The Strangest Situation

In Your Dreams

2012-02-22T06:21:00.000-05:00

On Monday, I touched on the research on how we dream and some of the proposed purposes of dreaming. A lot of you shared some really cool dreams you've had, and it's clear a lot of us have some similar dreams. I think it's hard to argue that dreams are utterly meaningless and random--it's obvious they're not, right? I recognize an anxiety dream when I have one (oh, that interminable dream where I'm late for a meeting and can't ever get out of the house because I forget one thing after another ...). I recognize my mind's attempts to guess at future events. I recognize dreams that are no more than wishes for things I'll never have (and don't need, either).

Dream interpretation is an activity that's closely associated with psychoanalysis, a particular theoretical orientation* within the disciplines of psychiatry/psychology that finds its origins with Sigmund Freud. He thought that adult dreams are actually thickly disguised wishes from the unconscious, but that the actual dreamer probably didn't have access to their true meanings.<--that's why you need an analyst to tell you! And then Jung came along with all his archetypes ... which are for an entirely different post, I think.

Freud and Jung were far from the first to attempt to interpret dreams, though. That practice goes back thousands of years and can be found in many cultures around the world. Regardless of how we interpret, we humans are fascinated by our dreams. Which is why they're so prevalent in fiction, right? There are many books that have been inspired by dreams (Frankenstein! Stuart Little! Jekyll and Hyde! Twilight!), and dreams are often used as devices in fiction.

Except ... that doesn't always work. Here's an excellent post from the INTERN about some of the problems that can occur when writers use dream sequences in their manuscripts. The brilliant INTERN posits that dream sequences in stories are often redundant with actual events in the book, or they are magical delivery devices for essential plot information (essentially, cheating), or they are dumps ... of either whimsical writing or info (you really should go read her post--and the comments).

Still, I understand the draw. We're so intrigued by our own dreams, so why shouldn't they play a role in our stories? Really, what's wrong with a dream or two? What's the right way to include a dream? When is it okay? What do you think of dream sequences in books you've read? Have you ever written a dream sequence into a manuscript? Would you like to defend that choice, or would you like to slink away quietly now?

I kid. Don't you dare slink away. Answer my questions. *stares at you*

*I have a different theoretical orientation, if you're wondering.

Okay, now you can slink ... straight over to Deb's blog, where she'll tell you about the books that inspire her writing.

To Sleep, Perchance to Dream

2012-02-20T06:31:00.000-05:00

(Ay, there's the rub.)

I have been spending the last few days thinking rather intensely about the rules of hyphenation and how the placement of a single comma can change the meaning of a sentence. Yes. Manuscript edits. If I seem a bit fuzzy, that's why.

So I thought this might be a good week to talk about dreams. Today I'll talk a bit about actual dreaming, and on Wednesday we can chat about dreams in stories and writing (and maybe a little about the meaning of dreams? Yes?).

There are a lot of myths about dreams. We all dream in black and white (nope). Our dreams only last a few seconds (some last over half an hour). Lots of people don't dream at all (there's some evidence that folks who have parietal lobe injuries lose the ability to dream, but apart from that ... we all do, even if we don't remember). If you die in a dream, you'll die for realzzz! (nah ... I'm living proof that one's untrue)

Another myth is that people only dream during the phase of sleep called REM (rapid eye movement). That's not true, either! There's plenty of evidence that we dream during non-REM sleep, too, but the nature of the dreams is different. During non-REM sleep, we tend to have more mundane, repetitive dreams, ones that are more grounded in everyday life. There's speculation (and research) that these non-REM dreams can help us rehearse or practice things we've learned so that we perform better when we're awake. In addition, there's some research to suggest these dreams involve a bit more positive and neutral emotion than REM dreams.

During REM sleep, dreams are more emotional and perceptual. These dreams can be bizarre or nightmarish. Some sleep researchers believe that while non-REM dreams are rehearsal and processing of the present or past, REM dreams are more speculative, like a safe way for the brain to experience future possibilities. Some studies have demonstrated that REM dreams can result in greater creativity in specific tasks/endeavors, but there are also studies that show that people with certain types of depression have a lot more REM sleep than non-depressed people--REM sleep involves activation of the amygdala, the processing center for intense negative emotions.

This is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to dreams. The research is getting more refined and more fascinating as the years go by. One thing they haven't quite figured out, though--how to really eavesdrop on people's dreams. You know how they do it? They have these sleep studies where they wait until the participant is in a particular phase of sleep, and then they wake him up and ... ask him what he was dreaming about.

So ... what are your dreams like? Do you have vivid, memorable dreams, or are you one of those folks who doesn't remember your dreams at all? Do you want to share a dream or two with us? Here, I'll start: I sometimes dream I can fly, except I can never do it very well, and so I spend most of the dream trying to will myself off the ground and hovering, like, a few inches off the pavement. At some point, something starts chasing me, and I'm simultaneously annoyed and panicked because I know this flying thing doesn't work so well for me, but it's all I've got, so usually I end up (sort of, clumsily, with lots of fits and starts) flying away just ahead of the menacing presence (which I can never see, by the way).

There.

Your turn.

And after you're done telling us about your dream life, please go visit Lydia for her Medical Monday post (leech therapy! Aaaah! Talk about nightmare fodder) and Laura for her Mental Health Monday post (about whether it's normal to have imaginary friends ... or not).

The Books That Feed My Brain

2012-02-15T06:13:00.000-05:00

This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question came from Deb, who asked: What type of book do you read for writing inspiration, and why? Do you read fiction or non-fiction, and what genres? Mysteries and YA, or archeology and astronomy?

Laura's answer is here, and Lydia's is here. Deb will be up next week. As for me ...

I've learned a lot about writing and storytelling from other writers. I've been knocked flat by the beauty and power in their prose, by the intricacy of their plotting, the individuality of their characters. I've gotten hooked by ideas that just wouldn't leave me alone. A few things that have inspired me (to name only a few of many):

The stark rhythms and brittle fragility of Wintergirls, by Laurie Halse Anderson.

The lyricism and longing in Shiver, by Maggie Stiefvater.

The exploration of identity and loyalty in Camo Girl, by Kekla Magoon.

The flat eeriness and dread of Descent Into Hell, by Charles Williams.

The conceptualization of the afterlife in The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis.

The frightening ease with which good people become evil in The Lucifer Effect, by Phil Zimbardo.

The phenomenal pacing and timing of The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins

I could go on and on, but I'll stop there. How about you? What books have inspired you and why?

Origins Blogfest: How it all began ...

2012-02-13T06:25:00.000-05:00

Today I'm participating in the Origins blogfest, hosted by the very awesome Matt MacNish, DL Hammons, Alex J. Cavanaugh, and Katie (Creepy Query Girl), where the participants answer the following: When and how did you first become a writer? How did it all begin? What are your writing origins?

For me, it was rather simple and abrupt. It was the weekend right after my birthday. For a few months, I'd been sort of playing with the idea of writing a book, but, having never written so much as a haiku outside of regular course assigments (oh-so-many years ago), it seemed kind of random. I think this happens to a lot of people--everybody thinks they can write a novel, right? That was me.

That weekend, though, I started it. And ... rapidly got sucked in to the point of obsession. Four weeks later, I'd written a 98k word paranormal romance. It was the most ecstatic, amazing experience. I couldn't believe I'd actually done it! I'd written a book!

Like many newbie writers, I was so infatuated with this story that I was initially blind to its flaws, and I wrote about 80k words of a sequel before I abruptly halted it. I realized I might need to slow down and learn a thing or two. So I started doing my homework, participating in forums, finding myself a crit partner, learning about the whole process--including the fact that I was one among at least 30,000 querying writers. That's a lot of competition.

It was two years ago this month when I figured that out. That was when I started writing SANCTUM--which will be released in the fall. Wow. It feels so funny to say that. So much has happened since then. I've written six full-length manuscripts and a few hundred pages of other stuff (short stories, partially completed work). I've made incredible writing friends. I've learned a lot. I've become part of a community. And I've had--and continue to have--A LOT of fun.

That's it for me! I can't wait to go around and read everyone else's stories! And if you're not participating in the blogfest, please tell us how you got started in the comments!

I HAVE MORE NEWS

2012-02-09T06:14:00.000-05:00

Ok, you were all amazing last Friday, so much so that at times I was in tears from the sheer kindness and enthusiasm you all showed about my announcement. Today, I get to make another one. From last night's Publishers Marketplace deal postings:

Sarah Fine's SANCTUM, the first book in the GUARDS OF THE SHADOWLANDS series, featuring a seventeen-year-old girl who has one chance to save her best friend's soul from hell where, in the process, she falls for the indentured Guard who is sent to make sure she doesn't succeed, to Courtney Miller at Amazon Publishing, in a pre-empt, in a three-book deal, for publication in Fall 2012, by Kathleen Ortiz at Nancy Coffey Literary & Media Representation.

SANCTUM is the manuscript that got me agented. It's the story Kathleen fell in love with, the one she's worked tirelessly with me to improve and send out into the world. I've been sitting on the news of this deal for awhile, which is funny because it went down SO fast. Like, a week after we subbed it to Courtney Miller, she called with an offer. Between Kathleen and Courtney, I could not be more fortunate--both are fierce champions of Lela (my MC) and her journey.

I am so so happy I get to tell this story.

I HAVE NEWS

2012-02-03T06:11:00.002-05:00

Oh, everyone, I am so happy today. Last night, this came out in the Publishers Weekly Children's Bookshelf Newsletter:

Hey! I'M S.E. Fine!

