Ink-Stained Scribe

Pendragon Variety Call for Submissions!


The first issue of Pendragon Variety Literary Magazine is scheduled for release in May, and we need YOUR contributions to make it happen! This will release first as the Audio Literary Magazine, and later as an e-book.
The theme for Issue # 1 is "DRAGONS". This issue will be dedicated to the life and memory of Anne McCaffrey, so every story should include dragons in some significant way. Cyber dragons, genetically-engineered dragons, dragon mech-warriors–use your imagination. But they must be pivotal.

Deadline: March 5th
ART:
If you would like to contribute insert art Pendragon Variety Issue #1, please email PendragonVariety@gmail.com with the subject “ART SUBMISSION – Your Name” with relevant links and/or attachments.
FICTION:

Length: 100 – 5,000 words. If you have something longer, please query first – we will consider it.
What we want: From Sci-Fi to Steampunk to Sword and Sorcery, anything speculative! Reprints accepted.
What we don’t want: Anything you would be ashamed to read in front of a random selection of people from a Dragon*Con hotel lobby, including at least one person dressed as Darth Vader.

Format: A properly-formatted .doc or .rtf file
Send it toPendragonVariety@gmail.com; with “SUBMISSION – Your Title” as the subject header.
We will discuss preferences for audio production after the acceptance of your story. At the moment, we regret that we are unable to pay our authors. If you would like to help us pay our authors, please go to the site and click on the DONATE button.

Two Flash Fictions

So, my friend and fellow writing club member, Elyse, made me write flash fiction stories today. I thought, since I've been caught up in a billion projects recently and haven't had time to write a post, I'd inflict these stories upon you all! They're inspired by randomly-selected song lyrics.

Flash Fiction Piece 1


Xan slid through the dingy crowd packed between the facades of every shop on main street, carefully keeping his face covered by the high collar of his coat. The curious, milling crowd was little more than a forest of feet. Some were shod, others not, but they all scuffed over the mud-veined cobbles, trouser hems and petticoats sucking up the muck as the people in them sucked up the lies of the Benefactor.

Xan had had enough of lies, and his answer to them was in a single word, burning in his mind, on his tongue, from his pen.

Revolution.

It had taken only one word, whispered in the dark of gas-lamps, coded into the articles he wrote to extoll the Benefactor's virtue, to amass an army of bodies. It would take many thousand more to convince them to fight.

Xan made his way to the monument of the City Benefactor and took the watch from his pocket. The chain spilled out in a silky tumble of delicate gold links, tugging lightly on the clip in his waistcoat. He clicked it open, glanced at its backwards-ticking hands, and checked it against the enormous clock-tower casting a knife of shadow over the courtyard. The hands would match up in less than a minute.

The journalist lifted his head then, eyes scanning the crowd he would soon arm with the greatest weapons: words.

(I am an arms dealer/ Fitting you with weapons in the form of words.)

Flash Fiction Piece 2

The fool’s voice was a low, grating crumble of a sound, like the earth around a gravestone. The throne room was cold, soundless but for the minor lullaby he hummed under his breath. The planks were smooth on his bare feet--worn soft as velvet by the many feet dragged to and fro across them every day.

“At your pleasure, my liege,” he mocked, bowing to the throne he knew was empty. “Shall I slit his throat, my liege? Burn his family before his eyes till he begs for blinding, my liege?” He cackled, raising two spidery, knuckley hands to his own face--to the hollow sockets--and prying wide the gaps in his face, tipping forward as though staring at some tortured soul.

He cackled, danced forward with steps too practiced to need counting, and leapt onto the dais, collapsing lazily across the throne. “The king of fools sayeth…” He turned his head, slow as an owl, and stared sightlessly.

“Give him riches, ten stones in measure, and chuck him in the moat.”

(Are you blind when you’re born? Can you see in the dark? / Dare you look at a king? Would you sit on his throne?)

Specific Motivation for Characters

You may be surprised at the changes...
While doing the outlining workshop, a few of the folks tried to pass off "to be happy" as a character motivation. Sorry, folks - no dice.

