Taboos: Why people don’t talk about them, and why maybe they should

ta·boo adjective \tə-ˈbü, ta-\

1 Forbidden to profane use or contact because of what are held to be dangerous supernatural powers

2 Banned on grounds of morality or taste <the subject is taboo>

3 Banned as constituting a risk <the area beyond is taboo, still alive with explosives — Robert Leckie>

There are many subjects that are taboo, topics that people just don’t talk about. Taboo subjects aren’t universal either. Everyone has their own preferences due to their own experiences and upbringing.

I’ve never seen it, but Dexter is one of those shows that people may be uncomfortable with, given what Dexter does.

In fiction, horror specifically, dismembering bodies and killing innocent people isn’t the best thing in the world, but more than likely we’ve all read a book or two that contains a graphic scene. But even those books don’t breach certain topics. I don’t want to even type them here because they’re so undeniably wrong. Perverse acts that involve the deceased or children tend to be on the other side of that invisible line we all know not to cross.

(This is, of course, a generalization. There are sick people out there that enjoy these things. There are people out there that might not see a subject like necrophilia as taboo as the average person, but those are the outliers. We’re ignoring them for the sake of our own sanity.)

The world is ever changing, and different cultures have their own special circumstances when it comes to taboos. When I was in Italy, visiting Pompeii, there was a stand selling little mechanical dolls. When you moved the trigger up and down, they would come together and fall apart in the act of sex. As an American, we were pretty shocked and embarrassed. Can you even imagine someone selling that on a street corner over here? But the guy, in broken English, laughed at us and said, “It’s funny! It’s a joke!”

And, of course, time changes taboos too. A few decades ago no one talked about sex or menstruation. Now? Sex is all over the radio, and I see about thirty commercials a day for feminine products. We’re much more comfortable with certain topics these days than we were back in the ’50s, for example, and that’s going to keep changing and keep evolving.

But should it? It’s an honest question, not because I feel uncomfortable talking about certain taboo subjects – in fact, I find the idea of some of those subjects being taboo completely ridiculous – but because you have to think of the whole picture. You have to think of other people.

Over on Hypable, one of the other staffers wrote a brilliant article titled, “Breaking fandom taboos: Let’s talk about slash shipping.” For those that don’t know, slash shipping is the pairing of two characters of the same sex. This might just be who you want to see get together in a show (your “OTP,” or “One True Pairing”), or it might be who you decide to pair in your fan-fiction.

The Dean and Castiel (“Destiel”) pairing from Supernatural has a huge following.

In the article, Selina talks about what happened at a Supernatural panel and the followup explosion that resulted from it. It’s an interesting read, and I suggest you read both the Hypable article and the Daily Dot article she sources. It really is fascinating to see fandom coming out into the daylight and walking around in the real world. It has some interesting consequences.

The question here is, should these subjects stay taboo? Should they stay in that dark corner of the internet we call Tumblr? Or should we talk about them, bring them out in the open, and normalize them?

I’m of the opinion that the more we talk about these uncomfortable subjects, the less uncomfortable they’ll be. Acceptance of certain subjects in pop culture can lead to their acceptance in real life, and in some cases that truly is a wonderful thing.

Don’t get me wrong. Some subjects should be taboo. Some subjects are just plain wrong. I’m not talking about those.

Love it or hate it, this book has done a lot for the erotica category.

But, to bring this back around to fiction, as I know most of you here are writers, it makes me wonder, what can we be doing to help normalize the topics that have not quite stepped over that invisible line yet? Shows like Teen Wolf make homosexuality a complete non-issue. Books like The Mortal Instruments and The Infernal Devices by Cassie Clare have insanely popular and likable characters that just happen to be gay. And this is just one topic in a long list of topics that are beginning to be addressed in popular works.

To give you guys a more relevant topic, I feel as though erotica is just touching down on the other side of that invisible line. Some people still don’t like to talk about it. Some people still giggle or side-eye you when you say you’ve read it, but a lot more people are accepting it as okay. And whether or not that’s your thing, I think acceptance of any person and their preferences – save for the truly twisted, of course – is a wonderful thing.

What do you think? Should taboo subjects stay taboo? Are we becoming too open and too comfortable with certain topics? Or do you think accepting people with open arms as they are will bring us all together in a more positive light?