I have a book deal!

Awhile back, my fabulous, patient, super-dedicated ~~T-Rex~~ agent, Kathleen Ortiz, came to me with an opportunity to work with one of Joanna Volpe's clients. Everything after that just flowed, and in a matter of weeks, we had this deal. It was really kind of stunning how it all went down. I'll be talking a lot more about all the details of this collaboration in the future, but for right now ... WHOA. Book deal.

(and here's the Publishers Marketplace listing)

For once, I have no more words.*

*Oh, except for these:

I'll have more news next week.

Stuck to your partner like glue ... or running for the hills.

2012-02-01T06:28:00.000-05:00

Basic attachment theory posits that humans are driven to form close connections with other people, but how we do that and how we feel about it is influenced by our early relationship experiences. Through interactions with our caregivers, we develop expectations of other people. So, for example, a baby with an attentive, responsive caregiver will develop the expectation that the caregiver is a source of safety and a provider of comfort. As a result, that baby will readily seek out that specific caregiver when anxious, and will be pretty darn upset if he's separated from that caregiver. However, if the baby has learned that the caregiver is cold and unresponsive, he will have an entirely different set of expectations and behaviors.

Adult attachment theory applies that idea of "attachment" to adult romantic relationships. On Monday, some of you were commenting about relationships in general, but this concept is generally reserved for romantic bonds. There's been a lot of attempts to map child attachment styles to those identified in adults, but findings from studies suggest that the connection, while definitely there, is moderate at best. Your childhood attachment style will not necessarily be your attachment style as an adult in a romantic relationship. However, there's a bit of evidence that suggests we choose partners who confirm our existing beliefs about relationships and intimacy.

The basic attachment styles for adults:

Secure. This was #2 in Monday's post. Adults with a secure attachment style (or low anxiety, low avoidance on that quiz) find it easy to trust and be in relationships, and they tend to view relationships positively. They often have a history of warm, trusting connections, and are comfortable with intimacy--but not afraid of independence. About 60% of people describe themselves this way.

Preoccupied (also called "resistant"). This was #3 in Monday's post. Adults with preoccupied attachment style (low avoidance, high anxiety on the quiz) might seem kinda clingy. They seek approval and intimacy, but may end up being overly dependent. They rate themselves less positively than those who have secure attachment styles. About 20% of people describe themselves this way.

Avoidant. This was #1 in Monday's post, and about 20% of people describe themselves this way. But there are two types.

Fearful (high anxiety, high avoidance). These folks want to have close relationships but feel uncomfortable with being close to others. They might not trust partners, but they don't feel that great about themselves, either.
Dismissive (this would be low anxiety, high avoidance). These folks are highly independent and don't value (relatively speaking) intimacy. They may view others less positively than they view themselves, and they may distance themselves from a partner if there's conflict or rejection. Both Dismissive and Fearful folks tend to hide or suppress their feelings ... but Dimissive peeps are more successful at it.

There's solid research that shows that secure parents tend to have securely attached kiddos, and parents with one of the insecure attachment styles have kids who are more likely to show one of the insecure styles (resistant, avoidant, or disorganized).

So ... you know, I could go on and on. The field of attachment is HUGE, and the research spans the last five decades. I think I'll stop here for today, but if you're a writer thinking about romantic relationships (or parent-child relationships), you might want to investigate the concept of attachment in more depth, as it's a great way to build a character whose thoughts and actions form a cohesive pattern, especially if that character has some complex past relationships, either with parents or previous romantic partners.

And it's Wednesday! The first of the month! Which means Laura is tackling this month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question: "What kind of book do you read for inspiration?" Head on over to her blog to see her answer!

Also--let me know if you have questions about attachment (for book-research/character development purposes) and I'll try to answer them in future posts!

Getting Attached

2012-01-30T06:33:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, I'm going to talk a little about a huge concept in the psychological literature: attachment. It's a construct that encompasses the bond between caregiver and child. But there's another, related body of research, one that explores the nature of adult romantic relationships. That's the one I'm going to focus on this week.

But first! Let's get you guys thinking about this stuff. Two ways to do this: the quick and dirty, or the more in-depth.

If you want more in-depth, go here and take the quiz (I did it, and it took me about 5 minutes to do it and read the results).

If you're short on time, just read the paragraphs below and think about which one fits you (or, since most of you are writers, you can think about a character of yours):

I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.
I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.
I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away.*

And that's it! More on Wednesday. But if you're craving more brain food for today, go check out Lydia's Medical Monday post, and Laura's Mental Health Monday post!

*These questions come from Hazan & Shaver, 1987

The Awesomeness of Attributions

2012-01-23T06:41:00.000-05:00

Human beings are such amazing, complex creatures. We process huge amounts of information quickly--and half the time, we are not even fully aware of exactly how we get from point A to point B, cognitively speaking. Awhile back, I did a post about information processing, in response to a question about how two different people might end up reacting completely differently to the same situation. It was more of a broad overview, so today I'm going to talk a little about something more specific: ATTRIBUTIONS OF INTENT.

Oh yeah. Sounds like a sexy topic, doesn't it?

It should be, for any writer. Or any student of human behavior in general. Here's a very basic model:

Here, something happens to a person. And that person then has to decide WHY it happened. That decision is completely critical to how the person ends up feeling--and responding--to the event.

Now, sometimes, another person does something TO us. When that happens, we have to make an ATTRIBUTION OF INTENT. In other words, we have to make a guess about the other person's intention when he/she did something to us.

Sometimes, the person's intent is obvious, either because he tells us why he's doing something, or because the emotional and situational cues are really clear. But this is the delicious part: so often, the information about the other person's intentions is incomplete. The cues are ambigious. And so we have to guess.

Here's an example of a potentially ambigious situation, and how attributions of intent come into play:

Assume that, in this situation, it's really not clear from the guy's facial expression or body language whether he did it on purpose or not, at least, if you were watching from the outside. She has to rely on her own conclusions about what's happened. Depending on the girl's attribution of the guy's intent, she might feel and respond very differently. And with this single situation, I can think of at least a few more attributions that would lead to even more varied responses (like, the girl decides it was actually all her fault for running into the boy, and feels ashamed of herself and sad).

Individuals end up with what we call an "attributional style," meaning that each person tends to make similar kinds of attributions across situations. There's one style in particular, hostile attributional style, in which the person assumes the other individual's intentions are hostile, even in the face of ambiguous or neutral information. You've probably met people like this, right? Hostile attributional style is associated with higher levels of aggression in children and paranoia in adults. Another attributional style, one in which a person attributes the causes of bad events to herself, is associated with depression. Attributions matter.

There are several factors that predict what type of attributions a person makes. Individual temperament and level of emotional reactivity in conflict situations, high levels of hostile interactions in parent-child relationships, attachment security with parents, and experiences of acceptance or rejection from peers have all been shown to predict attributional style. In the moment, past experiences with the specific person, availability of contextual information (an event that took place right before, the other person's facial expression and emotional cues, etc.), and the individual's mood would also influence the type of attribution that results.

Now, personally, it's good to be aware of the attributions you're making--and it's sometimes good to challenge them a little instead of accepting them as objective truth. And for writing, well. Making your character's attributions clear to the reader can help you keep a character sympathetic, even when the person is responding in a way the reader might not.

So, that's attributions in a nutshell. How do you handle this in your writing? Have you ever thought about it like this before? And what about in real life? Have your attributions of someone's intent ever been wrong?

And of course, because it's Monday, go visit Lydia for her Medical Monday post, and Laura for her Mental Health Monday post!

The Power of Expectations

2012-01-18T06:39:00.000-05:00

This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question came from yours truly:

Where do your expectations for your writing (career/skill/quality/achievements) come from? Is the source internal, external, or both? And how do you cope when you don't meet them?

Lydia's answer is here, and Laura's is here. Deb will be up next week. As for me...

My expectations for my writing come from the same place the rest of my expectations of myself come from. And instead of telling you flat out, I will share a little story from my childhood.

My parents decided I was ready to go to kindergarten when I was four. Sure, my birthday wasn't until the very end of October and I couldn't legally start public school where we lived, but they decided I was ready enough to put me in some sort of church kindergarten, and then a different private school for first grade. And I have a memory, a very hazy one, but I've checked with my parents and they confirm the logistical details are accurate:

I am sitting in an empty classroom, at a table with a bunch of chairs around it. Child-sized. And I am holding a pencil, and looking down at some kind of test. I think it was an entrance exam for that private school, though at the time I only understood it as some sort of worksheet I was supposed to complete, and that the school people wanted to see if I could do it. I remember thinking only one thing:

I will SHOW these people what I can do.

I was five.

My expectations of what I can and should achieve come from inside of me. And I expect a lot. I know I said I don't study writing craft, but that doesn't mean I don't work on my writing, that I don't critique my own work mercilessly, that I don't expect every piece of work to be better than the last, or that I am easily satisfied.

Now that I've gotten to the point (in this strange adventure I am calling a writing career) where other people are beginning to expect things of me, I'm really starting to have fun. I like few things better than a really high bar, except for maybe nudging it a little higher. I might whine or angst over it to my friends (poor Justine), but really, it drives me.

It has absolutely nothing to do with competing with other people. I don't actually care that much about that. Other people can do their thing, and I'll do mine. Some will do and be objectively better, others won't. Some are flatly more talented, others aren't. That stuff ... meh. It is what it is. All that drives me is what I can control, and the only thing I can control is how hard I work.

