Neris Verboten

If you’re finished with your first draft, you might be wondering how to cut down an overloaded novel. Chances are your novel isn’t exactly where you want it to be and you might need to trim the fat, so take the time to learn what should and should not be included in your story.

Here are a few ways to determine what should be cut from your novel:

First, let’s talk about filler. Filler is unnecessary information added to your novel that does nothing to tell us about your characters or advance the plot. In other words, your book shouldn’t have any filler. Your books momentum will be ruined if you add filler.

Does the scene explain your character in some way?

If a scene is necessary to character development, there’s usually no reason to cut it. However, if a scene doesn’t help build a character or doesn’t explain anything additional about your character, you should consider cutting it. There’s no need to repeat the same information over and over again. Consider combining scenes that spread the same message.

Does the scene move the plot forward?

Obviously your story needs to keep pushing forward. We need to see the plot advance and it needs to make logical sense. If the scene doesn’t move the plot forward, nor does it help reveal something about character, it should most likely be cut. Each scene should build on the one before it and should add something significant to your story.

Is your scene necessary for transition to the next scene?

Since you can’t just cut abruptly from one scene to another, you’ll need transitions in your novel. Even though they might not contribute to character development directly, it gets your characters from one place to another. If a scene bridges the gap between one important moment to another, you shouldn’t cut it.

Do all my characters play a part?

Sometimes certain minor characters can either be cut or combined with other minor characters. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have characters that play a small part, but they should at least play some part in your story. It can be hard to cut characters, but sometimes it’s necessary to make your story stronger. Anything that you feel will strengthen your novel and cut down the excess is something you should pay attention to.

Don’t be afraid to cut sub plots that aren’t working.

If there’s a part of your story that just doesn’t feel like it’s working out or doesn’t jive with your story, don’t be afraid to cut it. You can always replace it with something stronger, so don’t feel like anything you cut is a loss. You’ll be able to make your story more powerful.

There is no sense behind it, because it’s stupid. It’s a flaw in the MBTI that makes the extroverted types accurately categorized as perceivers or judgers but the introverted types are wrongly identified. The J’s are the perceiving dominants and the P’s are the judging dominants, so the J’s SHOULD carry the P label and the P’s SHOULD carry a J label.

Socionics, which relies on a different integration of functions, actually gets this right. It classifies all the introverted perceiving dominants (the Js in MBTI) as perceivers and the introverted judging dominants (the Ps in MBTI) as judgers. So in socionics, an ISFJ is an ISFP, because their first function is a perceiving function — Si, which is THEN passed on to a judging function (Fe) to be externalized. And when you shift from MBTI into socionics, that can be really confusing at first.

Your dominant function determines whether you’re a judging type or a perceiving type. The judging functions are logic and emotion, so they are always the Te/Fe Fi/Ti functions. If they come first, you are a judging personality (EJ, IP in MBTI). The perceiving functions are how you gather information and process it (Si/Ni Se/Ne), so when placed first, they make you a perceiving personality (EP, IJ in MBTI).

Perceiving dominants are more able to change their mind completely than judging dominants, because perception dominates their worldview. Judging dominants process everything through how they feel about it, either in a logical or emotional sense, which tends to be more rigid than perception. Judging dominants are moving toward finality and closure (their other judging function, at the bottom of the stack) and perceiving dominants have an open-ended perceiving function at both ends of their stack, which makes them less inclined to push for closure.

Active: The boy kicked the ball.

Passive: The ball was kicked by the boy.

The shorter the length, the less wiggle-room you have, and the sooner you need to make an impact, for the sake of the story.

The longer the length, the more wiggle-room you have, but you still need to make your impact and hook soon—early, and I mean as early as possible. I mean, first sentence early. This is less for the sake of the story and more for the sake of the reader.

Your first lines—first paragraph or two, really—create a contract between the book and the reader. Either it’s going to be a binding or non-binding contract. Either you’ve hooked them and they’re with the story until the end (of this book or the series), or you haven’t and they may shirk the story at any time, shaking it off like water on an exceptionally wet dog.

If you haven’t hooked them, what’s the point of them continuing?

It’s a lot of pressure for a writer. Even the most seasoned writers can be stymied by a blank page and how to begin a new project. Luckily, the pressure’s off!