Distinguishing a violent reality from violent fiction

Tragedy seems to be striking us – as people, not just as Americans – more and more each day. Or maybe we’re just becoming more aware of it considering how connected everyone is to the world these days.

There’s a lot to be said about the Boston bombings. There’s a lot that has already been said. But words, in my opinion, don’t console people in this type of situation. Therefore, all I will say is that I was as surprised, shocked, horrified, and saddened as everyone else. And leave it at that. I’ll be following the news and keeping everyone in my thoughts. There’s no point in turning this post into another memorial for the victims. My philosophy is to mourn and move on as best we can, but to also never forget. The best of life comes from those moments you don’t think you can get through. And only by moving on can we get to that point.

Young Bruce Wayne after his parents were murdered

So, the topic today, while still related, is about something else. It’s about the fact that it’s important for us to realize fictional violence is a completely separate matter from real violence.

Chuck Wendig, writer and blogger extraordinaire, wrote a post titled “A thrown fist always hurts the hand” that really got me thinking about this, and although he took the words right out of my mouth (and probably used them better than I would have), I thought I’d add my voice to the air.

In particular, it was this passage that struck me:

Someone then responded on Twitter with an interesting question of whether or not I feel bad about the violence in my fiction, and my thought then and now was, well, that’s a bit different, isn’t it? Violence in fiction is, first of all, fiction. But it’s generally expected — we read a crime novel or a horror novel, that violence is usually part and parcel. And in the realm of fiction, violence can be framed by context and informed by consequence.

One of the writers I edit for ran into a similar situation in one of his novels. There was a section where several kids were gunned down. He wrote it before Sandy Hook, but he e-mailed me after the tragedy and asked my opinion. “Should I take that section out?”

My answer was a pretty resounding no. It might be a harsh reality, but if we took out parts of our story every time something happened, we’d have nothing left of our book. Art imitates life, and so readers have to expect violence is going to crop up in a lot of novels. Every genre and every category, except maybe picture books for children, will have violence.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t be careful. There’s definitely a possibility of stepping over a line. But feeling guilty about putting violence in your story is like feeling guilty for putting romance in your story. Will everyone enjoy it? Maybe not. Is it necessary? It depends on the story. Will it offend some people? Oh, absolutely.

Beatrix Kiddo avenging her near death

But here’s the thing. Heroes are born of tragedy and pain. Violence in stories serve to bring someone down so low that you’re unsure they’ll ever be able to make it out of their hell hole. And then when they do, it makes it more fulfilling. Static characters are boring. Having to deal with all that suffering makes readers empathize with the characters and consequently cheer for them when they finally make it to the top.

One final thought: violence in fiction does not mean the author supports violence in reality. I guess this is the point I’m really trying to drive home. Just because a writer has a character that tortures people for information doesn’t mean they believe in torture. Just because their hero goes around killing criminals doesn’t mean they think real life people should go around taking justice into their own hands.

That’s why it’s called fiction.

Violence in fiction is a means to an end. It has a calculated purpose, and that is to make the character change and evolve and ultimately end up being the best version of themselves by the end of the book. Readers and writers alike should realize that fictional violence and real violence are two completely different things. If you’re uncomfortable with violence in your books, that’s completely fine. Find another book, another genre, or another writer. There’s no harm in that. But making someone feel ashamed of the story they’ve written because it’s gritty and realistic is out of line. It truly has nothing to do with real world events, and I hope no one out there bends themselves over backwards to please people who, frankly, will probably never be pleased no matter what you do.

What do you think?

Why Twitter is awesome for writers

Sure, you can go for the obvious in that it’s a great way to connect with other writers, as well as your audience. And, yeah. That’s totally true. But I love Twitter for another reason.

Simplicity.

Some of you may argue that fact, but I’m not talking about simplicity of use. I’m talking about the fact that it causes us to simplify our sentences, to get to the bare minimum truth of what we’re trying to say. We must condense our words. Minimize. Purify.

This is something that I’ve always struggled with. If you’ve been reading my blog for awhile, you’ll know this to be true. I don’t always go for the direct approach. I tend to ramble. This isn’t a terrible thing, but ambiguity isn’t exactly the mark of a great writer.

