Writing Memorable Characters: A Psychological Approach (Part 4)

Back story, cultural differences, gender perspectives and the curves that life throws at us are all essential components for developing character. In the previous three blogs I proposed that in writing memorable, multidimensional fictional characters the finishing touch in helping readers appreciate our creations is to expose the motivational core that drives each characters behavior. We employed Dr. Elias Porter’s  relationship awareness theory as the model for understanding motivational value systems.

The real source of motivation is internal. One may create an external focus as a measure of their self-worth, such as power, money, or the accumulation of material possessions, but the driving force is still to feel good about one’s self.

I’m motivated to find humor in every situation (eventually). When I was a teenager, I remember a classmate accusing me of not taking anything seriously. I find the greatest joy in life and am happiest when I’m laughing. My wife and I find lots to laugh about every day. Of course the object of our hilarity is often me. A current friend appeared totally shocked to hear that laughter was one of the most important ingredients in my marriage relationship. “About what?” he asked. How does one explain humor to someone who doesn’t have a sense for it.

I bring this up now for two reasons. First, because at times it is difficult to laugh - like now, for instance. My back is out and sitting at the computer is difficult. Writing is a task. When my heart is full of laughter I’m far more productive. Yesterday, I wrote a hysterically funny scene to my current thriller project, Black Ice. Maybe I used up all the ha-ha in me for a day or two.

Secondly, as writers we can make the motivational styles of our fictional creations more transparent by displaying their sense of humor or lack thereof.

We looked at the Assertive-Directing (Red) valued motivational style in Part 1 of this blog, as personified by the results-oriented, win at all costs, out-of-the-box problem-solvers like David Morrell’s  protagonist, Cavanaugh, or William Diehl’s Martin Vail. These characters know how to get around the system and never lose sight of their goals. Neither were very funny guys. Reds are often so concerned about finishing on top that even their humor can be a form of one-up-man-ship.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes depicted the Analytical-Autonomizing (Green) valued motivational style examined in Part 2. Holmes is intelligent, scientific, logical, fair-minded and practical; a data driven individual who strives to derive order out of chaos. So does the searcher for truth, Robert Langdon, in Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code. Neither of these guys will be going out on the comedy circuit any time soon. Greens often are very serious minded. Not that a green can’t be funny; it’s just that they tend to deliver their punch line in the same monotone and serious style as they do everything else. We have to think about what they said a bit before catching the joke. The deadpan comedy of Stephen Wright is Green. “The other day, I went to a tourist information center and asked them to tell me about some of the other people who were here last year.”

Part 3 addressed the Altruistic-Nurturing (Blue) style, which reflects an authentic caring for the protection, growth and wellbeing of other people. The tortured Johnny Smith will surrender his life to save humanity in Stephen King's The Dead Zone and the affable Tom Wingo, the self-sacrificing school teacher in Pat Conroy's The Prince of Tides, is above all else desirous of doing no harm. Both characters are also presented as playful and with a need to connect to others through humor. My wife is a Blue, has a loud and distinctive laugh that lights up any room, and is the best audience a fool like me can ask for. She’ll laugh at almost anything. Sharing laughter is just another way of bonding with others.

Relationship awareness theory also identifies four blended styles that combine two or more of the aforementioned three: Red/Green or Judicious Competing. Blue/Green or Cautious-Supporting, Red/Blue or Assertive Nurturing, and the Flexible-Cohering (Hub) style.

Today is a Red/Green or Judicious-Competing day. Why, because I say so? Green/Reds enjoy sarcasm as their particular brand of humor: it has the intelligence of the Green style and the cutting aggressiveness of the Red. Check out Will Smith’s character in Men In Black.

Dirk Pitt, the scientific adventurer provided us by Clive Cussler typifies the Judicious-Competing (Red/Green) motivational style. Pitt is intelligent, assertive, and natural leader who believes in fair play and is willing to help others without hesitation if the cause is just and fair. Red/Greens display a rational leadership style that can unemotionally assess risk and opportunities. They are decisive and proactive, and challenge opposition through a thoughtful process and strategy rather than on emotional impulse. Work smarter not harder, but also expediently. Smart humor; sarcastic, friendly teasing.

Mitch McDeere, the protagonist in The Firm by John Grisham, is a determined young attorney who clearly understands the rational use of power, seeks to compete on his own terms, and possesses an ability to plan complex and challenging strategies. He also wishes he had avoided acting impulsively. One wins through the use of cunning. Mitch combines the over the line Red and Green traits and so appears humorless. Life is a serious business.

A more action-oriented version of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon, a (Green) Analytical-Autonomizing intellectual prototype, is Thomas Lourds, the thrill-seeking Harvard linguist and archeologist, protagonist in The Atlantis Code by Charles Brokaw. While Robert Langdon is an unwilling participant in adventure, Thomas Lourds thrives on it. Lot's of Red there to mix with the intellectual Green.

A film equivalent would be Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones. Not known for his warmth and compassion, Indiana can be arrogant, abrasive, combative and rash to act when he overuses his Red style. The potential hazard of being a blend is amplifying the potential weakness associated with both styles. Blends need be doubly on guard against misapplying their strengths. When over-stepping or misusing his positive Green traits Indiana Jones can appear suspicious, cold, rigid, unfeeling and stubborn. His humor is often a biting sarcasm. Even without a very well defined touchy-feely side, however, he’s still really cool, and Mr. Rogers and I love him for just who he is.

The traumatized Lisbeth Salander from Stieg Larsson’s popular Girl With the Dragon Tattoo gives us a glimpse of what can happen when a Red/Green is pushed to her limits. She’s an antisocial computer hacker with a lust for danger and propensity toward violence – well planned violence because Red/Greens are brilliant planners. She finds humor in wicked and ironic pranks. I’m being kind here; she's a nasty little devil.

Despite all the suffering Salander is forced to endure by the men in her life, she, nonetheless and against her rational intentions, falls in love with Mikael Blomkvist. See, we all have a little Blue in us. An important point.

Everyone is a combination of Red, Blue, and Green traits. It is rare – and probably psychologically unhealthy - to be totally absent of some aspects of all three primary styles. In all the thousands of persons to whom I’ve administered the Strength Deployment Inventory, I have seen very few zero or even single digit scores on any of the color scales (each scale ranges from 0 to 100). As humans we simply chose – or dare I suggest, are predisposed – to value one or more styles over any other.

It is convenient to make an evil character all bad with no redeeming qualities. However, wouldn’t it add a little flavor to the character by showing in what ways they find humor, to have them love and be totally committed to their dog, or dream about chocolate ice cream cones? I once sat next to a freakishly Blue woman at a dinner table who told me that every human being was basically good and that even Adolf Hitler loved dogs and small children. I don’t necessarily enjoy it but I do tolerate fools (because I realize that I, too, am one) and try to find humor in their foolishness. I told the woman that Adolf was still alive and babysitting our children that very evening. She didn’t laugh.

Allegedly, people who laugh a lot, live longer. The implication is that living longer is a good thing. So laugh long and prosper.

I’ll look forward with enthusiasm to hearing your thoughts regarding this blog. And once again, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if you picked up one of my novels to read www.billhubiak.com and if you liked it told your friends. Talk with you again next time.

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 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.