We’ve all been there. You pick up a story. You’re excited by the cover. Maybe you even like the title. Possibly it’s an author that you love. You flip it to the back and your eyes roll so far into your skull they’re just about to drill out your occipital bone. “Not another Chosen One trope!” you decry. 

You go home, annoyed at the overused character device and sit down at your laptop/computer/pad of paper to continue your own story. You start writing about a new character who’s quirky, pretty and engaging and before you know it, this character has caught the attention of your protagonist.

You gasp! Oh no! Not a lover’s triangle! We can’t have that trope. It’s over done! You madly delete all your work. You’ve got to focus. Keep things fresh. New! You start writing about how your protagonist is going to save their home from the encroaching invaders led by a general bloodthirsty and power mad.

You pause. Wait, this is cleaving a little close to Good versus Evil trope. Or maybe you’ve stumbled into the Reluctant Hero. Now you’re wondering if you’ve accidentally placed your protagonist as the Chosen One. You break out into a cold sweat. Your fingers seize. Your mind blanks. 

Hours pass and you’ve done no writing. It’s no use. Every idea you come up with has been done before. To death! You think you’re in writer’s block and you rail against your own fragility for falling into that cliched trope too.

Then you load up tvtropes to go down a three hour rabbit hole of loosely and spuriously connected ideas and themes. 

I’ve seen this a lot. Certainly, when I was younger, I worried about this a lot too. I strove for some sort of creative novelty to the point of inspirational purity where I wouldn’t read anything while I was writing hoping that I wouldn’t be influenced and accidentally bleed some unwanted literary device into my writing. Now, with the wisdom of age and experience, I realize what all this fretting really is: nonsense. 

Please, get off tvtropes. It’s not good for you. I’m not sure it’s good for anyone.

But maybe you’re someone who has no idea what I’m talking about. Bless your sweet, springtime soul. Tropes are generally (or generously) defined as commonly recurring rhetorical devices, motifs or cliches. It’s like when you notice most fantasy is of a generalized medieval fantasy nature. There’s lots of things fantasy could be. It could be Chinese medieval inspired. It could be steampunk (though that’s now a trope) or set before the iron age. Hell, fantasy doesn’t even have to have some historical analogy. You could write a fantasy story about a world inhabited with sentient mushrooms who communicate through rigorous percussion and are struggling against an invasive melody that threatens their whole harmonic existence. 

Most of it, however, will be some sort of derivative of Dungeons and Dragons. Which is largely just kind of derivative of Lord of the Rings. And here’s the kicker, Tolkien’s stuff was just derivative of actual European mythology. 

At the end of the day, there’s a very long history of human existence and you’re going to be really hard pressed to come up with something that some person hasn’t conceived of over the thousands of years we’ve sat on this planet entertaining each other with wild tales. 

But it’s not just that originality is an illusion. In fact, I believe that originality is inevitable. Even if I were to follow the same outline of Lord of the Rings, my version would be markedly different than Tolkiens. Don’t believe me? Check out any manner of people’s fan fictions for whatever popular show or story is currently engaged with the modern zeitgeist. I mean, we got Fifty Shades of Grey because some person really loved Twilight but thought the teenagers should be a bit more freaky in the sheets. 

However, it’s the very nature of tropes themselves which can trap people into thinking that they’re “bad” and “overused.” However, trope classification is literally just observation. It’s noticing common elements and themes and trying to rope as many as you can into a single definition. It’s actively looking to make things appear more similar to each other. Trope classification is trying to fit things into arbitrary labels and boxes regardless of how well they’re really going to fit or not. Bonus points if you can give the trope some weird name (think Klingon Scientists Get No Respect). 

Moreover, if there is a rather widespread trope then it’s probably widespread for a reason. For example, in the opening, I mentioned the Good vs Evil trope. This is a pretty stock theme in fantasy and there’s a reason for it: it works. A lot of tropes are merely observing that literature relies on a number of shorthands or devices to actually make a functional story. I mentioned before that you can’t replicate reality in your work – it’ll just make an unreadable mess. So you, as the author, going through and condensing your narrative and giving it focus will inevitably make it fall into some trope or another. Tropes are just the tools we use. Railing against the overuse of a trope in fiction is like complaining about artists having green in too many of their paintings. 

