Fishing for Readers: Advice on Writing Genre Fiction

You want to write fiction. Not just any fiction – you want to write stories that people will talk about and remember. You want to hook readers with your brilliant prose and reel them in, one after another. You want to feel that thrill of success, followed by another one, a bigger one. You want bragging rights, not just another fish tale. (“You should have seen the reader that got away; I swear he was THIS big…”) When you talk about your ambition, you get a lot of advice. Most of what you hear is a variant of “Don’t quit your day job” or that old chestnut “Write what you know”. So, you make sure you have a steady income and you review your personal knowledge base, but you still end up staring at a blinking cursor. After an hour or two, some twisted part of your mind is convinced that this bit of technology is mocking you. You wonder where you left the hammer (that’ll take care of the crafty mouse). This would be a good time to take a break (away from blunt objects) and think about how you write.

Relax. This won’t hurt a bit. Writing fiction is a craft, not unlike making wooden toys. You start with a shape in mind and some sort of plan or blueprint. You might be a person who isn’t comfortable unless you know everything you’re going to do, and in what order. Writing fiction without a detailed outline is probably painful for you. Conversely, you might draft a bare outline and then not want to write the story; why bother, if you already know what’s going to happen? Then, you are better off writing a very rough first draft and fixing your errors in the next versions.

Whatever method you use, all stories start with a thought. Do you close your eyes and see a grassy meadow filled with bright red poppies, as far as the eye can see? (MGM has copyrighted that image; their attorneys will be in touch.) Did you ever believe (in a tiny corner of your heart) that the monster [under your bed/ in your closet] was real and adults told you it wasn’t because they were too scared to look? Do you wonder why that beautiful skinny blonde is hugging the large slob wearing the Star Trek tee shirt and the ‘Where the f-ck is Kansas’ baseball cap? Do you wish you could kill your [teacher, fellow student, roommate, ex-lover, ex-friend, total stranger who cut you off in traffic] and get away with it, but then you feel guilty for even thinking about it because he/she is really not that bad, and what kind of twisted thought is that to have, even for a minute? Breathe. Then realize that it is not your fault – you have an overly developed sense of curiosity and imagination; it is part of what makes you a writer. If you don’t ask ‘what if’, then you don’t write the answer (fiction).

You have a thought. Maybe it is an idea for a plot point, or a vivid setting, or a fragment of a dream. What starts the story is the thought. Characters make the story memorable. The first thing you want to do is design a character to suit your initial thought. Who will walk through that field of poppies (er, I mean that field of unspecified brightly colored flowers of some sort)? Who is that beautiful skinny blonde, anyway? What is it about that person you are mad at that enrages you? You may want to write timeless literary texts that showcase a person or place or era. I wish you luck and redirect you to the question of character building because I am a craftsperson, not an artist, and I write what I know. So, I will demonstrate the technique of crafting characters for various genres in popular fiction.

Let’s start at the beginning, with a basic sketch. Remember the beautiful skinny blonde with the fat guy in the Star Trek tee shirt and the ‘Where the f-ck is Kansas’ baseball cap? They’re gone, to class, to lunch, to Cleveland, but you still have an image of these early twenty-something students in your mind’s eye. You can sit down and write the details you want to use.

The woman was between five foot two and five foot four, had shoulder-length ash blonde hair with wide platinum blonde highlights (Miss Clairol 27), cornflower blue eyes, and a full figure. She was wearing low-riding hip hugger jeans, the kind that are supposed to show off your incredible muscle tone and part of your pelvic bones (assuming that you have incredible muscle tone and have actually seen your pelvic bones recently) and a belly-baring, low cut powder-blue cotton shirt. She did not have a flat stomach, although she was not fat, either. She was, however, top heavy enough to rouse a prurient curiosity for a moment; if she breathed really deep, would she fall out of the shirt, and was the bra you hope she was wearing enough to prevent an indecent exposure charge if she did fall out if the shirt? She wore platform flip-flops and her toenails were painted the same shade of blue as her shirt (which was still doing a great job caging the cleavage). [On a side note, my second grade teacher, who was full-figured in every sense, wore a halter top to school one day and she fell out of it. After that, the school dress code was amended to exclude halter tops of any kind. I resented it at the time, as I would not even have cleavage for several years and the school lacked air conditioning.]

The man was four to six inches taller than the woman. He wore jeans (standard button fly) with the tee shirt and black athletic shoes. He was out of shape, had a peach fuzz beard, wore sunglasses under the cap, and had brown hair (messy, from what you could see). His clothes fit and they were clean and not wrinkled. He had been doing most of the talking, his large hands gesturing wildly, almost hitting a passerby once.
So, you know where they are (on the sidewalk where you first saw them, talking in low tones) and what they look like. Now what? It is time to ask why and what if: why are they on the sidewalk, why are they dressed the way they are, and what if… Here’s where the genres come into play. A rule of thumb is if you like to read it, you will probably like to write it.

ROMANCE: This genre is about romantic relationships, usually in a positive light. So the blonde and the guy in the cap are supposed to fall in love. But first, they need names; for this category, let’s call them Robert and Elizabeth, after the Brownings. They have physical descriptions and names – now, we need conflict. The best conflict is caused by character traits, whether they are flaws or strengths. At a casual first glance, this couple seems lopsided because she is beautiful and he is only average; an observer’s first thought may be that she could do better. You could play into that or against it. Let’s say that they have known each other throughout high school and the first year of college. Scenario One: She has had a crush on him since the day he killed a garter snake in her back yard, but he has never given her any hint that he wanted to date her; she wonders if there is something about her that he doesn’t like. He, on the other hand, thinks she is out of his league and doesn’t want to hurt the friendship, since that’s all he’ll ever have. Scenario Two: He’s had a crush on her for years; she barely noticed him until they started college, where she was the fish out of water. Now, she wants him to notice her. Scenario Three: She has had a crush on him since he won the science fair, but he only dates people he considers smart or interesting and she does not qualify. Can she change his mind?