It's not that "to be happy" isn't a motivation, but it's sort of the quintessential motivation, and that's the problem. When you're setting up what your character wants, it needs to be as specific as possible, because that specificity will help your character seem unique.

"To be happy" is not unique. Just like we can trace all life back to the sun (well, as far as I know), everyone is motivated by the pursuit of happiness. Does your villain want to destroy the world? Why? Because on some level, world-destruction makes that character happy, or at least satisfied.

And satisfied is like happy. For sociopaths.

Anyway.

Motivation needs to be specific, and if it's not, all the cool shit they can do doesn't matter, because we don't know why it's important. A while back, I saw a youtube video about how Disney princesses always have their "motivation establishing song." I can't find that video now, but here are some of the relevant songs:

Belle: I want adventure in the great wide somewhere...







Ariel: I want to be where the people are...



Mulan: When will my reflection show who I am inside...


Snow White: Someday my prince will come...(barf.)


Ignoring the gag-inducing passivity of the Snow White motivation (If you haven't read the "YA Cover Trends" [aka, Dead Girls on Covers] essays over on Rachel Stark's blog, Trac Changes, I command thee go read.)  you can see that all four of these chicks at least know what they want, and we learn that before they have to start fighting to make it happen or, in Snow White's case, before she is rudely taken advantage of by her step mother, and then randomly sexually assaulted by some chump with a white horse and a crown, and then circumstances allow everyone else to make her dream happen.

But how does one go about figuring out a specific motivation for a character?

The way I've decided to define specific motivation is by breaking it down into two parts:

DESIRE + METHOD

Desire is whatever it is your character wants. This should be the thing that pulls them toward the ending, the thing that they want to fight for. For example, the two main characters of HELLHOUND:

Helena: to gain true freedom and peace for herself and her pack.
Jaesung: to take care of the people he cares about (the way his father didn't).

Method is the course of action your character plans, must, or eventually decides to take in order to achieve their goals. To know this, you must know first what is keeping them from achieving their desires. Again, I'm going to use the cast of HELLHOUND as an example.

What stands between desire and:

Helena: Gwydhain is hunting the Hellhounds, the Sorcerers Guild is hunting her, and Jaesung's attention/suspicion puts her in danger of revealing her secret. 
Jaesung: Helena won't tell him what's going on, so he can't protect her from it. He's still in school and doesn't make enough money yet to help resolve his father's debt.
So, what's their course of action, given these obstacles?

Helena: protect the book with the Hellhound creation spell, learn enough magic to defeat Gwydhain, keep her autonomy from the Sorcerers Guild, and keep her true nature hidden from her roommates. 
Jaesung: find out what's going on with Helena so he can support her...and to make sure she's not endangering anyone else he cares about; finish his degree in applied mathematics and get a good job so he can take care of his family financially.

From these pieces of information, we can decide what each character's specific motivation is. For now, I'm just going to pick the most important obstacle.

THIS IS WHAT IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE

Helena: wants to gain true freedom and peace for herself and her pack BY protecting the book with the Hellhound creation spell and learning enough Magic to defeat Gwydhain. 
Jaesung: wants to take care of the people he cares about (the way his father didn't) BY finding out what's going on with Helena so he can support her, or at least make sure she's not endangering anyone else.

CHARACTER wants to achieve DESIRE by taking a COURSE OF ACTION.

I don't think your characters' initial courses of action need to be successful - Helena fails both to protect the book and to learn enough Magic to defeat Gwydhain, and so must come up with an alternate solution. I'm not going to tell you if Jaesung is successful or not. You'll just have to wait and see...

What is your main character's specific motivation? Is their initial course of action successful? What's their next course of action?

Why Flaws and Motivations Matter More

What's that? I can't hear you over my AWESOME!
Have you ever created a character so sublimely kickass you can't believe they somehow rocketed straight from your subconscious?