Now, before anyone who actually enjoys discussing tropes comes after me, I don’t think tropes are bad. Honestly, if people want to engage in the discussion of tropes with their favourite works, all the power to them. At least they’re looking at their media critically and trying to actually tease it apart on a more analytical level rather than mindless consuming and disposing of the piece like capitalism encourages. 

I just think as a creator, it’s in your best interest to shunt the concept of tropes as far away from your mind as you can. Worry about tropes and their use, definition or application has no place in your creative process. Forget about them entirely. Let others diagnosis and classify your writing. 

Honestly, you’ve got way bigger fish to fry.

So, if you catch yourself noticing tropes in your own stories, don’t sweat it and forget about it. Tropes are oftentimes just common tools or devices that actually work for a story and, if nothing else, indicate that you’re using a conceit that has been shown to work in other people’s narratives.

Also, you should get off tvtropes and get back to writing.

Writing is basically psychology.

And I’m not just saying that because I have a degree in the subject. I honestly feel that stories are all about us as humans. They’re meant to reveal truths and experiences which we live. They carry our dreams, hopes and aspirations. They underscore the follies and foibles which we believe are meant to be avoided. Writing is ultimately the art of the mind and the narrating of behaviour – either those that are to be extolled or those that are to be condemned. 

I have spent a decent number of words discussing things like character motivations and fears. And I’ll no doubt have more blog entries pulling back the layers of our protagonist’s personalities and characteristics. I have little doubt that if you search for other writers or workshops on improving writing, we’re all going to be discussing the same things. In a way, as writers, we’re little psychologists. We’re trying to understand what causes our characters to do what they do so that we can communicate the reasons for those actions to our readers. 

In many ways, having a rudimentary understanding of psychology can go a long way in helping us to make more empathetic characters that our readers can be drawn into. And we want readers to be drawn to our characters. In fact, I believe readers are looking for that connection. Sure, exotic worlds and thrilling action are always fun. Movies don’t have action beats and car chases for nothing. The struggle against the conflicts we set before our characters are gripping – with the underlying assumption that we’ve been able to get our reader invested in the outcome before they happen. 

There’s no point in threatening the life of your protagonist if your reader doesn’t give to licks about whether they live or die. 

But even if you accept my assertion of psychology’s value in this field, what does that even mean in terms of a writing tip? Well, for instance, I think it’s important to see and treat your characters as people. Yes, they’re little puppets which we dance at the ends of our strings. However, if we can’t convince ourselves that they’re representations or standins for real people then how can we convince our readers of such? Our whole promise with our books is that we’re going to deliver something believable even if the action takes place in saucer shaped starships or in worlds infested with fire-breathing dragons. 

In this way, I think it is of great benefit to try and view the world around you with a bit of a psychologist’s lens. If you’ve never done it, take a moment to try and see the people in your lives as characters in your book. How would you break them down into motivations and fears? What sort of wants drive them and what worries hold them back? How do their actions in this moment of observation make sense with this little literary synopsis of them? What are they hoping to achieve with whatever interaction they’re having with you? Better yet, if they’re sharing a story of their day, try and think about the importance of what they’re telling you is. Why is it that they wanted to share this story of their colleague? Why are they sharing it with you instead of someone else? Take a moment, if you’ve never done so, to examine the potential causes for the connections you have with these people.

And then think about what connections there would be with the characters of your stories. 

In my earlier days of writing, I employed this sort of analytics more explicitly with my characters. My early stories are very much based on the question of “What would my sister as a fantasy knight look like? How would my best friend act if he were a world renowned gentleman thief?” From these mini psychological profiles of the people closest to me, I crafted the characters of my earliest works. And in that way, I had a starting point for understanding how these characters would react in ever more novel situations. I honestly have no experience with living in a fantasy Victorian steampunk setting. But I can take the blueprint of myself and imagine how I would react in the situations of my Red Sabre stories. I can then throw some of my other friends into the equation and ease the cognitive burden on my creative faculties by only changing a few variables rather than having to mentally construct wholly original people in entirely never experienced situations. 

