Writing Memorable Characters: A Psychological Approach (Part 3)

Welcome to a new year!

Last year at this time Carole and I were on Maui. This year we spent at home. Winter in Colorado is not nearly as exotic but we had fun nonetheless. To battle the potential stuck-in-the-house blues provided by the cold, snowy weather we spent New Years Eve and Day reading to each other from our current Kindle selections.

Carole read to me from Sara Gruen’s engaging Water For Elephants. I pleasured her with Stephen King’s The Dead Zone (this is how some chronologically challenged persons orally stimulate their partners) while she dismantled our three Christmas trees (half the number she had up last year) and puts up two new trees in honor of Todd the god of interior design and patron saint of decorative birds crafted from paper and cloth remnants. My wife has made for us a home that is both warm and inviting - if only I were ever to shovel snow from the house’s entrance.

You’re probably thinking I’m off target with this discussion; what’s with all the personal crap? Be patient. This is my sequeway to a discussion of the Altruistic-Nurturing (Blue) valued motivational style – the third motivational system in our series.

My wife is the personification of Blue – an enthusiastic, compassionate, socially sensitive humanitarian, ever seeking ways to be responsive to the needs of others. We spent the entirety of our Christmas Day at the Chop House in Denver helping to feed the needy - an annual occurrence. While I bussed trays of food back and forth between the kitchen and buffet tables, she found time to also talk to patrons and one old man that she kissed on the head asked for her phone number. If there weren’t a policy against doing so, she probably would have invited a hundred people back to our house. Blue. Very, very Blue. Carole loves people and it shows.

To ensure that the less fortunate feel valued and are well clothed, she undertakes an annual spring and fall spelunking through her wardrobe and donates last year’s fashions to charities. Admittedly, this practice isn’t totally selfless since her wardrobe does have to be replaced after all.

The books that Carole reads are of the bestseller variety that one often also finds on Oprah’s booklist. Since that isn’t my typical fare, what I glean from our conversations is that these books are filled with heart-wrenching stories, acts of kindness, and about empathic and nurturing relationships less common in the action based or intellectually challenging novels that are my cup of tea. She reads tales about women who make a difference, who start cancer foundations, who find or share their hearts. Lots of Blues – warm, considerate, supportive persons whose enormous hearts and souls survive even life’s harshest tests – persons who are sensitive, sincere, loyal, and who authentically care about the feelings and the needs and welfare of other persons.

Oh, why beat around the bush? She likes chick books – and chick flicks. There I said it! Touchy-feely stuff that often only skirts my reality and library.

Even though I’ve worked most of my life as a helping professional, I can honestly say that compared to my Blue spouse, my feelings are superficial and transitory. I feel few things as deeply as she does. When a Nurturing-Altruistic type says they love you, they are talking about a feeling that permeates to the cellular level – something that the rest of us (or maybe just lowly emotionally evolved males like me) may never understand. In contrast, when an Assertive-Directing Red says, “I love you,” it often means, “I want you.” For the Analytical-Autonomizing Green, the experience is a more intellectual experience – “Our time together is far more pleasant and preferable to that time I spend with others and almost as intrinsically satisfying as a good pizza or a great loaf of bread.”

Now we all have some Red, Green and Blue within us, and so too should our fictional creations – but for some, the motivation that spurs action is primarily altruistic. Einstein, the genetically enhanced golden retriever from Watcher’s, one of my favorite Dean Koontz novels, is the paragon of altruism, willing to risk his own safety and jeopardize his newfound freedom to protect a total stranger.

Unlike his arrogant and abusive father, Ben Meechum, Pat Conroy’s character in The Great Santini, is a kind-hearted boy who is more concerned with doing the right thing than the popular thing. He befriends a social outcast and provides to his younger siblings the guidance and care an absentee father cannot.

Conroy also gives us Tom Wingo in The Prince of Tides, an affable and sensitive character who above all wishes not to be a burden to others. He is modest, devoted to his sister, loyal to the memory of his brother and willingly sacrifices his needs to protect others.

Johnny Smith, the protagonist in The Dead Zone by Stephen King is a Blue – a tortured but other-oriented schoolteacher.

If you saw the movie, Dave, starring Kevin Kline, you’ll remember that Dave is the doppelganger of a sleazy American President.  Enlisted to stand in for the President who lays in a coma, Dave uses the opportunity to do good things that benefit the American people. This enrages the corrupt power monger behind the throne, who leaks evidence indicting the real President. That forces Dave to resign a presidency that doesn’t even belong to him. Not before, however, Dave makes a public apology to the American electorate on behalf of his corrupt counterpart. Our Altruistic-Nurturing protagonist explains that the real purpose of serving as President is not to make one’s place in history; the American Presidency is only a temp job that should concentrate all of its power on doing what is right and best for the American people. Now that’s Blue.

When a Blue says they are sorry, that’s exactly what they mean. It probably physically pains them that they did a disservice to another human being. Does an episode of Star Trek go by without Dr. Bones McCoy commenting on how barbaric and inhumane the intrusive medical practices are on whatever planet the crew of the Enterprise is currently visiting?