He's a white-haired elf who doesn't realize he's a half-demon, and comes back to save the undeserving village that ran him off, only to die a slow and painful death (with an epic death-speech that would make Mercutio weep in a fit of jealous awe) to teach us all a lesson in tolerance. Speaking of tolerance, he's gay! With a demon. Isn't he awesome?
No. He's not. Maybe the above description intrigues you, and that's not a bad thing. Most likely, you're rolling your eyes. How do I know? Because I haven't given you a reason to care. It isn't that there's anything wrong with being a soliloquizing half-elf-half-demon still fighting to protect the ones that would have him killed (and getting some action on the side), but as it stands he's boring.

Here's the deal: anyone can heap awesome skills and powers onto a character. Anyone can throw a sad back-story and a tragic ending at a character. Anyone can give their character a controversial trait. (May I add, here, that making a character gay is not a quirk, flaw, or free-pass on making your character unique?) I can't embolden, underline, italicize, and capitalize the following enough: NONE OF THIS MATTERS WITHOUT FLAWS OR MOTIVATION.

Stories aren't about how awesome a character is. It's about the problems--internal and external--those characters overcome, and why they overcome them. Sure, how they overcome those problems is an important aspect of the plot, but it's in the "why" that we readers find a reason to care.

Looking for even more tips on writing? Go check out freelance editor CA Marshall's blog for her special Editing Advent contest - you could win a free 10 page critique from someone who knows what she's talking about.

Writing Romance - What About MY Needs!?

Writing Podcasts seem to have a certain synchronicity for me--when I'm struggling with something in my own writing, I hear it discussed in a podcast soon thereafter. It's not even that I seek out the episodes so much as I work my way though them, and the episode I need just happens to be there. That's happened to me with all three of my favorite writing podcasts: The Dead Robots Society, I Should Be Writing, and Writing Excuses. That's what I hope my own podcast, Pendragon Variety, can do for other aspiring writers.

 The other day, I was listening to the Writing Excuses podcast, and heard something that seemed like common sense, but which I sometimes lose track of when writing romance between two characters. I'm not talking about romance novels (not that there's anything wrong with them). I'm talking about every romance you write, and what keeps it from feeling forced--what draws your characters to each other, by proxy drawing your readers to the relationship: knowing the needs the two characters satisfy for each other.

 In "The Mark of Flight", Shiro and Arianna were pretty simple to figure out. Shiro fills Arianna's need to be seen, appreciated, and loved for who she is and not because she's a princess. Arianna fills Shiro's need to be believed in, and his need to be valued as a person. Funny enough, they satisfy a very similar needs for each other, though they come from completely different backgrounds. Their romance was never really an issue for me, so when I started writing HELLHOUND, I imagined everything would fall perfectly into place.

 Not so. Part of this was my fault in writing without any idea who my characters were, what motivated them, or what they even wanted. But I feel like I should have figured it out by the end of the first draft. Something wasn't quite working--it was totally unbalanced. They went from 0 to 40...then back to 10...then to 80...and then piddled along to the end. It's not because they're not both likable, interesting, developed characters. It's not because there wasn't plenty of attraction on both sides.

I knew that Jaesung was a good influence on Helena...but I couldn't quite figure out what it was about HER that made him stick around. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about when I say that, sometimes, I don't think one protagonist quite has as much to offer as the other. "Because he loves her" might be valid, but sometimes I still want a little more.

What does Bella have to offer Edward (besides the feeling that he's a horrible monster for wanting to eat her all the time)?

What does Ron give to Hermione (besides at least three reasons to cry in every book)?

What is it about Clary that makes Jace willing to brave even the possibility of incest for her? (*squick*)

 Jaesung gives me that problem. When you're a 23-year-old grad student juggling lots of goslings, what's going to draw you to a girl whose most likely background is "drug mule in witness protection"? Okay. Her hot legs. At first. But when shit starts going down, there's got to be something more.

Helena tries to do everything herself. She truly believes she has something that only she can do, and that she's got to do it alone. Unfortunately, her character flaw is in her inability to look past the moment and see consequences. Because she's too afraid to think about a future she thinks is hopeless, she gets herself into a lot of trouble for making decisions that don't seem to have any foresight.

