All Write Stories

Much has been written about the protagonist, but few talk about what’s called the “influence character.” This is a character whose power comes from his or her influence/impact on the protagonist. This is often who the protagonist is in an important relationship with, in the B story, or perhaps, a lead role in the B story. It might be a love interest, mentor, friend, sibling, rival, ally, parent, classmate–almost anything. It’s someone who has power based on impact. And typically the influence character and protagonist are linked together, usually by a similar goal.

Here are some examples.

In Moana, Moana is the protagonist, and Maui is the influence character. In The Hunger Games, Katniss is the protagonist, and Peeta is the influence character. In The Greatest Showman, P. T. Barnum is the protagonist, and Charity is the influence character. In Hamilton, Hamilton is the protagonist, and Eliza is the influence character. In Songbirds and Snakes, Coriolanus is the protagonist, and Sejanus is the influence character. In Legally Blonde, Elle is the protagonist, and Paulette is the influence character.

This doesn’t mean the protagonist isn’t influenced by other characters, of course, but these are the (or rather, “primary”) influence characters–their relationship with the protagonist influences the outcome of the story in significant ways, and for at least part of the story (if not the whole thing), these two people are bound together on a similar course or by a similar end goal. This creates a “we” perspective within the audience. We are trying to do X. We are stuck in the same situation. We need to work together. We need each other.

But this relationship is about more than … well … just being in a relationship. The protagonist and influence character mirror and foil each other in key ways. Often by the time a writer finishes a professional-level story, he or she will have done this, even if he or she isn’t aware of it.

Let’s talk about the key components of this relationship (concepts courtesy of Dramatica).

Change vs. Steadfast

A character who “changes” (arcs drastically) will grow significantly–often doing a 180–by the end of the story. Most of us are familiar with this concept.

A character who holds “steadfast” will stay more or less the same–he or she may grow by degree, but not by a drastic 180.

A “changing” character often starts with a flaw, misbelief, or inaccurate worldview that he or she must overcome in order to succeed in the story.

A “steadfast” character will start with a strength or an accurate worldview that will then be tested through the story. The rising action and tension comes from the cost of the steadfast character trying to hold true to that. The steadfast character will likely still experience doubts, temptations, pain, and suffering–as the world, environment, and other characters challenge that view.

Think of the story of the Little Red Hen. The Little Red Hen understands that you must work for desired results. Others challenge this worldview, which means she has to ultimately work all alone. It still costs her effort and resolve to make the bread, which ultimately proves her worldview is correct while the others’ are wrong.

For the steadfast character, he or she is proven true through the experiences of the story. The experiences must happen, in order to turn his or her faith/belief into knowledge/wisdom. It’s one thing to believe something. It’s another thing to have it tested and proven true.

In this sense, the steadfast character still grows, but it’s by degree.

The steadfast character will often change others and the environment when he or she succeeds, more than herself (generally speaking). (In the future I want to do a post specifically about steadfast characters, but for now, this will suffice.)

If the protagonist is a character who “changes,” the influence character will be a character who is “steadfast.”

Katniss changes–her worldviews change through the story.

Peeta is steadfast–One of Peeta’s main goals is that the Games won’t change who he is, even if he dies. He wants to be steadfast. His feelings toward Katniss (shared in an interview), the fact he’s from the same district, that at some point both Peeta and Katniss can be victors–all impact and influence Katniss’s plotline. While he might seem to waver, ultimately, he stays true to his beliefs.

P.T. Barnum changes–he comes to realize he only needs to be accepted by his loved ones, not win over the world.

Charity is steadfast–she knows what matters from the beginning, and her relationship with Barnum helps him eventually come to his senses. Despite what Barnum costs her, she holds on to what she believes is true.

As I’ve been revising (and rewriting) some stuff lately, I’ve come to a realization about worldbuilding. The cause and effect (which includes the stakes) are more important than the explanation. You can come up with some really great worldbuilding ideas, some really great worldbuilding information, you can come up with amazing, sound logic for how your magic system works.

