Would Darth Vader Drink Guinness?

Any time I create a character, I ask myself one simple question: Could I see that character at a bar? It doesn’t need to be an Irish pub, even though it helps; the basic question is if the person (note: “person”, not “character”) is capable of holding a conversation. Even the most obsessed psychotics are capable of holding a conversation; even an autistic can communicate their desires, albeit in limited fashion. In essence, is their something in the character that makes that character a person, with desires and wishes, balanced against their flaws and handicaps?



The problem with alien psychologies is that the writers too often ignore that even an alien psychology has to deal with the same basic motivations of any human: They need to survive, breed, and eat, however that is defined for the alien. It’s easy to forget that, but even an insect has a motivation, even if it is just finding the next meal and surviving. Most of the alien psychologies aren’t that alien when you analyze them from the stance of what their motivation is. There is no real alien psychology, at least, not in the since that it has no similarities to a human one.



The problem is that when people think “alien psychologies” they are thinking that an alien needs to have its own motivations that make no sense to other sentients. The reality is that even regular humans have motivations that are alien to other humans; consider an altruist from the perspective of someone who sees selfishness in everyone, for example, or someone who tries to live their lives morally in the eyes of a dedicated sinner. Consider how many writers treat immortals as entities that never graduated high school; how many vampires are more interested in what amounts to high school politics and are worried more about social ramifications than pursuing their own interests?



That's something you need to consider when you write. You need to ask yourself just how alien people are and decide if you are interested in trying to make those alien psychologies work or exploring how delusionary they really are. When it comes down to it the only true aliens are those we choose not to try and comprehend; all personalities are ultimately decipherable and there are no real aliens. You just need to figure out how they work in terms of your story and what they can bring your story. You'll find that people have more in common than you would think at first.



It basically comes down to that I bet you could at least debate Nietzsche with Darth Vader, and it would be interesting. A good writer will create the full personality of his characters; try to hold a basic conversation with one, and if you can, then the character is solid. That's sort of the genesis of the bar test; any two characters should be able to have a conversation in a bar or else one or both of those characters may need some work when it comes to being fleshed out. This applies especially when it comes to heroes and villains as they are usually the ones that are the most apparent in their motivations; if they can't discuss what is important to them then they have some serious issues you need to work on. So have your characters meet in a bar, at least in your head, and let them talk; it's the only real way to see who works and who needs work.

Character or Plot: Which is more important?

There are two schools of thought on what is more important, plot or character; you need to decide before plotting which school you like.



The character-first school believes that character is important because it’s the choices of the characters that define the story. The major advantage is that avoids “Acting Appropriately Stupid”, that requirement where the only way to further the plot is if a character or three makes a stupid decision that is against their character (such as splitting up and taking showers while the psycho killer is a known factor or ignoring their intuition which has served them well). However, sometimes the writer gets into plumbing character depth but usually at the cost of a coherent story; the plumbing gets so deep that the story is ignored in order to better explore the characters.



Admittedly, I’m for anything that avoids the AAS issue, but the character-first story has a problem with it: Little actually happens. The writer usually gets so wrapped up in the characters that he is afraid to affect the character long-term; the characters are considered sacrosanct, and is thus not allowed to change. After all, if what the writer likes about the character changes, then it’s no longer the same character and will no longer be as fun to play with. However, a static character is only so fun to read in the long term; people want to see some change in the character over the long term.



Worse, it becomes harder to avoid the Mary Sue problem (a “Mary Sue” is a character, usually female (males are “Gary Stu”) that is perfect in every way, and has abilities that far outstrip any competition, and has a “destiny”, but has some dark history that or desire that is counter to her plans). Instead of a realistic character development, the writer develops the character's abilities rather than her personality further alienating the reader as he can no longer relate to the character. It just hits the point that she has a large number of abilities but no real personality.



By going with the plot-first approach, the character is forced to change, and in a realistic way. Also, the characters won’t drag the story down, as you won’t explore the side trips; you’ll focus on the plot, and that’s a good thing. Your characters will also change as they adapt to the plot, and react to it realistically. Also, it allows you kill characters and not feel guilty about it. By making the plot more important than the characters, you can also throw stuff at the characters and see how they react to it.



However, there is the danger of making the plot so important that the characters are forced to make decisions that they wouldn't normally make in order to keep the plot going. Also, you start seeing coincidences start piling up as the plot barrels on regardless of the desires of the characters. While this is great for absurdist comedies it's not so great for anything else and risks alienating readers as they have to suspend disbelief at every new plot twist. This just means that you need to keep an eye on the plot and prune it when it starts getting out of hand.



Either way you can explore the characters’ characters in ways that also move the plot along, allowing you to have fun with your characters. As long as you can avoid the AAS syndrome, you can actually do what you want (explore the characters), while doing what you story needs (the plot). By reaching that compromise, you can build a stronger plot, and have fun doing it!

Personal Heroes

[Yeah, I know this is late, but I figured better late than never...]