The most important thing to keep in mind as you’re setting out on a new project is that you don’t have to keep it that way. Your first draft, especially, is just you feeling your way through the dark. In that lies your freedom. Pick a scene close to the planned beginning of your story and write.

Here are some ideas for starting:

In the middle of a conversation

In the middle of a car chase

In the middle of an arrest

In the middle of a heated argument

In the middle of an exchange of nefarious goods

In the middle of … anything. You get the drift?

Starting in the middle of things is one of the best and easiest ways to hook a reader in because they’re curious. Who is this person? Why are they saying those things? What are they doing? Where are they going? These sorts of situations work to our natural human personalities to draw the reader in. Once you have them, don’t leave them hanging. The surest way to set someone off the work is to not give them something for their investment. Start in the middle of something, yes, but make sure you explain setting and a little bit of what’s going on through the eyes of your  narrator within the first page (or second, if your first page starts 3/4 of the way down). If you don’t clue them in soon, the reader will become frustrated, confused, and may quit the piece.

Can I start with description? Yes, as long as it’s well-written. Here’s a tip: Don’t worry about the quality. I subscribe most to the “start in the middle and figure it out later in the scene” method, but that doesn’t make it right for all situations. If it’s easier for you to start with a description, then do it. Just do it well. But not yet! You don’t have to have the perfect form as soon as you put ink to page, digitally or traditionally. That’s what the editing stage is for.

Very few published works are published with the same beginning as when they were written. This sounds horrific! What do you mean none of this angst and worry I’m pouring into these few lines won’t matter? Don’t worry, it’s great news. There’s no need to panic. Start wherever and however you want. Just get something down. Often times, no matter how well we think we have our story figured out, it will always show us new facets of itself as we’re writing. There may be a theme or a character arc you didn’t realize was as important as it became. What’s that phrase? Hindsight is always 20/20? The most glorious thing about writing in our current era is that nothing we write is set in stone (unless you’re doing some sort of magnificent historical testing, in which case, more power to you). We can write and rewrite and move things all we want.

As you go back once you’ve completed the work, you may decide to rework the first scene. This is totally acceptable and 99.9% expected. Work with what you have. Try rearranging it to see how the flow changes. Figure out what sort of a pace you want at the front of the book and tweak things to fit that pace. Your first pass isn’t going to be perfect. That comes later. Just get something on the page to start with. 

This is it, the final flight or fight moment of the story.  So, what exactly is supposed to happen here?

General events of a climax:

The protagonist(s) give everything, and then some, of what they’ve got.  Great effects call for great sacrifice, perhaps even the ultimate sacrifice.  (Do remember, however, that death is not always the worst thing that can happen to a character.)

The antagonist(s) give everything that they’ve got, and then some.  

Characters have overcome weaknesses that were established in the beginning.

Some kind of emotional epiphany or choice has to be reached.

Goals that were established in the beginning of the story are accomplished.

Everything strange or unusual that leads up to this point is suddenly made clear.

However, climaxes might also occur when characters have an opportunity to change, and refuse to do so, resulting in some kind of real world/emotional catastrophe.  This tends to be the case in short stories.

One of Elmore Leonard’s ten rules for writing was “Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.” Excellent advice that makes very good sense, only exactly which parts are those?

On the surface it would seem obvious—the boring stuff, the longwinded explanations and unnecessary interludes, right? We all know what he meant. But when it comes to recognising the skip-worthy in our own stories it’s never quite so clear cut.

Scenes that are really going nowhere and have no purpose being in the story aren’t too hard to spot, but the bits that are just bland or that we’ve convinced ourselves have to be there for the story to make sense, they can slip through draft after draft.

So how do you spot the skippable parts and skip them before the reader gets a chance to?

ENTP/ESFJ: Ne/Fe or Fe/Ne—Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This type often behaves impulsively and manipulatively, needing constant approval and admiration from others, running around investing in new thing after new thing but never developing the self-confidence of a strong subjective perspective. Fe used negatively may use its awareness of the cultural standards of others to intentionally offend or upset them, in order to service Ne’s curiosity about the patterns in their responses. If Ti/Si were working properly, it would give the user a balancing sense of personal, subjective importance and free him of his dependence upon the adulation and unconditional acceptance of others. (Horrible example: Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.)