And you know what I found? The more I wrote, the less I relied on the characteristics of the people I actually knew. I was able to imagine more realized and developed personalities which I could populate my stories with. 

So, take a break from writing. Interact with the people around you. Consider what motivations are driving their behaviours in that moment. Analyse them like you would your own characters. Imagine what that friend or family member would do in one of the situations in your story. Then consider, can you use any of these ideas for your book? Does it offer alternative actions or responses that you hadn’t considered before?

There is a trope called lampshading that I constantly misuse. Apparently, proper lampshading is to intentionally call attention to the improbable, incongruent or cliched nature of an action, element or scenario in your writing. My use of it is to contextualize, or shade these moments to draw attention away from them. So I will apologize in advance if I misuse this term while writing this post. I’m trying my best not to.

At any rate, today I want to talk about idiosyncrasies and out of character behaviour. In an earlier post I did a brief explanation of verisimilitude and how our works of fiction attempt to portray a “sense” of heightened reality: situations are created to elevate drama while conflicts and tension will follow a progressive build until it peaks in a thrilling climax. There’s lots of elements of a good story that don’t follow real world behaviour. 

But that doesn’t mean we don’t pull some behaviours from reality into our work of fiction. One such behaviour that can be a touch tricky to navigate is the propensity for people to tell falsehoods. I’ll probably cover lying in another blog post. But one thing we’ll notice – as writers drawing inspiration from the real world – is that people rarely, if ever, act entirely within their character.

What I mean to say is that people will do the most surprising things. Your most trusted, valued friend might go behind your back. A hated enemy may extended an unexpected olive branch or reach out to you. People are constantly change, evolving and growing as time goes on and this impacts their outlook and behaviour. Obviously, a lot of storytelling is trying to capture this kind of personal growth in our main characters. And, as such, it is very, very common for us to establish the personality of a character only to have them do something later that goes against this nature.

And yet, so many times your reader will object with “This isn’t like them! Their behaviour is contrived just to forward the narrative!”

Quite frankly, the reader is probably right. Our characters are servants to our narratives. They dance exactly how we want them so any incongruencies to their personality isn’t due to the myriad of real life influences and factors changing how they would expectedly behave. No, their actions are always deliberately made with our careful consideration. 

However, this isn’t to say that they shouldn’t act unexpectedly. Quite the contrary, I think that idiosyncratic behaviour can be a huge boon to your writing. You just have to do it well.

This is where today’s lesson comes in. Any character can do any behaviour as long as you provide the proper context for your reader to understand. Pacifists can kill people. Tyrants can show mercy. Vegans can eat meat. Dog lovers might take in a stray cat. As writers, we are gods of our little narrative domains. But to take someone on even the most ludicrous journey requires providing the external pressures that direct a character away from their normal behaviour.

This is where the power of writing comes in. In real life, there’s way too many influences that determine our behaviours for anyone to really, truly understand why someone does anything. But in our written works we’ve the benefit of being about to cut through the noise and highlight the most impactful moments that leave last reverberations on our characters’ very souls. However, these moments require conscious setup in order to land this surprising payoff. However, if you do it properly, it will generate scenes that resonate powerfully with your readership. 

And we see this all the time in successful media. There’s Han Solo – the shoot Greedo first rogue who flies in to rescue Luke and the Rebels in the twilight hour despite great danger to himself. Or we have the turn from Frodo in the depths of Mount Mordor where he turns from casting the ring to its destruction falling to selfishness and temptation despite a harrowing journey resisting its siren call. But in both these situations, a large bulk of the story is setup to explain why these changes occur. Han Solo has the budding friendship between him and Luke Skywalker. Frodo has the slow sanity chipping lure of power whispering from the One Ring that tempts even the hearts of powerful wizards and elves with its promises. Thus, these heel turns make sense even if, in the moment, the characters themselves are taken by surprise.

So, when writing your characters in moments where they’re going against the nature and personality you’ve established for them, always ask yourself:

Has this moment been properly setup? Have I provided the context for why this character is betraying their nature? Will the reader understand and, possibly, even empathize with this action? Will they realize this turning point in the character’s development?

