In her shoes

No, I'm not talking of the book by Jennifer Weiner (that I read and adored, btw), nor of the movie that was adapted from said book.

I am literally talking of, walking in the shoes of your heroine.

T.J.'s post about shoes got me thinking, especially the part about thoughts in a story. Anyone who's ever read my work can and will probably tell you my stories can be compared to the psychoanalysis of the characters in the foil of their respective story and the plot. Meaning - I'm big on thoughts.

I reckon that not everyone has to agree with me. I know great writers who bind you in their plot yet cannot write a deep thought to save their life. I know of great writers who have next to nothing in way of plot but the thought process of the characters take you through a journey that has you panting and turning page after page for every 300+ sheet in the book. And yet the majority of writers, mostly the aspiring, beginning writers peopling the crit world, listen to only one rule - action forward and cut out unnecessary thoughts!

While I agree that the reader needs not be privy to each and every thought that goes on in a character's head (we know that could get terribly boring and tedious!), there is an inherent element to the thoughts-inclusion in a story - it's what binds you to the plot.

There's a difference between reading a book and watching a movie, even if both are dealing with the same story. Take this example:
At the start of the movie version of Bridget Jones' Diary, you hear the song All By Myself playing, and Bridget, played by a chubby Renee Zellweger, is alone in her flat, wrapped in a quilt, a bottle of whatever alcoholic beverage in her hand. Then she stands up, with the bottle still in hand, and she starts to move around the flat while singing along to the lyrics.

What does this tell you? Bridget is single, since she's at home on an evening (helped by the audio cue of the soundtrack through the song All By Myself) and she's drowning her sorrow in that bottle.

Now, we get this, allright. But what is Bridget's sorrow, other than she is by herself and drinking?

Go to the book, and read the first few chapters. First quote: 'Resolution number one: obviously, will lose twenty pounds. Number two: will find nice sensible boyfriend and not continue to form romantic attachments to alcoholics, workaholics, peeping-toms, megalomaniacs, emotional fuckwits or perverts.' I know I have used this example before in another post but I find it truly representative of what I'm trying to convey.
The Bridget of the movie, while still being the character penned by Helen Fielding, is a 'generic' version of the close-t0-30-London-singleton. Whereas the Bridget of the book is Bridget, the fully formed and realized Bridget Jones, not just a general idea of a woman in her shoes. And how is this possible? Through the thoughts of the character!

Something is lost in translation between the book and the screen, and the first thing to get the cut is thought processes. It's true that you cannot 'show' thoughts so easily in visual form, but still, taking out the thought processes takes you from a unique character to a generic character, that any writer could've penned given a few hints at psychology.

Take a further example, Confessions of a Shopaholic by Sophie Kinsella (being made into a movie releasing this year). Imagine Becky, the heroine, getting the urge at the shop to buy something when she knows she shouldn't. Her heart races, the need starts to pound in her head. Her throat goes dry and she simply needs, needs, needs, to buy whatever it is that has caught her fancy. When you read the book, you are privy to the battle and the struggle going on inside her, making you a part of Becky's world, making you urge her to not do this, to get out of there asap. But in the movie, maybe what you'll get is Becky at the store. You see her gaze land on something, you see her pause, maybe bite her lip, and then her hand reaches for her purse, and she pulls the credit card out. Inherently, you know what's happening, but here you do not know what's going on in her head.

We have to face it - many people read because they want this thought process. They want to be involved in the story, in the developments, in the character's journey. If your heroine has never worn Manolo Blahniks and she does buy a pair, your reader wants to know what it will be like for her to break those shoes in, what it feels like to wear them. Similarly, how does it make you feel to be in Jimmy Choo stilettos? And, when your former diva a la Gabrielle Solis trades her strappy sandals for comfy Mommy shoes, what's going on in her head at that moment?

In short, what does it feel like, what is it all about, to be in her shoes? Isn't this mainly what the heroine's (ultimately character's) journey is about? How do you get there without putting your reader in her head, in her thoughts, while you're in her shoes?

I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this! Any comments are more than welcome!

Aasiyah Qamar - Cultural Romantic Fiction, With a Twist
Coming out October 2 - Light My World - Eirelander Publishing
Nolwynn Ardennes - The Promise of Fulfilment
Coming out in January 8, 2010 - Storms in a Shot Glass - Eirelander Publishing

Aasiyah Qamar/Nolwynn Ardennes - Romance the world over
http://www.aasiyah-nolwynn.webs.com/

A means to an end

Some of our recent previous posts have focused on heroine archetypes - how they are presented and also how they can become stereotypes if one is not careful. Our examples focused mostly on Desperate Housewives.

We should've told you that there is one big difference between writing and television - the means is not at all the same.

How so? Television is a visual and audio means, while writing, and ultimately reading, engages all the senses and the imagination as well.

Consequently, television is a passive means, while reading, while not active in the real sense of the word, makes use of all your neurons to grasp the 'picture' in your mind.

This creates a different slant when penning characters in a novel. As most readers who would engage with a heroine are women, these women will need to feel a kinship with your heroine, literally become the heroine in their mind.