Jaesung, on the other hand, has effectively killed his ability to live in the moment by always thinking about the past, and trying to figure out how to avoid making the same mistakes as his father. He works hard at something at which he's rather mediocre to make sure he can support his mother and his future family, while relegating his passions into the "hobby" box. Of course, he enjoys them...but he's not the type of person who can let himself disappoint people.

Helena never thinks about the future. Jaesung always does. This causes tension in their relationship, to be sure, but it also gives each of them something to contribute to the other. In a way, their flaws when it comes to life in general become their strengths for each other. Helena's lack of foresight gives Jaesung the opportunity to help her find her "light at the end of the tunnel" (Oh hai, theme). Her recklessness forces him to admit what he truly cares about, whether that lets people down or not.

Because I think flaws are so important, I have to make sure they grow, but don't fix each other, because the story isn't about overcoming flaws. Like many good stories, it's about overcoming adversity despite a thousand things that are in the way, including those flaws. Helena will probably never be able to plan ahead the way Jaesung does, and I know he will always feel duty-bound to take care of everyone around him.

She'll drag him out to play in the snow at 4AM. He'll remember anniversaries. She'll remind him to take a break from doing taxes. He'll make sure they get done later. She'll hunt demons for the safety of the world. He'll make sure she doesn't do it alone.

Yeah. They're a good match.

The Four Temperaments (for You and Your Characters) - Part II - Sensing/Perceiving


Last week, I discussed how to use the sensing and intuitive distinction in characters in description and exposition. As I mentioned in that post, the largest division of temperament occurs in the method of gathering and processing information (Keirsey). The next division is within the sensing and intuitive types.

This next bit goes into the background of the distinctions, so if you’re just interested in the behavior of the SP temperament types, skip everything between the camels.
In Please Understand Me, Keirsey describes the reasoning behind the division:

The Ns...opt either for...spirituality (self actualization) or...science (powers). ... The Ss...choose either...joy (freedom to act) or...duty (social status). ...[F]eeling now distinguishes the...self-actualization motive from the thinking...power motive. ...[J]udgement (J) distinguishes the...duty motive from the...freedom motive (P).
 
Because intuitive (N) types experience the world in a more metaphysical way, it makes sense for the distinction to rest on whether they are thinking or feeling types, or--as Keirsey states--whether they persue self-actualization or powers (which he defines as knowledge or skills). This gives us two of the four temperaments:

NF & NT

There seems to be some disagreement over how the distinctions are made when it comes to the sensing types. In the first post in this series, there was a graphic that split up both Intuitive and Sensing types by whether they’re thinking or feeling. Considering the sensing types are mostly concerned with the facts, the experience, and the present it makes more sense to me to distinguish Sensing types based on their need (or lack of need) to make conclusions and create deadlines, or the pursuit of duty versus the pursuit of freedom.
So for the purpose of this blog series, I’m going to be using Keirsey’s distinction. Thus, the sensing temperaments are:

SP & SJ



Temperament of the Day

SP
(Sensing / Perceiving)
Dionysian
 (Joy/Aesthetic)

Dionysus riding a leopard.
Like a boss.
Sensing/Perceiving types are best embodied by the idea of the free-roller. Dionysus, the Greek God of wine and general debauchery, is a great example of the independent, fun-seeking SP.

They are independent, and rather than a work ethic, these types have a play ethic.They are optimists with a strong belief in and desire for equality. SPs are impulsive, and like being impulsive. They are the heart-breakers, the epicurians, and the easily bored.

SPs don't tend to pursue goals. They may have them, but the goal itself tends to be arbitrary. They run because they feel like running, not because they want to reach a finish line. This often means they have an inexhaustable endurance in comparison to more goal-driven types, because SPs aren't looking for a finish-line. It's all about the experience. As soon as the experience stops being fun, the SP can cast aside the goal like a banana peel (which also sometimes leaves the people around them in...slippery situations).

SPs go along with rules and regulations until a crisis strikes, or until they feel their autonomy is being challenged, at which point they break for the exit like Kim Kardashian in a wedding dress.