But those things don’t matter near as much as the effect they have on the characters and plot. I once spent days trying to figure out how I was going to “explain” how my worldbuilding worked in a scene. It seemed critical. When I took a break and came back to it, as I revised, I realized, that even though the explanation was cool and the origin was cool–neither of those things really held a candle to getting the stakes on the page. Aka: What these things mean for the story. Stakes are about potential consequences, which means they are about risks. Which means they also must follow a sense of cause and effect. As I’ve probably said a hundred times, but never in this context, the reader cares more about looking forward to later in the story, than looking backward about how the story got to this point. The only time the reader really loves looking backward, is when doing so adds meaning to the present or future. What this innately says, is that the reader cares more about stakes and cause and effect, than he or she does about exposition. Because in order to look forward successfully, or look backward successfully, there must be a sense of cause and effect to link everything together. This is true of plot. This is true of character growth. And it turns out it’s also true of worldbuilding. Simply explaining how worldbuilding or a magic system works, might be fine all on its own in some places, but will carry much more weight, much more meaning, much more significance, if they include relevant cause and effect. And when you have to (for pacing reasons), choose between explaining a bunch of stuff or relaying cause and effect, it’s probably better to choose to relay cause and effect. This is not to say you can’t do both.

Because in relaying cause and effect, you are also explaining some of it.

Cause and effect communicates why X matters. For example, if we took Stranger Things, and spent a big chunk explaining what the upside down is and how it works, it wouldn’t be as interesting as knowing its cause and effect. What’s really interesting about it, isn’t necessarily the exposition about it. What’s interesting about it, is how it affects the plot and characters. What’s interesting about it, is that because the gateway exists, a creature is kidnapping loved ones. What’s interesting about it, isn’t its own personal “Big Bang,” but the fact that Eleven somehow opened it (cause/past), which means she may be able to somehow close it (effect/future). What’s most interesting about it is not the fact that the toxic atmosphere exists, but the effect that toxic atmosphere has on the characters who have to go in it.

In some sense, this all sounds very obvious. But as writers, we can spend so much time coming up with our ideas, and even if they are amazing, we may not see that cause and effect is often much more important than the great ideas themselves. Brainstorming and fitting things together and explaining how things came to be, can often be wild and fun. Creating a clear sense of cause and effect can often feel hard, more like work, and maybe even mechanical. In His Dark Materials, the fact that everyone has a rendition of their soul outside their body is a fascinating concept. But what really matters is what that means. How does that concept affect the societies, plot, and characters? The fact that someone can harm you through your daemon or that its separation from you can create a powerful burst of energy, is much more relevant than just knowing daemons exist. It’s more important than Pullman giving us a big long history and explanations of daemons when the reader first sees them. If the magic of your world is about to undo the world itself, that risk, that fact, is more important than learning about the magic itself. And once readers have that fact, it becomes important to learn about the magic, because they assume that in learning about it, the characters will be able to save the world (cause and effect). Get what I’m saying? To some of you, this may seem simply a post about not using info-dumps. While info-dumps fall into this idea, not all explanations will come across as info-dumps. Some of them may just come across as “important” information. But if we are honest with ourselves, the most important information isn’t just a lofty explanation of how something works, it’s how that something affects other important things at work.

Once the cause and effect matters, then more explanation might matter–but not always. Sometimes all that really matters is how X affects the story.

In some cases, the cause and effect might be brief and simple. For example, in The Hunger Games, Katniss sometimes links how her world is now, to how it was in the past. Because some tributes tried to take their own lives in the past, in the present, new technologies and restrictions exist to prevent that. Cause and effect. This in turn affects what Katniss can and can’t do. The fact a magical Ring exists that can turn one invisible is not as important as what that means (cause and effect) for the characters and plot.

Well, after all this talk about publishing, traditional or indie and agent or not (and how dare me suggesting that you shouldn’t hand your livelihood over to an agent), I thought I should write down how I published and intend to publish in the future. 

A few things first:

This is not a get rich scheme. Yes, people have been making thousands of dollars with hastily written erotica that hurts to read and I’m as baffled as you are why they’re making so much money. I made about 83 cents with my novella so far. So this is not about making loads of money. It can happen but if that’s your goal, you have to nail down on the marketing like your life depends on it.

I think self publishing is the best thing ever and as shady as Amazon as a company is, I’m forever grateful that they’ve made this possible. 