Just imagine a woman entering a very male-dominated bar. How would this be shown in on TV, and in a book?

TV would literally 'show' you the setting. You'll see the smoke hanging in the air; you'll hear the 'tac-pac' sound of billiard balls being hit; you'll also hear the ribald laughter and see the men throwing their heads back to chortle or to guzzle down a pitcher of beer.

Now you're in a book, and you need to convey this scene. How will you do it? Of course, you can say smoke hung in the air like a stale and oppressing canopy, making it hard to breathe without the toxic fumes scorching your trachea. You'll hear the sudden and disturbing clang of the billiard balls, the sound sending an explosion in your eardrums and the reverberations echoing all the way down to your empty stomach. The laughter of the men as they grope the waitresses and holler sends a shiver down your spine, revulsion making goosebumps rise on your forearms while all the hairs on your body stand on end. What on earth are you doing here? You'll notice the condensation running down the pitchers of beer, reminding you that you walked all the way from the farm to here, the other side of town, and suddenly you realize there's a fire burning your throat and your mouth feels like cotton because you're in desperate need of some thirst-quenching liquid. Even on the threshold, the cloying heat of sweaty bodies in a confined room assaults you like a rush of stifling fire wrapping an uncomfortable bubble on your skin and making the fabric of your cotton sundress stick to your body.

Which scene puts you more in the shoes of the heroine? Both are giving you the same situation, but through different means.

In the TV version, you know the heroine is at the bar because you see her there. But do you know why she is here? How she got here? Unless the previous scene showed her walking there under the bright sun on deserted roads will you know she is tired and thirsty. TV will need to spell it all out for you, while in the book, simply being in the character's head can convey all this and much more.

TV is a passive means, while reading engages all your senses and your imagination. You bring up the picture when reading; it is your own interpretation.

Because of this fact, stereotypes and pushing archetypes to the limits does not really work when you are penning down a heroine.

Bridget Jones in the book and Bridget Jones in the novel are one and the same, but she isn't portrayed the same way in both movies. The over-the-top Bridget who sings 'All By Myself' with a bottle of wine in her hand in the movie is not exactly the same Bridget Jones at the start of the book when she is writing in her diary and says: 'Resolution number one: obviously, will lose twenty pounds. Number two: will find nice sensible boyfriend and not continue to form romantic attachments to alcoholics, workaholics, peeping-toms, megalomaniacs, emotional fuckwits or perverts.'

Another good example would be Susan Mayer from Desperate Housewives. Susan accumulates gaffe after gaffe in the show. Which works fine for her character, and which makes us laugh. But do you think that if you had been reading of a heroine who falls into mishaps every other second in incredible and unbelievable-at-first-glance situations, you would've cheered her on so much? Wouldn't you have said, 'Get a life', or, 'Grow up', or, 'Get out of here! She cannot be that much of a klutz!'

In a nutshell, what works on TV doesn't exactly work the same way in writing. The suspension of disbelief brought on by TV implies that you gloss over aspects of logic and understanding that you simply cannot ignore when your brain is consciously and fully engaged in a reading experience.

As always, all comments welcome!

Aasiyah Qamar - Cultural romantic fiction, with a twist

With stories set amidst the rainbow nation of Mauritius, a multicultural island in the Southern Indian Ocean, author Aasiyah Qamar brings you tales of today's young women battling life on all fronts and finding love where they least expect it. Indo-Mauritian culture wants to stifle them in traditions, customs and antiquated morals while the world is opening its arms of modernity and globalisation. Where do these women belong? And more importantly, with whom? Find out more about her first release, The Other Side, here.

Which Desperate Housewife Are You?

What do the movies Bridget Jones' Diary and When Harry Met Sally have in common?

Both feature heroines based on one of the Eight Female Archetypes. In this case, The Spunky Kid.




Carl Jung referred to archetypes as a "preconscious psychic disposition". Basically, this suggests that on an unconscious level we recognize these character types, and this recognition resonates within to a great degree. We are drawn to these characters and feel a kinship with them.

Tami Cowden wrote a book geared to writers, focusing on how these images generating from our collective unconscious continually occur in our myths, legends and stories, transcending time and space.

For readers and writers alike, tuning into these archetypes lends richness to our lives, helps us to get in touch with our own personality inclinations and provides a thoroughly entertaining escape through books, television and movies. For the most part, we rarely realize why it is certain characters stand out or quickly become our favorites. Utilizing archetypes is one canny method for engaging a reader or cultivating an audience of fans.

In an ongoing television show, a single archetype can quickly turn to stereotype. We lose interest because the character no longer seems real. One way to avoid this is to add layers. Think of it as a spice. One may not be enough but too many and you overwhelm your dish! Most 'layered archetypes' stick with blending two or at the most three vibrant personalities. Usually one archetype will dominate with the other providing an inner core. Like a yummy cake with a delicious filling.

Even our two movie heroines blend archetypes.

Sally's Spunky Kid is strongly supported by The Librarian, while Bridget Jones is not just Spunky, she's a classic Free Spirit. Want to know more?