So ... when I don't meet those expectations ... you know what? I'm pretty forgiving of myself (most of the time). I usually just buckle down and work harder. But really, when it's something I care about, and when I really feel like I've done all I can, I try to re-evaluate the goal I set for myself, and question whether or not it was reasonable. I usually don't waste time beating myself up, because that doesn't help me.

Enough about me! How about you? Where do your expectations come from? Who sets your bar? What happens when you don't quite reach it?

OH! And the winner of the exclusive LARKSTORM deleted scene is Alleged Author! Congrats!

An Interview with Dawn Rae Miller, Author of Larkstorm

2012-01-16T07:00:00.000-05:00

I am so excited to have Dawn here today to talk a little about her book, LARKSTORM, which she released in December. The paperback version is now available at Amazon, and the e-version is available at Amazon and B&N, among other places. Before I launch into my conversation with Dawn, here's the back cover copy of her book:

In the years following the destructive Long Winter, when half the world’s population perished, the State remains locked in battle against the Sensitives: humans born with extra abilities.

As one of the last descendants of the State’s Founders, seventeen-year-old Lark Greene knows her place: study hard and be a model citizen so she can follow in her family’s footsteps. Her life’s been set since birth, and she’s looking forward to graduating and settling down with Beck, the boy she’s loved longer than she can remember.

However, after Beck is accused of being Sensitive and organizing an attack against Lark, he disappears. Heartbroken and convinced the State made a mistake, Lark sets out to find him and clear his name.

But what she discovers is more dangerous and frightening than Sensitives: She must kill the boy she loves, unless he kills her first.

Pretty compelling, no? I read Larkstorm about a year ago, and I'm still thinking about it. So I was eager to have the opportunity to ask Dawn a few psychologisty (and non-psychologisty) questions about it. Here we go:

At the beginning of Larkstorm, Lark is very confident and secure about her future and her place in State society. Can you talk a little about how you decided to portray her upbringing, and how that connects to her worldview?

I think when we’re young, most of us tend to believe the way we’re brought up is the “right” way. We don’t know any different.

I wanted Lark to have a seemingly normal life - a parental figure (Bethina) as well as siblings (her housemates). She needed to feel connected to something and grounded. At the beginning of the book, she has no reason to doubt everything she’s been taught. Life for her is good, things are orderly, and the State takes good care of everyone. But she also believes in her relationship with Beck. She’s conflicted because on one hand, the State said he was the perfect person for her (which she believes), but then they said he’s a Sensitive and dangerous. She’s been taught the State doesn’t make mistakes, but clearly these two things can’t both be true.

The State has set up Lark’s life so that her housemates, housemother and Beck are the most important people to her. One of Lark’s truest character traits is that she believes in friendship - that’s what causes her to go after Beck, and it’s what cause problems for her later on.

So, when one important aspect of her life (Beck) comes into conflict with another aspect of her life (her belief in the State), it looks like that causes cognitive dissonance, the discomfort each of us feels when we simultaneously hold two strong beliefs that conflict with one another. Tell us a little about her thought process as she tries to resolve that dissonance.

At first, Lark is confused, but she briefly accepts the State’s accusations. Still, she doesn’t understand how a mistake could happen. This is when she becomes angry. She feels lied to, but at this point, she’s not sure if she’s been lied to about Beck being perfect for her, or Beck being Sensitive. It doesn’t make sense for the State to lie about Beck being Sensitive. It’s a huge risk for them to say they’ve made a mistake - Beck’s a well-loved public figure.

But the more she thinks about what she’s learned, she begins to to believe the seemingly infallible State made a mistake in accusing Beck. She’s been taught Sensitives are vile, filthy monsters and all the evidence she’s seen points to the exact opposite of what the State is accusing Beck of being. Once Lark accepts that premise, it’s easy for her to move on to accepting other things.

Ah, but it doesn’t look easy at all! One thing I really liked about Larkstorm is how realistic Lark’s struggle is, and how frustrated she becomes as the story progresses. As a reader, I felt that very intensely. As you were writing it, did you feel any of that frustration yourself? If so, how did you tolerate it? And how did you avoid giving in to the temptation of making things easier for her emotionally?

I never wanted things to be easy for Lark. I kept thinking about my interactions with adults and authority as a teen, and there was always this underlying sense of “you will only be told what you need to know.” I didn’t know much about the lives of adults around me or, to be honest, the world beyond what was in my immediate realm. I never visited my dad’s work, hung out with my parents, or dared to question my parents’ authority. My kid world was very separate from their adult world.

When I finally did question them - at sixteen - I ended up leaving home and moving across the country. So, I guess, in a way, I’d already experienced that frustration. As for the emotional aspect, it wouldn’t be a very good story if Lark wasn’t tortured a little :D

That makes so much sense, because the tension between Lark and the adults around her is so real, only her struggles involve magic rather than college major choices. Beck, on the other hand, seems to struggle less with these issues. Tell us a little about the differences between Lark and Beck.

The big difference is that Beck is comfortable with who he is. He has a much more laid back attitude toward life than Lark and rolls with the punches easier. That doesn’t mean he accepts everything, but he’s generally an optimist and tries to see the good in situations.

Lark, on the other hand, has pessimistic tendencies. She’s more uptight and worries constantly about how other people view her - is she smart enough, are her clothes right, is she doing the correct thing. She likes rules and order. A small change in routine can rattle her.

Which brings me to my final question: on which side of that optimist-pessimist continuum do you fall? And how have those tendencies influenced your writing career, including what kind of stories you’ve chosen to write?

I’m an eternal optimist. Maybe too much so - I tend to find the silver lining in just about everything. Like every writer, I’ve had a fair share of rejections, but I don’t let that get me down because I believe everything happens for a reason. Does this influence my stories? Absolutely. All my stories have one common element: Hope. If I didn’t have hope in my life, I’d be miserable and if my stories didn’t have hope, they’d be...well, they’d probably suck.

I know I said I was asking one final question, but the fact that you're so optimistic really makes me want to ask how that tendency influenced your decision to self-publish, as well as your strategy for going about it and your hopes for what would come of it.

Self-publishing is a weird beast. You have to be entrepreneurial to do well - willing to self-promote and to understand the business side. It’s hugely rewarding, but also incredibly frustrating (much like traditional publishing). I think you have to have optimistic leanings to succeed in that type of environment.

For me, the decision to self-publish was easy. I tried the traditional route and it didn’t work out, but my team didn’t want to give up on Larkstorm. I’m fortunate to have a great group of professionals who believe in my book as much as I do.

Do I hope Larkstorm will become one of those ‘self-published” success stories? Absolutely. But at the same time, I keep my expectations in check. Every sale, every note from fans, every tweet, makes me smile. Yes, I have benchmarks I want to hit, but mainly, I’m just enjoying the process. Above all else, it’s fun.

So there you have it! Now--Dawn has agreed to exclusively reveal one of her LARKSTORM deleted scenes to one of my commenters today. Your choices:

In The Beginning ...

Tattling Kyra

Little Bird

Tell us which one you'd like to read! We'll randomly select one commenter today to receive the deleted scene! I'll announce the winner on Wednesday.

And remember to check out Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post!

Friday ... Between Projects

2012-01-13T08:06:00.000-05:00

Very recently, I reclaimed one of my work days as a writing day. That means I have the incredible privilege and pleasure of having two full days per week to write, 8:00am-5:00pm. I am very excited about being able to do that.

But ... on Monday, I finished another manuscript. It's the one that I'd interrupted (twice) so I could work on other stuff, so it took me longer to complete than usual. And now that I'm done, and waiting for revisions ... I have time on my hands.

I'm not sure this is a good thing.

I have revisions coming my way very soon. For not one, but THREE projects. But that might take a few weeks, maybe even a month. And in the meantime ...

What do you do when you're between projects? Do you celebrate, happy to have accomplished your task for the time being? Do you blog? Beta? Tweet? Er ... spend time with friends? Watch television? Or do you do what I do and climb the walls because your mind is just that restless?

AND! Here is something I am very excited about: On Monday, Dawn Rae Miller will be guest blogging to discuss her book LARKSTORM. We had a little conversation that ranged from how her protagonist deals with cognitive dissonance to what's required to successfully self-publish. I hope you'll come back and see what she has to say!

Friends Don't Let Friends ...

2012-01-09T06:15:00.001-05:00

Happy New Year, everyone! Yes, I do realize I'm arriving a bit late to the 2012 party, but I swear I have good reasons! I'm excited to catch up on blog posts I've missed, and to see how each of you is starting this new year.

Over the past week, in the midst of all the other stuff I've been working on, I was sort of riveted by the various dramas going on on Goodreads, Amazon, Twitter, and at least one author blog. In each of these, reader/reviewers posted negative reviews of a book, which was followed by various negative reactions on the part of either the authors or, in one case, a friend of the author. In all cases, feelings were hurt, harsh words were spoken, and mistakes were made. In no cases was the author's career helped in any way whatsoever. In a few cases, I think it did concrete and measurable harm. [I don't think I've ever written a paragraph with so many passive sentence constructions]

All this stuff got me thinking, about lots of things. Why people are able to talk to each other this way on the internet (that's for a later post), how things have changed with the rise of a more democratic vs. professional reviewing process (also a later post), and what people can do to avoid making mistakes like the ones I've been reading about over the last week.

There have been a few extremely good posts about how authors can avoid acting out online. One of the most recent is Lynne Kelly Hoenig's entry on how to respond to negative reviews. Lynne is not only hilarious, but also wise (and has a book coming out in May). I strongly suggest you get over to her blog and follow her!