My process is not your process. My process will change as the circumstances change.

Here’s the short version of how I self published:

Wrote a thing

Edited the thing, let other people edit the thing, edited it again 

Revised and proofread the thing

Imported it into LibreOffice

Used a template for formatting

Made a cover

Exported cover image as 1600x2400 jpg

Exported the thing as docx

Uploaded it all to draft2digital 

Filled out all the information, agonized for days over penname

Let draft2digital convert it all to epub

Saved it as draft and tested the ebub file.

Uploaded the docx and cover to kdp.amazon.com

Filled out all the information, agonized again over penname

Agonized over pricing

Agonized over KDP Select or not

Published on amazon

Published on everything else through draft2digital

Postponed publishing on Smashwords

Took a deep breath

Registered a wordpress site for penname

Made promo images with 3D-Book images

Agonized over promo posts on tumblr and Twitter

Decided to stop worrying and write new books

So that’s the basics.

Here’s a few details: 

I don’t know why publishing standard is docx and it annoys me to no end because I hate Microsoft Word with a passion but it is what it is. Everything works just as well with LibreOffice and the export is perfect.

If you have artistic talent, make you own cover. You can always change it later. If you don’t want to, you can buy premade covers for about $60. Or you can use canva to make something that is aesthetically pleasing. Less is more (and yes, I’m aware that I’m the last person who gets to say this as I made the most overloaded cover ever… fine, I’m changing it).

When you set your book prize on Amazon between $ 0.99 and $ 2.98, you’ll receive 35% from each sale,  if you set it to or above $2.99 you’ll receive 70% per sale. Other stores have other margins.

The big one: Going Amazon exclusive or going wide: What’s the big deal about that?

Going wide means that you put your book up for sale on Amazon because it’s only sensible but also put it up on other platforms like ibooks, Kobo, Smashwords, Google Books and so on. 

A fact of indie publishing is that most of your revenue will come from Amazon sales. 

Now Amazon also offers the option to have your book in KDP Select. That means you can’t publish it anywhere else but it will be enrolled in Kindle Unlimited and you’ll get paid by page view from those reads. The rate of how much you get per page is variable. 

Some authors make a lot of money in KDP Select, especially with novella length stories. If you go Amazon exclusive, you’ll get into KDP Unlimited and if you go wide, you can not enter KDP Select. 

What is better? That’s a personal choice. In my personal opinion it’s a bad idea to further a monopoly like Amazon has by making content exclusive to them and I don’t want Amazon and their sales ranks and also-boughts to dictate my life. But that’s just me. You can always try it out for three months and then go wide after that time.

Final words by me:

As someone who consistently finds their writing darker than intended (or even imagined), I understand the struggle of finding a way to lighten up the mood a little bit. 

When it comes to comedic relief, here are a few ways to incorporate it in your writing:

The comedic relief character or moment:

- A serious character makes a sarcastic comment that is taken literally

 “Yes, you should definitely jump off the bridge.”

 “Well, if you say so–”

 “The hell? No–stop!”

- A literal comment is taken as sarcastic/joking

 “If you hit that button, the entire room will explode”

*rolls eyes* “You mean this button?”

- Characters who blurt out whatever they are thinking 

Could be a curse word coming from a character who never curses

 Blurting out something embarrassing

Word vomit

- Have a character get their words mixed up 

Think of sound-alike words: they say “Cherry” instead of “Ferry” or something. 

 Calling a rifle a “boom stick” or something: this can happen if your character speaks a different language, or is from a different place, or fumbles with their words a lot

- Insert an inappropriate response that makes the reader giggle 

Someone proposes, and a character starts choking on their wine 

The villain threatens to kill them, and the hero holds up a hand and yawns

 Speeding away from a bank robbery when a character pokes their head from the back seat and announces, “Wait, we’re missing Tony!”

 Anything to create that, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” moment

- Introduce a blunt character to a sensitive topic or person

“Your face is blazing red.”

*Clamping hands on face* “W-what? Oh, sorry, I just…” 

“Did you confess your love to him?”

*Eyes opening wide, going even redder*

*Enter romantic interest, having heard everything* “Sorry, what?”