Let's sneak a peek at two popular television shows and their female characters! I'm utilizing T.J.'s descriptions from her own post The Harrowing Heroine.

In Grey's Anatomy, we see some nicely layered archetypes, sure to appeal to our collective unconscious! *grin*

Miranda Bailey is a nice blend of The Boss (the "Take Charge" woman: outspoken and persuasive, confident and competitive) and The Crusader (a woman on a mission: tenacious, headstrong, courageous). She never holds back, refuses to back down, and goes head to head with the Chief of Medicine. Yet her fervent desire to create a clinic reveals her own 'woman on a mission' inner side.

Kristina Yang is a classic Librarian (conscientious, orderly, bright; she leads with her brain, not her looks) yet she's driven by her inner core, The Boss. Not only does she dare to speak her mind to anyone, she's driven to be number one in her field. Intellectual and competitive.

Isobel "Izzie" Stevens blends three archetypes. Most noticeable is The Free Spirit (genuine and fun-loving, impulsive, an "original"). However it's her inner Crusader that drives her to rally her interns to save a deer. She also displays a strong Nurturer (altruistic to a fault; calm, optimistic, a listener, pleasant, takes care of everyone) who cooks cupcakes and makes breakfast. Note that her altruism led to her funding the free clinic, dream project of fellow Crusader, Miranda Bailey.

Meredith Grey started off simply as The Waif ("damsel in distress": child-like innocence, naive and docile, she endures). However, this is not a strong enough archetype to carry a show! Slowly we began to see another side emerge. The Nurturer archetype is revealed in her compassion (even for a serial killer!) and her need to collect 'strays' in the form of roommates.

Lexie Grey, now known as "Little Grey" is our Spunky Kid (spirited and loyal, reliable and supportive, more of a "tomboy"). No matter how the storm clouds rage, this ray of sunshine also sees a bright side. No wonder McSteamy couldn’t resist!

Callie Torres is less defined in that she has reflected different archetypes throughout the show's run! When married to George she definitely 'endured' although it was clear to all that Callie is much too strong to be a Waif. For now the creators are leaning towards a Free Spirit with a strong streak of Spunky Kid.

On the show, Desperate Housewives the characters practically leap off the screen!

In Bree Van de Kamp we have a classic Boss. Is there anyone more outspoken, confident, persuasive or competitive? When someone needs to take charge, either at a formal brunch or at her good friend's pizza parlor, Bree is a human bulldozer ready to roll over any and all objections. Bree has a touch of The Librarian too—orderly and conscientious. Her cups are numbered and her keys are labeled. Organization is her middle name. Another layer that pops up at times is The Crusader. She is fierce in defense of her family and will fight to the death to keep them safe.

Lynette Scavo has a strong core of The Crusader as well. She's tenacious, headstrong and courageous when she's 'on a mission' which is just about every week! Her arguments were powerful but when her husband begged for her to help him fulfill his dream—opening a pizza parlor—she threw herself into it with a passion. When hard times forced them to sell, persuading her husband to accept the inevitable became her new mission. Lynette also has a strong Nurturer in her nature. She strives to take care of everyone, often putting her own needs in peril. She'll pop ADD drugs to be the perfect mother or go broke paying lawyer fees for her son. Always ready to listen to her friends and provide comfort, this Nurturer is always available.

Susan Mayer is the ultimate "Damsel in Distress" and so represents The Waif. The show's creators even added a nice touch making her an author of children's books. Right from the beginning, in a hilarious episode where a naked Susan falls in a bush while getting locked out of her home, she needed to be rescued. Her inner core though adds some sunshine to the mix, as Susan can be quite the Spunky Kid.

Edie Britt portrays an archetype that fits right into Wisteria Lane: The Seductress (the "I Will Survive" woman: mysterious and manipulative, distrusting and cynical). Not only did she seduce Mike (Susan's boyfriend) she also landed Carlos, Gabby's estranged husband! They keep the shades drawn on her mysterious background but it's clear she's seen enough hard times to be out for herself. Although friendly with the others, the Seductress tends to keep female companions at arm's length. Trust involves a certain amount of vulnerability and Edie is tough as nails and determined to stay that way!

Gabrielle Solis has shades of The Seductress (she did seduce her underage gardener and plant a whopper kiss on Lynette's hubby!) yet she's not quite as hardened as Edie. There's a touch of both The Boss (don't even THINK of competing in the fashion world) and a hint of The Free Spirit (she does what she pleases and is as impulsive as they come). It's not easy to blend these archetypes, which makes Gabby harder to define, yet like Callie in Grey's Anatomy, this character goes through a range of archetypes as her character grows.

Now here's your 'Just For Fun' quiz. Which Desperate Housewife are you? *wink*

Which archetype do you most relate to? Which one do you enjoy in books, movies or television? The Spunky Kid remains one of my favorites and I personally relate to the Free Spirit. How about you? I welcome your comments!

Smiles,

Chiron O'Keefe
www.chironokeefe.blogspot.com