I have to say, I can't do much to improve on her advice, which includes some concrete ways to lower your blood pressure and lighten your mood when confronted with potentially hurtful information. But there's another piece to this, a part all of us can play--and that is of the friend.

The writing community is vast and incredibly supportive (and, from what I've seen, the reviewing/book blogger community is quite similar). We empathize with each other, cheer each other on, and often band together when threatened. Buuuuuuut ... I think there are better and worse ways to provide support.

Here's an example:
Author: OMG! This reviewer posted a horrible review of my book! How could she?!?
Friend: No way! Your book is awesomely awesome! She doesn't know what she's talking about.
Author: Yeah! I worked SO hard on that book, and she has no idea what that's like! And her review was crap! A personal attack!
Friend: That bitch! She has no right to do that! Someone should put her in her place!
Author: You're right! *sits down at keyboard to compose career-killing reviewer-bashing opus*

[yes, I know this is grossly oversimplified, and I'm sorry about that.]

Now ... that friend was being really supportive of the author, right? The friend had the author's back, was totally on her side. Yet ... did that friend help the author think rationally about the situation? Did that friend's "support" ultimately work toward the author's well-being, or was it the opposite?

I'm thinking of using this as
my author photo. Thoughts?

Last year, there was a research study that seemed to suggest that seeking out friends to whom we can vent about our disappointments actually makes us feel worse in the end. Positively reframing situations and coping using humor resulted in improved mood, while churning in the stew of outrage did not. And there's plenty of research showing venting in general leads to increased aggressive and other negative behaviors. I think these results might have something do to with whether our friends whip us into a frothy meringue, or whether they help talk us down.

I have a good friend you've probably heard me mention before: Brigid Kemmerer. Brigid is ace at the talk-down. She's really frank and honest, but supportive at the same time. So, on a few occasions, I've emailed her and been like, "OH NO THIS IS SO UNFAIR I CAN'T FREAKING BELIEVE BLAH BLAH BLAH ..."

And Brigid always says, "Oh, that must really hurt. I totally get where you're coming from. But ... do you want my honest opinion?"

Hahaha. This is always followed by her gently challenging me and helping me see the situation from various different perspectives. She NEVER fails to validate my feelings, but she also never gives in to the OUTRAGE impulse. In other words, she never whips me up. When I get to the point where I have to deal with reviews, Brigid is the first person I'm going to seek out, because I know she will hug me ... and then smack some sense into me before ever condoning anything unwise.

I am fortunate to have many sensible friends like this. Lydia Kang and Justine Dell, to name a few others. Do you have friends like this? Friends who will sympathize with you while holding you back when you feel like going on a rampage? Are you a friend like this? Ultimately, the author is responsible for her* actions, but if she's lucky, she has friends who help her out--sometimes by ripping the keyboard from her hands and emailing her the link to a baby animal video.

Be sure to check out Lydia Kang's Medical Monday post, and Laura Diamond's Mental Health Monday post!

*By the way, I don't mean to exclude male authors. I just like to have subject-pronoun agreement without using her/his all the time.

The Education of a Writer

2011-12-21T06:16:00.001-05:00

This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question came from Lydia:

"What formal writing experience do you have (classes, degrees, majors/minors)? Did it shape your writing? Have you ever considered getting an MFA?"

Lydia's answer is here, and Laura Diamond's is here. Deb will be up next week.

As for me ... I'm going to be completely honest here.

I never considered myself an exceptionally creative persion. I was quite verbally precocious and always a good student, so writing assignments were always easy for me. I was just never one of those people who kept a journal or wrote poetry or dreamed of being a writer.

Then I got to college ... and became best friends with a girl who I still believe is one of the most gifted poets/writers/artists I've ever met. I watched her create the most beautiful things, often with only words. And, you know, for a while I thought maybe wanted to do it, too, but geez. I can't explain how it felt, looking at the pathetic crap I created, and then seeing what she could do. There was no comparison. She was amazing.

I think she's the reason I never had the guts to take a creative writing class. I mean, if she was a writer, then I KNEW I wasn't. She would probably be horrified to read that, because she was never anything but encouraging to me. She went on to get her doctorate and now teaches writing at a university. I'm quite sure she's brilliant at it, because that's all she's ever been, at least through my eyes.

(Please don't think I'm feeling sorry for myself here, because ... you know what? I was meant to be a psychologist.)

This is a long way to say: no, I've never taken a single writing class. I've never considered getting an MFA (I quit school in 24th grade and will never go back). I also don't read craft books or participate in crit groups or go to writer's conferences. DON'T get me wrong--those things are really valuable, but I haven't yet been able to interest myself in the formal aspects of learning to write. I have no patience for it, and that might be because I've had a heckuva lot of formal schooling, and at this point in my life, I want to have fun. That's what writing is to me--pure fun, even when it's work. I write what I'm interested in reading, I pay close attention to feedback, and I try not to make the same mistake twice. That's it.

How about you? Are you formally trained? If so, how has it shaped you as a writer? If not, have you considered it? How else did you learn?

And on that note: Happy Holidays, everyone! I'll be taking a break so I can spend some time with my family, and I'll be back in the blogosphere next week!

Deja Vu Blogfest: Cognitive Therapy for Writers

2011-12-16T06:12:00.000-05:00

Today is the Deja Vu Blogfest! Hosted by DL Hammons, Lydia Kang, Nicole Ducleroir, and Katie Mills (Creepy Query Girl), this one's all about a post-gone-by. Here's mine. I originally posted it about a year ago, near the end of December. It was actually the second in a two-post series called "Cognitive Therapy for Writers." The first is here. This one's all about how to conquer those thoughts that get you down ...

Raaaawr! All right. So, we've established that everyone has a Sneaky Brain, the part of you that whispers all sorts of nasty things that make you feel bad.

You know, like:

If I don't get an agent or get published, I freaking suck as a writer.
Because that agent/editor rejected me, I am a failure.
I got a few rejections this week/today/in the last hour, so that means no one will ever want to represent/publish me.
I wrote one book/chapter/page/sentence, and now I can't think of what to write next. I've run out of words FOREVAH!!!!! AAAAAAH!!!!!!!

Let's pause right here and acknowledge that not everyone who writes is going to end up a published author. That's the way it is. Language is powerful, but it can be difficult to wield. The art of storytelling adds another level of difficulty. And then there's marketability ... whoa.

SO, taking into account that I, or you, might be among those who reach as far as we can but still can't close our hands around that elusive prize, how do we keep feeling OK? How do we keep our Sneaky Brains from sapping us of whatever talent and energy and creativity we have? How do we stay on track and keep writing, keep telling the stories we want to tell?

We all have Smart Brains, too. We should use them.

Don't be afraid to fight dirty.

1. Recognize those sneaky thoughts. Listen hard. You have to HEAR and recognize what Sneaky's saying, because those thoughts can become pretty automatic over time, meaning you stop hearing them and just skip straight to the drinking-Wild-Turkey part of the equation. Don't. Listen. What do you hear?

If you hear any of the following words, perk up and slap on those boxing gloves:

ALWAYS
NEVER
SHOULD
ONLY
FOREVER

If you find yourself thinking "sure, I had some success a year/month/day/hour ago, but THAT DOESN'T COUNT ... ", do some pushups, man, because you've got some work to do.

Or if you hear "since she rejected me, that means EVERYONE will", strap on some brass knuckles. You've got a fight on your hands.

After you've recognized what the Sneaky Brain is saying ...

Just like this dude.
But probably not as ripped.

2. Recognize Sneaky as a bully. Sure, it's inside your brain, but that don't mean it speaks the truth. When I work with kids, we "externalize the problem". Picture me (see stick figure above) talking in funny voices with puppets strapped on my 18-inch fingers.

OK, don't. Instead, picture Sneaky sitting in front of you--and see what a liar it is. Those things it's whispering are a one-way ticket to depression. Despair. Giving up. What right does it have to do that to you? What right does ANYONE HAVE TO DO THAT TO YOU?!? I don't care if the bully resides between your ears. It's still a bully.

Once you recognize that:

3. Confront the bully and talk back to it. Logic is not its friend. If someone's done something to upset you, like they rejected you or gave you a bit of harsh feedback, and your Sneaky Brain is saying "it's because they hate your writing and think you're a tool", use your Smart Brain to say, "Really? 'Cuz

they only read a tiny sample of my writing--or only a query, or
they had some nice things to say, too, or
I got a request/compliment, etc. from this same person/similarly skilled person(s) before, or
they probably spent a total of 60 seconds looking at it because they had 300 other queries waiting, or
the idea probably just didn't float their boat, but it could float other boats ...

You get the point. Use your Smart Brain to be ... smart? Use logic. Be a skeptic. If the Sneaky Brain says you're a failure because you got one rejection, I mean, WTF? Really? How many agents and editors are out there?

If it says "you should have an agent by now" or "you always mess this up" or "you will never ..." Oh, geez. What does it know? This process is frustrating enough without Sneaky going to illogical extremes. Use your Smart Brain to question how the things it says could possibly be true. If you can't, that just means your Smart Brain's out of shape, NOT that Sneaky speaks the truth.

And if it whispers "the only way to be successful and happy is to get published," your Smart Brain should be screaming, "I am more than a writer. And there are many kinds of writers. And I write for many reasons. And sometimes, the end result isn't what it's about. Sometimes, it's the JOURNEY." Then, maybe toss out some obscene hand gestures for good measure. Stupid Sneaky Brain. Gut it with a spoon, my friends. That's what it deserves.