Twitter makes me pause and look over what I’m trying to say. 140 characters isn’t a whole lot to work with. I tend to throw in words I don’t need. Instead of thinking about which verb would paint a stronger picture, I tend to write out a phrase that isn’t as full of imagery.

As a writer, that’s not a habit you want to hold onto.

Sure, rewriting my tweets can be time consuming. I could just send out two tweets instead of one. It’ll get my point across. People will read them and probably not think anything more about them than what I’m trying to say. My followers probably don’t even take stock of how I’m saying something. They just notice what I’m saying.

But that’s no excuse.

Twitter presents the opportunity to challenge ourselves. It gives us a set limit – absolutely no more than 140 characters. It’s a fair amount. You can say quite a bit in that amount of space. But it’s still an amount that makes you thinking about your punctuation, your word choice, your sentence structure.

Being a writer, I bet you’re like me and don’t want to break any grammatical rules. This is yet another dimension added to the game. How to be grammatically correct and get your point across.

It’s definitely not easy.

But I’ve learned a lot about my style of writing. Particularly that I do tend to throw in unimportant words. I’ve noticed that, recently, it’s been easier to part with some words. Or, at the very least, replace them with something better. And I’m not just talking about in my tweets.

In blog posts, in my WIPs, in my articles on Hypable, I’ve noticed a more streamlined approach to what I’m trying to say. It’s getting much easier to avoid fluff words (the word ‘that’ is, apparently, a personal favorite). It’s also getting easier to choose a single verb compared to a string of words that don’t paint as vivid of a picture.

Dare I say I’m learning?

Looks like it. And even though a big part of this comes from editing other people’s works, I definitely know  Twitter has also helped me out quite a bit.

What about you? Has Twitter taught you anything about writing? Has it made you better at choosing your words with more care?

Regeneration (for writers)

Unless you’re a Time Lord, this has nothing to do with changing your face and suddenly having a hankering for fish sticks and custard.

As I’ve said before, I’m the type of person that like to have a full plate. I like being busy. But every once in a while, we have to recharge our batteries.

This is easier said than done.

I don’t like slowing down. I don’t like relaxing. And I don’t like doing one thing at a time.

It’s actually hard for me to just stop and do nothing. To not multi-task. To not plan out my day in a myriad of lists and deadlines.

But it’s also difficult to do this day in and day out. There are some things I do to wake myself up, wipe the slate clean, and have a clearer head when I get back to work. They are:

1. Sleep. There’s nothing like taking a good nap or actually getting eight hours of shut-eye. You feel 100% better when you’re on a full night’s rest, and it allows your brain to function much quicker. Plus, you won’t be nodding off at the computer every five minutes.
2. Shower. This always wakes me up and makes me feel like the whole day is ahead of me. It’s refreshing and relaxing and comforting. Plus, I always do my best thinking in the shower.
3. Exercise. Whenever I’m super tired, but I know have a lot more to do, I’ll go exercise. There’s nothing like getting that adrenaline pumping to wake you up and make you feel better. However, I always get that inevitable crash once my body returns to normal. Therefore…
4. Eat. I don’t know about you, but I sometimes forget to eat during the day. I’ll realize I’m hungry, but I also want to finish what I’m working on. Hours will go by before I realize I still haven’t eaten lunch. I always get hungry after I exercise too, so I try to take in a light snack or a healthy lunch. It gives your body nutrients and energy to keep going. I always feel more awake after I’ve eaten.
5. YouTube. Some would say this is procrastination. And maybe it is, but it’s also motivation. If I’m editing something that doesn’t interest me at all, I find that I’m more likely to scroll through Facebook or check Twitter or do a hundred other things that have nothing to do with the project I need to work on at the moment. And there’s no set time on that, because you can get lost down those time-wasting avenues. Instead, I pull up some Whose Line is it Anyway? on YouTube and play one scene from one episode. Once I’m done with that, I edit five or 10 more pages. Then I play the next scene. It helps me to get through the work a lot quicker, and there’s a set time I “waste” between those chunks of pages – usually only a couple of minutes. It’s a reward system that doesn’t involve food, which is a habit I seriously need to break. (But, man, I don’t know what I’m going to do when I finish all eight seasons of Whose Line on YouTube.)