Maybe Robert looks the way he does because he has given up trying to be one of the beautiful people. Maybe Elizabeth wears the revealing clothes to catch his attention. If you want to add comedy, you could weave in dueling wardrobes; every time she wears something more eye-catching, he wears something that clashes with it. Maybe Robert writes plays and Elizabeth is an actress, so they see each other nearly every day and she is always trying out a new look. One day she wears a poodle skirt, knit shirt, bobby socks, saddle shoes, and a pony tail (not a hair out of place) and he shows up styling ‘early Seattle grunge’; she wears prim business suits and he copies Billy Idol, complete with safety pin through the nose and trademark sneer. This not only engages the reader, but it reveals that Robert and Elizabeth are alike, even compatible.

MYSTERY: New genre, new names. How about Nick and Nora? Too bad, you’re not here to argue. Change it in the rewrite. Nick and Nora may have a romantic relationship, but it is not the focus of the story, nor is it necessary. They could be siblings. But, since we paired people who looked just like them a minute ago, let’s assume that they have couple potential and no common DNA. In the mystery genre, the point of the story is usually to solve a murder, so we start with a corpse. Scenario One: A friend of Nora’s older sister has been murdered. This friend was [someone who shared some characteristic with that person you wished you could kill in paragraph three – shh] a student on campus, involved in all sorts of groups and organizations, making enemies everywhere. Nora, a third year criminal science major, decides to investigate – after all, her sister is a suspect. Unfortunately, Nick knows that she’s not a student. He is. He agrees to pretend to be her significant other to give her a reason to be on campus. Scenario Two: Nick is accused of murder. Nora, who knew him in high school, leaves her criminal science studies long enough to prove his innocence. Nick resents what he thinks of as Nora using his problems as field research. Scenario Three: Nora is accused of murder. Nick leaves his musical studies long enough to help her solve the puzzle; after all, music is math-based, as are most logic problems. In any of these scenarios, his outfit is his idea of a disguise and he finds her revealing outfit hilarious.

SUSPENSE/THRILLER: Steven, an English major, has just won a prize for best first novel. His wife is thrilled; she would have come to the reading, but the baby was running a slight fever. He is on top of the world. He knew his looks and intelligence were average, but finally he found a strong talent in writing. Saundra, a beautiful blonde, asks him to sign her copy of his book. She is the first to ask. Euphoric (and a little silly), he signs the inside page the way he absently signed birthday cards for relatives: “With love, from Steven”. She takes him at his word and plans their future together. He slowly realizes she’s stalking him and feels afraid, but no one believes that she would go after him with no encouragement. What will he do? In a suspense/thriller, you have to pick a character to be your protagonist; the other becomes the antagonist by default. The reader wants to know more about Steven than Saundra and most of the time, the narrative is from his point of view. Maybe Steven is shy; maybe he is flattered by the attention at first, and then feels guilty when he realizes that she is obsessed. There are a lot of ways to spin this character to make compelling drama.

HORROR: Saundra, a beautiful blonde History major, reads the first novel by Steven, another student on campus and realizes that the main character is just like her, the first half of the novel describes events that have actually taken place in her life, and her character dies in the last chapter. What is she going to do? Will she confront him directly? Will she break into his apartment, looking for clues? Will she hop a plane to Reno? That depends on her character traits.

FANTASY/SCIENCE FICTION: Saundra and Steven buy their dream home with the money from first novel grant. The problem is they have a nosy neighbor. The bigger problem is their neighbor lives in a cave below the basement of their house. The biggest problem is that their neighbor is an exiled goblin prince who has become the rallying point in an Otherworld civil war. Where is the Neighborhood Watch when you need them? Will Saundra demand a refund? Will Steven find this fascinating? Will Saundra use their neighbor’s problem as a topic for her dissertation? How will they react? What characteristics do they have that will eventually win out over incredible odds (because they are so alien to the goblins that the goblins have no defense)?

The main things to remember when crafting character are:
Tags
Traits
Loves & Fears

Tags are small things about the character’s appearance or personality that can be described in five words or less; they serve as reminders to the readers of who the character is (ex. a specific shade of eye color – cornflower blue).

Traits, in this instance, are dominant aspects of a character’s personality that fuel their behaviors (ex. an edgy character may always want to sit with his/her back to the wall, frequently scan the area, and jump to conclusions with minimal evidence).

Loves and fears are pairs that are vitally important to create compelling fiction. You must show the reader what your character values above all else, show how happy this person, place or thing makes your character, how devastated he/she would be without it. Then, you must threaten to blow that most valued thing to Kingdom Come, metaphorically speaking.

You bait the hook by crafting characters with interesting and offbeat tags and traits. You set the hook by inviting the reader to share your character’s joy in [being near the person of his/her dreams, having his/her talent rewarded, receiving large amounts of cash, owning his/her first home] the valued thing. Once the reader has experienced the joy vicariously through your character, the reader must also have an emotional investment in protecting the valued thing. You can reel him in. The reader wants to know what will happen. If you tell a story that is true to character, then the character (and your story) will live on in the reader’s memory. That’s not just a fish tale.

Secret Identity: A Closer Look at Three Superheroes In and Out of Costume

“Every man has three faces: the face that the world sees, the face that his loved ones see, and the face that only he sees. – Japanese Proverb”

I confess; I am a geek, an unabashed old-school comic fangirl. I grew up in the 1980s reading Marvel and DC Comics superhero stories. I stopped reading and collecting in the 1990s, but have collected the movies as they have become available on DVD. It is in this capacity that I respond to the latest recreations of the superhero mythos, whether on television, film, or print. The three most instantly recognizable superheroes are: Superman, Batman, and Spiderman. They are also excellent examples of points on a continuum of dual identity, with Superman and Batman as the extremes and Spiderman as the central point. The superhero’s struggle with balancing different aspects of his life and identity is the same struggle we face in our own lives, writ large.