You don't have to be the only one who talks back to Sneaky. I'll bet you have friends or family or beta-readers or intriguing-strangers-you-meet-in-a-coffee-shop who can help you. Listen to their encouragement and don't discount it. But know this: no voice will ever pack a punch as powerful as your own Smart Brain.

So ... confession time. I'll be going on submission sometime in the new year*. And you know what? I'm going to be using every single one of these strategies every single day to stay calm and sane and happy. I know it won't always be easy. I know my Smart Brain won't win every round. BUT, I also know my Smart Brain is pretty damn smart. No matter what happens, I'm going to be OK. I'm going to be successful. And I'm going to define what that means for myself--I won't let anyone, including my own Sneaky Brain, define it for me.

That shapeless lump is my vanquished Sneaky Brain.

What about you? What challenge are you facing now? What's that Sneaky Brain telling you? And just how do you plan to kick its a$$??

*HEY! Guess what? I lived through it! Sane (for the most part)! And still happy, still writing, still looking forward to whatever comes next.

In Search of the WHY

2011-12-14T06:23:00.001-05:00

On Monday, you guys made some extremely thoughtful comments in response to my post about cyclothymia, and specifically, about whether a person's disclosure of a mental illness affected how you thought about the person's behavior.

Also on Monday, Julie Musil guest-posted on unlikeable characters over at Lisa Gail Green's blog . She gave a thoroughly excellent analysis about how to help readers sympathize with a character who on the surface appears entirely unsympathetic, and her primary suggestion was to help the readers understand WHY the character had become the way he/she was. If you haven't read this post, you should!

Now, I deal in the business of understanding why. Pondering the why is what keeps helping professionals from something called client-blaming. Client blaming ... is sucky. However, it happens with stunning frequency. A client engages in the exact behavior he/she sought help for, and we're like, "ARGH. Why doesn't he just [insert whatever you've told him/her to do here]?!?" And then we get mad. We get frustrated. We want to give up.

When I get a whiff of this kind of sentiment, either from my supervisees or inside my own head, I know it's time to get back to the drawing board. And I know exactly what I need to do: I need to dig a little deeper and get to the WHY. It's the only way I'll be helpful, the only way I'll be able to provide the kind of help my client deserves.

Amazingly, also on Monday, I READ A BOOK THAT CAPTURES THIS PERFECTLY. And by "this", I mean the why of it. It's Julie Musil's post come to life. For anyone trying to write a potentially unsympathetic, seriously flawed, at-risk-for-being-unlikeable character, this book is a must read. Oh, and for the rest of you, too. It's so very good.

Something Like Hope, by Shawn Goodman (who happens to be a school psychologist), is about seventeen-year-old Shavonne, who resides in a juvenile detention center and is at high risk for not having much of a future. This lean little book is about how she decides how she's going to live.

The book begins with Shavonne in an isolation room after she's busted the face of one of the guards--one who's stuck by Shavonne and clearly cared about her. Maybe I should mention that Shavonne does this after stealing the lady's sandwich and lying about it. Shavonne then tells her new, kind, and well-meaning therapist to eff-off and screams her way out of the therapy session.

Yeah, she does.

Shawn Goodman manages a very difficult task here. Despite Shavonne's hostile behavior, it's not difficult at all to care about her, like her, worry for her, or emotionally invest in her.

Because this book is relentlessly focused on the why.

Many of the characters in Something Like Hope are kids NO ONE likes (and who most people fear). These kids do bad things. These are kids no one wants to "excuse." They've hurt people, and stolen things, and broken things, and messed stuff up. And frankly, they're likely to do it again if pushed the wrong way. Or maybe, even if they're not.

And yet, in simple, clean prose, Mr. Goodman gets inside Shavonne's head, shows us what she's been through, what ALL the girls in that place have been through, what they're dealing with now, why it's so hard to hold it together. Without wiping away the things they've done or glossing over their jagged edges, he shows us the why. He shows us where they came from, what was taken from them ... and what was never given to them in the first place.

I read this book in one afternoon and was grateful to have a box of tissues nearby. It made my heart hurt, but it also made me so happy. Shavonne's story is beautiful in a terrifyingly fragile way. I've known kids like this in real life, and I know that if I really understood the why, it would read like Something Like Hope.

Have you read this book? Can you recommend others that focus on the WHY? Do you ponder the why of characters' behaviors in the books you read (or write)? How about in real life?

For the Sisterhood of the Traveling blog this month, Lydia asked: “What formal writing experience do you have? (classes, degrees, major/minors). Did it shape your writing?Have you ever considered getting an MFA?” She answers it today on her blog. Laura gave her answer last week, and I'll give mine next week!

Oscillating Wildly

2011-12-12T06:46:00.000-05:00

Recently, there's been quite a bit of cyber-chatter about a certain author who posted an open letter on his blog, listing his frustrations with his (now former) publisher. Although he raised some valid issues, the method of delivery has been criticized by some as ... let's see ... some of the adjectives used: "misguided", "unprofessional", and "crazy." In that very long, f-bomb-laden post, the author mentioned that he has been diagnosed with cyclothymia.

I saw enough confusion in the comments attached to that post to wonder how much people actually know about the disorder. And now that the author has posted a shirtless diatribe on YouTube, well. I guess it's time to do a post on cyclothymia. Note: I'm going to focus more on the mania-hypomania continuum of symptoms here and leave the major depression-dysthymia continuum for another post.

To understand cyclothymic disorder, you should probably first understand bipolar disorder I and II, as well as the criteria for dysthymic disorder and a major depressive episode. What's that, you say? Why can't I just rattle off the criteria for cyclothymia? OK. They are:

1. For a period of at least two years, the presence of numerous periods of hypomanic symptoms and numerous periods of depressive symptoms that don't meet criteria for major depressive disorder.

2. The person has gone no longer than 2 months without either hypomanic or depressive symptoms.

3. At no point during the past 2 years has the person had an episode that met critiera for major depressive episode, manic episode, or mixed episode.

There are a few more, but you get the gist. Cyclothymia is as much about what's not there as it is about what's there. It's basically a lighter, less severe version of bipolar disorder. While the symptoms still cause distress and are impairing, they are usually not as life-threatening as those for bipolar disorder (especially bipolar I).

In the author's post, he talks about long periods of productivity, during which he has some reduced need for sleep and a lot of great ideas, sometimes for months at a time, interspersed with periods of general funk (which he described as severe enough to make me question whether bipolar II wasn't a more appropriate diagnosis, but obviously I don't have enough information to make that call). Here are the criteria for an actual manic episode (you have to have at least 3 of these):

inflated self-esteem or grandiosity
reduced need for sleep
more talkative than usual
racing thoughts
high distractibility
increase in goal-directed activity or psychomotor agitation
excessive involvement in pleasurable but risky activities (buying sprees, sexual ... sprees)

Symptoms have to be present for at least a week, and are accompanied by peristently elevated or irritable mood (yes, a manic person might be irritable). The episode has to be severe enough to cause marked impairment or even hospitalization.

The criteria for hypomania are: basically the same. EXCEPT: the episode, although noticeable, is NOT severe enough to cause marked impairment. To accurately diagnose mood disorders, it takes a lot of good assessment and monitoring, because it's actually more complicated than it looks, and you have to pay attention to all these technical definitions. Well ... I guess we could argue about the definition of marked impairment in light of this. However, if you read this, you might make a different call.

The whole thing is pretty fascinating from a mental health perspective, not to mention a business/publishing perspective. Have you heard about this kerfuffle? If so, did you notice the mention of cyclothymia? Did it change the way you interpreted the post and the author's behavior? Do you think it was made more or less effective by the mention of cyclothymia?

You know who's probably really good at making those diagnostic calls? Laura Diamond, that's who. So go check out her Mental Health Monday post. Also, don't forget Lydia Kang's Medical Monday post. I love learning from these two!

Finishing.

2011-12-07T06:11:00.000-05:00

On Monday, I sent my latest manuscript to my agent.

Afterward, I was chatting with a dear friend of mine, Brigid Kemmerer, who had also just sent a newly finished manuscript off into the ether (and by "into the ether", I mean: to her editor). She mentioned feeling rather bereft, like she was letting go of her main character (who, I will tell you right now, is awesome)(and by "awesome", I mean: HOT). She said it felt like he was headed off to college or something. Growing up.

I was also feeling this sense of loss; the euphoric frenzy of creation had come to an end for the time being. The story was told. I always thought finishing a manuscript would come with an emormous sense of accomplishment, and it did, but the primary feeling right now is ... sadness? Loss? Some sort of crash? I'm not sure.

So ... you tell me. How do you feel when you finish a writing project, however big or small? Ambivalent? Ecstatic? Emptied out? If you've finished more than one project, have you felt differently each time? Is it related to the content of the work, the emotional significance of it, the kind of writing? Help me understand this feeling--or introduce me to a new way of thinking about it. Or maybe ... just distract me so I don't pine for this story I've just finished telling.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

2011-12-05T06:32:00.001-05:00

Today is an exciting (and also gruesome) day! I have banded together with the awesome Dr. Lydia Kang and the equally awesome Dr. Laura Diamond to discuss a really fascinating and (I strongly suspect) misunderstood ailment.

Lydia's post is about the medical aspects of Munchausen Syndrome and Laura's post is about the more psychological aspects. You might want to go read their posts to get a little background on this disorder. As for me: hey! I'm a child psychologist, so I am going to tell you all about Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSP).

The basics: A caregiver (often a mother, but it could be a father) either feigns or induces symptoms in the person (often a young child, though it could also be an elderly parent) under her care. The caregiver does this for purely psychological reasons (e.g., not for financial gain).