- Likewise, have a sensitive character navigate around a blunt topic

“Listen. When someone asks you how they look… you can’t just say they look like a bloated toad.”

*looking confused* “So I’m expected to lie?”

*Swallowing hard* “You’re, uh… no, not lie exactly… just be nicer?”

- Create a massive misunderstanding between characters

 “I thought you said you were pregnant!”

 “I wasn’t talking about me!

- When a character is oblivious to the obvious

“So… explain to me again just what happened.”

*pulling hair out of head* “Did you not just see the explosion?!”

“So that’s what that was!”

 - The unexpected comment from the smart aleck character 

I always think of El Dorado when Tulio and Miguel are adrift at sea with no supplies and no land in sight:

“Tulio, did you ever imagine it would end like this?”

“The horse is a surprise.”

Utilize humourous language:

This can be in the form of:

Puns

Funny Words

 An unexpected metaphor or simile 

Misused Idioms

 Click here for more ideas!

 Oh, and here.

Make the situation funny:

You know how this one goes… 

When to use comedy:

To release the tension in your writing

If you want to lighten up your writing (if you personally feel like its too dark, depressing, gory, or some of your readers feel it necessary)

To remind readers that there is a light at the end of the tunnel

To give the reader some relief 

When comedy hurts: Click here

If you’re writing about a serious/heavy topic (illness, injury, abuse, rape, assault, life flashing before the eyes, etc.), inserting comedy can take away from the gravity/seriousness  of the situation

Comedy can undermine the credibility of a character, making them appear less threatening. If you want a villain who gives nightmares, leave the comedy out

Comedy can also make your character look like a jerk. If you have someone in the hospital, and you want your character to come across as kind and considerate, you don’t want the first thing comes out of the character’s mouth to be some horrible, brash joke. You’ll want to match the dialogue with the tone.

 If your reader cares about a character, humiliating them won’t make the character laugh. It will make them cry.

 “If you have a genuinely serious or emotional scene, don’t make that scene into a joke–treat it with the gravity it deserves”

Comedy during a sincere high stakes/dramatic scene will take away from the moment. Readers will not like the interruption, especially if emotionally invested. 

See the above link for more ideas!

 And this link as well: Tips for Writing Dark Stories, Settings, Characters

I also want to put out there that darkness is not bad! Sometimes darkness makes a novel or writing snippet more powerful. Sometimes the heaviness needs to be felt. 

[Edit: for some reason Tumblr is being weird with the original post, so this is me trying to fix it–sorry if you see this twice]

I do! Well, at least I can tell you what has been working for me–I hope it works for you too… or that it gives insight.

1 - Make sure to pick a theme that fits the story.

To some, this may sound obvious, but once in a while writers try to fit in a theme that doesn’t actually naturally fit into the story they want to tell, which can make it feel off and wooden in the text. It’s like a puzzle piece in the wrong puzzle box.

A lot of stories will actually naturally hint at a theme just in their premise. More on that here.

Some stories have more wiggle room, but since theme needs to come out of the story, not be forced on it, the contents of the story need to fit it.

2 - Utilize this Robert McKee exercise.

One of the problems with addressing theme, is that often teachers teach us the end result/conclusion of the theme, instead of all the other moving parts.

They teach us the thematic statement. But theme itself is broader. It explores a theme topic.

Thematic statement: Love conquers all.

Theme topic: Love

Once you have a topic, you can do this exercise that Robert McKee came up with (you can learn about it and how to do it here.)

Some of you may have seen my recent rendition of it for Songbirds and Snakes:

This will give you at least three other topics to play with. It may give you more, because more than one answer may fit each blank.

This may also bring up other secondary theme topics, as the opposite of “control” is also “freedom.” And another contrary of control and chaos is “trust” (these are both secondary themes in that book.)

If you want, you can then take secondary theme topics, and do this exercise again (the contradictory of trust is distrust, etc.) But I don’t want to get too complicated.

Now that you have four elements, you’ll look for ways to adequately and fairly illustrate and explore them in the story through the plot and characters.

