he cheated. Not so if you understand motivational style. The goal was to win, to be the best, “to go where no man has ever gone before.” There is no such thing as a no-win scenario; one merely needs to think outside the box, the mantra of the assertive-directing. Inside their heads, assertive-directing characters are thinking that for every winner there are dozens of losers and odds are you are one of them because it sure as hell isn’t me.
Reds dominate action novels and movies. Pick up David Morrell’s The Protector. For Cavanaugh, protecting a brilliant scientist at all costs is just another assignment, the pursuit of another goal / challenge. Clive Cussler’s action-oriented hero, Dirk Pitt, is a red but a blended one (we’ll discuss blends on a later installment). There’s more to his world view than winning. Do you ever ask if Arnold Schwarzenegger will attempt to save his kidnapped daughter in the movie Commando? Does Arnold hesitate to act in this situation? Of course not, his character strives to take immediate action. She’s only being held captive on an island by an entire army. Git-r-done! And how about Conan the Barbarian’s answer to the question, “What is best in life?” He tells us, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!” I win; you lose.
If you are a visual learner, watch the climactic courtroom scene in A Few Good Men to view two assertive –directing types engaged in a discussion. Tom Cruise’s character is a winner willing to risk his entire career on one roll of the dice. He knows that Jack Nicholson’s character, the poster child for the over-the-edge assertive-directing stereotype, would love to tell the court that his success has earned him the right to takes whatever steps he deems necessary to protect freedom and democracy, regardless of the “mamsy-pamsy” rules. It’s so easy to simply view Nicholson’s character as the bad guy, but is he? He certainly doesn’t think so. Somebody has to pick up a gun and stand on those walls. Anybody not on his side, just “can’t handle the truth.” Which brings us back to one of the basic tenets of relationship awareness theory: a personal weakness is simply misapplying or overusing a personal strength; our biggest strength is often also our biggest weakness.
Within each of our strengths lays a weakness. If we were to make of list of positive traits for each character we create, we can make a corresponding list that represents how these traits manifest themselves if overdone. Ambitious becomes ruthless; self-confident overdone becomes arrogant; persuasive is now abrasive; quick to act – rash; competitive – combative; and forceful – dictatorial.
On one side of an invisible line in the sand is the appropriate application of one’s motivational style and on the other, misapplication or overuse of that same talent. Step over that line, overuse our strength, and our successful risk taker becomes a gambler, taking unmanageable risks, believing they cannot lose. Organizations rise to the top of the economic food chain because assertive-directing leaders take manageable risks. These same organizations crash because in their arrogance these same risk takers take on projects or pursue courses of action that were doomed to fail from the start.
We can use this same list-making approach in reverse to sketch out more human antagonists. The other side of the coin of being a competitive jerk is someone who is driven to succeed, generally considered a positive trait. In my second novel, Troubadour of Peace, Lonnie Wolfe, has manipulated and taken advantage of his best friend, left him for dead, spied on him for decades, orders his assassination, and intends to murder his family all in the name of creating a new world order free from the influence of corrupt power brokers. Is he an evil man? Sure as hell is! He’s a real son of a bitch! But if the reader understands his point of view, he becomes more of a real person and less of a caricature of evil.
To amp up our assertive-directing protagonist’s inner conflict, the author must show how the character guards against wanting to win so badly that they step on others along the way, disregard how others feel, or become dictatorial. Such steps over the line we reserve for our antagonists. Perhaps we allow our assertive-directing hero a tragic flaw – in a past life experience, they acted rashly to achieve some prize, ignoring pertinent facts or other people’s feeling, or doing harm to someone dear. Our good guy learned from that experience and struggles not to fall short again in the future. Our bad guy couldn’t give a crap that somebody got hurt along the way. Past failures are the result of the incompetence of others who lacked the cajones to do what was required to win. “If you can’t stand the smoke then get out of the kitchen, loser.”
An essential component to developing good characterization comes down to helping the reader understand what is going on inside the mind of our characters. We could simply project our own motivations or impose our values on our creations, but as is true in real life, we would be doing an injustice to others. Furthermore, we’d be painting an inaccurate description of reality. To preserve the integrity of each of our characters, we must help our reader understand the subtleties of their motivational style.
Next time, we’ll examine another of the seven motivational styles. Come back to visit me again and please tell your friends about this blog. I’ll look forward with enthusiasm to hearing your thoughts regarding the blog content.
My name is Bill Hubiak and I am a novelist. You can find links on my website (www.billhubiak.com) to both my novels: my latest, Troubadour of Peace, a political thriller, and my first novel, Embodiment of Evil, a psychological thriller / horror. Currently I’m working on a third thriller, Black Ice.
Here are a couple of resources on characterization you may not have yet stumbled upon:
• Visit http://storyfix.com/ for an excellent and concise discussion on building three-dimensional characters.
• One of the most heavily attended workshops at the 2010 Rocky Mountain Fiction Writers Gold Conference was conducted by Kirt Hickman, author of Revising Fiction: Making Sense Out of Madness. If you want a step-by-step cookbook for engineering characterization and plotting, check out this resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)