INTP/ISFJ: Ti/Si or Si/Ti—Schizotypal Personality Disorder. I see this most commonly in INTP dom/tert loops (Ti+Si), resulting in totally giving up on attempting to obtain the social/interpersonal connections that inferior Fe drives them to unconsciously desire. Schizotypal people are seen (and typically see themselves) as having such unusual thoughts and behaviors that widespread social acceptance is nearly impossible. Ti thinks, “I cannot find any logical explanation for social rituals” and Si reinforces this self-isolating, risk-averse behavior by constantly reminding the user: “Remember how badly this went last time you tried?” If Ne were doing its job, it would remind the user to continue experimenting to find a new approach. In the ISFJ version, Si becomes ultra risk-averse and refuses to try anything new or unfamiliar. If Fe were doing its job, the ISFJ would learn that some risk is necessary in order to uphold obligations to others and avoid living in total solitude. Deep down, these types really do want social connection and ritual (Fe), but have found themselves so poor at it that they simply give up trying.

ESTP/ENFJ: Se/Fe or Fe/Se—Histrionic Personality Disorder. This tends to manifest itself in terms of exaggerated, aggressive sexual behavior and physical impulsiveness. Since reflecting the outer world is the only thing that matters, whatever will shock, impress, or otherwise affect others enough to include the user in their social rituals is what has to be done. Real empathy is rare as this type requires constant thrills or conflict—in the ENFJ version, this often results in excessive sensitivity to perceived “rudeness” or failure to respect the user’s preferred cultural custom (Fe), combined with tertiary Se responding aggressively through implied threats of brute force. (e.g., Vito Corleone: “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse”—gives a surface appearance of respecting the cultural standards of negotiation, but implies that refusal to accept this “offer” would be quite unpleasant for the recipient!) If Ti/Ni were doing its job, the user would find a sense of balance and comfortability with himself, granting him the ability to discover what is subjectively important to him, rather than constantly shifting with the tide of cultural and social trends.

ISTP/INFJ: Ti/Ni or Ni/Ti—Schizoid Personality Disorder. These types are socially incompetent for lack of trying, because they see little to no value in significant interaction with others. They live in their own abstract worlds, constantly second-guessing themselves as Ti poses a framework for a problem and Ni shoots it down as too definitionally precise. Without any real external input, these two functions will dream up all sorts of elaborate systems and implications for them, only to repeat their own self-defeating behavior, never bothering to emphasize putting any of its intense ideas into practice. Frequent disregard for rules, laws and other forms of behavioral standards is common, as no function provides any significant sense of external influence. If Se/Fe were doing its job, the user would recognize the value of connecting with others and of paying attention to their needs, preferences, habits and appearances.

ESFP/ENTJ: Se/Te or Te/Se—Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (not the same thing as OCD)! I’ve seen people mistake ESFPs in Se+Te dom-tert loops for ESTPs because they can be so insistent upon controlling their surroundings. These types epitomize enneagram type 8, as they are aggressive, blunt, confrontational and not the least bit afraid of hurting anyone’s feelings. Inside they require the approval of others to a much higher degree than they let on, as Te insists on controlling and organizing external surroundings to ridiculous proportions, while Se pushes any naysayers out of the way with aggressive force and a take-no-prisoners attitude. Territorial and looking for any reason to display their power, these types are some of the most difficult to deal with of all dom-tert loops. If Fi/Ni were doing its job, these types would stop to consider that their actions have negative implications for others, and that aggressively taking charge is not always the best solution in every situation.