In a sense, these topics are sort of in an argument or power struggle with each other–makes sure to include and look at gray situations. One of the most common problems I see is when the writer tries to portray everything as black and white (control is always the “best”), but life is more complex, so it falls flat because it doesn’t ring true.

When you come up with ideas for the story, or you are brainstorming, pull this out and look for ways to possibly touch on one or more of these subjects (that’s what helps me). It’s not always about telling and stating them–it’s most often about “showing” them to the audience.

So in one of my WIPs, the theme topic is authenticity. So this last week as I was revising a section, I looked for ways authenticity, fake, privacy, and being inauthentic within yourself, could be rendered in that section.

Before you come to a conclusion as to the “winner” of the power struggle, you need to “visit” with each opponent–if that makes sense. So you need to touch on each of these topics.

3 - Look at the Protagonist

*For some it may be helpful to do this before the exercise above.

Most protagonists will have a character arc–meaning they will grow and change by the end of the story.

But let me explain this another way. At the beginning of the story, the protagonist has a flaw, weakness, or misbelief about the world that is inaccurate. This will, in some sense, be the opposite of the thematic statement.

Some quick examples:

Zootopia: Officer Hopps believe the problems with bias is in everyone else, and so she’s going to prove them wrong by being the first bunny cop.

In reality, by the end, she grows and realizes she has her own biases she needs to address. The thematic statement is, in order to defeat bias, we have to start with the biases within ourselves.

Harry Potter: Harry starts unloved and powerless in a cupboard under the stairs. By the end, he learns he’s so loved, it can defeat the darkest wizard of the wizarding world. The thematic statement is, love is the most powerful force in the world, it conquers all.

You can learn more about this here.

So the protagonist starts with an inaccurate worldview, and through the story, that worldview is challenged and called into question. The character will be pushed to reconsider his or her beliefs, and will have to overcome a misbelief or flaw, to get to the true thematic statement.

Again, it’s critical that the story look at gray areas and situations, otherwise the transformation won’t ring true.

Nothing wrong with never being drunk (in fact, it’s probs a good thing) but it can be hard to write convincingly about alcohol if you’re not familiar with it, and I’ve read enough fics where 5 secs into reading I’m already cringing sooooo

1. It takes more than 1 beer to get drunk

Personally, it takes me (a small female occasional-drinker) either around 3 shots of any spirit, 2 large glasses of wine or 2.5 beer-like drinks within a short space of time to get over tipsy into drunk territory, and to be really drunk-drunk, a bottle of wine (3 or 4 glasses), or 5 shots should do it. BUT IT VARIES FROM PERSON TO PERSON

2. Lime and salt is literally only for tequila

and I know like less than 3 people who actually enjoy the taste of any alcohol

3. Your vision isn’t “blurry” or “foggy”

Alcohol affects your balance not your eyes, so the room defo can seem like it’s spinning but you’ll still have your 20/20. Sometimes it’s hard to focus, but it’s not constant - just every so often your eyes miss their mark.

4. Speech is less “slurred”, more in the wrong order

A great thread on writing drunk dialogue here: https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-write-dialogue-for-a-drunk-character 

5. Not everyone gets hyper-sexual when drunk

It’s less a state of horniness and more a state of lowered inhibitions and social pressure

6. Coffee doesn’t sober you up like magic

Alcohol dissipates from the body at a rate of about .015% of BAC per hour, and drinking coffee doesn’t alter that rate

7. Alcohol rarely sends you into a deep and heavy sleep

You’re more likely to sleep fitfully and keep waking (sometimes to be sick, more likely to piss/drink water - sometimes just bcos being drunk is uncomfortable), unless you’re an alcoholic who depends on drink for sleep

8. You don’t *hic* in the middle of every sentence!!

If the drink is carbonated, then maybe, but you’re way more likely to have a problem with bloating etc with alcohol 

9. You don’t go straight to black-out, speech-slurring drunk

It takes a lot of units and likely a couple of hours to work up to this stage - for different kinds of drunk this webpage is good: http://krisnoel.com/post/40871345058/my-character-is-drunk 

10. Having drunk sex is difficult, awkward and rarely sexy

And you’re more likely to make-out with your friends than any strangers at a club, just because

11. Hangovers are rarely pounding, light-aversion torture

The younger/more tolerant you are, the better. Generally, for a night of heavy but not black-out drinking, you’ll be thirsty, probs nauseous and tired. The room may still be spinning but in an annoying, not painful way, and this’ll go away after a couple of hours and eating something, getting fresh air or having a shower (whatever works for you)

12. People talk nonsense when drunk

You are less likely to get a love confession and more likely to hear about all the rules for a complicated game they just invented, right that second

13. Everyone is different

Don’t make all your characters hyper, or depressive, or angry. For most of the night they won’t get to that stage anyway. Also, remember this whole list is based on my experiences, so feel free to ignore it all and do your own thing. 