If not, then go back through your earlier chapters and make sure you plant those seeds of change in your earlier passages.

It would be remiss of me to comment on the art of writing without addressing some of the dialogue which surrounds the modern zeitgeist. Our art is, afterall, a reflection of the times. Our work is an additional commentary on our views of the discourse concerning the major topics which shape, mould and build our experiences and thoughts. Some people may view their work as escapism from the arguments of the day but even said escape will reflect the author’s own views of a world free from whatever it is they think currently plagues it the most. 

Haughty introduction aside, today I want to discuss a topic I’ve seen not only in writing but across movies, music and television as well. Especially now, in our global world, there’s been unparalleled migration and integration of people and culture around the world. Our local culture is more varied and diverse than ever before. As such, I think there’s value in paying mind that the people who could pick up your work aren’t necessarily going to be your primary audience. As well, there’s always great lessons to be learned by writing and empathizing with other people’s experiences – especially those far from your own.

And yet, I’m sure some writers are probably worried about criticism and cries of stereotyping if they were to include a diverse cast of characters in their work. 

First, I think receiving criticism is a good thing. I know we’d all like to receive universal praise and adoration for our writing but criticism at least demonstrates a reader is engaged. Not only are they reading something and forming an opinion about it but they are motivated enough to share their thoughts with others. I maintain the worst result for our art is to be ignored and forgotten. Ruffling a few feathers is just kind of expected when you enter a public discourse. Not everyone is going to love what you do and that’s alright. 

And with criticism we can examine our work, find flaws within it and improve our craft going forward.

I do think it is important to try and avoid stereotyping people and cultures. Sure, stereotypes exist for a reason but I don’t think our art benefits from replicating stereotypes – especially lazy or thoughtless ones. We’re in the craft of telling stories and no one wants to listen to characterization that has been so beaten to death that it has formed a generic blueprint. One reason that subversion of stereotypes is received so well is for providing something new and exciting to experience, think about and discuss. 

Now there’s a whole quagmire surrounding the inclusion of minorities and the like in your work. It can feel tiring trying to avoid every single stereotype revolving around an ethnicity – especially when oftentimes they’ll have contradictory ones. I’ve seen people complain about being tired of seeing the black jock stereotype over and over again in high school stories. Yet the moment a black nerd character is introduced, the cries of Steve Urkel copycats ring out. I don’t think these sorts of contradictory complaints, however, are without merit. More than anything, I think this complaint doesn’t spring from the use of a stereotype insomuch as its a complaint about tokenism.

And here’s my little trick. If you only ever include one character of a minority, your readership is going to naturally assume that you – as the author – are presenting your full thoughts of that minority in that one character. Thus, people get more sensitive to how that single character is portrayed and whether they’re contributing to modern issues regarding representation in the media. So how do you get around this?

You include more than one.

Like, it’s hard for people to get twisted into knots about patriarchal representations of women if you have a traditionally girly character in your story who just wants to look pretty and be a loving wife standing alongside a modern, tough-as-nails and independent woman. And the more you show these two characters reacting to situations in their own individual way, the more you create unique characters while also broadening the representation of these communities. 

Now, obviously not every story is going to allow you the ability to include two of every type of person in the world but the more you diversify the primary, secondary and tertiary characters in your cast, the less any one of them has to shoulder the burden of the whole representation of their identity in their characterization. And, of course, while this is a pretty quick and easy way to head off stereotyping criticisms it also rests on the fact that you’re still applying your strong characterization skills to these characters as you do to the rest of your cast. 

So, when you’re thinking of description for your characters and considering how you’re representing people – especially those further from your own lived experience – ask yourself:

Is this the only person of this identity in my story? Is it possible to work in someone else who shares this identity or rework another character – who is markedly different from this one – into the same identity? Finally, are these characters being properly represented as individuals or are they just presented as stock characters with little that makes them interesting or unique?

One of my first tips on writing concerns your protagonist’s motivations. Every story is driven by the want of its principal character and the challenges that they most overcome in chasing that want. However, very few stories are just about a singular character. The vast majority of tales will involve some interaction with others. These are your secondary or tertiary characters – hopefully named if they’re going to be featured frequently. But they are more than just set dressings to your protagonist’s journey.