When Reds are required to utter, “I’m sorry,” they might really prefer to say that, “You’ve got me confused with someone who gives a crap but I better save face and pretend I’m concerned about your feelings.” The justice conscious Greens might adequately weight and apportion blame but rather than create conflict assume the burden of responsibility, believing that they are infinitely more psychologically prepared to do so then others.

Let’s pull out the balance scale again from Part 1 and Part 2 of this blog. On the left side of the scale are people, defending the rights and dignity of people, developing relationships, building teams. On the other side of the scale is achieving goals, winning, getting ahead, data and things. Down goes the left side. It’s not that Blues aren’t intelligent, successful, confident achievers. They are. It’s just that from their perspective what good is it to win the world if you leave everyone else behind. People come first.

Remember also that any strength over or misused becomes dysfunctional. Overly trusting Blues can be gullible, allow loyalty to blind them to truth, and be so devoted that they become subservient to others. Being too supportive or helpful can be smothering and promote co-dependencies, and caring too much may make one submissive, self-sacrificing and overly sensitive.

When we create Altruistic-Nurturing characters for our novels we must make sure that they are on guard against wanting so much to maintain harmony that they don’t push hard enough for what they need, allow others to take advantage of them, or compromise when they shouldn’t. Great sources of conflict for our Blues is to allow them to trust their thoughts and feelings to the wrong people or force their help on people to such a degree that they become a nuisance. They can blame themselves for anything that goes wrong, act solely to please others, sacrifice their dreams so others might achieve theirs, or refuse to face the fact that our antagonist is just a bad person.

In writing memorable characters, writers strive to help the reader understand what is going on inside the mind of our creations. Dr. Elias Porter’s relationship awareness theory and the Strength Deployment Inventory are perfectly suited to helping get under the skin of the characters we create to show the core motivation that drives their behavior.

Talk with you again next time when we’ll examine another of the seven motivational styles. I hope that you will tell your friends about this blog. I’ll look forward with enthusiasm to hearing your thoughts regarding this blog content. It also wouldn’t hurt my feeling if you picked up one of my novels to read and if you liked it told your friends.

Writing Memorable Characters: A Psychological Approach (Part 2)

I wake up every morning at 5:00 a.m.; that’s when my internal alarm clock buzzes – and when my high maintenance cat, Itty, demands to be fed. I’ve tried ignoring her but Itty kicks up such a racket, scratching at the glass shield on the fireplace or panels in the French doors and knocking as many objects as she can off of furniture. However, this morning I was bright-eyed at 3:45 a.m., my mind abuzz with ideas for today’s blog. I went out of my way to wake up the cat. It really pissed her off. Karma’s a bitch.

In Part 1, I 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. This task, of course, is a lot easier for paranoid schizophrenics with multiple personalities. The rest of us need to work at it. Maybe I’m giving myself to much credit; my sanity has been questioned a time or two – or three.

Our last discussion employed the model of Relationship Awareness Theory and the Strength Deployment Inventory  developed by psychologist Elias H. Porter, Ph.D.  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.

Today’s blog investigates the Analytical-Autonomizing (Green) valued motivational system that is in marked contrast to the goal-oriented, competitive, control-oriented Assertive-Directing (Red) style explored in Part1.

Sherlock Holmes, the methodical and intellectually curious creation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, serves as the poster child for this second cadre. For purposes of this discussion, we’re talking about the literary, cerebral Sherlock Holmes not the latest U.S. film action-oriented iteration. (For a hilarious discussion on the difference between American and British films – or just to laugh until you choke - check out British comedian Eddie Izzard’s Dress To Kill DVD).

Holmes is on a constant quest for understanding and knowledge. Life is a puzzle to be solved, a truth to be discovered, and a theory to be proven through judicious and thoughtful observation and by the accumulation of objective facts. Introspective, cautious and thorough, our analytical-autonomizing types value self-sufficiency and independent thought above all else. One should meticulously think things through before taking action or jumping to conclusions. The journey, following the correct process, and getting things done right the first time far outweighs winning, competing, or achieving an end. Intellectual ideas may compete for prominence but competition between people is often viewed as a pointless waste of precious resources. Very thrifty.

Data and things are more intrinsically interesting than people; people’s behaviors are things to be studied and examined. That’s why Green fictional characters tend to be persons of science, college professors, or investigators. In The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown, Robert Langdon is driven not by the need to win but to understand. He is not an adrenaline junkie seeking new challenges to overcome. Langdon would rather spend his time in a library or studying in the field, but instead is thrust into the middle of thrilling action in which he will resolutely use his rational and practical mind to unravel a mystery. He doesn’t need to physically best anyone; he derives a sense of meaning and self-esteem from intellectual accomplishment and persevering.

More action-oriented versions of this intellectual prototype create a different internal world. Thomas Lourds is a thrill-seeking Harvard linguist and archeologist, the protagonist in The Atlantis Code by Charles Brokaw. A film equivalent would be Indiana Jones. Both characters are green-red blends, a topic left for discussion in a future blog.