This is just what works for me, and I’m always looking for some new ideas. I tend to do #1 the least, and not often by choice. It’s unfortunate that the other solutions are just quick-fixes, but a more permanent relaxation is tough when you have a full schedule.

What sorts of things to you do to stay motivated and rejuvenate your body?

How much does an artist ‘owe’ his or her fans?

I’m totally going to preface this by saying it was brought about by the whole Sterek phenomenon with Teen Wolf, but I don’t want to make this about that in particular. (Mostly because the Sterek shippers can be a little intense. And I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was a little frightened of them.)

But let’s take a look at this on a wider scale.

Say you’ve written a book. Because this is hypothetical and we all love to dream, say it’s your debut book. It does well. Really well. Like, New-York-Times-Best-Seller-seven-figure-deal-and-a-movie-adaptation-in-the-works well.

Hey, it’s happened. Once or twice.

Okay, so you’ve published your book. Fans love it. You have a kick-ass heroine and and a sexy hero. There’s action and adventure, romance and humor. It’s the real deal. You have a massive audience, and they’re clamoring for more. They want a sequel.

No brainer, right?

I mean, if you’ve got more story to tell, and people want to read that story, what’s there to think about?

Not much. But I will ask this – to what extent do you owe your fans a nod in their direction?

Say they really want to see two characters together. You’re not opposed to the idea, and it would work in the story line, but you never really envisioned them together. But you’re fans want it. Like, they really want it.

Envision Tumblr pages dedicated solely to this ‘ship (that’s short for ‘relationship’ for you that aren’t in the know). Fan-fiction. Role playing pages. In depth meta. Angry letters threatening your life if you don’t pair the two of them together in the next book.

Whew. *deep breath* This business can get a little scary if you have overzealous fans.

Now, remember. You’re not opposed to this couple being together, you just never envisioned them as a pairing. So, what do you do? Do you put them together in order to please your audience? Do you owe that to them for loving your work so much? Would you be afraid you’d get more angry letters if you didn’t do what they wanted?

Or would you write what you wanted to write, and to heck with them? It isn’t where you intended the story to go and, by gosh, you’re sticking to your guns. If they don’t like it, they can find another book to read. This is your story, not theirs. You’re the creator, and you’re not going to be influenced by what other people have to say if that’s not what you want for your characters.

And this doesn’t just apply to character pairings. It doesn’t just apply to books either. I think I see it most often with television shows (think Glee). Sometimes the creators pander to the fans. The fans are paying the bills after all, right? So, why not give them what they want?

Unfortunately, or at least in the case of Glee, the story can suffer because of this.

Maybe fans wanted to see your character wandering off into the desert on a horse with no name, but once he got there, your audience decided the desert was boring. A horse with no name is boring. And now your character is boring.

Humans are fickle creatures.

But if you don’t listen to your audience, if you don’t grow and expand and learn from your mistakes, you run the risk of alienating your readers. And that can be a very, very bad thing.

So, what do you do? Put those two characters together and please your fans at the risk of murdering a perfectly good plot line, or do you ignore all those outside influences and stick to what you want to write about, even if that means your audience isn’t happy with the direction you decided to take the series in?

Or is there a balance? Let me know! Leave a comment, and let’s discuss this. (Also, if you’re familiar with Sterek, let me know your thoughts on that matter too.)

How to shock the socks off your readers, with Colby Granger from ‘Numb3rs’

Here’s the next post in this series where I discuss TV shows and movies and the knowledge that we can gain from watching them. We can apply that knowledge to our writing. As always, I never pretend to be an expert. I just like exploring my own thoughts on the matter as I write these blog posts! I welcome all comments and would love to hear what you think about this topic.

Make sure you check out my previous post, titled, “How to be strong and go to prom, with Allison Argent.”

Warning: Spoilers for the show Numb3rs up until the season 3 finale! Also note that I haven’t watched any episode of season 4 or beyond, so if you know more about his possible arc (or lack thereof), please don’t reveal any spoilers!

I just finished the season 3 finale of Numb3rs and was completely blind-sided.

What do you mean Colby was a spy for the Chinese? What do you mean he’s been duping everyone for TWO years? What do you mean he’s been in cahoots with Dwayne Carter THE WHOLE TIME.

Yeah, I never saw that coming until it literally unfolded before me.

But why? And how can we incorporate this into our own writing?

