Taking a Break

Hey all. As much as I love blogging and putting stuff out there for you guys I have been experiencing some serious physical side effects of stress lately. I just haven't been able to keep up with everything I have on my plate. Because of that I will be taking a month or two off blogging.
   I hope you will stick around. I will be back, I promise.
God bless and I covet your prayers.

Point of View on Point of View.

   One of the first things that Authors need to think about when writing is "Point of View". Point of View is a more important aspect of story telling then you might expect. Each Point of View offers unique oportunities to an author. It is much more complicated then simply 1st, 2nd or 3rd person. When writing POV you should also consider your voice. Are you going to tell in in a past tense, a present tense?
For instance "I ate the apple and fell to the ground" verses "I am eating the apple and feel myself fall backward."
   You also have to consider who your main character is and who your point of view character is. They won't always coincide. Some books have multiple Point of View Characters. My fantasy novel has 5 main characters and 7 point of view characters in one book alone. I try to stay within my protagonists point of view at all times possible but there are times when things happen outside of their experience that needs to be understood by the audience. I can accomplish that by widening the lens to include a few new characters.
  Speaking of which. How limited is your character's point of view? If you are writing a very limited point of view you are focusing in one characters thoughts and emotions.
  Many classical books are written in what is called a "omniscient" view point. This means that the author knows what is in every characters head and can explain to us whichever is most relevant in the moment. A common example given is Lord of the Rings.
   Each of these things effect the tone of the novel and can manipulate your reader in a certain direction. Each has their pros and cons. Lets take a look at each of them and I will explain my thoughts and methods.

   Second Person POV: Why am I starting with Second person view first?. Simply because it is rarely used in Fiction. Second Person is the use of "You". It is used for addressing the audience. It is often used in non-fiction books, in narration and other "fourth wall" breaks (instances in which the character acknowledges the world outside their story) and occasionally in a "choose your own adventure" type setting. You might also use Second Person if you are using a document like a letter or a contract as a chapter.
   This type of writing is useful for making your audience feel like they themselves are part of a story. It is very effective in conveying information.
  I wouldn't consider writing a full novel in this POV. It is very awkward. People like to read books to get into someone else's head.

  First Person POV: When I was young the only first person books I read were in a journal format. I still remember being very weirded out when I first read a first-person POV. It seems that first person is very popular these days, especially in the Young Adult Genre.
   Author Patrick Rothfuss would say that first person is the most natural story telling voice.
 First person is often touted as being the best way to suck a reader into the story. It is considered more intimate.
  First person is not my preferred voice to read in and I hate writing in it. While some stories might call for it I try to avoid it. To me first person writing reads like a "Blair Witch Project" style film. You have a shaky camera and a cramped view. There are a lot of limitations to this POV.
   It is generally expected that first person books will only have one point of view. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it will make it harder to broaden your view of the world you have created and can be especially problematic when you have a complicated plot or a large setting. For this reason I think that it's use in modern Sci-Fi  and Fantasy is a very poor choice, with very few exceptions.
  When you do switch POV in first person you run the distinct problem of readers loosing track of who's head they are in. You are not reminding them constantly by stating the name of the protagonists as with third person. Because of this it requires a lot of skill in defining your characters and a lot of subtle hint-dropping.
   When authors choose to use the present tense in first person it makes things even more difficult. This is like taking that camera and shaking it violently or pointing it at the characters face. It's effective for sinking your reader into the action quickly but very hard not to get disoriented.
  In my opinion first person is best used in situation in which your character's inner thoughts are the center of the story as with dramas, literary fiction and romance. It is best avoided when there is a lot of action or a lot of new things for the reader to understand.
   First person gives you an opportunity to explore your characters head space a bit more. However, it is not nearly as forgiving as other POVs and if you slip and give something away that your character isn't actually seeing or experiencing in real time you are in real danger of kicking your reader out of the story.
 

  Third Person POV:  Third person is my preferred medium. Third person is an outside-in view of the character. "Ben sat on the chair" verses "I sat" or "you sat".
    Third person viewpoint opens a whole world for the author. Not only is it easier to switch POV in third person viewpoint, you can also head hop within texts and describe things that your character isn't necessarily experiencing. Third person is such a broad brush stroke it is hard to go wrong with it. You can be more detached from your character and describe only their outer actions and expressions (which is generally advised in the "show don't tell" rule of writing) or you can get into their head and describe thoughts like you do dialogue.
  The most important thing about writing in third person is consistency. If you decide to keep your POV limited (using only the thoughts and feelings of one person to channel the story through) than you should not be explaining things from another persons view point.
  My choice it normally to write in Third Person Limited in a past tense. For example: "Emily didn't see the train coming but the shaking tracks and whistle alerted her to the danger."
  This gives me an ability to connect the reader to the character in such a way that they are empathetic towards them. It focuses the story naturally on what is important while giving me some freedom to build the world. It also makes changes in POV more natural and more forgiving.
   Another choice is to write in a Third Omniscient POV. In this point of view you would be looking into multiple characters heads and describing their thoughts and emotions. This is useful when you want to incorporate mystery or keep your reader distanced from your protagonist for some reason. It might also be helpful if you have a large cast that all have essential roles in a story and you don't want to hop from one Point of View to another.
  And example of this might say: "Jeremiah loved the taste of the chocolate ice cream but Betty thought that it had a distinct flavor of coconut. She hated coconut."
   I would strongly suggest avoiding a present tense when writing in third person. I dislike it even in first person but for me the present tense clashes with third person. Third person is very broad while present tense is very narrow. When applied correctly in First person POV a present tense can intensify action and direct the readers attention to small details that might go unnoticed otherwise. In Third person you don't have the same effect.
  The only time I might suggest using this method is if you have and unreliable narrator. This means that your character is either insane or deliberately lying to the reader. This use of third person and present tense portrays a story in a very unwieldy nature and might convey the mood of the story.