Alright, they actually are set dressing but part of the unspoken contract you’ve made with your reader is to mask this fact. There’s a sense of verisimilitude which we strive to achieve with our writing. We’re not recreating reality. Such a task is both impossible and ultimately undesirable. People read stories precisely because they aren’t reality. Stories have clear arcs. They have definitive beginnings and endings. They contain themes supported by actions and events. They’re tight, concise and satisfying.

Reality has none of this. Reality is messy. Reality often has conflicts or issues that don’t get resolved. Or they’ll have random events unforeseen come careening in to drastically alter people’s course and fate. People won’t always learn lessons. Distractions often reign supreme. To accurately mimic reality would be to create a mess of a narrative. So we don’t want to copy reality – we merely want to tease a sense of it. 

Part of creating this feeling of a living world in our works actually rides on the backs of our supporting cast. In reality, there is no protagonist. There is no single person which the world revolves around like in a novel. Everyone is their own main character, consumed with their own troubles and tribulations. Obviously, we can’t have this in our books. In fact, many characters in stories will drop everything they’re doing to help the protagonist. Many go out of their way to assist or hinder in dramatic fashion. There is almost an element of solipsism in novels where one person’s perspective is all that’s important. 

But it is the duty of a good writer to mask this truth. We don’t want our supporting cast to feel like a supporting cast. They should give hints and glimpses of rounded individuals leading their own lives. Not servants to the wants and needs of the main character. 

Yet how do we accomplish this? Well, I kind of do a similar exercise for my supporting cast as I do for the main character. I’ll assign them a goal or motivation which drives them. However, unlike the protagonist, a supporting cast member only ever gets one motivation. More than that will make things too complicated, messy and confusing. Furthermore, unlike the protagonist, this motivation is going to be minor in comparison. And, frankly, supporting characters don’t need dramatic hurdles impeding their efforts to achieve their desire. 

In fact, it’s probably easier if they don’t have much standing in their way. In this manner, the support character can be slowly toiling towards their destination all the while the story revolves around the struggles of their compatriot. 

For example, in my novel A Clockwork Caterpillar, Felicity comes across an old acquaintance Gerard. Gerard led a band of rebels against the colonial throne. His goal was to create an independent nation free of the monarchy’s influence. As such, his interactions with Felicity were always underscored by this desire. He spoke to her of his dreams for liberation. He justified his actions in kidnapping her terms which furthered that interest. At times, his goal for independence aligned with Felicity and he was an ally. At other times, they were conflicted. But regardless of what happened with Felicity on her journey, Gerard always had this liberation from the monarchy as his single-minded goal.

In contrast to this, I’m sure we can all think of stories where a supporting character didn’t have any motivation. In fact, they only ever seemed to serve a very literary function with the protagonist. Perhaps they waited in the wings, willing to drop everything in order to lend the aid the protagonist needs at whatever moment was necessary. These characters often end up rather flat. Without motivation, they lack a personality. Without a personality, they often come across as a bland version of the protagonist. 

So, as a rule of thumb, try to give your supporting cast of characters something to do. It doesn’t need to be anything big or grandiose. But just a little personal desire that is not shared by the protagonist will make them stand out more and help with building that sense of realism in your stories.

Thus, when writing your secondary characters, ask yourself:

What does this character want? Is this want suitably minor enough for the character’s role? Or will this want overshadow the protagonist’s journey? If so, can they have some other motivation that won’t distract from the story?

Finally, how does this motivation manifest during interactions between this supporting character and the protagonist? How can I express this want without distracting from the primary focus of the story?

I’ve got a story for you. There was this girl. She was really pretty. She liked to sing and hum a tune. She thought to herself, you know I’d like to be a singer. She told this to her family and they all agreed – she would be a lovely singer. So her mother put her in some singing lessons. They were a little difficult but her vocal coach was very patient and encouraging. So she kept at them, refined her voice, recorded a sample album with the help of some friends and decided to shop it around. She went down to her local radio station and they enjoyed the songs so much they put it up that weekend on their local hits segment. A talent scout heard the song, thought her singing was wonderful and reached out. He suggested she enter a singing competition and while she was nervous at first, she eventually agreed. After several nerve-wracking weeks of competition, she got first place, signed a recording contract and now tours the world following her passion. 