First, it’s all about the character. Colby was a good ol’ American boy. He was in the army. He was a rookie FBI agent. He was a good guy. He did his job well, he was funny, and he got along with the team. He was a team player, he got stuff done, and he looked out for his friends – particularly his partner, David.

Next, you introduce just a subtle hint that something is kind of fishy. But make sure it’s not enough that your audience KNOWS what’s going on. Maybe it raises a few eyebrows, but by the end of the episode/movie/chapter/book/etc., your audience still sides with the character and believes him to be a good guy. This happened to Colby when one of his best friends turned out to be a Chinese spy. Don [Eppes, leader of the FBI unit] didn’t like the way Colby had covered for his friend, and still didn’t trust him after Colby had basically turned his friend over to the authorities.

Then you make it seem like everything is okay. The writers of Numb3rs let a few episodes go by before they brought it up again. Everything seemed fine. There’d be a hint of what had happened here or there, but nothing obvious. Nothing in your face.

Finally, blow the lid off the whole can of a worms. In the season 3 finale, Megan [Reeves, behavioral specialist] kept asking what was wrong with Colby. He played it off. Gave some good excuses. I believed him. Then, at the last minute, the bomb dropped. The Janus List was discovered, revealing the names of multiple spies. And guess which name was last on that list?

Colby Granger.

WHAT? Yeah, I was floored. Looking back, it does make a bit of sense. He did cover for his friend. Dwayne did say that he knew things about Colby that David didn’t. Colby was acting nervous and agitated near the end of the episode. I thought Don was just overreacting whenever he wouldn’t let Colby go out on a lead by himself. But it turns out I was wrong.

Or was I?

The jury is still out. I’m not totally on board with the idea that he’s a Chinese spy. We weren’t given a solid reason as to why, and it’s possible there’s way more going on than anyone realizes. I guess I’ll just have to get watching season 4 and let you guys know if if anything changes.

The point, however, does stand. The best way to shock your audience is be subtle. Don’t let them get to the point where they’ve figured everything out before you can reveal it to them. Doctor Who and Sherlock are really good at this. Then, once you get to the the climax,  at the last possible moment, rip the lid off of everything and throw caution to the wind. Don’t just give them some fireworks. Give them the Fourth of July Grand Finale Special.

Your readers will walk away breathless and wanting more.

What show or book have you watched/read that has really blown your mind? Have you ever gotten to the end of watching or reading something and felt like you had to go back and look for all the clues you missed the first time around?

How to be strong and go to prom, with Allison Argent

Here’s the next post in this series where I discuss TV shows and movies and the knowledge that we can gain from watching them. We can apply that knowledge to our writing. As always, I never pretend to be an expert. I just like exploring my own thoughts on the matter as I write these blog posts! I welcome all comments and would love to hear what you think about this topic.

Make sure you check out my previous post, titled, “How to have a massively intelligent character without alienating your audience, with Charlie Eppes.”

Allison Argent is one of the main characters on the show Teen Wolf, and she has a complicated life. Her boyfriend is a werewolf and her parents are werewolf hunters. It’s your classic Romeo and Juliet type storyline, but with a twist.

In season 2, her parents have forced her to stop seeing Scott. Her mother – who is one intense individual, let me tell you – tells her that she has to be strong. She tells her that she shouldn’t want to be like those other girls that only worry about boyfriends and prom. Allison replies with the question, “Can’t I be strong and go to prom?”

This line is a perfect summary of the type of person Allison is. She’s not a tomboy, but she’s not a girlie-girl either. She’s a perfect blend of femininity and strength.

Oftentimes, unfortunately, female characters that are presented as strong lose their softer sides. It seems that many writers have trouble balancing these two sides of a woman. Just think about Katniss. She’s tough. She’s strong. And she usually comes off as someone that is not good with emotions or vulnerability or intimacy.

And while that’s fine for a character like Katniss, whose personality has been shaped by the tragedies in her life, that won’t work for every single female protagonist (or antagonist for that matter).

Or every male protagonist. This isn’t exclusive to females, but I think we tend to pick up on it faster because we’ve been trained to see men as the heroes and females as the damsels in distress.

This is where Allison comes in. She’s tough. She can wield a bow like she was born with one in her hand. She’s faced down werewolves and other monstrous creatures. She’s had to deal with betrayal, tragedy, and death.