Despite their flaws, SPs are generally well-liked for their optimism, sponteneity, and the sense of adventure they bring to every day life.

Some Suspiciously SP Characters in Fiction Are:

  • Falstaff (Henry V, The Merry Wives of Windsor)
  • Sirius Black (Harry Potter)
  • Ron Weasley (Harry Potter)
  • Howl/Howell (Howl's Moving Castle)
  • Menolly (Harper Hall Trilogy)

The Four Temperaments (for You and Your Characters) - Part I

Before I get into specifics of each type of temperament, it's necessary to explain a little bit about each letter combination in MTBI. If you've done Myers-Briggs before, you're probably familiar with what's known as the four dichotomies:

Extroverted / Introverted - [E / I]

Sensing / Intuitive - [S / N]

Thinking / Feeling [T / F]

Perceiving / Judging [P / J]


If you're not familiar with these, or need a refresher, there is a very concise and (as far as I'm concerned) reliable break-down available here on Wikipedia. Each person has a tendency toward one side of each dichotomy, and in the end, his or her personality type is based on the combination of those four tendencies. For example, Raven and I are both INTPs, meaning we are Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Perceiving.

There are sixteen possible combinations, and of these sixteen, they are split into four major temperaments.

According to "Please Understand Me" by David Keirsey, the widest gap in temperament actually comes into play with Sensing versus Intuitive, because this deals with how information is gathered, understood, and interpreted. Considering the overwhelming significance of perception in shaping who we are, it's no surprise that the four temperaments are first divided between Sensing and Intuitive types.

S / N

The Intuitive vs. The Sensing

Within the Four Temperaments, two of the temperaments are "Sensing" types and two are "Intuitive" types. I'll break these down further later on, but I'd like to point out something I find useful for writers in terms of "sensing" versus "intuitive" characters. We can apply the information-gathering and processing methods to characters through the way we use them to show our readers information.

Description and Exposition are two of the major ways in which we give our readers information about the milieu of our story, and ideally this will all come through the lense of character. The type of things our characters notice, think about, and draw conclusions from can give us as much information about them as it does setting.

The best part? It's not something that is likely to register consciously in a reader's mind, but we as writers can utilize it to help differentiate voice.

Sensing Characters

  • Sensing characters are grounded in the tangible reality and will be much more in tune with their five senses. Bring your powers of descriptiveness to bear on these characters--let them be the eyes, ears, and noses of your world.
  • When a sensing character walks into a room, they observe everything, giving a more integrated "big picture" view. They might be more likely to notice color-schemes or mismatched furniture
  • Though everyone gets "hunches" about things, the sensing character is more likely to squash hunches and draw conclusions from what they can see. A sensing character might walk into a room and observe that it is quiet, that everyone is frowning, and that another character has red-rimmed eyes. From these details, the sensing character will deduce that something is rotten in Denmark. They might reference history rather than possibility.

Intuitive Characters

  • Intuitive characters live in the realm of thought. The are far more likely to get so caught up in a train of thought that they lose track of their surroundings.While less likely to wax eloquent about a sunset or mountain vista, the intuitive character is your ticket into the less-tangible elements of your world. You can use these characters to describe the thought processes of culture, the theory behind your magic system, or to ponder the fate of the universe and their place in it.
  • When an intuitive character walks into a room, he will focus his attention on a few small details, often missing the forest for the trees.
  • The intuitive character will "sense that something is wrong" as soon as they enter the room. They will make broader assumptions about the situation based on what is possible, and may have already come up with several theories by the time they get around to gathering the "sensing" clues.


Of course, it's not totally black and white. Sensing characters also get hunches, and intuitive characters also make observations. At least in terms of writing, I think it's fair to say that order is important.