    What if you are writing a book and want to switch your point of view for a while. You might be able to do this easily if you include a portion of a letter or journal in a story. I would hesitate to suggest it otherwise.
  I recently read a book in which the main characters were given a first person point of view and the secondary characters and antagonists were given a third person view point. As climax approached view point switches became very close together often overlapping. While is some places this increased the pace it also made the book confusing and I often had to reread portions in order to re-orient myself in the story.
  I would also suggest you keep your Point of View characters as few as possible and avoid using the antagonist whenever you can. Adding too many characters can make the story feel cluttered and keep the reader from empathizing with the main character.
  In another book I read the synopsis seems to indicate that a young woman is the protagonists. However, ten chapters in we are only given one chapter in which we experience the story through her point of view. The story isn't a bad one but I couldn't immerse myself in the world and eventually gave up the book.
   When I write I try to give each character a good length of the story in which we can get attached. At least a chapter for each.  I also make it a rule to always keep the point of view on the action and to keep it moving forward. If one of my POV characters is fighting a bear I shouldn't have the point of view on the character who is hiding in the tree watching. Neither will I tell the fight from the first characters POV and then re-tell it from the other characters...at least I do my best not to.
  In doing this my hope is to allow the reader to fully immerse themselves into my characters so that they are feeling the danger, the tension and the rewards for the victory along with my character. In this way I use Point of View as an essential factor in my story telling.
 
  What about you? Do you enjoy reading books with a first person point of view or are you old-school like me?

  If you want to see some examples of how I use POV in my writing be sure to explore the blog a bit and look for some of my short stories. I am also currently writing a novel that I uploading in a pre-edit form on wattpad. You can find that Here. If you want to follow along in my journey towards becoming a published author be sure to stick around for future blog posts. You can find me on twitter here and can follow me on facebook here. You can also find any of my Christian non-fiction work on my other blog here
  Be sure to stick around for a short story from Akharis's view point next week. Hopefully I will be able to catch up on some of my writing projects and get the story done in time for you all.
 
 
 

How My Faith Informs My Writing Pt 2

Last week I wrote a blog to give you some insight into my reasoning behind certain tools in my writing that might seem "unchristian". I used the Old Testament to support my reasoning for including those things. If you haven't read that article yet be sure to scroll down and take a look. This week I'd like to use the same concept to describe the things that I will not include in my writing and why.

  On Sex
      Sex isn't just a regular part of the "erotica" genre, it's often scattered through anything considered adult enough. While studying writing tips I have run up against multiple people arguing for it's involvement. "If we can include graphic violence" they argue "Why not include graphic sex. Isn't the former worse then the latter."
  One writer who advocates strongly for it's involvement is G.R.R. Martin: writer of the "Song of Ice and Fire" series. That, I'm sure, doesn't come as a surprise.
  His argument is that sex is a very real and powerful motivator for many people in real life and should be in fiction as well. I might agree with that. But as authors we have an a ability to chose not just what is included in our writing, but how it is handled.
   When we compare this to the Old Testament in particular we see that God doesn't shy away from certain truths about when sex and sexual violence. He tells us what is important for us to know. But he doesn't include details (Though some might argue for that in Song of Solomon). No matter how thoroughly you read the Bible you will never find a passage comparable to Fifty Shades of Grey. Telling us that Lot's daughters got him drunk to conceive children with him is a vastly different thing than describing what was done in detail.
  What is so distinct about sex that makes it a taboo? Why is this one physical activity so different from others?
    Reading has a unique ability to pull you into a world that is not your own. You can see the world through anthers eyes. But as much as that experience may feel real or as much as you may want it to be real we are fully aware that it is only fiction. Reading about murder in a book will not make you feel like a killer or crave killing.
  However the human brain is uniquely wired so that it responds to artificial sexual stimulation almost if not just as strongly as it does to the actual physical act. Studies on the effects of pornography has shown that the brain reacts to artificial sexual pleasure to point that it can cause addictions, form habits and cause the consumer to conform to the behavior shown in the source.
   One author on a panel on writing Romance said that when we as the author write detailed sex scenes in a book we are essentially forcing the reader to participate. She talked about reading these scenes in terms of actually having sex.
   Because of all these factors I have decided that I will not include any sex scenes in my writing. It wasn't a very difficult choice: I am not naturally a romance writer so I'm not exactly drawn to writing this subject.
  I will allow certain concessions for the sake of reality and character development. I use the Bible as my guide in this as well. I don't want to simply add things for the sake of having a character that walks the line. There are many things about my characters that I don't share with my readers that affects the book but doesn't have any place in it. My characters sexual pasts and sexual activity is one of those things. If need presses I might put in a scene "behind closed doors", by which I mean that I hint at it's happening but I will not be describing any of it. I haven't had the need yet in the nearly novel and a half that I have written. My characters are busy with other things.