Two of my personal heroes are Harriet Tubman and Wilma Rudolph. Wilma is the easier to explain: She was on the 1936 Munich Olympics American Track & Field Team. Hitler had, at the start of the Olympics, pointed out that the Aryan race would crush every other country. The Track & Field team did the most serious damage to the speech, as the blacks were one of the least significant races and should have fallen easily to the Aryans.

Instead of falling, the American Track & Field team won gold medal after medal. Wilma Rudolph was one of the standouts, doing almost as well Jesse Owens. Sometimes the most serious defeat doesn’t require a battle or war; by being who they were, and doing what they did, they were able to defeat Hitler. A valuable lesson for those that think that battles can only be won through violence.

Harriet Tubman is a bit more complex. She was an escaped slave that became the best conductor of the Underground Railroad, with over 160 successful trips and no failures (she would have been killed had she been caught). She became a major voice for the Black Civil Movement after the Civil War forced her into retirement.

The important thing about Harriet is that she did what she even though she had epilepsy. On a few missions, she suffered seizures that caused some panic, but she came back. She didn’t apologize for who she was or what she had, and did it anyway. She persevered and did she what did because she felt she had to, even though she had a potentially life-threatening disease (having to deal with seizures in the middle of being chased by guys with rifles can be very life-threatening). Her personal bravery is what matters, and her ability to improvise under stress, as well as taking steps to make sure that the mission succeeded.

Both women were major heroes, in two vastly separate ways. If I needed two better examples of people that succeeded, and thrived under pressure, and did what they needed to do, I can’t think of two better examples. That they were black women is merely an interesting coincidence, and not as necessary as that they were who they needed to be.

Tales of the Writer

First, read this: Hard Onions

The best writers are those that look at things as they are, not as they want them to be. In order to do so, they need to be able ignore popularity, as popularity creates a shroud for the item that is popular, a shroud both attracts fanaticism (so that anyone criticizing is wrong) and the wrong kind of criticism (if it's popular, and art must not be popular, then there are those that wish to prove their artistic integrity by bringing it down). Too many artists are affected by the shroud, and base their judgments on it.

Consider William Shakespeare and Jerry Bruckheimer. The two may not seem to have a lot in common, but when you start looking at what they have done, there are a number of striking similarities. Shakespeare's original intention was not to create art, but to fill the Globe Theatre, just as Bruckheimer fills theaters today. Bruckheimer's films are filled with deceits, people brought down by their own pride, star-crossed romances, and those in power abusing that power; sound familiar?

Seriously look at Top Gun for a moment. At the core of the movie is Maverick's pride and how it creates problems for him, even to the point of causing the death of his friend, losing a prized assignment and an accommodation, and creating a problem with his romance. I can easily take out the fighter planes, and still have a solid movie. However, it's an easy bet that any critic of Bruckheimer's will concentrate on the planes.

Now, look at Hamlet. By the end of the movie, there have been eights deaths from a variety of causes, including a sucide caused be neglect, two comic reliefs sent to their deaths, one basically random stabbing, and four deaths in a duel from stabbing, poison, and a stabbing/poisoning. Throw in one guy going nuts and the possible incest issue, and you have a plot that any schlock Movie-of-the-week director would love to get his hands on.

It's easy to dismiss, but seriously think about it for a moment. The purpose of any play or film is to entertain; if it can't do that at least, then it's a failure from the start. But...it needs to do more to be considered art. It needs to touch something within us, and find a resonance that we can understand. It's that resonance that's the difference between something that's mere entertainment, and something that's more. "Hamlet" and "Top Gun" both show what happens when something is obsessed over to the point that it becomes harmful: Hamlet wants revenge, and Maverick wants the Top Gun award. We all know what it's like to obsess, to ignore our common sense, and do something because we have to do it. The main difference between the two is that in "Top Gun", Maverick moves beyond that and learns that love is more important. There is a reason that it's considered a great date movie.

But, because "Top Gun" has fighter planes, has a great soundtrack, and appeals to regular people, there is no way any respectable critic would ever call it a great movie. The shroud is in effect.

Now, look at Robert Mapplethorpe. The guy's a great photographer, and definitely deserves most of the accolades he's been given. However: I'm personally annoyed by the guy. He threw a cross into urine and asked one question: If you create a work that offends someone, and that's the point, is it art? That is, if the sole point is to make critics happy and tick off a particular group, creating division between artists and others, is it really art?

Don't get me wrong: Art should ask questions. But, should it be used by artists to create a line between artists and everyone else? Should it just be artists that appreciate art, or should anyone be able to appreciate it? If I say something is art, does that automatically make it art? It doesn't take talent to create division, but it does talent to make people ask the right questions. By taking on the religious right, Mapplethorpe is covered in his own little shroud...

You would have thought that artists would have learned from high school that popularity isn't something you should strive for, but something that shold be ignored. A lot of artists have decided that being popular is more important than doing art, and that's dangerous.

And they've found that a great way to become popular is to take on popular things, and make fun of them. Rather than wasting time figuring out how to skewer the latest movie, why not instead try to figre out if there is something below the flash, if there is some steak to the sizzle. After all, a shroud is what they bury things in, right? Why be in such a rush to cover everything with one?