ISFP/INTJ: Fi/Ni or Ni/Fi—Paranoid Personality Disorder. These types are your typical conspiracy theorists; they cling deeply to their personal values and can find a conspiracy to assault or attack those values everywhere they look. Chronically distrustful of others’ intentions for no legitimate reason, these types are certain they are the only ones who really know “the truth.” The inferior function, Te or Se, can sometimes lead to an unconscious desire to attract the attention of or lead/organize others in efforts to expose the nefarious conspiracies they invariably see everywhere. If Te/Se were doing its job, these types would be able to look around them and observe empirical evidence that most of their theories are probably not reflected in reality, but as they rely almost entirely on internal validation, Ni will go to any lengths to justify Fi’s emotion-based suspicions. (I mentioned Dale Gribble from King of the Hill in a previous article—he’s a perfect example.) There’s also this guy Victor on typologycentral who’s such a perfect example of this it’s absolutely ridiculous. ;)

ENFP/ESTJ: Ne/Te or Te/Ne—Borderline Personality Disorder. They simultaneously desire to control and dazzle others with their extraordinary leadership and grandiose performances. For the ENFP, this tends to take the form of insisting on consistent, scheduled attention from others for his/her artistic or creative gifts, while for the ESTJ it tends to manifest itself in terms of indignation when others refuse to follow every detail of the user’s “visionary” leadership style. This combination, ironically, makes the user extremely dependent upon others for meaning, never really finding a sense of internal balance, no matter how hard he works to create and delegate. While Te leads these types to desire structure and discipline, Ne continually contradicts it by insisting on impulsive displays of creative freedom. Often self-denigrating over the inability to control Ne’s impulsive explorations, Te will go to any lengths to keep the user in a position of power and influence, where others must defer to his authority. If Fi/Si were doing its job, these types would recognize that what they’re looking for cannot be found outside themselves—they must learn to sometimes live for themselves and only themselves, and forget about external results for a moment.

Extraverted Functions

If you see these traits strongly displayed in someone’s behavior, it’s quite likely that it’s their dominant or auxiliary function. These are more easily observable and they’re what I’d notice first when interacting with someone.

Ne: “The Mind Jumps” - NPs

They seemingly jump from one topic to another without obvious connection, or interrupt you to say completely unrelated things because something you said reminds them of something else. (Note: this is easier for me to recognize because my Ne is quite strong and I can understand connections behind the ‘mind jump’ other Ne users do.)

Some NPs are aware of this and will start with “This is completely unrelated, but…”

They see multiple possibilities and tend to talk in terms of possibilities and use hedging even if they sound confident: “maybe…”, “it’s probably…”, “usually…”, “pretty much”

They act younger than their age and come off as playful, childlike, and silly.

Te: “The Commands” - TJs

They talk in direct, commanding statements.

They use very few hedging, and they won’t turn a sentence into a question unless they actually want to ask a question (i.e. they won’t add “,right?” at the end of a sentence or have an upward intonation, or say “don’t you think so?”, etc).

There’s an intensity about them. They easily come off as intimidating.

They are not afraid to stare people down when they talk.

Fe: “The Warmth” - FJs

Usually very smiley and pleasant throughout the conversation.

They feel ‘warm’ and accommodating when you interact with them.

They naturally show socially appropriate non-verbal behaviors, e.g. laughing at a joke because someone told a joke, even if it wasn’t that funny; saying “aww” or make sad faces when you share your disappointment at something, etc.

They tend to reciprocate actions, mood, and tone of the person they’re interacting with.

Likely to be uncomfortable with silence because they don’t know what to mirror.

Se: “The Alertness” - SPs

You can tell from their eyes. Se dom/aux have the most attentive look in their eyes. They’re so present and right there noticing everything in the environment. It’s more of a wild, open and alert look, as oppose to Te intense intimidating stare.

They’re quite easily distracted by things that are going on around them. They will look in the direction of a small noise mid-conversation, or to look at someone entering a room or a bird flying pass.

(INTP-specific) I tend to have a zoned out look when someone is talking, and it’d be Se dom that asked me the variety of “are you there?”, “are you still following me?”, and occasionally glance behind them to see what I’m looking at (when I’d actually be zoning out).

Introverted Functions

You can mostly see these through the content of what someone says. Again, these are clearer as someone’s dominant or auxiliary function.

Ti: “The Analysis” - TPs

Ti dom/aux analyze how everything works. NTPs are more theoretical and STPs are more factual, but there will be many analysis, calculations and speculations.

They tend to be impartial, preferring facts and logical explanations.

They like to ask for clarifications, to categorize and define things in more precise terms.

They may stop talking mid-conversation, look down to analyze something in their mind (possibly to find the most succinct vocab), then perk up to talk again.

They want to “know” and tend to like reading.