  On LGBTQ Characters:
      A large portion of the modern American Readership is increasingly liberal. The things that they demand from a book are often less focused around the quality of the plot and the depths of the characters and more focused on Social Justice. Is the protagonist a female, and if so is she strong or weak. Is she well developed and does she avoid typically feminine labors and loves?
   Are sexual choices such as sex out side of marriage, and varying types of romantic bonds acknowledged?
  Are any of the characters lesbian? Asexual? Gender non-conforming?
As a Bible-believing Christian I am not going to hide the fact that I hold to traditional marriage as the healthiest and wisest form of love. I believe in two genders: man and woman. And I also hold to a Biblical Complimentarian view of marriage. I also believe that the world will function best when men are in major leadership positions and when men are the ones going to battle and woman are on the home-front.
  All these things will be reflected in my fiction. That doesn't mean that all my characters are saving sex for marriage or that I have no woman going to war or that could be described as "strong female protagonists". What it does mean is that I will show the effects of poor choices on my characters and in the cultures around them.
  What I will not be adding is any LGBTQ characters. This is for one reason. I don't agree with the practice and I know that it will show through the texts. Because I do not feel that my fiction is the best place to address this issue I will not, at least for the foreseeable future, be using any of these tools in developing my characters.

   What do you think about the things that I have chosen to leave out of my writing? Is it too much? Not enough?
   Next week I will be introducing another character from my Fantasy Trilogy. As of next week I will be officially working on the editing of my novel. I am also writing a science fiction novel for my Wattpad account in order to grow my readership.
  I hope you will come back for the introduction of Akharis next week. His complicated character is the most mature of any of my characters, and brings a good deal to the story.
   You can also follow me on twitter here and find daily content on my FB page here. You can also get a taste of my writing and meet some of my favorite characters in my sci-fi novel "Malfuntion" here

How My Faith Informs My Writing. Pt 1

   Some hobbies and careers are explicitly un-Christian.
     Most things you decide to spend your time on however, will fall firmly in no-mans land. Writing is one of these. Because pure creativity and diversity in media however you have the ability to make your story very toe that line...or jump it. If you have read my stories and know that I am a conservative, born-again, Calvinist Christian (I know: too many titles), you might be surprised to see what I've put down on paper.  Some people might be uncomfortable reading it. Some might think that I am turning my back on some of my morals. Before you think those things know that every word I put in my books is a choice. The themes that I include are developed with purpose. The characters are given a special amount of attention. I am not writing simply out of boredom, I want my work to have a reason for existing. That is why I wanted to release this blog before beta-readers ever touch my book. In it I would like to discuss a few of my reasons for including what I have, and excluding what I did. This won't account for everything in my stories, but at least it will give you an idea why I did what I did.

    A Note of Characters:
          I hate most Christian fiction. I have read very few that have impacted my life at all. It might have been the genre I was reading. I won't judge you if you enjoy them, but the quality is lacking.
I remember reading a quote when I was young that stuck with me. I cannot remember now the exact words or the source. The basic idea was that Christians should be the very best of artists because we intimately know the creator. We know what beauty really is. Think of great books like Lord of the Rings, Anna Karenina and The Brothers Karamazov. These were all written by Christians, but do not force themselves into a straight jacket. Because of that, they have created a huge impact both in and out of the Christian world.
  My problem with Christian fiction is about the same as it is with Christian movies. Christians are so terrified of breaching their morals that their characters more resemble paper dolls cut out of church bulletins then actual living breathing humans. Unfortunately, character is the most essential aspect of fiction so the affect is a sub-par story with forced morals and shallow emotions. There are a few exceptions to this but I'm speaking generally here. My challenge as a writer is to create Characters that are real. This means that they will have human nature. Human nature means evil.
  In order for my characters to feel real I have to let them follow a different moral code then me. I have to let them have a different god then mine. I have to let them live organically out of the culture I've created for them.
  As a believer that means that I will not agree with a lot of the things my characters do. Despite this I can still find ways to tell the narrative I chose and to ask questions of the audience that will hopefully lead them to the right answers. After all, we learn best from mistakes.
  So how do I judge what is OK to add into my story and what I should avoid at all costs. After all, I can refuse to read "Game of Thrones" based on it's content and then add the same into my stories. Even if that is a realistic format for humanity. Do I chose my content based on my emotions? Do I just wing it?
  The answer is found where it always is: The Bible. I have chosen to used the Holy book to guide every other book I write in hopes that God's words will be active through me, even if it's not explicit.