MSP, which is considered very rare (like, 1 in 50,000), is not a formal disorder listed in the DSM IV, so it would be diagnosed as Factitious Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS). Factitious Disorder is a mental illness wherein the person feigns either physical OR psychological symptoms with the focus on assuming the "sick role" (not for external reasons like avoiding legal responsibility). MSP is usually considered a form of child abuse.

In MSP, we have a parent making a kid sick, solely for the purposes of gaining sympathy. They appear devoted, dedicated, tireless. They also tend to be really knowledgeable about the kid's symptoms and medical condition and very interested in having positive relationships with the medical professionals caring for the child. Warning signs include:

Multiple hospitalizations of the child. If the symptoms go away in the hospital, they usually come back when the kid goes home.
The parent reports the symptoms are getting worse (even when they aren't)
Reported symptoms don't match the lab tests
Some evidence of fakery in lab tests (the blood/urine isn't the child's)
Some evidence of weird chemicals in the lab tests
Siblings who have died under mysterious medical circumstances
The parent may have very similar symptoms, or a history of them

Examples:

Administration of excessive laxatives (or poison) to produce severe diarrhea, vomiting, or other symptoms
A mysterious skin condition produced by rubbing caustic substances on the child's skin

On a personal note, here's a pet peeve of mine: when professionals toss this label around casually. I find it really upsetting. Because as soon as a professional decides a parent is MSP, it's a recipe for nastiness. I'm not saying that parents don't sometimes contribute to children's conditions, but deciding it's happening with deliberate intention is a different thing entirely.

It's not that MSP doesn't exist, because it does. And it's not like we don't need to pay attention to the psychological processes that are active for a parent caring for a symptomatic child, because we do. But I get concerned when something this big and scary gets raised without very careful consideration of 1) all the other possible explanations for the parent's behavior and the child's symptoms, and 2) a great deal of knowledge about what MSP actually is (and is not--for example, I've heard professionals accuse a mom of MSP because she was desperate to get her kid on disability. That's financial gain, folks, which immediately eliminates MSP).

Parents of kids with rare medical disorders sometimes get accused of MSP, and it makes things so much worse. So. Just a note of caution. There's a lot of controversy about this disorder. For some solid, more detailed general information about MSP, go here.

What do you think of MSP? Horrifying, no? Somehow, I think it's even worse than Munchausen Syndrome, because with MSP, the person is inflicting symptoms on another, more vulnerable person. Now--if you haven't yet, go read Laura's and Lydia's posts!

Mood Congruent Reading

2011-11-30T06:07:00.001-05:00

About two months ago, I experienced a brief period of internal ... strife. It had to do with what I was writing, or, more accurately, what I wanted to be writing. Completely accurately, what I wanted to be writing wasn't what I was writing at the time.

If you're still reading this post, I have a lot of admiration for you.

Anyway, I was totally unsettled. Stressed. And yeah, kind of unhappy.

I decided to read something to escape my little writerly angstfest.

That week, I read the entire Hunger Games trilogy.

It matched my mood perfectly. Something about those books just fit, and I gobbled them up. Perhaps you're wondering why I hadn't read them up to now (like the rest of the world), and all I can say is that I just didn't feel particularly motivated to do so. But that week, I think that unsettled, tense, mentally explosive sort of mood I was in shifted me into a space where they were the perfect books at the perfect time.

Mood congruence is a fascinating phenomenon. There's been TONS of research on it. Basically, if you're in a good mood, you think good things are more likely to happen and bad things are less likely. You're more likely to remember happy things. And if someone presents you with a list of words, you're more likely to recall adjectives that are positive. The opposite is true if you're in a bad mood (and especially if you're depressed).

What about mood congruent reading? When you're down, do you graviate toward darker fare? When you're feeling sunny, do you steer clear of drama and go for comedy? Or do you do the opposite? Have you ever saved a book for when you were in a different mood? Have you ever been drawn to a book because of your mood?

And--if you're just finishing NaNoWriMo, congratulations! Either way, skip on over to Deb Salisbury's Sisterhood of the Traveling blog post about why she didn't--I think she presents some pretty good reasons, definitely worth thinking about.

Schizoid wins the prize ...

2011-11-28T06:20:00.003-05:00

... as one of the most misused psychological terms around.

I've seen this in queries at various forums. I've heard it dropped in casual conversation. First, it's often used as a noun: "He takes a crazy road trip with a philosopher, a serial killer, and a schizoid."

Sigh. It's not a noun. It's an adjective. It describes a set of traits that add up to a personality disorder.

Second, it's often used to describe someone who is psychotic. Hallucinating, delusional, et cetera. When people say, "he's a total schizoid," what they usually mean is "he appears to have schizophrenia, or several symptoms thereof."

Except ... "schizoid" and "schizophrenic" are quite different (and also different from "schizotypal" and "schizoaffective", but that's for another post). I guess the moral here is: be careful with your schizos.

Back to schizoid personality disorder. If you refer back to my quick and dirty guide to personality disorders, schizoid personality disorder is part of Cluster A, the odd or eccentric patterns of behavior. Specifically, schizoid personality disorder (according to the DSM IV-TR) is a pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of emotion expression in interpersonal interactions characterized by at least four of the following:

Neither desiring nor enjoying close relationships--including familial ones
Choosing solitary activities
Little, if any, interest in sexual experiences
Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities
Lacking close friends or confidants
Indifferent to praise or criticism from others
Emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affect

See? No hallucinations or delusions. In fact, symptoms can't occur in the presence of schizophrenia (or any other psychotic disorder) or an autism spectrum disorder. To get diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder, the symptoms have to be impairing, and they have to be present across the person's environments.

Schizoid personality disorder is one of the more oft-questioned "disorders." Here's an example of why: I actually know someone who I believe has this disorder, and I can tell you that it's very hard on his family ... but it doesn't seem to bother him at all. Folks with this disorder don't often seek treatment because they aren't in distress. The people around them might be tremendously distressed, but the person himself? Meh. He could take 'em or leave 'em. Sure, he might be brilliant, but applying that brilliance? Meh. Passion? Meh. Dreams? Meh.

Meh.

Oh ... and also ... this is one of the personality disorders that's going to disappear in May 2013 when the APA rolls out the shiny new DSM V. I mean, folks currently diagnosed with this disorder won't suddenly be undiagnosed; this just means the way of describing and classifying the symptoms is going to look somewhat different.

Anyhoo, schizoid. Does it make any more sense now? Ever read any books with a character like this? And what do you think about diagnosing a person with a disorder if it's not actually causing the person any distress?

Because it's Monday, I highly recommend you visit Lydia to read her Medical Monday post, and then Laura for her Mental Health Monday post. They are some of the most un-meh bloggers I know.

People Are Lousy At Describing Behavior.

2011-11-21T06:27:00.000-05:00

Yeah. You probably are, too. In my lazier moments, so am I, even though I should know better. When the question is "What happened?" or "What did she do?" or "How did he react?", here's how people usually describe behavior:

She got upset.

He lost it.

She couldn't keep it together.

He got mad.

Does this sound familiar? I hear it everyday, from really smart people. When I ask, "So, what happens when you tell him he can't go over to his friend's house?" I get, "Oh, he gets really upset. He has a fit."

source

The funny thing is, it could stop there. I could nod my head and assume I know exactly what they're talking about. We all know what a fit is, right?

Right?!?

The problem is that while I'm picturing the kid, all red-faced and screaming obscenities, throwing cutlery, jumping up and down, and kicking the family dog... his parents might be picturing him weeping inconsolably while rocking in the corner. Those two things look really different! But the word "fit" could be applied to both of them. See, "descriptions" of behavior usually aren't describing behavior. They are merely summing up and labeling, a kind of linguistic shorthand we all use.

Most of my job is getting people to paint the picture of behavior for me, because I'm sitting in my office and don't actually get to see things go down (not usually, at least). I need to know the specifics--I need people to SHOW me, not TELL me.

Yes! There it is! Showing vs. telling is not just relevant to writing. It's essential to my effectiveness as a psychologist, and to anyone who wants to really figure out why people do what they do. We have to get the description of the behavior ... but also, the context, the environment, the relationships, the sequence of events. For me, if I only get the "telling" version of things, if I don't dig deeper, I'm going to fail.

I think this happens a lot in human communication--Person A says something, and Person B assumes he understands what A is saying. He pictures it in his head, and he responds to A based on that picture. But of course, A has a completely different picture in her head and is reacting with it in mind. Glorious miscommunication in action.

Now, tell me. Have you ever had a miscommunication like this? Have you ever assumed you knew what someone meant, only to find out the two of you were picturing something completely different? How does this kind of showing vs. telling language affect your life? And how about your writing life?

And yes! It's Monday, which means you should visit Laura to read her Mental Health Monday post. Do it. Or else I'll have a fit.

Do YOU NaNo?

2011-11-16T06:20:00.000-05:00

This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question comes from Laura, who asks:

Do you do NaNoWriMo? Why or why not?

Lydia's answer is here, and Laura's is here. Next week, Deb is up.

As for me:

Um, no. Not really. I think NaNo is awesome ... if you need it to get you going. And if the timing is perfect.

Don't get me wrong. I'm incredibly deadline driven. I think artificial set-ups like NaNo provide external scaffolding when internal motivation is not enough. But for me, and the way I write, it hasn't really worked out. See, if I'm not in the mood to write, I don't. And if I am ...

During August and September, I was working on a project, which I will call SGS. It got interrupted very briefly for me to write a time-sensitive proposal, but then I went back to SGS and planned to have it finished by the end of October.