Si: “The Extraordinary Memory” - SJs

They tell stories based on events in the past in vivid details. These details tend to be descriptive observable facts (where they were, what the place looked like, how did they get there, who was there, what did they wear, what did each person did), as opposed to nuances/mood/atmosphere.

They are amazing at remembering people’s names and information.

They can tell the same stories and jokes over and over again for years.

Fi: “The Feels” - FPs

They are brimming with “feels”. You can see it. Stories they tell are usually personal and filled with personal opinions. You can see that those are real and meaningful to them, and they are personally attached to what they say.

They readily take a moral stance and can have a hard time understanding how someone could take a different stand point.

They tend to “show off” their values quite a bit, which can make someone with different values feel uncomfortable, e.g. a vegan Fi-user may advocate it so much and make others feel guilty about eating meat, a humanitarian Fi-user may talk highly of themselves for helping other people, or a libertarian Fi-user may tell various stories to show how uninhibited they are and how unthinkable it is to live conservatively.

Ni: “The Future Predictions” - NJs

Ni is extremely hard to observe externally. Ni users tend to mention “following their guts/instinct”, but they don’t readily share that fact unless you’re close to them.

They tend to have a 5 years or 10 years or 20 years plans and goals for the future. They like to know where they’re going in life.

They like to envision the most likely a future path with people or situations.

An example: My INTJ best friend told me about an older single mom who flirted with him. He said that he didn’t like her personality and wasn’t attracted to her physically. Then, he also mentioned that he’d like to focus on his career for the next 10 years and taking care of her kids would distract him from his goal, which prompted me to ask why he would think about a future with her if he didn’t like her to begin with, and he said he does this naturally with everything.

Another example: The same INTJ changed jobs twice, and both times he left his old work place even before he got a confirmation that he was hired at the new job. He said he just knew instinctively that he was going to get accepted at this company (he went to about 10 interviews during the same time period).

p.s. Also check out my other post on how to type people.

p.s.2 I would’ve linked to the Visual Typing website (a theory on how to visually recognize functions in real life), but unfortunately the author has taken all the videos down to advertise his upcoming book instead haha. He had pretty great stuff going on there, so if you’d like to support, go here.

I can’t speak for every INTJ of course. Feel free to reblog and add your own answers.

INTJ: Very hit or miss. Either apathy towards each other, immediate clashing, or immediate chemistry. I have tended to view the majority of INTJs I’ve met as competition, and they likewise. When there is chemistry, a sort of intellectual merging occurs that is borderline unfathomable. I could talk to an INTJ friend of mine for hours and it’ll feel as if only 20 minutes have passed. 

ENTJ: Interestingly enough, they both seem to admire and condemn the core aspects of the other. ENTJs admire the intuitive foresight but condemn the “slow” decision making. INTJs admire the pragmatism and leadership, but condemn the “rashness.” Good on a team together if their enneagrams aren’t too similar as they can cover the weaknesses of the other. But there’s a lot of potential for a rivalry to arise. Regardless there will be mutual respect at the minimum.

ENFJ: Suffocating. INTJs do not take to social expectations or niceties, whereas ENFJs are one of the most likely to project and encourage them. The INTJ response to any form of projection ranges from aloof sarcasm to actively upsetting the harmony in place until you leave them alone. I don’t think they would like each other, mainly because they project their judging functions so fiercely that an Ni connection is unlikely to occur.

INFJ: Once again, very hit or miss. Getting out of the starting gates so far as friendship or romance will be difficult, but satisfying if managed. The two are very similar, but with enough differences in place for a very deep connection to be formed. That “soul marriage” so to speak is going to be intuitive, rather than intellectual. What’s often forgotten though is that INTJs are dominant intuitives, and can appreciate intuition just as much, if not more, than sheer intellect.

ENFP: I have to be blunt here and say that I think the supposed compatibility between these two is mythical. The values are reversed, the preferred lifestyles are incompatible, the ability to truly understand one another is going to be limited (Ni vs. Ne). Their patience with one another is likely to run thin given the ENFPs tendency to shoot off a hundred directions and the INTJs tendency to deep dive into a single thing and not move on until utterly finished. You can even see that in their conversations together. 