Greens are fair minded, principled, serious, and value being in control of one’s emotion - like Gene Roddenberry’s Spock. Quite honestly, I’ve never read one of the Star Trek novels but I loved the television series and once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Does a single episode of the original television series ever pass without Leonard Nimoy’s Spock remarking that Vulcans were once a people ruled by their emotions and bent on self-destruction? That was a million years ago before they evolved. That’s right, we humans are a million year down the evolutionary ladder and behind the learning curve. He doesn’t say stupid but we know that’s what he means when he tells us we are irrational. Parents with a Green valued motivational style are likely to ask, "if all your friends jumped off a roof, would jump off the roof too?" Yes, they fear the rest of us are just that stupid and lacking of an internal compass. Spock is also in a constant internal battle with himself. Why? His mother was a human and he has within him the recessive gene predisposition toward emotionality.

One certain way to lose the respect of an Analtical-Autonomizing type is to react emotionally rather than logically; especially in a crisis.

I can’t remember what happened five minutes ago, let alone three days ago but I’m hoping you’ll remember from Monday’s blog that within any personal strength can be found a potential weakness. If we overuse or apply a strength inappropriately, step over an invisible line in the sand, the trait becomes dysfunctional.

Captain Nemo, a recurring character in Jules Verne stories but most remembered for 20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea, is a cutting-edge scientist who sinks merchant vessels not because he is an evil man but rather to battle unchecked and ill-conceived progress that is destroying the environment and to protect humankind, especially the downtrodden. He is unbending in his principles and severed all ties with the world. Sherlock Holmes archenemy Dr. Moriarty is his intellectual peer, but uses his brilliance towards different ends.

Valuing non-emotional, reserved behavior, Greens can come across as cold and unfeeling. Dr. Temperance Brennan, the forensic anthropologist created by Kathy Reichs, is not as socially challenged nor terse as her television counterpart on Bones but Greens can be. The literary Brennan isn’t a cold fish but rather steels herself emotionally in order to practice her profession, an aspect hinted at in the television series but not essential to the character. In writing a novel, we have the luxury of hundreds of pages to draw a more sophisticated persona by allowing readers access to innermost thoughts and motivations. They may be set adrift by events but their personalities aren’t predetermined by what happens to them.

I’m a huge fan of the situational comedy, The Big Bang Theory.  Sheldon Cooper provides an excellent depiction of overusing and misapplying personal strengths. He is nit picking (analytical), stubborn (persevering), suspicious (cautious), and rigid (methodical). He prides himself in being his own person to the extent that he has no qualms about considering himself the most highly evolved person on the planet and maybe even a new species (that’s only because he hasn’t met me). While his intelligence quota cannot be measured, neither can his emotional quotient (but to the other extreme). He can be smug and condescending to all lesser beings. I'm talking about y'all now.

Struggling with the external markings of our character’s persona offers the writer lots of opportunities to generate psychological pitfalls. Greens need to be on guard against being so concerned with what is right or wrong, facts and issues, that they don’t pay enough attention to other people’s feelings. If neurotically cautious and self-controlling, they may find it difficult to trust in other people. By keeping their own thoughts and feelings to themselves, others may find it difficult to get to know them; thus concluding that they are secretive, unfeeling, indifferent, antisocial, or feeling superior. Greens, of course, believe that such conclusions are ill-founded and often don’t care what you might think anyway.

While our Reds (Assertive-Directing) types are bottom line, action and results oriented, Greens expect others to be as concerned with details, logic, quality and matters of principle as they are. Their answers can sound long-winded, judgmental, self-righteous and pontificating (no, not me – I mean other people) if they over apply their motivational style. Their self-sufficiency and independence can cut them off from others or push others away. My current project, Black Ice, starts off with my protagonist, a college professor of physics who is responsible for the death of her child in a car accident, living as a street person, feeling isolated and alienated from the rest of humanity.  The Green prototype often is their own worse judge and jury.

Greens also need to be on guard against their perfectionist tendencies and delaying decisions until all the facts are in. In my first novel, Embodiment of Evil, Alan Ciani is left impotent by his inability to act upon his current circumstances. He suffers from analysis paralysis, his world is lived in between his ears not on the real stage of life. Of course, in today’s world anyone who thinks for longer than fifteen seconds suffers from analysis paralysis. Real leaders take action – yesterday! ACT! ACT! ACT! This reality provides another excellent source of conflict in our stories for our Green protagonist.

In writing memorable characters, writers strive to help the reader understand what is going on inside the mind of our creations. Projecting our own motivations and imputing our values to others paints an inaccurate description of reality. By exposing the subtleties of their motivational style, we preserve the integrity of each personality.

Next time, we’ll examine another of the seven motivational styles. I hope that yow will visit with me again and please tell your friends about this blog. I’ll look forward with enthusiasm to hearing your thoughts regarding the blog content.