Except ... I had an idea. It kept scraping and tapping on the inside of my skull whenever I sat down to work on SGS, which was coming to me slower, and slower, and then--I just decided I had to write this new thing and get it out of my head. So, on 10/16, I wrote a synopsis for the shiny new idea, a strange YA steampunk-gothic-retelling-thingy. And on 10/17, I started it, and promised myself (and my agent), that I'd only spend a month on it.

On Saturday, 11/12, the first draft was complete at 76,000 words. It's with beta readers now.

So, this is why I don't NaNo. My ideas come when they come, and I write them with their own timing, and that's how it's worked so far. However, I can honestly say that if the timing is ever right, and if I ever did need that external structure to get a project hammered out in a set amount of time, I would totally do it, because the support and enthusiasm of the NaNo participants is really fun to watch.

How about you--are you in the midst of a NaNo sprint? How's it going? If you're sitting out this year, have you done NaNo in past years? Why not this year?

Back to Basics

2011-11-14T06:20:00.001-05:00

Wow, the past few months have been crazy intense, in a wonderful way. I have a few projects going at once, in various stages, and for the first time in my brief writing career, I'm confident that I'm not going to run out of ideas or passion anytime soon. It's been a really productive time.

Except here on the blog. I apologize for that. I poured a lot of energy into this thing over the last year or so, but for the last two months, I haven't made much time for it. I also haven't been doing much of what I think I do best--writing about the intersection of psychology and literature, and specifically YA literature.

So, it's back to basics for me.

On Mondays, I'll post about psychological disorders and phenomena, the weird-cool-scary ways our minds and psyches work.

On Wednesdays, I'll post something writing-related, most likely from a psychological point of view.

Fridays will be open, simply because I don't want to overcommit! But when I do post, it will most likely be an analysis of a book that contains characters with mental/emotional disorders.

Is there anything you'd like to see here? Something you'd like me to cover?

Now. This post is short--because I'm off to read some of your most recent posts! And those will include Lydia Kang's Medical Monday post, and Laura Diamond's Mental Health Monday post, of course!

Jessica Bell's Debut! STRING BRIDGE

2011-11-11T06:23:00.000-05:00

Hi, everyone--once again, sorry for the absence, but I'll be back next week with a plethora of psychology-related and other-stuff-related posts. But! For today! I am excited to be helping out a good blogging friend of mine ...

Today is THE day to help Jessica Bell's debut, STRING BRIDGE, hit the bestseller list on Amazon, and receive the all-original soundtrack, Melody Hill: On the Other Side, written and performed by the author herself, for free!

All you have to do is purchase the book today (paperback, or eBook), November 11th, and then email the receipt to:

jessica.carmen.bell(at)gmail(dot)com

She will then email you a link to download the album at no extra cost!

To purchase the paperback:

Amazon USA

To purchase the eBook:

Amazon USA

Amazon UK

To listen to samples of the soundtrack, visit iTunes.

If you are
not familiar with String Bridge,
check out the book trailer:

Rave Reviews for String Bridge:

“Jessica Bell’s STRING BRIDGE strummed the fret of my veins, thrummed my blood into a mad rush, played me taut until the final page, yet with echoes still reverberating. A rhythmic debut with metrical tones of heavied dark, fleeting prisms of light, and finally, a burst of joy—just as with any good song, my hopeful heartbeat kept tempo with Bell’s narrative.” ~ Kathryn Magendie, author of Sweetie and Publishing Editor of Rose & Thorn Journal

“Poet and musician Jessica Bell's debut novel String Bridge is a rich exploration of desire, guilt, and the difficult balancing act of the modern woman. The writing is lyrical throughout, seamlessly integrating setting, character and plot in a musical structure that allows the reader to identify with Melody's growing insecurity as her world
begins to unravel … String Bridge is a powerful debut from a promising writer, full of music, metaphor, and just a hint of magic.” ~ Magdalena Ball, author of Repulsion
Thrust and Sleep Before Evening

“Jessica Bell is a brilliant writer of great skill and depth. She doesn't pull back from the difficult scenes, from conflict, pain, intensity. She puts it all out there, no holds barred, no holding back. She knows how to craft a scene, how to develop character, how to create suspense. This is an absolutely brilliant debut novel. I look forward to reading her next novel, and next and next.” ~ Karen Jones Gowen, author of Farm Girl, Uncut Diamonds and House of Diamonds

Connect with Jessica:
String Bridge: http://www.stringbridge.com/
Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/jessica_bell
Website: http://www.jessicacbell.com/
Blog: http://thealliterativeallomorph.blogspot.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/author.jessica.bell
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/MsBessieBell
Publisher: http://www.luckypress.com/

Please TWEET and/or FACEBOOK this post using #StringBridge!

Can I Claim a Second Birthday?

2011-10-31T06:30:00.006-04:00

My birthday was a few days ago. I'm a year older! Hooray! However, today, Halloween, is a different kind of birthday for me.

On October 31st, 2009, I became a writer. Some of you know this about me. I've talked about it a few times. Before 10/31/2009, I'd pretty much never written creatively, apart from assignments in literature courses in high school and college. I didn't write for fun. I'd never journaled or written poetry. I never considered myself an overly creative person.

But quite suddenly, two years ago, I decided to write a book. The idea had been churning in my mind for a little while, both the idea of writing a book and the idea for the story I wanted to tell. I was intrigued by the challenge of writing a novel. And on 10/31/2009, I started doing it.

It was the most all-consuming, startling experience I've ever had. I didn't do it for NaNoWriMo or anything, but by the end of November 2009, I had completed a 98k-word novel.

I was as surprised as everyone else who knew me. My parents were frankly stunned. My husband was entirely perplexed. My friends were quizzically amused. It was so out of character for me.

That's how it all started for me. At first, I was pretty much convinced it was a one-time thing, but the passion for it only grew. I couldn't rid my system of it, and every other part of me--and my life--has been trying to adjust ever since. Now we're two years down the road, and although I supposed my drive to write could die, it doesn't show any signs of doing so. I'm a writer now. It's part of who I am.

Do YOU have a writing birthday, or a moment to which you can connect your "birth" as a writer? Or has your journey been one of gradual evolution rather than a Big Bang?

*note: I'm without power AGAIN, thanks to the freakish October snow storm, and may not be back this week, since they're saying we won't have light or HEAT until 11/3. I'll try to get around to blogs to comment as best I can!*

LARKSTORM: Cover Reveal

2011-10-27T06:11:00.002-04:00

Sorry for being MIA this week--my schedule once again caught up with me! I'll be back next week, but I couldn't miss this opportunity to tell you about one of my agent-mates, Dawn Rae Miller, and her soon-to-be-released book, LARKSTORM.

You can read about Dawn's decision to self-publish LARKSTORM with the support of the Nancy Coffey Literary Agency here. Dawn's a total entrepreneurial soul, so when she told me she was going to do this, I knew she'd be successful!

Without further ado, here is the cover!

The cover artist is Sarah Marino, who did a phenomenal job!

Here's a little more about the book:

In the years following the destructive Long Winter, when half the world’s population perished, the State remains locked in battle against the Sensitives: humans born with extra abilities.

As one of the last descendants of the State’s Founders, seventeen-year-old Lark Greene knows her place: study hard and be a model citizen so she can follow in her family’s footsteps. Her life’s been set since birth, and she’s looking forward to graduating and settling down with Beck, the boy she’s loved longer than she can remember.

However, after Beck is accused of being Sensitive and organizing an attack against Lark, he disappears. Heartbroken and convinced the State made a mistake, Lark sets out to find him and clear his name.

But what she discovers is more dangerous and frightening than Sensitives: She must kill the boy she loves, unless he kills her first.

I've read Dawn's book, and it's an exciting and emotional page-turner. I cannot wait for the sequel! Here's the link to it on Good Reads. You can follow Dawn on Twitter here. You can read more about her here (she's one of the most interesting people I know).

LARKSTORM (the first of a trilogy) will be out in December!

CONGRATULATIONS, LYDIA!

2011-10-21T06:01:00.000-04:00

I'm away from my computer all day, but I've known about this for several days and could barely contain myself. Something awesome has happened, my friends, and here it is:

And, er, you might not be able to read that. Darn. If you can't, let me help you: LYDIA KANG'S BOOK HAS SOLD. Quickly. And well. Or, though it is grammatically incorrect, maybe we should say: It has sold GOOD.

Lydia has been one of my good blogging buddies for nearly a year, and I adore her. Many, if not all, of you know her, too, so I'm certain you're ready to celebrate with her! Let's have some virtual champagne.

WAY TO GO, LYDIA!

I will never kill you in a novel.

2011-10-19T05:28:00.000-04:00

This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question comes from Deb, who asked: "How do your pets/kids/plants (something you take care of) influence your writing? Do they help you, or distract you? Do you include them in your stories?"

Laura's answer is here, and Lydia's is here. Deb is up next week! As for me ...

First, let me get this out of the way. I don't put people I know in stories. Not family members, not friends, not colleagues, not clients. I've never even considered it, and it has to do with why I write. See, some of us write to express ourselves. Some of us write to process what we've been through. Some of us write because our heads are full of stories just waiting to be told.

I write to escape.

When I write, I am not here. I'm gone, lost in that story, dwelling within my characters. I tune everything out and go to that protected place in my head. When I am under the most stress, when I am under the most pressure, when I feel like climbing the walls--that's when my daily word count goes up (should I mention that I wrote over eight thousand words on Monday?).