The point of a twist is to enrich a story, not feel superior for outsmarting your audience.

Nobody asked but I made a new list cause I realized that the one I made two years ago mentioned movies that were already very popular.

This is all based on my personal opinion.

The case of Hana and Alice

The epitome of the slice of life genre.There’s something really compelling about the characters and the story. 9.5/10

Ride your wave

A whole emotional experience. 8.5/10

In this corner of the world

Masterpiece. Everything about this movie is just so beautiful. 10/10

The boy and the beast

When it comes to Mamoru Hosoda films, I either fall asleep or fall in love, and this time I definitely fell in love. The visuals were stunning, the story and the characters were amazing. 9.5/10

Doukyuusei

Cute, cute and cute. This is the first shonen-ai film I ever saw and I enjoyed it a lot. 9/10

Weathering with you

I had a hard time looking for this film on illegal sites for 4 months. Anyways, as we all expected, it holds great visuals. The story follows the same formula as ‘your name’. Still, it is very enjoyable and beautiful. 10/10

Flavors of youth

This movie made me hungry and the three stories touched my heart, especially the last one. 8/10

I want to eat your pancreas

YOUR LIE IN APRIL VIBES. 9/10

Promare

no clickbait & cute color palette :) 9/10

“Black Knights” need to be distinguished by context. I’m on my phone right now so I can’t link you all the sources I’d like to use, so please pardon me for that.

So, the concept of “knight in shining armour” comes from the idea of the knight-errant in medieval fiction, the sort of person who is on a quest, is all shiny and new, ready to test themselves. It also is a nod to the maintenance of equipment, or the wealth of a Knight; in the late medieval and Renaissance periods, well-off knights might have a suit of armour for warfare, a suit for tournaments, and a suit for formal occasions. These being used for different things, they were meant to be maintained well and show status and wealth.

So, where does the concept of a black Knight actually come from?

Surprisingly, most cases come from the idea of the tournament. Knights were meant to display who they were, “show their colours” (ie, heraldry), and show off their skills in combat. But if course you had some knights who didn’t want to show who they were, who they were fighting for, or which lady they favoured, etc. This sounds like a chivalric fantasy, and honestly, that’s what tournaments really became as time went by and the events became more formal.

Now, early “black Knights” , were those who did not wear dark or black armour, but in fact those who did not use their own heraldry, disguising themselves. Again, they may do this for various reasons, but the concept is they hide their identity. Occasionally, they might actually paint their shields black.

We also have the examples from the hundred years war where French and English knights painted their armour different colours: black for the French, Red for the English.

Some knights actually WOULD favour black armour or heraldry to the point they got called “black Knights”, and not as a derogative. The Polish Knight, Zawisza Czarny (pronounced “Zah-vu-shah Shar-ny”, approximately) become known for his feats of arms, and by his dark armour.

Linking back to the original quote, a Knight in shining armour could well be a black knight, as such. But more commonly, it meant he was either wealthy, or highly skilled at arms.

I’ve also long thought that the whole business of “knights in shining armour” wasn’t a medieval concept at all, certainly not the default one, but was a Regency / early Victorian fictional conceit from Romance poets and Sir Walter Scott’s historical fiction. (About 10 years ago an actual expert said more or less the same thing, leaving actual amateur me feeling rather smug…) :->

This illumination features armour that’s black or dark blue in colour, but with the carefully-delineated highlights of a shiny surface. There are many other like it.