A sensing character would notice what is present and tangible first, possibly referencing history, the things he knows:

The first thing I noticed was the silence, like someone had sucked all the usual chatter from the steel barracks. It wasn't completely unprecedented, of course--we did spend at least some of our time studying--but none of my classmates had books out, and none of them were smiling. Even Amber, whose perpetually-upturned lips gave her the mischievous look of a cat about to pounce, looked pale and grave. What the hell had happened? I scanned quickly, counting. Five. Where was Sean? My stomach turned over, and I placed my hand on the doorframe to steady myself. "Hey," I said, and though I was dreading the answer, forced myself to ask the question hanging in the air. "Where's Sean?"

Contrast that with the same scene, written from the perspective of an intuitive character:

I stopped in the doorway, repelled by the sudden, solid tension that made the air inside the room hard as a titanium slab. My friends sat trapped by that unspoken emotion, suspended in the solidity of it. Frozen. I didn't have to wait for Shannon to turn her red-rimmed eyes on me to feel the static of panic start in the back of my mind. Something awful had happened. Someone from our class, sent to the brig. Or expelled. Or dead. My stomach turned over, and I placed my hand on the doorframe to steady myself. "What happened?" I said, and only as they turned familiar faces on me did I realize who was missing. My voice barely escaped. "Where's Sean?"
Does your idea of the characters come off differently in these two exerpts? What about your feeling about what role the narrator plays in this group? Do these narrators come across as vastly different types of people?

Middle-Ground

Here's a funny anecdote for you: when Adryn first took the test in high school, she came out as an "N". However, in reading the break-down in temperaments, I had the very strong sense that, while Adryn did exhibit a lot of N traits (imaginative, and a lover of fantasy, the theoretical, and the possible), she was also very S.

Adryn's father is about as S as I am N, meaning we rest at opposite ends of the spectrum. Adryn and her father love driving around in the moutnains, seeing gorgeous scenery, eating wonderful food, and getting knee-deep in whatever present, physical experience. They seem to feel closest to each other when sharing experiences. In contrast, I feel closest to Adryn when we are imagining the possible, creating worlds and characters and concepts together, letting our minds spiral out of the realm of what is.

So I read the type descriptions for ESFP and ENFP to try to decide which one she is, to no avail. BOTH types describe her perfectly.

Frustrated, I had Adryn take the test again last week, and she scored:

S: 49%
N: 51%

"I see myself easily in both of these. It's sort of like I have two modes, and I can switch into whichever one suits me better at the time."

Moral of the anecdote: remember that your characters don't have to be completely sensing or completely intuitive. We're all a blend of both, and some of us just have split personalities.

Are you an S or N? How about your characters? How does this affect your writing?

No Fiction? No Problem!

Right now, Raven and I are sitting in my apartment with our respective linguistics books, listening to Vivaldi.

Yesterday, I bought an entire opera album on iTunes.

We just made a pact not to become douche-bags about our newfound culture. (I say that in the German sense of the word. Wait, did I just break that non-douche-baggery pact? Fine. We promise not to buy matching mini-coopers.)

If you're still reading, I guess now is a good time to explain how a pair of globe-trotting fantasy writers staggered into the cultural scene. Actually, I guess you could say we've always straddled the line, and recent events have just tipped us over it like a frat boy at a co-ed twister game. (I never said the culture had to extend to my metaphors.)

Raven and I have both been oddly absorbed in the non-fiction section of the bookstore recently, most notably in the linguistics, psychology, history, and literary criticism. We've both read non-fiction before, but never this avidly. There's something about being out of school for a few years that makes your brain feel like it's beginning to atrophy, and Raven and I seemed to reach this point almost simultaneously.

In truth, it was researching for our own fiction that lead us to the non-fiction section, which would have been less of a shock were we not both writing contemporary fantasy. Raven--who decided her heroine would be both Chinese and interested in philosophy--started looking into linguistics and philosophy. My non-fiction list is a bit more eclectic (shocker).

Raven's Reading List
1. Through the Language Glass
2. Little Book of Language
3. The Unfolding of Language
4. The Stuff of Thought
5. You Are What You Speak
6. Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue
7. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sarte
8. The Problems of Philosophy


Scribe's Reading List
1. Please Understand Me (Psych)
2. Guns, Germs, and Steel (Hist)
3. Dreaming in Chinese (Linguistics)
4. A Truth Universally Acknowledged (Literary Criticism)
5. Through the Language Glass (Linguistics)
6. Please Understand Me II (Psych)
7. (Everything on Raven's list...)