And yet, she cries. She gets scared. She loves Scott and would do anything for him. She’s smart, but she’s real. She’s a girl.

She’s complicated.

So many times writers want to have that strong female protagonist in their stories, but they end up sacrificing the complexities of the character. They become one-dimensional, and that’s no good.

So, how do you avoid that? It’s hard because your character’s circumstances have to dictate their personality. There’s a lot of things that go into making someone who they are – whether they’re a real person or fictional. But the best piece of advice I can come up with is to not limit yourself. Make them strong and tough and fearless. But nobody is like that 100% of the time. Make them weak when it comes to their family, afraid when it comes to the possibility of losing their boyfriend. Strength and weakness are not mutually exclusive. We all have our triggers, and we all have our soft spots. Our characters should too.

Who’s your favorite strong female character? Do you have a tough girl in one of your stories? How do you balance her strengths and weaknesses so she comes across like a real person?

And if you want another examples of a strong female character that is also vulnerable, check out my post on Emma Swan.

Horror: How much is too much?

I edit a lot of manuscripts in all sorts of genres. One genre that particularly interests me is horror. I’m fascinated by macabre scenes and the psychology behind the act of murder, particularly when done by a serial killer. Perhaps this is why I ventured into writing horror, despite the fact that I can’t even sit through The Shining without having to stare at the wall for half the movie.

But that’s besides the point.

My question for today is this: When is it going too far?

Horror is supposed to scare you. It’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable. It’s supposed to make you cringe and cry and check your closet before you go to bed.

But what’s too uncomfortable? What’s too cringe-worthy? What makes you put the book down and never pick it back up again?

I ask this because I recently edited a book that had to do with human sacrifice. It wasn’t a bad book. The concept was interesting, the detail was there, and the characters were likeable. But I had trouble getting through it. For those of you who have read my collection of horror short stories, you may be confused.

Trust me, I was too.

My stories weren’t exactly full of bunny rabbits and sunshine, so I’m trying to figure it out. It isn’t the fact that some guy is going around killing people. That’s not unprecedented in this genre. It’s not the fact that he’s drinking their blood. Or that he takes pleasure in the kill. It’s not even the torture he performs on his victims.

It’s the little things. The things like the fact he (*warning, this is going to get detailed*) bit off a woman’s nipple. *shiver* He was aroused by his own daughter. There was even an excruciatingly detailed scene about pulling a person’s intestines out of their body.

Yeah.

I don’t have a weak stomach. I can take a lot and not even bat an eye, but some of the parts in this book felt taboo to me. They felt like they crossed a line I hadn’t realized was there.

So, what’s too much? When do you lay on the detail and when do you hold back for the sake of your readers? What’s the line that you just don’t cross in this genre? What are the unwritten rules?

How to have a massively intelligent character without alienating your audience, with Charlie Eppes

Here’s the next post in this series where I discuss TV shows and movies and the knowledge that we can gain from watching them. We can apply that knowledge to our writing. As always, I never pretend to be an expert. I just like exploring my own thoughts on the matter as I write these blog posts! I welcome all comments and would love to hear what you think about this topic.

Make sure you check out my previous post, titled, “How to turn a bad guy into a good guy, with Damon Salvatore.”

Numb3rs is an oldie but goodie (as in, it’s not on TV anymore) that I used to watch when it was live on TV. I never saw the whole show, or even a large part of it, but seeing as it’s on Netflix Streaming in its entirety, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to stare at David Krumholtz watch it from the beginning.

If you’re unfamiliar, the show centers around two brothers. One is an FBI agent (Don) and the other is a brilliant mathematician (Charlie). (Don’t make that face. I don’t like math either. But this show is awesome.) Charlie consults for his brother and helps him solve cases. It’s a pretty basic plot, your typical procedural, but the writing is strong and the characters are dynamic and interesting.

I’m only through the first season in my rewatch, but I knew I wanted to write a post on Charlie and why he’s such a fantastic character.

You see, it’s easy to have a genius main character. They have all the answers. They can solve all the problems. They wrap up the plot in a neat little bow and look hella cool doing it. And that’s fine, to an extent. But what happens when that alienates your audience? What happens when the character is so smart the readers can’t follow along? It makes them feel stupid, and they end up putting down your book.