Men in Tights

Peter Parker AKA Spiderman, Bruce Wayne AKA Batman, and Clark Kent AKA Superman/ Kal El of Krypton cover three wide points on the superhero identity continuum. Superman is Clark Kent minus his assumed cover story, with an overemphasis on the traits he hides behind the glasses. Batman is a trained, driven, narrow-focused multi-talented vigilante genius. Bruce Wayne is a lie, a cover story with a birth certificate, the wealth needed to fund the Bat, and a deep, dark secret: Bruce Wayne really does hate the Batman (it’s not just a lie to distract those who get too close) because the other stole his life and his purpose, sure as criminals stole his parents and ideals. Spiderman is Peter Parker’s burden of guilt coupled with his snarky juvenile fantasies. So, in the middle you have Spiderman who is a burden and secret for Peter Parker (but not really another identity, simply a release and means to reveal hidden aspects of his personality – much the same as actors when they play their parts). On one end you have Batman, for whom Bruce Wayne is the source of his power, a cover story and an ATM. On the other end is Superman, who actually has two personas, each with its own history, verity, and meaning. He is both Kal El, last son of Krypton (who feels abandoned and bereft of his parents, heritage, culture and fears losing his adopted world and becoming again the worst kind of orphan) and Clark Kent, son of Jonathan and Martha Kent (who struggles with secrets, but has friends, emotional ties, lunch dates, and other things denied the Man of Steel, things he needs in order to belong).

Kal El was raised as Clark Kent. He could not simply assume another identity any easier than you or I could. Bruce Wayne is not as necessary to Batman, but cannot be easily thrown away without serious repercussions, not least of which the fact that Bruce’s grief and rage is the fuel is that sustains the Bat. Peter Parker cannot simply walk away from his alter ego, but his lack of emotional attachment to the persona has allowed him to make several attempts to retire; duty and guilt bring him back to the costume.

The costume and the codename are disguises to delineate the difference between their everyday lives and the special duty. Peter Parker was an average high school student bitten by a radioactive spider, giving him superpowers. He designed his own costume to reflect the source of his powers; he didn’t give it a lot of thought, it simply needed to conceal his face and cover his body. Batman designed his costume for the dual purposes of practicality and psychology. On a practical note, the costume is designed to carry anything he thinks he might need when wearing it. The psychology comes into play in the dark colors and the bat symbol. “Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot,” he says often in print. Bruce Wayne, the man who wears the Batman costume, was scared by a chamber filled with bats soon after the murder of his parents; to him, there are few things scarier than bats. Superman, however, is different. His ‘costume’ is made from his old baby blankets (by the way, how can a grown man make a full costume out of a set of blankets made for an infant?). His code name is closely tied to his birth name (Kal El of Krypton). He does not become Superman, he is Superman when he wakes up in the morning; he must become Clark Kent.

They say that clothes make the man. What I wear when I am planning to stay home and not see anyone is quite different from what I wear to church. I even feel different in various types of clothes. I have a leather jacket from high school; when I wear it, I feel nostalgic and tough. Clothing is even divided into categories that name the role it is made to suit: business wear, casual wear, active wear, and formal wear.

The face the world sees

The Clark Kent seen by the world at large, in all of his ‘weaknesses’ is a deliberate lie, carefully constructed by Jonathan and Martha Kent, inexpertly and awkwardly carried out by their minor son, Clark Kent. They made sure he did nothing to call attention to his differences. He grew taller than ordinary people – his parents taught him to slouch at all times. He was faster, stronger, more agile; the Kents kept him away from competitive sports and taught him to fake clumsiness. Superboy wanted to save the day; Clark Kent needed a reason to never be on-site at any of these events. The struggle between who he (Clark Kent) wants to be and who he has to be in order to conceal his dual identity is part of what makes his story so interesting.

One reason Superman and Batman are my favorite superheroes is that struggle with necessity. Clark has to appear weak and cowardly, so that no one questions his absence from disaster scenes, despite the fact that as a reporter he should be covering the story as it breaks. Bruce Wayne must appear to be a drunken dilettante with no more on his mind than the next supermodel or people might be inclined to wonder how he spends his time and why he seems so tired. Both of them have had to maintain this pervasive fiction for most of their lives, Clark because he has had to hide his abilities and Bruce because he was planning revenge and needed to cover his tracks. Peter Parker remains much the same, but faces consequences for not being able to juggle the workload of photographer, college student, and superhero; to the world, he appears shiftless and unreliable.

Superman gets the best press. Batman is considered a dangerous vigilante and Spiderman a chaotic menace. Superman experiences some of the drawbacks of celebrity, in that many rescue missions become photo ops and many people insist on making a connection with him, but rarely wish to look beyond the powers to the person. Batman has personal contacts that have become friends, but he maintains a distance in order to do the duty more efficiently. Spiderman works alone, in order to reduce the risk to his loved ones.

The only one who would be unable to lead a (relatively) normal life if his secret was revealed is Superman. Bruce Wayne would face criminal charges, but could conceivably rebuild some form of meaningful purpose-driven life, possibly as a private investigator. Peter Parker could join a team, live at the team headquarters, and balance his various responsibilities better now that he no longer had to lie. His biggest problem would be villains targeting his family, but he worries about that now. Clark, however, could not show up at work in his suit or the costume, with or without the glasses, and have people treat him in any way remotely normal. In one of the 1980s guest author books, Superman’s secret is revealed to the world. Jimmy complains to his girlfriend that he misses Clark. She asks Jimmy what he would say if he saw Clark right this minute; without thinking, he replies, “Hi Superman.” Even Clark’s closest loved ones (not including his parents) all seem to like Superman better than Clark. Clark, as a person, would be ignored in favor of the icon Superman.