    On Foul Language.
       I don't swear. That being said, I am generally not to offended by it. Most swear words are arbitrary. "Crap" for instance, means nothing different from "Shit", but one is looked down on more then the other.
  Strong language has purpose and can be used to great effect when used properly. God doesn't cut corners on strong language and strong imagery. He uses language that would make us blush from our pews if we spoke them in church. But when God calls Israel the harlot or compares a rogue nation to a virile donkey we cannot say He is sinning. Those very words that make us blush are words that the Bible commands we do not take out of scripture.
  This doesn't mean that we should all start coloring up our language. We need to understand that this kind of language has a purpose and a place. When God uses it He uses it to bring home a point or tocatch someone's attention.
  When I use bad language I do so very carefully. Sometimes I will use the words that offend me less in simple dialogue for the purpose of tightening the mood, expressing the character or even just for a laugh. After all, these are supposed to be the characters words, not mine. As long as I am developing a character that will impact the reader then I feel comfortable with it. If a reader is more convinced at a character by his or her use of an expletive then they will take them more seriously when they have a deeper line that is meant to provoke though.
   There are some words that have heavier meaning and are actually degrading to humanity in any form they are used. The "F" word, "Bitch" and any of the words that convey sexual promiscuity. "Bastard" and more. These words I will not use unless the sentiment cannot be conveyed any other way. The concept is one that has to lead to a redemptive point though. If a guy just wants to call an ex-girlfriend a name, there are far better names to use. However, if a concept has to be brought across in order to allow the reader to ask themselves the "deep" questions, I will use one of these more weighty words but only sparingly.
  Some words simply have no place in my story and can be replaced with a wiser choice. I will have no need to use racial expletives. I can see a time and a place for them, perhaps in a historical fiction in the same vein as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or "How to Kill a Mockingbird" but for my purposes I can use words that only would hold weight in that particular culture.
  Racism, classicism and the value of human life are things that I address in my book. Because I am working with Science Fiction and Fantasy I can avoid anything that carries deeper meaning in this culture and create versions in my story that might convey the sentiment without causing any discomfort.
  How do you view strong language? Is it ever acceptable to use it? Would you be less likely to read my books knowing that I use strong language in them?

   On My Use of Violence.
      Most violence doesn't bother me. When reading in a book or watching a movie I expect a bit of violence. Maybe I am desensitized, but I actually enjoy a good "dark" story. That being said, there are times when it becomes excessive or pointless.
  The Bible doesn't use kid gloves with death and violence. I remember being quite young when I first read the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19. I was horrified. But we cannot look at this story or any other instance of death and destruction as pointless.
  Violence can be an excellent tool for adding weight to a scene and expressing the danger that the characters are in but it has a deeper purpose. Violence can reinforce positive views on the value of human life, teach empathy, encourage real life action against social injustices and help us address our own mortality. There is no greater tool for evangelism then a correct understanding of death.
  When we go through times of great pain we are brought face to face with these types of questions. Fiction brings us a way to address these things in a safer way. However, we have to avoid violence just for the sake of violence.
  America has an obsession with violence. For this reason you will never see me writing about a serial killer, or describing sexual violence in depth. It's simply unnecessary and  unhealthy. These things should not be glorified. In each instance in which I include death in my stories I try to focus on the reaction of the character and bring up questions of the morality of those actions.
  What is your view of violence. Is the use of violence in media justified or do we glorify it unnecessarily?

  I will leave you with these points for now but stay tuned for next weeks blog where I will be addressing some more points as well as some things that you will never see me use in my fictional work. What are your thoughts on these subjects? Be sure to comment and let me know.
  As always, I encourage you too look me up at Facebook and twitter. I am also publishing a Sci-Fi novel on my wattpad account if you would like to get a taste of my writing style.