Armour was coloured for both decorative and practical purposes; chemical blueing with acid produces a very dark, lustrous and effectively rust-resistant finish like the one in the medieval illustration. I once had an Arms & Armor rapier with that finish on the hilt: it looked like this…

Heat-blueing, which was more blue than black, was a popular treatment for Greenwich armour of the Elizabethan period, as was browning and russetting (all of which were and are used on firearms), processes which used heat, chemicals or controlled “good rust” to create colour and also prevent uncontrolled “bad rust”.

Here’s the helmet of Sir James Scudamore’s Greenwich harness, which was once blued and gilt.

The image on the left is how it looks now, after being thoroughly scrubbed with wire wool, sand or other abrasives at some stage in the 19th century to make  it “shining armour”. The image on the right is a CGI restoration of its original appearance, based on still-visible traces of colour in the grooves beside the gold strapwork.

Here’s the browned and gilt “garniture” (armour with extra bits for different styles of combat, like a life-size action figure) of George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland. I don’t think grinding this beauty down to bright metal would be an improvement…

Henry VIII’s tonlet (skirted) armour for foot combat at the Field of the Cloth of Gold now looks like this:

Originally it would have been shiny black or dark blue with gilt details and the engraved panels picked out in coloured paint or enamelling - red Tudor Roses, green leaves etc., but that wasn’t “shining armour”, so…

This detail shot shows the fine score-marks left after it was sanded “clean”, with dark pigmentation in the grooves as a memorial of how it once looked.

This Renaissance painting, “Portrait of Warrior with Squire”, shows black armour on the warrior and bare-metal armour on his squire, so it’s clear that armour in art wasn’t painted black simply because artists couldn’t properly represent burnished steel.

In this article, Thom Richardson, Keeper of Armour at the Tower of London and Royal Armouries in Leeds (the actual expert I mentioned at the beginning) comes straight out and calls Scott responsible for “shining armour” vandalism:

The sets of armour are not in their original black and gold because of over-aggressive polishing in the 19th century when, said Richardson, “they were polished with brick dust and rangoon oil to within an inch of their life” to fit the aesthetic of what armour should look like, all shiny and silvery. “Walter Scott is to blame,” Richardson added ruefully.

Scott can also be blamed, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, for creating or at least popularising that clunky, inaccurate term “chain-mail”. It cites the first appearance in 1822 (recent when talking about mail) when a character in “The Fortunes of Nigel” says:

“…the deil a thing’s broken but my head. It’s not made of iron, I wot, nor my claithes of chenzie-mail; so a club smashed the tane, and a claucht damaged the tither.”

Plate armour was also painted, either crudely…

…or with much more care (this style is actually called black-and-white armour); since the paint was oil-based, it also had a rust-proofing effect…

I have a notion that the more white there was on black-and-white armour, and thus the more work (by servants, of course!) needed to keep it looking good, may have been an indication of rank, status or success. Just a guess…

Armour left rough from the hammer - therefore cheaper than armour polished smooth, since every stage of the process had to be paid for - was also treated with hot oil in the same way cast-iron cookware is seasoned, again to prevent rust.

There were terms for bright-metal armour - “alwyte harness” and “white armour” - but the existence of such terms suggests to me that they arose from a need to describe an armour finish which needed a tiresome amount of maintenance to keep it that way. I’m betting that the last stage of a clean-and-polish was a good layer of grease, or even a beeswax sealant like the coatings used by museums today.

White armour may have been a demonstration of wealth or conspicuous consumption in the same way as black or white clothes: one needed servants constantly busy with polishing-cloths, the others needed really good colour-fast dye or lots of laundering, and all of those cost money.

George R. R. Martin famously divides writers into architects and gardeners. I like his metaphor a lot more than the usual plotters/pantsers analogy. There’s a lot more to planning your stories than plotting.

“The architects plan everything ahead of time, like an architect building a house. They know how many rooms are going to be in the house, what kind of roof they’re going to have, where the wires are going to run, what kind of plumbing there’s going to be,” he says. They make blueprints and follow a predetermined process to ensure that the whole thing won’t fall apart at the end.

“The gardeners dig a hole, drop in a seed and water it,” he says. “They kind of know what seed it is, they know if planted a fantasy seed or mystery seed. But as the plant comes up and they water it, they don’t know how many branches it’s going to have.”