I don’t know how often someone has asked me how I am and I have answered, ‘fine, thank you.’ Even if I was in considerable pain that is what I would say because my mother and every other genteel southern lady in my family made sure I understood that I must always be polite. My great-grandmother once tried to serve me tea the day she got home from the hospital after having heart surgery because I was in her home. My sister once went twenty-eight hours without eating because she worked a swing shift with no dinner break and had back to back visits from friends when she got home. She couldn’t eat while she had company because she didn’t have enough food to offer any to her guests. I was taught that the person we show the world should be the person we want to be.

The face his loved ones see

Superman and Batman have had consequences to deal with as a direct result of how they constructed their alter egos. (In the 1980s comics) Clark was viewed by most of his friends with a certain amount of amused contempt. In one instance, Superman was kidnapped and he needed a reason why Clark never contacted anyone during that time. He told them he had an inner ear infection and hid out in his apartment with his phone unplugged to avoid pain; no one questioned the excuse – of course Clark would do anything to avoid pain. Superman is in some ways a caricature, an exaggeration of all of the traits Clark must keep hidden. Bruce is nearly as much of a caricature, since most of the traits that make up his actual self are in custody of the Batman persona. In many short stories written by guest authors in the 80s and 90s, Bruce has been the subject of an intervention by close friends who perceive him as wasting his tremendous potential and drinking his life away.

Clark has to hear a lot of complaints from the people in his life. He chose a profession that gave him instant access to information about crimes, disasters, and other ‘jobs for Superman’, yet he has a record of frequent absenteeism and other unprofessional behavior. Still, he is able (much like Peter Parker) to cut corners in order to meet deadlines. (Clark creates his copy at super speed and Peter sets up a camera to take photographs of Spiderman in action.) Bruce must suffer the snide remarks whenever he misses a board meeting due to a Batman emergency; the drinking makes a handy all-purpose alibi.

Clark and Bruce are restricted by the nature of their secrets. They cannot share the most important parts of themselves with people because criminals could figure out their secrets and use their weaknesses against them. So, they may not be able to form many significant intimate relationships. That plays into a lot of fan fiction on the Internet, which pairs them with each other or other superheroes, as their colleagues would certainly understand the tremendous pressures in their lives.

I go out of my way to help others when I am out. By the time I get home, some days I hate people. Erik, my son, will ask me for something and I will snarl at him because I have used up all of my politeness. Home is where I don’t have to play fair. I do apologize and give fair warning when I am in a mood. Erik knows to ask for favors the next day because I am likely to feel a little guilty at that point. Friends and family know your flaws and love you anyway; they are living proof of grace.

The face that only he sees

The costumed duty and the civilian duty are different roles; we all have different roles to play, that require different actions, words, and attitudes. What about the other aspects of their lives? Clark Kent (according to DC Comics, the text of the Superman movies, and every television series) loves to spend time with his friends and has a genuine affection for people in general. This quality is evident with or without the glasses, so would this aspect of his nature that is shared by both personas be considered only half-real? Bruce Wayne spends a good deal of his time micromanaging employees of Wayne Enterprises and Gotham City’s vigilante population; this man is a control freak no matter what he wears. Peter Parker doesn’t lose his ‘worry gene’ when he slips into costume; Spiderman simply deals with his anxiety by spouting wisecracks, while Peter whines and sulks.

Peter Parker has shown himself to be a man in a mask. In the movies and the comic books, he has removed his mask easily when needed. In Spiderman 2, Peter loses his mask, revealing his identity to Mary Jane Watson, his true love. Even as he is holding up a metal structure that was about to fall on her, Peter addresses her in his own shy tones, not Spiderman’s smart alec manner. Bruce Wayne has revealed in subtle ways the conflict between the two halves of his persona. In an early issue of “Batman and the Outsiders,” the team finds out Batman’s secret identity. One of them (the empath, who can feel the emotions of others) sputters, “But Bruce Wayne hates the Batman,” then covers her mouth with her hand as she realizes what that means. In episode seven of “Batman Beyond,” after being hospitalized by an encounter with a villain shooting destructive sound waves, Bruce starts hearing voices telling him to kill himself. At the end of the episode Terry McGinnis (the next Batman) asks Bruce how he knew that the ‘voices’ came from an outside source. Wayne said the voices called him Bruce, something he never called himself. McGinnis reminds him that Terry is Batman now, not Bruce; Bruce says, “Tell that to my subconscious.” Clark Kent looks in the mirror and sees himself, an adoptee with two identities that belong to him. I married an adoptee, so I understand the dichotomy of two identities in one a little better than I did when I first started reading about the Man of Steel. Adoptees who remember their original family tend to be ‘more royalist than the king;’ i.e., intensely devoted to the new family, who can do no wrong, because they never forget that they can lose this family like they lost the first one.

Clark Kent dons his costume as an act of love and devotion. Superman loves humanity with the fervor of one who has suffered great loss; he leans toward the kind of idealism one finds in bereaved widowers discussing the institution of marriage. Spiderman complicates Peter’s life, but is a necessary complication. Batman is Bruce’s admittedly extreme way of coping with his childhood trauma, an obsession reluctantly supported by his butler and confidante, Alfred Pennyworth. All three of these heroes need two separate identities in order to function as they have chosen.

My role as Erik’s mother is a vocation born of love; I wouldn’t change it if I could. College complicates my life, but it is a necessary complication and I reap the benefits. Writing fiction is my extreme way of coping with a world that seems, at times, too loud, too harsh, and too cruel. No role can be given up without pain and loss; each part allows me to express a vital part of my self. I need the good opinion of my friends. I need the support of my family. They enable me to live my life and express my identity the way I have chosen.