Treasure Planet: Still Here

     It's not a new thing for good stories to be overlooked for a while. Good art is not always appreciated or even understood. I, and many others, would place Disney's Steam punk rendition of Robert Lewis Stevenson's classic in this category. While the animated film was nominated for the 2002 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature its mixed reviews and poor turnout in the box office cost it the appreciation I feel it deserved. However, like most good art, the movie has made a bit of a come-back in the hearts of viewers. It is a bit of what we could call a cult classic at this point. These days if you do any research Treasure Planet is almost universally identified as an "underrated" Disney classic.
  But you aren't here to get everyone else's opinion, so why don't I give you mine.
 Treasure Island is a story that is recognized a lot in media. Not without reason, the story is a beautifully written one. As a child this story was one of the formative stories in my life, along with Lord of the Rings and Peter Pan. The original book is an incredible read, and easy to get through. It's no wonder it's considered a classic. Muppet Treasure Island is actually pretty good too, and It's the movie still what I think of when I hear "Muppets"
  Treasure Planet  is everything that I could possibly hope for in an animated movie. I have watched this movie redundantly to the point that any normal person would be bored. Not unlike a child actually.
  Treasure Planet has a lot to offer. From the first moments of the movie you are treated to an taste of some of the beautiful animation that is displayed through the film. The setting in space it taken full advantage of and the color pallet is brilliant. Because aliens and technology play a large role in the film it could have been easy for the movie to look more like a patchwork quilt then a realistic world. While there were a few unbelievable creatures or the most part the animation was smooth and played out beautifully. The idea of ships in space may seem a bit ridiculous, but it flows so beautifully in the animation that it feels as natural as cars on roads.
     Another aspect of the movie that I really enjoy is the script. The dialogue is so descriptive of the characters, and never feels forced or contrived. Captain Amelia, for example, had a complex dialogue fat with complicated words.  Her dialogue is one of my favorites because there is always more layers to discover as you dig into her words. And of course, who can forget Silver, a complex character and a "villain" that in my opinion, doesn't have a parallel in all fiction.  Iconic lines like  "You're going to rattle the stars, you are."  and the "You've got the makings of greatness in you." speech define the character not just as a charismatic man, but one with real depth.
   This brings us to the ultimate beauty that is Treasure Planet. Yes, it had beautiful animation, action, deep themes, and comedy lines that were pure gold, but ultimately the wonder of this movie is in it's characters. Treasure Planet is essentially character driven and revolves around one essential relationship. The friendship, if you can call it that, between Silver and Jim is deeply relevant and resounds through multiple generations, but perhaps in this one more then ever before.
  Jim is a character who has suffered deeply from his fathers abandonment when he was a young child. This wound is never downplayed in the movie and all the appropriate respect is given to this absence in Jim's life. While they do not pull any punches with Jim's backstory, it is not an irrelevant character twist but is skillfully woven into the plot.
    On the other end we have Long John Silver who is both villain and father figure at once. While we know that Silver begins his friendship with Jim as only a way to distract him and gain information on the treasure we quickly see that Silver truly grows to love the boy. It is ironic that Silver is one of the least trustworthy characters in the movie, but is probably the first person to place any real confidence in Jim. Silvers character is tragic in many ways while in others he accomplishes more then anyone else in the films. When Silver runs away in the last minutes of the film he shows that he is not by any means a perfect man, or even really reformed. Silver's relationship with Jim was not a radical change of heart for him as a character, which almost makes it better. While you could argue that Silver abandons Jim again, like his father did, you cannot deny that Silver changed Jim's life in a radical way. Jim is no longer defined by other peoples choices, but is "charting his own course."
    There are multiple lessons we can come away from this movie with. While there are the typical Disney themes of self-confidence and believing in your dreams, I don't think these are the best take away. One of the reasons that this film resounds so much with me is because Silver is so broken and yet does something so amazing simply by reaching out to another person. This simple action on Silver's part end in sacrifice and struggle but never regret.
    In a culture that focuses on all the damage that could be caused by a carelessly spoken word or a character flaw, be it right or wrong, we often choose to pick people apart for their flaws instead of seeing their potential. Long John Silver was by no means a good man. He was a pirate who was fully willing to do whatever it took to get his hands on gold. Despite all these sins, Silver changed one life for the better, and in the process rescued many more. Long John Silver saw something in a hurting boy that others chose to ignore.
   We as humans mess things up a lot. Sometimes those things are small, sometimes we make mistakes that leave lasting effects. It's part of the human experience. But no matter how many mistakes you make you still have great value and worth, because nothing touches the human heart like the love of another human. This isn't about redemption or turning a new leaf, it's about the simplest and purest of all things: the ability of one human to profoundly impact another. Most of us are like Long John Silver or Jim. We have the capacity for great evil, or the ability to "rattle the stars". We have all made our mistakes and we carry the wounds from those other's have made, but we all have the capacity to reach out to help our fellow man.
   Because these themes are so influential to me I have leaned heavily on them in my story telling. Relationships in my book spread beyond a few romantic endeavors and often explore the affects that one human can have on others. Some of my characters are struggling to overcome pain in their relationships, while others are experiencing encouragement and love. Themes like friendship, found family, and the affects of a single act of kindness play largely into the plot. One character especially is largely influence by Jim Hawkins, along with others. Amonshek, who you were introduced to last week, is a man who is largely molded by the relationships in his life. Next week I will be releasing a short story from Amonshek's backstory to let you get a glimpse into a few of those relationships. If you appreciate deep and complicated relationships you will enjoy this character and will be particularly interested in his role in Smoke Fire and Ash Vol 1. If you haven't already, check out last weeks post.
   If you want to keep up with the progress on the book be sure to come back here every week for updates and short stories. You can also follow me on twitter, Here and on Facebook Here. I'm also working on a short story to release on Wattpad, so you can have a taste of my writing before Smoke, Fire and Ash Vol 1 is available. I will be sure to provide more information when that is available.
     Now, all of you should finish this post correctly and click Here. You are welcome.