In other words, the gardeners let an idea take its course and shape it as it grows.

Of course, these categories aren’t clear cut – there’s a bit of an architect and gardener in all of us. Different parts of your story might also require you to switch between the two. Most people are architects in the beginning – planning out the overall structure of their story. When writing chapters and individual scenes, many writers become gardeners and plant a seed instead of planning everything upfront.

Both styles of working can produce works of equally high quality. However, they will be very different. If you’re primarily an architect, you may find it difficult to step outside of the predetermined conventions. Gardeners, on the other hand, may lack the precision required to execute complex plots.

Understanding this limitation is important. If you want to write an innovative literary masterpiece that will reap awards, don’t start with a detailed outline. When writing a Dan Brown-style mainstream thriller – and you want to blow your readers minds with a twist at the end of every chapter – just winging it may not be the best idea.

Architects are more likely to end up with a well-structured novel that will work – because they thought about all those things before they even picked up the pen.

Personally, I love the thrill of discovery writing. Taking an idea and following it wherever it wants to take me. But it makes me really nervous on larger projects. When I don’t see the bigger picture from the start, I’m worried that I’ll never be able to put the thing together. On larger projects, I always take the time to think ahead and figure out where I’m going before I start writing.

Are you a gardener or more of an architect? Here’s a challenge if you’re not sure. Write two different short/flash stories. Start the first one from an idea – a character, scene – and see where you end up. Don’t start the other one until you’ve figured out how will it end.

Which one did you enjoy writing more? And which story is better?

Want More?

My email subscribers receive a notification when I publish these posts along with a few things I found interesting or helpful on the literary internet every week. Click the link below to join the club.

SUBSCRIBE

(I won’t spam you or pass your email to a third party. You can unsubscribe at any time.)

Past Editions

#140: When Can You Call Yourself a Writer?, April 2020

#139: What Can You Do to Fail More?, April 2020

#138: 5 Ways to Focus on Your Writing, April 2020

#137: How to Create a Writing Routine for Life, April 2020

A while back I answered an ask where I suggested that if a character isn’t working, maybe it’s time to cut them from the story. I want to expand a little bit on that and discuss some reasons or signs that you ought to nix them. Trust me, I know it can be hard to trash a character after you’ve tried to flesh them out and have incorporated them in your story already but sometimes you got to do what you got to do.

1. Are They Replaceable?

Could you replace them with someone or something else? This is actually the reason I recently cut a character. Basically, even though I had originally created her to serve a role as a secondary character the more I planned out the story the more I realized that another character was already fulfilling that role and it made much more sense. She was actually hindering the development of a better character. So she had to go. If you’re trying to force a character into a scene or situation where they just aren’t needed and you could accomplish what you want to do without them, you probably don’t need them. “But I love them! I created them for a reason!” you shout at your screen. Sure, but realistically if you find a line in the writing that sounds trashy and out of place, you’d delete it or rewrite it. Drop the character.

2. Are They Only There for the Shock?

If poor Suzie Lou was only born to be killed off and shock the reader, you probably could have skipped the misery. HOWEVER there is a difference if the character’s death actually serves a purpose to the plot or character arcs of the remaining cast. Sometimes a story will start with the death of a character which ignites a conflict, like the death of king begins a war for the throne, or a murder sets off a detective mystery. It can also force characters to come together or tear them apart. But this character should have their own impact on the plot aside from just their death if they’re alive at some point. A flat character is still a flat character, so if there really is no other reason for them to be in this story maybe you need to rethink if this is just a cheap attempt at shock. That’s what it will feel like in the end. If we don’t care about this character we won’t care when they die. Either build up the character or find something else that can give you the same effect.

3. The Token

ahhhhh. I really hope I don’t have to explain this one too much. Diversity is important in writing. Period. But for the love of all that is good, don’t shoehorn in a DIVERSE™ character for the sake of ticking it off you checklist. Reader’s can tell when a character has just been tossed in and everyone is going to wish that character had just been scrapped. I mean, a well written character would be best (nothing special, just a character written as well as the others), but it’s insulting if that character seems like a handout. 

4. You Hate Them For the Wrong Reasons