Who am I? Who are you? There is no simple answer.

Religion, Morality, And Authority: The Burden Of Chastity

Despite the fact that violation of chastity requires male participation, chastity is a burden borne almost exclusively by the female. The Judeo-Christian Patriarchal moral code (an exhaustive set of standards originally intended to segregate the Jewish community from the Goddess-worshippers who surrounded them on all sides (Stone) defines chastity as sexual purity – to be chaste is to only have sex with one’s lawful partner for the purpose of procreation. The male is conspicuously absent from stories of sexual misconduct, both as character and as storyteller. This may be due to a common belief that women are beneath the notice of men unless they have in some way violated the Judeo-Christian Patriarchal moral code and must be punished. This is also linked to the practical concern of identifying the trespassing male.

 Females bear the physical consequences of the chastity violation on and in their bodies, from bruises to babies. The Judeo-Christian Patriarchal system’s moral code shifts the responsibility of chastity solely on the female’s shoulders by identifying her carnal desire as the source of sexual temptation. Thus, she is charged by God Himself to submit to the male and desire only him. Women teach girls, through story and living examples, the dangers of chastity violation and how to avoid it. This reinforces the belief that females are responsible for maintaining chastity and excuses males from accountability for sexual transgressions (although, if identified, they can be held accountable for theft of or damage to another man’s property).

Judeo-Christian Patriarchy is founded on the idea that woman exists to serve man. Man must be the source of life and woman merely the receptacle. According to this rationale, the male God created Adam in His own image to have dominion over all other creations, and then created Eve as a helper/companion/pet. Eve was not deemed worthy of God’s companionship; when God and Adam walked off together, she was left with only the snake as company. Eve was merely an afterthought, as women often are in patriarchal systems, until she is out of her proper place (modestly waiting for Adam, right where he left her).

Before Judeo-Christian Patriarchy took root, woman was considered the source of life. Women had babies; men did not. Prior to the agricultural megarevolution, the link between sex and procreation was hazy; men were needed to ‘open’ women, prepare them to bring forth life, but generation of life was exclusive to females. Female deities were the norm, as were fertility rituals (Stone). Family lines were matrilineal and matrilocal, although males were still dominant. Men and women had separate but equal spheres when men hunted and women foraged. Once agriculture became the primary means of food production and men had to work the fields, they noticed that seeds planted in the earth grew into plants. This lead to the theory that was only disproved within the past century; the male seed contained the new life and the female womb was merely the soil that housed it.

When farmers find weeds among the wheat, they do not blame the soil. This is where the analogy breaks down. The Garden of Eden story illustrates the rationale that Eve (woman) is responsible for sexual awareness and the temptations that arise from that awareness. The Eden story is also the first story that features the absent male. Adam is off communing with God (Eve is not invited) when Eve starts talking to the snake, we must assume. Nowhere in the conversation between Eve and the snake is Adam even mentioned in any way; the snake points out that eating the fruit will make Eve like God and convinces her to take a bite. After she does, Eve calls Adam and offers him a bite. Despite his close relationship with God and his inherent superiority over every other creature, apparently Adam is easily influenced. The shame of nakedness emerges only after Adam takes his bite (there is no way of knowing how much time passed between her bite and his but it cannot have been too long if the shame came to them at the same time). Adam now has to work for his food, the snake has to slither and be trampled by feet, and Eve must suffer the pain of childbirth while she submits to Adam and desires only him.

This link between desire and temptation doesn’t make a lot of sense under close scrutiny. Although it is never stated outright, the implication is that males desire females because females desire males. This is probably based on another set of observations by men learning to grow and raise their food. Female herd animals have periods during which they are ‘in heat’, causing them to excrete pheromones that lure every male of their species to mate with them. No male is turned away by a female in heat. So if a human male wants to mate with a human female, then it must be because she is luring him. The system of Judeo-Christian Patriarchy is designed in part to contain human females ‘in heat’ in order to breed her with the designated male.

Of course the males in question cannot be presumed to control themselves any more than the farm animals. Males, supposedly closest to divinity, are still excused when they violate chastity because the codes are formed by men, who understand that sometimes the penis has a will of its own. This understanding and compassion is denied to women. The unstated implication is that women, being higher life forms than bitches, have some way of controlling when they are in heat. The narrator of Kinkaid’s “Girl” frequently inserts this refrain – “like the slut you are so bent on becoming” – into her pragmatic instructions, implying that the girl is making an effort to lure the sexual attention of males. Women’s desires can be concealed, which makes them easier for men to ignore and/or believe in their nonexistence. It also makes men feel better if they have someone else to blame for their transgressions.

This leaves the female in an untenable position. She must protect herself from the lusts of men because she will bear the burden of the physical consequences, from bruises to babies, if she is unsuccessful. If she is damaged by the chastity violation, then she is less valuable to the man who owns her. Prior to the 18th century, it was perfectly legal for a man to beat a woman to death if she belonged to him. So it didn’t matter if she was raped or consented – she was the one who was punished. She might be killed or banished or shunned. What could she do?

Her mother and other women of the earlier generations instruct young girls, through story and example, how to live within this strict hypocritical code. The narrator of “Girl” warns “you mustn’t speak to the wharf-rat boys, not even to give directions” (2335). The young girl is taught how to make sure to go nowhere alone, how to smile at different people, how to avoid men who look too long, and how to blame herself when they do (2335). The shame code is instilled in the young girls by the older women to protect them. Young girls learn to fear strange men. They develop conflicting feelings about their desires and desirability.

Young girls are charged to be attractive, but only to certain specific males. The code mothers teach young girls is any desire they feel is that of a bitch in heat. This desire is wrong and must be kept contained. If any of it is loosed, it is an invitation to violate chastity. Her desire is powerful and dangerous. In the stories men tell, males are overwhelmed by the allure of females. In the stories women tell, men are animals, ruled by their appetites.