Finn from Star Wars, One of the Best Characters in Modern Film

     Now, before you think that I am just fangirling here (Anyone else think it's ridiculous that "fangirling is a verb now?) let me clarify that I didn't actually love the latest addition to the Star Wars universe. Don't get me wrong, I liked it well enough,especially on the second go around.
  I don't feel the need to pick apart the movie. I understand every choice that was made in the movie and applaud their respectful retelling of it. It was over all a very enjoyable, safe movie.
     I only say all this to reduce the chance that anyone will think I have any biased when I say that I genuinely believe that Star Wars protagonist Finn is one of the best characters to come out of film in at least the last 10 years. So good a character, in fact, that I decided to devote an entire blog post to talking about just how awesome he is. By the way, spoiler alerts may lurk ahead, so watch your step.

    Finn is one of the main characters presented in Star Wars: The Force Awakened. He is brilliantly played by young English actor John Boyega. And honestly Boyega's portrayal added so much to my appreciation of this character that I don't think I would have been able to appreciate him at all had another actor been cast.
   Finn is the nick name given to defecting storm trooper FN-2187. I wont bore you with all the details. If you've seen the movie you already know what happened and if you haven't you shouldn't be reading this because, spoilers.
   So, why Finn? Finn's character has an interesting story, and one that, while not especially original, is rarely done well. Finn was taken as a very young child and essentially brainwashed to become a Storm Trooper.  While most characters with this type of broken past are presented as hardened or bitter, the writers took a very different approach with Finn. Finn comes across as sheltered and almost naive. Instead of being a hardened warrior Finn is often confused and frightened. This is often portrayed in very subtle ways, such as how he seems to be the only one who doesn't understand any foreign languages, or in how Finn doesn't seem at all bothered by his lack of a real name but is overjoyed when he first gets his nick name. This aspect of his character makes him not only original, but accessible. These characteristics are painted on with light brush strokes however, and Finn never seems to come across as stupid or cowardly.
  While Finn's life before the events of the film seems to have formed some of his personality quirks his unusual amount of empathy is not on that list. Most protagonists are expected to have some level of empathy. Narcissistic characters are hard to connect with. However, not only is Finns empathy a defining trait, it is a trait that would have been specifically targeted by his brainwashing. If Finn was to be an effective soldier it would be necessary for him to obey without thought or feeling. We see how this empathy effects the entire First Order in the first few minutes of the film. We are also given the idea that the fact that Finn had survived the rigorous training with any hint of empathy at all was at the very least rare and probably unheard of. When in any of the films did you look at a storm or clone trooper and expect anything from them but complete obedience?
  However, had Finn not had this resilient and powerful empathy he never would have left the First Order. The entire plot of the movie hinges on this one, unusual and tenacious trait that would normally be the first thing to go in a hostile situation. Most people tend to very quickly put up walls and retreat away from empathy when placed in a situation like Finn might have been in.
  The fact that this empathy managed to survive such specific abuse and in such purity is especially intriguing to me. I have always been interested in the concept of nature verses nurture and it is a theme that I like to explore in a lot of my characters. How do things around us effect our natural state...our soul so to speak...to form our personality? Some of us have more resilient souls, some weaker,  and some completely break under the pressure. Finn is a character who's personality is completely contradictory to expectations under the circumstances, both for an generic "enemy" soldier, and for a tortured hero character. While we see during the course of the movie that Finn is not unaffected or unchanged by his experiences while in the hands of the first order, he doesn't allow it to change in in such a way to make him cruel or bitter. This makes the fact that Finn has been through so much even more potent for the viewer. The effect is similar to watching a child suffer, because Finn comes across as so innocent and pure.
   On that note, I especially appreciated that the film left Finn's past such a mystery. While we are given a few generalities we are not given any real details about the way the order treated Finn. He could have been horribly abused, or simply raised in a slightly more strict environment. Finn indicates that it wasn't a pleasant experience, but he seems to be more effected not by the harm done to him, but by that done to others. Either way we know what a storm trooper is and we know Finn. We don't need to be told much to have a working understanding of what Finn's life could have been like as a Storm Trooper. While this could change in future movies, for now the intentional ambiguity accomplishes two essential things without wasting any of our time. Firstly, it allows us fill in the gaps ourselves, and gives us a chance to more fully connect with the character. Secondly, it avoids unnecessary drama that would drag down an otherwise light and enjoyable character.
   The final effect of all this is that Finn's sacrifice in the final chapter of the movie is not out of character and fits simply into the story. The sacrifice is subtle enough that it doesn't detract from the story or from the other characters, and yet powerful enough that it gives us a great respect for Finn as a human being. All through the movie Finn displays a very real fear of the First Order. He makes it clear that all he wants to is to be out of their reach. However, from the moment Finn met Rey he has been actively protective of her. When Finn returns to the enemy base for Rey despite the risk to himself and later stands between Rey and Kylo Ren despite the fear he feels, Finn is displaying a huge amount of personal sacrifice. That sacrifice is not shoved in your face or even dwelt on for long. It is simply backdrop for the greater drama of Kylo Ren's betrayal and the return of the force through Rey. Finn's actions shape the story without overwhelming the rest of it.
   All over Finns character is one that is both novel and familiar. He feels real, not like a being that was simplu dropped into existence for the 2 or so hours of the film. He feels as if he has a life, has been effected by his environment and has developed through those experiences. He is not the weak "blank page Character" that is just waiting for the story to fulfill him, and yet he still carries a lot of promise for the future.
  Finn is a refreshing hero figure in a culture that seems ever more enamored with the anti-hero. He has the feel of a classic mythological Greek hero, to me.
  Many stories, when choosing an unassuming hero might choose a poor or misunderstood member of the "good guys". I love the touch of finding an soldier, like the ones that are so often over looked and killed in the every day story, to form the basis for an unlikely protagonist.
  I like that Finn is not hated and shunned for his past, by the resistance, but is instead trusted and accepted based on the quick friendship he formed with Poe and the bravery it took to turn against the First Order. This avoided a lot of heavy drama and time-wasting political nonsense. They kept the attention where it belonged and Finn's character did just as much as he was expected to do. Once again, he doesn't overwhelm the plot.
   None of these themes are entirely new, but they are remixed to form a refreshingly genuine, reluctant and empathetic character.  What makes Finn such a diamond in the rough is not that he is an original character, but the fact that he is everything that has exemplified a protagonist for as long as there has been story telling. Despite all that he doesn't feel at all contrived or forced. He acts in a way that is consistent with his character throughout the whole film.
   So what is my take away after watching Star Wars: The Force Awakens and essentially falling in love with this character?
   While I have been writing I've been struggling to write original characters that appeal to modern taste and don't feel fake. I find this especially hard because most modern Young adult or Fantasy books just don’t appeal to me. If I am going to enjoy a book I don’t mind a few mistakes or bad choices, but I don’t want to hate my hero more than my villain. If the hero keeps pushing the package eventually he will do something I just cannot identify with and I loose interest.