The end. 

Wasn’t that exciting?

No?

I don’t understand. Surely this was really engaging. It must be because I’ve stumbled across similar stories more often than I would expect. Alright, I know you that you know there’s an obvious issue with this little snippet. Maybe a few clever readers think this is an example of a Mary Sue. Don’t worry, we’ll get to that one day. However, I imagine most of you read the title of the blog and already know where I’m going with this. 

So it might all seem pretty basic. And you’d be right. This is a pretty basic lesson. Every story needs a conflict. This opening one lacks it. So there’s no reason for us to be attached to the protagonist. There’s really nothing to keep us reading through it. The whole drama and engagement with a work of fiction hinges on competing desires, wants and challenges.

Yet, this is something I’ve come across in other people’s writing more than I think I should. It’s a little more prevalent, I’ll admit, in short stories. Which I get. Short stories are challenging in many ways that longer novels are not. I think, sometimes, people get so bogged down in the minutiae of their themes, character motivations, world development and setting that the whole idea of a conflict just sort of slips their mind. 

And then they end up with a twenty page description of a giant space transport line, the formal teaching structure of a strange magic system based on herbology or a whole novel on collecting bulbous woodland perennials. 

I know I’ve mentioned that just about every rule can be broken in art however I’m not certain this is one of them. I’m really struggling to think of a successful story where there was simply no conflict. The need for a conflict to drive narrative is so fundamental to the storytelling process that it’s kind of hard to talk about its absence. It would be more like writing a journal than a story but even people’s personal journals still often deal with the writer’s personal conflicts they face either internally or with people they interacted with that day. 

More than anything, it’s kind of a fact of life. The act of living is, in part, one of navigating conflicts. Whether it be the storied histories of nations and governments fighting over resources with their neighbours or even just the competing interpersonal relationships between a couple trying to manage their and their partner’s shifting emotions and viewpoints.

And I sometimes wonder if, perhaps, some people trip themselves over worries about tropes and a “lack of creativity.” Perhaps this could be a whole other blog entry, but I know I’ve seen some people in discussing the media they consume rolling their eyes at yet another protagonist having personal issues with their spouse. “Why does this daytime television show always have to have their main characters in rocky marriages?!” The obvious answer is because it’s a show. A show is meant to entertain. Just like our stories are. We don’t have a lot of tales about loving couples who always see eye-to-eye or manage to compromise and have a healthy marriage because… frankly it’s boring. 

Not that you can’t, of course. A loving couple tackling other problems like an invasion of space bugs intent on destroying the world would work wonderfully. But that’s kind of got a baked in conflict for said loving couple to grapple. If I were to ever make a hard, fast and ubiquitous rule it would be this:

Every story needs a conflict. Stop writing stories without it.

Now, for me, creating conflict has always been pretty second nature so I want to be open to those who may struggle with creating some tension in their narrative. Thus, when you’re starting your project and you’re not entirely sure where to take it or whether you have a conflict in the first place, ask yourself these two questions:

What does my character want?

What’s stopping them from getting it?

It’s really that simple. When you know your character’s primary motivation you need to immediately come up with some thing or some things that are in place preventing that character from obtaining it. 

Jumping back to the opener, how would that story have looked if the protagonist’s parents didn’t want her singing? What if they were insistent on her being a doctor? Maybe she had to take her lessons in secret. Maybe she had to make sure she was never caught singing in the shower. And what if her vocal coach wasn’t good. Or even supportive. Maybe she had doubts that she could actually be a singer. Maybe she wanted to quit and only kept at it because some videos she posted online got some positive feedback. What if she lost that singing competition? Maybe one of the judges flat told her she would never amount to anything. Did this discourage her or push her to keep at it to prove him wrong?

So, I’ll end on repeating those two questions because they’re so important when it comes to writing successful narratives:

What does my character want? What is stopping them from getting it?