Stories like the Hebrew Bible’s “Garden of Eden” and Jamaica Kinkaid’s “Girl” reinforce the belief that females are responsible for maintaining chastity and excuse male from any accountability for sexual transgressions. Women teach girls, through story and modeling, how to navigate the murky waters of this double standard. The Judeo-Christian Patriarchal system’s moral code shifts the responsibility of chastity solely on the female’s shoulders by subliminally identifying her as a bitch in heat, her carnal desire as the fuel of male sex drives. Thus, she is charged by God Himself to desire only the male who owns her, in order to contain the power of her allure. Females bear the physical consequences of the chastity violation on and in their bodies, from bruises to babies to torture and death. Males have no part in stories of chastity violation until it is time for the woman to be punished, as it is difficult to identify the male if they are not caught in the act. Despite the fact that such a violation cannot occur without male participation, chastity is a burden borne almost exclusively by the female.

Works Consulted

Kinkaid, Jamaica. "Girl." The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women. Ed. Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.

Stone, Merlin. When God Was a Woman. 1st. Unknown: Packet, 2006

The more I learn, the more I realize I have yet to learn

Although the majority of my education was based upon current-traditional writing strategies, my experiences as a student, tutee and observer in the Writing Center have convinced me that strategies based on expressivist writing theory are more effective. I learned writing theory this semester. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference. Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics. I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking. Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills and focus on the importance of revision. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading.

Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics. When John Q. Public is exposed to a new set of ideas, he tends to pay attention to the details of interest to him. Next, he forms an opinion based on his new knowledge. Then, as he writes about his opinion or shares it with his friends, his opinion develops into a set of claims. The more he talks about or writes about these claims, the more structured they become, as he adds new evidence to support his claims and defends them against the objections of his audience. Given enough rewrites and/or debates, his final claim may bear little resemblance to his early opinion. This natural progression is mirrored in expressivist strategies like brainstorming, freewriting, and mind maps. If John is forced to structure a paper around the original opinion, to use an outline, gather quotes from source material and compose a rough draft to support this opinion, he will be miserable. By the time he has finished reading the source material, his opinion would have changed. Current-traditional writing strategies force the writer to follow a specific course from start to finish, in order for the powers that be to ensure that the student knows how to form opinions based on research and cite sources correctly. Unfortunately, John may know how to use MLA format, but he is now resistant to the idea of writing research papers, though he may not understand why.

Most of what I learned in public school falls under the current-traditional writing theory. My first three years of school, I was given workbooks for each subject. The teacher would give a lesson, and then assign a workbook page or pages as practice. If a student finished early, he or she was encouraged to work ahead. I finished my first grade workbooks halfway through the school year and was passed to the second grade after winter break. My teachers focused on five part assignments: (1) Ask a question, (2) Answer the question, (3) Cite five sources (three supporting and two opposing the answer), (4) Write a rough draft, and (5) Edit the rough draft before turning in a technically perfect final draft. When asked why we must follow this procedure without deviation, we were told that this was what would be expected of us in college. I learned how to categorize parts of speech, memorized rules of spelling and grammar, and practiced identifying mechanical errors. Content was a separate grade, with little or no guidelines as to what the teacher expected.

Expressivist theory values content over mechanics. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference. As a young fiction writer, I was quite frustrated. Once I learned how to form letters, I wrote at least four stories a week. I gave each one to my teacher, who would smile at me and tell me it was good. Four stories a week for two and a half years and not one single piece of constructive criticism. In third grade, I won a national writing contest under the category of best description in short fiction. From then until my first creative writing class, my fiction was mostly description, as I sharpened my skills in this one area. When I would tell a story aloud, I still focused on my characters and what changed them, but my writing suffered. I am still learning how to write dialogue and action sequences because the two bits of feedback I received were: my stories were good, and the descriptions were what made my stories better than others.

I had a knack for knowing what made a good story. I could hear someone else tell a story that flopped and figure out how to make it better. I could read someone else’s fiction and render first aid. People who took classes with me asked for my help and I gave it. I looked at the writing, told them what I liked (because that’s what I wanted people to tell me), and identified what seemed off, and told them what they could do to fix it. It never occurred to me to teach them how to identify future errors and correct them; I wasn’t completely sure how I was doing it. It is ironic that I made use of Peter Elbow’s theories before I ever read them, let alone understood their basis. I wish I had read Peter Elbow’s Writing Without Teachers in high school. The idea that “a goal for any writer is to control his or her own process and to develop flexibility for approaching any writing task” (Gillespie and Lerner, 13) did not come to me in a flash of insight. The students I worked with asked me how I wrote term papers and I showed them my system, which only worked for me. Most of what I did was intuitive. I was like a singer with perfect pitch, a love of music, and no formal training.

I picked up skill sets from reading every day, writing techniques from my favorite writers, and critical thinking skills from arguing with amateur historians who were too stubborn to let a debate die. I could write journalistic academic papers, write short fiction that read like a travelogue of imaginary places, tell stories like a back-country folklorist, and detect sour notes in other people’s work. I never merged those skills until I took my first writing workshop course. Finally, I learned how to take a piece of writing apart and understand how it was crafted.

Tutors who make use of expressivist theory can help the writer “to focus on the higher-order concerns and put aside editing/proofreading until the very end; and at that very end so that you can help the writer become a more detailed reader of his or her own work” (Gillespie and Lerner, 7). I didn’t learn writing theory until this semester. I was happy learning craftsmanship, something which produced tangible results and honed specific skills. Looking back, I now know that finding the theme in a work of fiction is synonymous to finding the thesis of a term paper and balancing character, plot, setting, and exposition is akin to balancing claims, reasons, evidence, and opinions in a term paper. Discovering variations in writing theory and strategies proved frustrating to me. Why must it be so difficult? Why not find a method or combination of methods and practice them? After all, the point is to teach people how to communicate their thoughts in writing; if current-traditional strategies were unsuccessful, why continue to use them? I needed a teacher’s perspective.