 As far as real life heroes, history brings a whole new set of issues. Heroes, or what we would call heroes, in a historic sense, were usually no more than cruel men with great power who commanded respect through fear. They are only sometimes remembered well because they controlled the written history.

 There has to be a balance between the two. A hero that is too good will be just as hard to connect with as one who is too evil, or too stupid or any other flaw.

  While I have enjoyed some of the darker new shows that have been offered, such as "Walking Dead" and "Vikings"  there is something to be said about a hero that you can sit back and cheer for without questioning their morality or your own.

  I will be heading into edits soon on my  manuscript, and into the first drafts of the second and third book. I have included a lot of dark themes in my books, and a lot of dark characters. I do have a empathetic character, like Finn. But unlike Finn, my character is heavily affected with PTSD and depression among other issues because of his empathy. I don't feel the need to change those characters. I am, after all, not trying to write Finn into my book. What I can take from this character to include into my books is that I can feel free to have moments of real, uncomplicated heroism in my stories without feeling foolish. Good versus evil isn't outdated, and it will never be. While I can have complicated and realistic protagonists and antagonists, I don’t want to have to second guess that dynamic. Writing is too exhausting as it is.

 On the other side of the coin, I need to learn to be ok with making my character look bad and in an embarrassing way.  It's good if he or she is clumsy, sheltered, or easily frightened.These characteristics were some of the most endearing about Finn, and part of what made his such a great character.

  What about you? Who was your favorite character, and why? Do you agree with my observations? Please leave a comment below and be sure to check out my FB page at Jill E Purrazzi and my twitter account at @J23hawkE.

 Come back next weekend for an in depth look into another character in my Fantasy Trilogy: Amonshek. I am excited to introduce him to you, as Amonshek is one of the characters who I've put the most of myself into. And be sure to keep following as I update on my progress. As I write this I am well into what I believe will be the final full chapter of Vol 1. I am so excited to start on edits and start polishing it up for beta readers. I hope you will consider being one of those for me.

The Consistent Character

         I know I promised the next portion of the Oren short for this week, and I hate to keep you all in suspense, but with family in town for the holidays, I haven't had a chance to polish the story to my liking. That being said, I have chosen to release a previously written blog post in it's place with the hope that another week will help to polish up the next portion of the Oren Vow short story : "The Hunter." I hope you can forgive me the bait and switch. In the mean time, I hope you enjoy this entry into the blog and are looking forward to next weeks short story, which I intend to get back to work on as soon as I have published this.