INFP: This is a bit different, probably due to Ne being lower in the stack. First though, we have to acknowledge that the INTJ is likely to view the INFP as being a weakling and the INFP to view the INTJ as an asshole. If they get past that they can get along since neither is as they seem on the surface and both are quite deep (albeit in different ways.) They may able to appreciate each other despite their differences. I’d tack that onto the above ENFP paragraph as well. It is really going to depend on a variety of factors.

ENTP: They will either get along famously and not at all. Jung is quoted as saying that a function will have the most difficulty understanding its inverted counterpart, more than its opposite. INTJs use Ni-Te, ENTPs use Ne-Ti, so that is doubly multiplied. They can hit on insights that fascinate or trigger the others own processes, but if they are not on the same page, more time is going to spent arguing than on anything constructive. Either rampant misunderstanding or fascination that doesn’t necessarily come with a desire to get close to one another.

INTP: Despite that, ENTP/INTJ may be easier. The styles of these types are actually reflected in two specific fields; Philosophy (INTP) and Science (INTJ). Science was born of a violent internal conflict within philosophy revolving around differing standards of what truth is; and how to discern it. Historically speaking, these types agree on nearly nothing. At the friendship level however, I’d reckon it to go along the same lines as with the ENTP. Either frequent misunderstanding or an interest in one another’s novelty. 

ESTP: Psycopath that needs therapy. Personally I like them, but I still think they need therapy.

ISTP: From what I’ve read, they are nothing alike but have a mutual respect of each other. Both are problem solvers within differing realms. Both are rule breakers in differing realms. Both have a “fuck you I do what I want” attitude. I can see them getting along.

ESFP: ……..Loud puppies that want attention 24/7.

ISFP: Bubbles from powerpuff girls.

They stick to one obsession for a lifetime. (This is more in the realm of Si/Ni-doms. INTPs have a huge variety of interests, go through ideas and hobbies fairly often, and rarely stick with anything for a long time. One day, having learned, experienced, mastered, or studied it as much as they care to, they are simply done with it, and move on. ENTPs do this much more quickly but it’s still a high-up Ne trait.)

They work on one project at a time. (Nope. One idea becomes many, a concept for a story becomes a book series, and one open tab in their browser becomes sixteen open tabs. How did we get from Cleopatra to wood lice? No one knows, it just happened. It’s hard for them to stick with one thread consistently, so they’re often working on multiple thoughts, ideas, inventions, or projects at the same time — and they can go from one thing to the next quite easily, because their Ne is juggling numerous concepts at the same time, effortlessly, without losing track of their different ideas.)

They are closed-minded to any argument other than their own. (Ne makes them want to have their argument challenged, because that enables them to see yet another possibility and consider its logic. Present them with a logical argument or proof of your claims and they will change their mind, thanks to their Ne. INTPs are typically fairly laid back and open to new ideas and interpretations. I have seen an INTP switch his argument several times during the course of a single conversation as his Ne sought to explore multiple possibilities.)

Their answers are straightforward and avoid abstractions. (If you get a straightforward answer out of someone, without caveats, you’re not dealing with an INTP, whose dominant function seeks subjective logical truths and whose Ne makes them able to see evidence for multiple arguments all at once. It’s natural for them to explore this, so they will easily descend into generalities and abstract concepts. A discussion about a person may shift into a discussion about an ideal, or a people group, or a behavioral pattern. This can frustrate sensors.)

They are cold or unreachable emotionally. (Absolutely not. Because Fe is inferior for INTPs, they have little control over it and it shows itself more often than some of them would like. It also makes them hesitant to confront someone on something of no importance, because it is natural for them to want to avoid conflict and being the source of someone else’s embarrassment or anxiety. An INTP will withhold a revelation until totally assured of its soundness before sharing it if they believe it will offend another person — Charles Darwen is often cited as a good example of this. He was reluctant to share his theory of evolution before being assured of its subjective logic, because he knew it would upset a great many people.)