Also, this just happened:

Raven: That's why you don't argue with the Asian. It's okay. I still love you. I just won't tell anyone else.
Scribe: Just don't tell anyone I said that, and you won't have to make excuses for loving me despite my ineptitude.

If You Don't Read Fantasy and Science Fiction...

This will hep you figure out where to start...(click me)


Also, parents, please teach your children to read; according to Business Week, schools aren't doing it anymore because they're more concerned with raising the math scores.

Parents, please also teach your children math. I don't want state schools to water down their tests in order to meet federal score standards (and therefore get federal funding), especially when they're already shuffling reading comprehension out of the curriculum.

The Four Temperaments for You and Your Characters.


Lately, I've been thinking more and more structurally in terms of character and story--in part because it requires great effort for me to take the undisciplined, malignant mass of "creation" and put it all together in a coherent form, and in part because I have to take shit apart and figure out how it works before I fully appreciate what it does. Thus all the meta-writing.

You might have noticed recently how often I reference Myers-Briggs personality types. Though we first discovered this personality and temperament test in high school, it's more recently wiggled its way into all of my character development rituals.

Raven and I have spent an unreasonable amount of time trying to figure out which of the Myers-Briggs personality types most resemble our characters. As you may or may not be aware, Wikipedia isn't the only source of information. Frustrated with the lack of cogent explanation of the temperament pairings and detailed analysis, I purchased this book: Please Understand Me - Character & Temperament Types by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates.

I might have gone overboard with this, to the point where I babbled about the difference between "Sensing" types and "Intuiting" types for an entire hour when my dad took me out for sushi.

Overzealousness aside, studying this has helped me understand and focus some of my more difficult characters, particularly in terms of behavior, and also gives me a way to predict how characters whose types are different from my own might react in given situations.


Here's an example of how it works:

I couldn't figure out how Shiro (INFJ) might react when he meets the man whose disappearance caused his friend a lot of pain. I kept trying to have him get angry, because I get angry when people mess with my friends, but it wasn't working. It wasn't jiving with his character, and I couldn't move on with the scene. Then I realized something: Shiro belongs to the NF (Idealist) temperament, and they probably wouldn't react the same way as me, an NT (Rational).

...and sitting across from me was a real-life, bonafide NF. Skrybbi.

My emotional
North Star *
WHAT WOULD AN NF DO? 
"He should be confused at first--why would Alukale have disappeared? Did he not realize how much it would hurt Bay? We (NF's) look for the reason, and we always assume there must be a good one. And if there isn't, we totally judge you, and probably feel bad for judging."

Whereas my NT (Rational) reaction upon confirming the dude's identity was:

"You hurt my friend, therefore you are a douche-nozzle."

...and the NF (Idealist) reaction was:

"You hurt my friend. Did you know you hurt my friend? But why did you hurt my friend? There must have been a reason! No? Okay. You're a douche-nozzle! ...but I feel kind of bad for saying that."

How did this help me in the scene?

"Why?" turned out to be the appropriate response. Suddenly there was a lot more tension in the scene as Shiro tried to pry information out of this man because he wanted to assume the best of him, and the man (who has his own motivations) refused to explain, leaving a character that is generally temperate both confused and angry. I finished the scene in the next half hour, and because of that one shift, was able to reveal a lot more about the other characters.


...I kind of hadn't expected it to work that well.

In the next few posts, I'll be explaining my take on the four temperaments and how you can use each of them to help you deepen your characters, differentiate them from yourselves, and keep them behaving the way they should (or shouldn't). Though the full-blown Myers-Briggs 16-type test is super interesting and helpful, I'm going to focus on the four temperaments as my starting point.

Do you like personality tests? Have you ever tested yourself? Your characters? What other methods (psychology, astrology, dice rolls) do you use to try to focus your characters' personalities?