My mother-in-law, my sister-in-law, and two cousins are in the teaching profession. The younger generation gave me essentially the same answer I learned in class. They were required to “teach the tests” if they wanted to keep their jobs. A school’s accreditation rests on those test results; the priority has shifted from teaching the skill to meeting the standard. They have so much they must teach by a certain point; they can’t afford to try anything that deviates from the curriculum guide. My mother-in-law taught current-traditional strategies to second graders for four years. Then, she taught special education grade school classes and used expressivist strategies. They worked. She still uses them with the children who come to her in her role as educational consultant. When I asked her for advice about writing consultation, she said that what worked for her clients was: freewriting the topic, followed by mind mapping based on the freewrite, then research, outline and rough draft. She showed me examples as she told me and this combination made a lot of sense. I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking. Expressivist strategies, like those demonstrated by my mother-in-law, are closely linked to critical thinking skills. I have learned to adjust my priorities when examining other people’s writing, starting with the central idea and working through the organization before looking at style and grammar.

Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills and focus on the importance of revision. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. I was a writing center client before and during this semester. On my first visit, I was a very nervous recent transfer student trying to find out if the paper I wrote was the paper my professor assigned. Something about the way he worded his assignments confused me, and his verbal answers were not much clearer to me. I expressed my anxiety and showed the assignment and my rough draft to the consultant. He was patient and reassuring throughout my nervous speech. He looked through it and told me it looked good to him. My professor found my thesis unclear throughout my eleven page paper. I took the assignment and the paper to a friend, who told me point by point which parts of the paper were disorganized. Looking back, I can understand that the consultant saw a neatly typed, well-worded paper, based on the first two and last two pages. The underlying problem was that the consultant and I had not developed a rapport (Gillespie and Lerner, chapter seven, 91-97), so he missed what my friend (who had the rapport, if not the technical skill) did not.

This semester, my consultants read the papers I showed them. Each of the consultants I visited greeted me, made eye contact, and gave the impression that helping me was important to them. My first consultant, “C”, seemed a lot more relaxed and experienced, but there are many factors I did not know about. She was a teaching assistant for the professor who would grade the paper I brought in for revision. We were approaching the consultation from similar subject positions, as we shared many common goals and perspectives on the topics we reviewed. She and I moved through our time quickly, going from thesis to outline to style in minutes. She gave me a solid piece of advice to carry with me: don’t forget to loop back to the thesis at least every other paragraph.

My second consultant, “M”, was a bit more nervous; I could almost see her reviewing a mental checklist to see if she was leaving anything out. I admire her insight; her first question after names were exchanged was if I was sent by Ms. Strong. Still, we worked just as fast and as well together. Their style difference showed in how each of them pointed out errors in my rough draft. “M” was hands-on, marking the paper with a fine blue line as she spoke to me. She showed me alternatives and we brainstormed, looking closely at specific areas of the text. I felt good about both of my consultations and left each time feeling as though I had accomplished something with my time. My consultants knew how to put writing theory into practice.

Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading. When it was time to practice writing consultation, I learned another lesson. Observation and rehearsal is necessary in order to learn how to put theory into practice and it does wonders for one’s confidence. Unfortunately, we are all on the same page, speaking the same language, and it means that the practice is not representative of what we will encounter in the Writing Center as consultants. Practicing peer tutoring with people who were working from the same notes was easy. As much as I enjoyed our exercises in class, I know that the client who walks into the Writing Center with a term paper due in three days may not have a clue why I am harping on the central theme. I worry that I will not be able to reassure them as well as I have reassured people who shared my subject position. It is just as important to establish rapport with clients as it is to make sure they leave with sure knowledge of their next steps. Otherwise, they may leave grounded in style and mechanics, with no other values or guidelines to help them in future writing endeavors.

Although the majority of my education was based upon current-traditional writing strategies, my experiences as a student, tutee and observer in the Writing Center have convinced me that strategies based on expressivist writing theory are more effective. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading. Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. Expressivist strategies focus on the importance of revision. If I remember my priorities and concentrate on the central theme and work my way out, then my consultations will be successes for me and my clients I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills. In grade school, I learned mechanics. My techniques in fiction were largely self-taught. Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics I learned writing theory and the underlying values this semester. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference Putting together what I have learned through formal and informal education, personal experience, and professional observation has changed my perspective regarding writing consultation. The overall experience has changed my perspective, but I still believe that working in the Writing Center will be a series of surprises. The more I learn, the more I realize I have yet to learn.

Work Cited
Gillespie, Paula and Lerner, Neal. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring, Second Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., New York, 2004.

Dead White Chickens and Other Examples of Cognitive Dissonance in Kayla Williams’ Biography Love My Rifle More Than You

“We go on. Suddenly they’re waving dead white chickens. None of us have ever encountered anyone waving a dead white chicken. None of us knows what it means. Are they offering us something to eat? Are they making an obscure reference to something about Americans, the United States, our invasion? Is it a gesture of resistance or of mockery? What the hell is going on?”(95). Kayla Williams had a more difficult job than she understood. She was trained as a linguistic specialist and sent to Iraq, ostensibly to listen to broadcasts and pass along anything relevant and translate when the Army needed to talk to the locals. Cognitive dissonance is present when two cognitions (pieces of knowledge, such as ‘apples are fruit’ or ‘my favorite color is blue’ or ‘the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776’) are in conflict. Translation is an example of cognitive dissonance – one has to think in two languages at once. But how do you translate dead white chickens? Williams described the incident in terms of cognitive dissonance; these smiling people waved dead white chickens to show support, to mock the troops, to show evidence of chemical warfare, to invite them for dinner…believing all of that at once prompted half of the convoy to laugh hysterically. Although Williams recognized this example of cognitive dissonance, her biography is full of examples whose proximate cause is the very structure and protocol of the Untied States Military.