General:

Don’t usually match the gender role/societal expectation of women

Often enjoy intellectual debate and research

Something often seems  bit off; they may be cold, naive, eccentric, or argumentative

xNTPs usually like Portal 2, use lots of parenthesis, and have a philosophical approach to life

xNTJs are known for their death glare/BRF, are more direct, and seem scientific or even clinical

ENTP:

often loud/opinionated, seem to know something about everything

all opinions must be backed up by logic

usually have decent, if unconventional, social skills

quick-witted, rapid-fire comebacks and banter are their thing

have tons of ideas and have trouble sticking to one

INTP:

sometimes perceived as vacant, dreamy, childlike, or clueless

zero tolerance for logical inconsistencies. zero

probably socially awkward

surprising acid wit and profound remarks just, like, out of the blue

weirdly extensive knowledge of pointless trivia

ENTJ:

extremely driven, has plans and backup plans to reach their goals

they want facts/proof/evidence of everything

efficient and no nonsense, they get things done

sometimes perceived as bitchy or cold

they want things to be factually true but also to have meaning

INTJ: 

sadly, often seems judgy and/or insensitive without trying

often the least willing to conform, except out of convenience

concise, direct, and easy to understand

you know where you stand with them, they don’t play games

highly individualistic

“Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”

-Anton Chekhov

While it’s important to both take out unnecessary elements and provide the readers with adequate foreshadowing, it can be hard to do so and still have plot twists and unpredictability. Say the gun going off in the second act is supposed to be a surprise. How do you prevent readers from figuring it out as soon as they see the gun?

Make it seem like the gun is a natural, background part of the setting. If your story is set in a hunting lodge, it makes sense for there to be a rifle on the wall and readers may assume it’s there for flavor.

Use the gun for something besides its main plot purpose first so readers think its plot significance is over. This can work at any time, including when the gun is first introduced.

Introduce enough other interesting plot threads between when the gun is introduced and when the gun goes off that the readers get distracted.

Most of the INTJs I know are incredibly slow to anger. We get irritated, annoyed, but not downright angry. We don’t often rage at the world over day to day matters like some people do, because as long as we see a way where things turn out okay, there’s nothing to rage about. When we get angry, it’s because somebody has done something truly destructive to the relationship, that makes trust difficult or impossible.

Now, if you simply annoyed or irritated an INTJ, just get out of their hair and stop doing whatever is pissing them off, and things will probably turn around quite quickly.

If you did make an INTJ truly angry, though… well. There is no real solution except not to screw up in the first place.

We do not forgive the people who majorly screw us over in one way or another because they remove all potential futures where we can continue trusting them implicitly. When you screw up that bad, there’s no recovering, because if it can happen once, it can happen again, and again, and again… We are highly selective people, seeking peaceful, easy, and lasting relationships, and there simply isn’t the social or emotional energy to maintain any sort of relationship with somebody who has proven they are untrustworthy.

So if you forget about plans you made with the INTJ, or spill your latte in their brand new car, or something else unpleasant, they will likely forgive you quickly and easily. When you betray their trust, it is impossible to just forgive and forget. How, exactly, is a person supposed to just ignore when a person they thought they could trust was going around talking shit about them, or stealing from them, or cheating on them? How can a person know that’s happening, know that people don’t often change, and naively expect that person to change their entire nature and collection of habits after they’ve been found out, when they’ve already proven themselves willing and able to betray trust once?

Maybe the INTJ will deign to keep the person around, but they will never hold them in the same high regard again, or trust them with anything remotely important to them. The walls go back up. Effectively, the relationship is permanently terminated. Trust is the keystone of all of our relationships, and once it is broken, the relationship crumbles.

Yeah, we’re not easy people to get close to and stay close to, but as long as you don’t do anything malicious, things should generally turn out fine. We are incredibly forgiving… when forgiveness is deserved. Apologizing can’t hurt, if you really mean it. We can see through insincerity, so don’t try to bullshit us with a fake apology. If the thing you screwed up can be fixed (reschedule the missed plans, or have the car detailed like the spilled latte never happened), then fix it. Actions speak louder than words. Ask the INTJ what they feel, and what they want. Just don’t expect to be forgiven and remain friends wit an INTJ whose trust you betrayed.

I’m also living outside the USA and hoping to get published there so I’ve done some research. I’m not 100% sure that what I’m about to say is accurate as they’re just things I’ve read from blogs/interviews of people within the industry and people sharing their experiences on forums.