                                      

  In the time I've been writing, I have found one of the hardest things about creating a character-driven story is character consistency.
In order for a character to feel real they need to be constantly changing. They need to be fluid to react to different situations with real thought and depth. Character development is often a huge factor in Character driven stories, and often a character may react to a similar situation in a variety of ways throughout the story depending on where they are in their development and where they are going. In fact, often stories will deliberately place characters in situations that are echoes of early situations in order to create a contrast and show their development.
  With all this in mind, how can you keep a recognizable character through a story. I will share my method for building a consistent character from the ground up.  I've seen a few different tricks to forming characters. It is a relatively straight-forward process, but one that seems to go wrong often.  My trick is to identify pivotal personality traits in my characters.
   For every character who has any notable role in the Smoke,Fire and Ash trilogy I have identified two or three character traits that form the core of the character. These character traits do not change, no matter the changes the characters themselves change and these traits form the motives under almost every word or action attributed to the characters. I find the most interesting pivotal character traits are either negative characteristics, or those that can motivate both negative and positive responses in situations.
 These characteristics form the "skeleton" so to speak, of the character which is then fleshed out by all the various motives, thoughts and changes that effect us all as humans. They work as a fulcrum around which every part of these characters personalities function.
If you were asked to describe a favorite character, how would you answer? Would you talk about their character development through the story? Often we might fall to backstory or plot to describe a character, but those things only describe what happened to a character, not who he or she is? While background may effect character, it is not in and of itself a character trait.
  What if someone asked the same question of you about a friend or family member? Would you give them a run through of personal history, talk about what they do for a living, or divulge secrets? Most of us would make a list more like "Kind" or "Considerate" or maybe "Obnoxious". Even if you don't describe your characters to others in so many words, it's useful for an author to have a short list of these types of qualities. The more concise and fundamental, the better.
  Once I identified these traits in my own characters I began to notice them in other well developed characters as well. Let me give you an example I noticed recently.
   The Walking Dead is a hugely popular show. It follows a character driven plot so while there is action and tension to drive certain things forward, the majority of the reason why we are so eager to follow what happens next is because of the fleshed out characters and their relationships with each other. The show spends a large amount of time on backstory and character motivation throughout the course of the show.
  Rick Grimes, the protagonist of the show,  is a character who experiences a dramatic change in character through the course of the show. The Rick we see in Season One is still very civilized. He avoids taking life wherever he can, he doubts himself often, and he weighs decisions based on the various voices in the group. In opposition to this, the Rick Grimes in Season Five is far more feral. We can see it in his physical appearance alone. While Rick may be less vocal about his thought process in later seasons, we can clearly see that his priorities have changed. He is determined, violent and unrelenting.
  While in the early seasons we wonder along with a slightly unhinged Shane if Rick has everything it takes to survive in the new reality they find themselves in, later seasons show Rick willing to do some truly horrendous things for the sake of his group. It would be easy to loose track of the character in the course of the changes, however, Ricks motivation has never changed. Rick feels a sense of responsibility that causes him to take leadership roles in whatever place he finds himself. He takes that role in the group as soon as he walks onto the scene, on the farm despite Hershel's obvious authority, and finally in Alexandria in spite of a fully developed authority structure. The other immovable characteristic in Rick's character is his familial love. Rick is a family man. In the first season that family was Shane, who he viewed as a brother, his wife and his son. Loosing those people drove Rick nearly to the edge until we see him adopt the group he is leading as his family. Even still, Ricks sense of family love is stronger with a few individuals. His son and daughter are obviously part of that group, and Daryl, who he has repeatedly called a brother...much like Shane had been.
   If we analyze Ricks actions through the show I feel like everything we see from his character flow from these two motivations. This of course disregards things like hunger, exhaustion and the like. If we were asked to summarize Rick's character, without the benefit of describing his change though the season, what words would you choose?
  I have developed these pivotal traits for each character in my book that has any significant role. For each of these characters I know their base-line character traits, so that I can extrapolate how events in their pasts and in the plot might effect them, and in turn how they might react to those events and set in motion other events.
  I will give you a short example from my own writing process. I identify two or three major components in each of my characters.
  Oren Vow, my main protagonist, is very instinctual but also very curious.
 Another major character, Amonshek is probably the most like me. I gave him all my worse characteristics. He I would call Arrogant (spoiled, more accurately) and loyal.
Akharis, one of my most fully developed characters at the time the book begins, could be described as Compassionate and Responsible.
  Dedkhira, Akharis's little brother was the most difficult to pin down. Honestly he kept hiding in the shadow of his brother and it took almost the whole novel to pull him out. He's given me quite the chore for my second draft. He can be described as Reserved and Independent.
  Dred, the pirate and freed slave is probably the most complicated, although I haven't gotten into the women yet.  Him I would call "Joyful, Violent, and Honest" An interesting mix there, and a lot of fun to write.
   I could probably continue here, but you get the point.
Using these traits I can begin to form my characters reactions to the world around them. Amonshek is both arrogant and loyal, so how would he react if he was put down by someone he loved.
  Oren is instinctual, so he wouldn't hesitate to act if surprised by someone.
Akharis is compassionate and Responsible. Are there times when he has to chose between taking care of someone he loves and keeping a stranger from death and suffering.
  Dred is joyful. Is there a difference between being optimistic and being happy in spite of circumstances, and if so what would that look like.
   What about some of your characters? What are some of their strongest character traits? Do you have a different method to creating consistency in your character?  Please, comment and share your experience. Keep an eye out next week for the conclusion to the Oren Vow Short Story: The Hunter.