That’s what makes this show so great. Don is our second main character. He brings Charlie down to our level. He’s a good agent, but he’s not a genius, not like his brother. He often doesn’t understand what Charlie is saying when he starts spewing out all those mathematical terms that the average viewer won’t understand either. Don makes Charlie slow down and explain it in layman’s terms.

Without Don, the audience would say the show was too confusing and wouldn’t tune in every week.

The other great part about this is what Charlie does to explain the conclusions he comes to via his mathematical analysis. In one episode, he explains to Don that he can take the locations of various murders and use them to pin-point the area of origin – the area where the killer most likely lives. Instead of showing Don the equation and going through it step by step with him – which wouldn’t help, because Don (and the audience) wouldn’t understand – Charlie points to a sprinkler that’s sitting in their yard. Knowing where each drop has landed, he would be able to reverse their trajectory and find out exactly where they originated – where the sprinkler is located.

See, that I understand.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a clip of that scene, but here’s another one that does a good job of making math understandable and interesting:

 
The same thing happens in Sherlock. John Watson isn’t on Sherlock’s level, and when Sherlock has to explain something to him, he’s indirectly explaining it to us too. Sherlock by himself wouldn’t be as interesting or as engaging. He would mostly just be looking at things for a few seconds, telling the cops who did it, and walking away. At least with John there, he has to take the time to bring him into the loop, along with the audience.

So, how do you do this in your book? If you’ve got a super-intelligent character (ie. Hermione), make sure there’s another character that your audience can better relate to (ie. Harry or Ron). It’s not that your audience isn’t intelligent – and this is by no means me telling you to dumb down your story in order to make it more understandable – it’s that extremely intelligent characters often need an Average Joe to slow them down and tell them to explain their conclusions. Otherwise, you have something like:

*Sherlock walks into a room, looks around*
“Mrs. Pennyworth was killed by Mr. Jacobson with a curling iron and a box of tissues at 8:36 yesterday morning.”
*Sherlock walks out of the room*

Sure, that’s all fine and dandy, but it makes the solutions to the problems seem too easy and too obvious, even when they’re not.

Plus, let’s face it, most people don’t have an IQ equal to Sherlock’s. We need someone like John to make him talk in English.

Do you have a super intelligent main character? How do you make him or her relatable? Who’s your favorite smart person on TV? Have you ever seen Numb3rs?

Do all writers need formal education to be ‘good’?

The other day I read an enlightening blog by Matthew Wright, blogger, historian, and writer extraordinaire. I always look forward to his posts because they’re the perfect blend of cut-and-dry information and actual, honest-to-goodness, excellent advice.

The post in question was titled, “Write it now, part 3: passion and learning – the writer’s toolbox.” I highly recommend popping over there and giving it a read. Amazing stuff.

The general idea behind the post was that you need to be passionate about your writing in order to become successful. Of course, this applies to just about everything you do in life. Otherwise, what’s the point?

The other half was to learn your craft in any way you can. The passion that you have for writing will motivate you to educate yourself.

This is about the time I started sweating bullets.

I have a four year degree. In art history. I’ll never knock my professors, my program, or my school. I don’t regret getting my degree in art history because it’s something I’m passionate about, and something that I feel is a unique skill to have.

However.

I’ve decided to become a writer. Not just in my spare time. Not just one book. Not just as a hobby. I really want to be a professional writer who makes her living off of the words she writes.

So does this mean I need to go back to school?

I asked Matthew that exact question and he had an excellent answer for me. It’s in the comments section on that post I linked to above – check it out. It was exactly what I needed to hear. Basically, his answer was – it doesn’t hurt. However, he said, practicing and writing and honing your skills by doing what is going to make a good writer a great writer.

Whew.

I loved school, but now that I’m out of it, I don’t want to go back. I have too much freedom, and I love it. Plus, I’m probably going to be paying off tuition bills until I’m 80. I really don’t want to add any more to that.

I’d really like to hear your opinion on the matter, though. How many of you have formal training – maybe not a master’s degree, but even a Bachelor’s degree in English? Do you feel like that education helped you to become a better writer, or do you think you learned more on your own by reading craft books, novels, and picking up free and excellent advice on other people’s blogs (like I do )?