I’m going to assume you want to traditionally publish as location doesn’t really matter for self-publishing. Basically, the traditional approach to publishing is to write a book, write a query letter, and start querying agents and/or publishers.

If you live outside of the USA, I’d imagine that having an agent is a very good idea unless you’re well versed in contracts, negotiations, and tax forms. From what I’ve heard, you have extra tax forms to fill out if you live outside the USA and they’re a real pain. 

The good news is that most agents accept queries by email (so no problems with accessibility there) and they represent people from different places. I remember an agent saying that they have clients that they’ve never met in real life! Of course, some agents may not want to represent someone overseas, but I’d imagine that your writing is the most important thing. 

One you’re signed and have a book deal, there’s things like not being able to go on book tours and promoting your book in person at bookstores, but there’s a lot that you can do online so I imagine that it wouldn’t be such a big deal for publishers. 

This is my personal opinion, but I do think that the quality of your writing matters more than where you live. If you write something that publishers think will make them money, then the small expenses that they may incur like international phone calls and mailing your physical manuscript further probably don’t matter much. 

When you’re telling a story, less is usually more.

That’s something I wish someone had told me back when I was a newbie writer, because I spent years thinking I needed to pound my story over readers’ heads. It stopped me from correctly harnessing several useful tools, such as foreshadowing, subtext, and symbolism, for a long, long time.

Being so in-your-face all the time was really killing the quality of my writing.

It can seem tricky to craft a clear, precise story without directly spelling everything out for your readers, but trust me—your readers can pick up on things you leave unsaid. In fact, I’d argue that readers enjoy a story that leaves certain things up to subtext. It gives them something to think about after they reach the last page.

What was the real meaning of that thing that happened in chapter 7? What was Character A really about to say after that tragic thing in chapter 15? Why did Character B do that thing near the end?

Leaving your audience with questions isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As long as all the threads of the story come together into a solid and satisfying end, a few leftover questions can be a powerful thing. It can bring readers back to analyze and ponder the characters and events in your story, looking for new answers buried in your text.

Telling a story subtly, at it’s core, means you refrain from drawing attention to certain things that are or will become important. Let important bits pass by almost unnoticed. Gloss things over. Stop your main character from dwelling on things and wondering too deeply about things. Let your reader do some of the legwork instead.

Avoid words like thought, felt, and wondered. As strange as it sounds, a huge key to keeping things subtle is taking a step out of your character’s head. Blatantly telling us the things your character is thinking, feeling, and wondering lessens the impact of these things because it’s right in our faces. Instead, find another way to show us these things.

If Character A is nervous because Character B is late and that’s unlike them, don’t just tell us that. Don’t tell us they felt nervous or wondered where Character B was. Show us. Show Character A looking at the clock every few seconds. Show them fidgeting or drumming their fingers or glancing around a lot. It’s a much more subtle way to get your point across and it does a world of good for your story.

Lets say your main character’s dead mother loved sunflowers. You mention this early on and every time your character looks at a sunflower after that, your reader can infer that they’re thinking about their mother. Beating your reader by explicitly reminding them of this information kills the emotional impact and can get fairly annoying, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you want their reaction to be.

Hide important things under actions and dialogue. I know it might sound dumb to suggest that you try to slip things by your audience, but it’s a wonderful little trick. They might not even notice it at first, but if you’ve done your job right, they’ll pick up on it eventually and they’ll be dazzled that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

It’s okay to let some of your characters’ intentions go unexplained. Sometimes you don’t ever find out why people do the things they do. The same can be true of your characters. Your readers should have a vague idea, and possibly some evidence to back up their theories, but some of the pieces will be missing, leaving room for differing opinions. These sort of characters are often subject to a lot of debate and squabbling over their true motivations, which can be a pretty great thing.

So, all in all, striving to tell a more subtle story can greatly strengthen your writing and can supply your readers with plenty of things to keep them busy after they put your book down. It’s a powerful trick to have in your arsenal.

myersandbriggs

eilamona (fave)

mbtireallife

iaminfj

mbti-in-fiction

typingcentral

thegoldenpair

intj-paradigm 

intj-thoughts

nonsensical-intp

entjs

enfj-uk

infjnights

worldofanentp

intpcicles

sixteentypes

funkymbtifiction

intpmusings