My favorite example concerns the deployment orders. Williams was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, stationed at Fort Campbell, waiting for orders to deploy to Iraq. As Williams recounted:” “Quit lying to us! A duffel bag with all our extra gear has already gone to the Middle East. We’ve been told to pack personal hygiene equipment for six months! We went to Wal-Mart and spent three hundred dollars on binoculars, batteries, cameras, books, and a solar shower! Extra fucking everything! And you’re trying to tell us we’re not going anywhere?” “Roger that. There is no deployment order for the division.” Then the deployment order for the division was announced on CNN” (62). When my ex-husband was in the Army, he was supply personnel stationed at Fort Bragg, one of the rapid-deployment stations. I knew he was on his way to Haiti for Operation: Restore Hope seven hours before he did (officially). So, in direct opposition to the lesson in critical thinking Williams and her fellow soldiers received in college, they are told to disbelieve the evidence of their own senses and experience in favor of what those with higher rank tell them.

According to the cognition of Chain of Command, those of higher rank are supposed to protect and defend those under their command with their superior self-discipline (read – never show emotion), training and experience. This cognition pairs with the cognition that one must always respect rank. Williams encountered dissonance when she served under a series of ranking officers who were incompetent, insensitive and too sensitive, and did not care about the soldiers they were theoretically supposed to protect. The military had a built-in way of insulting those of higher rank – “retreat into my shell of protocol” (91). Williams, a woman who has shown herself to be a caring and sensitive individual, resolved her cognitive dissonance in this regard by accepting the cognition that ranking officers should have the described traits in order to protect ‘their soldiers’ and rejecting the idea that all officers deserve their rank. When she retreated to protocol with SSG Moss and Moss cried, Williams’ account reveals the change in attitude forced by the necessary resolution: “The Bitch. She’s crying in front of a subordinate, and I have even less respect for her now, if that’s possible. You never cry in front of a subordinate” (91). In other instances, Williams had a friend, Zoe, whose commanding officer fled to safety before ordering his soldiers to safety, an act which resulted in a letter of reprimand for the officer (245). SSG Moss continued to be incompetent in ways that could get Williams and her team killed. A later ranking officer accused Williams of being angry with her because she did not care about learning about the technical aspects and equipment of the job, most of which relied on those aspects and equipment (267). This was acceptable to the military, which had stationed this officer in Iraq when she did not even know where Iraq was located on a world map.

When she wasn’t dealing with officers whose ignorance was potentially lethal to her and her team, Williams experienced cognitive dissonance in her role as translator. She accompanied soldiers on hunts for weapons and had to simultaneously reassure the terrified locals and the twitchy soldiers that everything was okay. She told the locals that the scary soldiers with rifles pointed at them were, in fact, here to protect them but must also hunt for hidden weapons. She told the soldiers that the locals were peaceful people and the shouting and stepping close were part of Arabic culture. When traveling, people were potentially allies and enemies at once. Common trash could be a cover for explosive devices. Prisoners might be harmless natives or terrorists – the Geneva Conventions need not apply.

At least Williams could count on her fellow soldiers for support and mutual respect, right? “Bros before hos” is the rule, indicating loyalty to the team ahead of loyalty to outsiders. The problem is that it only works if the team one relies upon ignores your gender. Williams spent time with other units in her capacity as translator. They showed her the same respect they showed their own team because she demonstrated skills that helped them to do their job, she did not complain, and she treated them as though they were all boys together. Oddly, this changed when she wore mascara to a concert. Suddenly, the others realized she was female. They started to refer to her breasts and stopped using her name. These same people she was so comfortable with started to make rape jokes. She felt vulnerable for the first time because the cognition that female equals slut, bitch, or ho shattered the cognitions that she was a friend and had worth as a Specialist. The worst part for me when reading this text was when Williams recounted the incident wherein a fellow soldier attempts to molest her. “The next morning I’m writing in my journal about the incident with Rivers when he appears. “Listen, Kayla,” he says, all sheepish. Looking anywhere but at me. “I apologize. I was completely out of line back there. I hope there are no hard feelings. It was dumb, and it was wrong. So I hope you can, you know, accept my apology on this.” And just like that, he’s gone again. This throws me even more. I have all this righteous anger built up. And – wham! An apology? It feels like cheating. Like: This guy steps way over the line, and now he gets to be able to have it all just go away. Because now he’s sorry? (208). Williams unofficially reported the incident and Rivers was reassigned, but he told others that she begged him to let her suck his cock and when he refused (on the grounds that he was engaged), she was terribly disappointed.

She kept her distance from everyone after that. How can you argue with that position? It is one of the biggest, clearest examples of cognitive dissonance. A soldier stationed in a war zone does not turn down an offer of any kind of sex with a willing female – period. A guy who turns down sex due to a girlfriend back home is probably gay or impotent, according to military culture. A female who wanted to have sex of any kind does not have to rely on one person to give her sex – she has hundreds to choose from. So, how does this rumor of rejection gain general acceptance? How does someone who is free and easy with the sex elude a ‘bad reputation’ while someone who behaves becomes the pariah?

By the time Kayla Williams returned home, she had built up so much cognitive dissonance, she could not relate to anyone who did not share her subject position (military stationed in Iraq). Civilian life no longer made sense. Other veterans did not share her specific experience, so she was sure they had suffered worse. At the close of her narrative, she shared housing with two other soldiers who had been stationed in Iraq. She wrote her story to gain perspective. I hope it worked.

Work Cited


2005. Williams, Kayla. Love My Rifle More than You. Norton.