That kind of escape would be hard to achieve if I took all the people I know with me. It's not that I don't love them or care about them; quite the opposite. It's just that I'm one of the most seriously introverted people you'll ever meet, and I need that time inside myself to charge up.

However ... part of Deb's question was whether something or someone I take care of influences my writing. The answer to that is yes. The people I care for, both personally and professionally, absolutely influence my writing.

They've taught me to ask a very important question: what's it like to be you?

I spend a lot of my work time, and a great deal of my at-home time, thinking about the possible answers to this question. To come up with the answer, you kind of have to shed yourself and go wear someone else's skin ... metaphorically speaking, of course (those of you who've read some of my manuscripts might be wondering).

I've learned to ponder this question whenever I butt heads with someone, whenever I'm trying to figure out why someone is behaving in a way that's hurting both herself and all the people around her, whenever I'm trying to understand someone's next move or how he might react to something I'm doing.

I've come to the realization that this question--what's it like to be you?--is incredibly useful. And not just for interpersonal interactions. For character development, too! And I truly believe that whatever ability I have to crawl inside a character's head comes from the experiences I've had with the people I care for. I mean, if I bear some responsibility to a person, some power to change things for her, then I need to think about what it's like to see the world through her eyes. I'm grateful to every person who's been patient with me as I tried to figure that out.

How about you? How would you answer Deb's question? Do the things or people you take care of influence your writing? How?

Guest Post by Stina Lindenblatt: Edgy, Dark YA

2011-10-17T06:20:00.000-04:00

Today's post is from Stina, one of my favorite bloggers who has become a friend. Stina and I have corresponded a bit about the topic of "dark" YA, and I asked her to write this post to share her thoughts.

Stress. Unfortunately it’s an issue not isolated solely to adults. Today, teens face more negative stress than ever before, but they don’t have the same coping skills as adults. This is why edgy dark young adult novels are so beneficial.

So what does edgy dark YA have to do with stress? Plenty. Topics typically dealt with in this type of story include: death, eating disorders, bullying, cutting, rape, drugs. None of these are cute and fuzzy. But the beauty of YA is it doesn’t matter if you write a paranormal or thriller or contemporary story, each genre allows you to approach the topic a different way. This means that even though Laurie Halse Anderson authored a contemporary novel about a girl struggling with anorexia, it doesn’t mean you can’t write a thriller with a girl dealing with the same issue. The stories will be very different, and yours might snare the attention of teens who weren’t interested in Winter Girls.

If you want to write edgy dark YA, figure out why you are passionate about the particular issue you want to approach and what you are hoping to achieve. Let’s take suicide as an example. Thirteen Reasons Why is a brilliant YA contemporary novel that addressed the topic of suicide in two ways. The first one dealt with a boy struggling to understand the motives behind why a girl he was crushing on killed herself. The author, Jay Asher, also wanted to show teens the warning signs to look out for in case someone they know is considering suicide. Thanks to Jay’s passion about the topic, his book has saved lives.

Passion is also important because it helps you create an authentic story. You care so much about the topic, you want the story to succeed. And how do you that? Through research. If you don’t do the research, someone will catch your mistakes. Unfortunately, it won’t be your agent or editor. It will be a teen dealing with the same issue who will notice it. You’ll lose credibility with some of your readers. And loss of credibility is a danger thing.

How do you avoid this problem? Read as much as you can on the topic, and make sure you are studying information from qualified experts, such as child psychologists. You also want to make sure your research is relevant to teens. For example, teens don’t deal with depression the same way adults do. If you can, talk to teens dealing with the issue (either the individual is experiencing it or knows some who is, depending on your story). This will ensure your voice is genuine, your character is authentic, and her experiences are true to her situation. For example, if your character is a cutter, make sure you understand how it feels (or doesn’t feel) when she takes the blade to her skin. When done correctly, your character won’t sound like a clinical case study.

By bringing the psychological issues that affect teens’ lives (directly or indirectly) to light, you can give hope to those who felt there was none, empowerment to those who felt there was no other choice but the path they took, and increase awareness and understanding to those sitting on the sidelines, uncertain if something is wrong. You can change a teen’s life, hopefully for the better. You might even save a life. Now what could be better than that?

I agree with everything Stina says here--especially about figuring out WHY you want to write about a particular topic, and then doing the research to make sure you are respecting those who've been through these things by portraying their experiences accurately and sensitively.

Do you read dark YA? If so, why? Do you write it? Was it a conscious decision or just what came to you? How do you make sure what you're writing is true to life?

And of course, check out Lydia Kang's Medical Monday and Laura Diamond's Mental Health Monday!

A Marvelous Species Unto Themselves

2011-10-12T06:22:00.000-04:00

A few days ago I posted about why I write YA, and I mentioned that teens aren't just junior adults.

There's research to back up this claim!

The common adult complaints about teens is that they're overdramatic. Angsty. That everything seems like a big deal. That they take too many risks. That they don't properly think through things, that they act on impulse. That they rebel just because.

Did I miss any?

I hear a lot of adults dismiss teens--and teen concerns--and teen fiction--this way.

They're missing something kinda important.

Here are some truths:

Human brains don't reach full maturity until the third decade of life. What I mean by "maturity": all the connections in the brain are formed, and those connections are working at optimum speed.
As a result, teens have to work harder to engage the "executive functioning" regions of their brains (the ones in charge of planning and impulse control). The thing is--they CAN do it, and often as well as adults can, but it's not as automatic.
And here's the one that fascinates me: Teens accurately evaluate risks and are aware of their own mortality--but they value the relative rewards in risky situations more than adults do.

At first, it's easy to look at these results gleaned from brain scan research and conclude that teens are just works in progress. But researchers are thinking about these findings in a different way--what if this developmental progression is not just a matter of maturation--what if it's also necessary and adaptive?

Evolutionary theories would suggest that it doesn't make sense for humans to have this dangerous and faulty period in their development. Although it's easy to look at death rates--young people die disproportionately in non-work-related accidents--and conclude that's true, it's important to think about it more deeply than that. What do teens have to do? They have to separate from their parents. Create new relationships and find romantic partners. Forge independent identities.

How could they do that if they didn't highly value the rewards of those risky activities? How could they accomplish the things they're supposed to do if they didn't reach out? Why would they want to if they didn't feel the powerful need to seek new and stimulating experiences?

Yes, it makes it hard to keep them safe. Yes, it means being a parent of a teen can be a heart-stopping--and sometimes heart-breaking--experience. No, it does not mean we should just let teens do whatever they feel is right, because understanding where the boundaries are is an essential part of development into adulthood. But if adults understand that adolescence is not just a developmental stage to endure, but a phase that is imperative for successful transition into adulthood, we might be more respectful of our teens and value their perspectives more.

National Geographic has a brilliant article about all of this in October's issue. It is a MUST read for writers of YA, and for adults who want to really understand teens (instead of dismissing them as naive or immature young people).

Are you a teen, or are you the parent of a teen? Have you heard people dismiss or complain about teens this way? Are you one of them? What do you think of these research results, and their interpretation?

Why I Write YA

2011-10-10T06:55:00.000-04:00

I never started out to write for young adults. It never actually occurred to me to do it on purpose, though you'd think it would have, since I'm a child psychologist. The first book I ever wrote sort of straddled the line between adult and young adult, which doomed it from the start (that my writing just wasn't ready for primetime yet might also have had something to do with it).

Somewhere along the line, someone told me that the story would be better if it was just straight-up YA. Huh. So I started reading YA and was astounded--it was some of the best written stuff I'd read. Passionate. Intense. Poignant. Exciting. Elegant.

Elegant?

Are you picturing ballgowns and pearls now?

There's more than one definition of elegant, so let me clarify which one I mean: pleasantly ingenious and simple.

Good YA is elegant. It's not a dumbed-down version of adult fiction, no more than teens are dumbed-down versions of adults (more on this later this week). Instead, YA is a type of fiction and style all its own. It makes the intricate and complicated world of teen characters understandable, relatable, and riveting without stealing the authenticity.

I write YA because of the challenge of it. I have to write smart. I have to distill every ounce of emotion so I can render it on the page in its purest form. I need to capture the characters at the perfect moment in their development--they have to ring true but also powerfully vivid and raw--life, heightened. I must accomplish this while rolling a story forward with ruthless efficiency.

YA has boundaries adult fiction doesn't have. It must be faithful to its audience. Their concerns are not adult concerns. Their world is a different shape.

I'm not sure if being a psychologist has made me a better writer. Maybe. Probably. But I know writing YA has made me a better psychologist, in that it gives the phrase developmentally appropriate a new, vibrant meaning, one I carry with me into my work. It strips the technical from it and makes it real.

Do you write YA? If so, why?

Don't forget to visit Lydia for her Medical Monday post and Laura for Mental Health Monday!

Guest Post! Lydia Kang on Mind-Body Connection

2011-10-05T06:13:00.000-04:00

A special treat today--Lydia Kang, who has one of my favorite blogs ever, is guest posting! Lydia is a physician and recently-agented writer, repped by Eric Myers of the Spieler Agency. She also happens to be one of the nicest people I've come to know in the blogosphere.

Sarah invited me to do a guest post today. What fun! Look at this place. Hey, Sarah, why is there a painting of an incontinent T-rex on the wall?

Oh. It’s a Rorschach blot? Okay, please don’t analyze what I just said.

Anyway. Since I tackle a lot of medical stuff on my blog and Sarah handles the psychological ones, it made sense to discuss the Mind-Body connection.

I see evidence of the mind-body connection all the time. Here’s a smattering of real-life examples.

Stress causing headaches and elevated blood pressure
Laughter lowering blood pressure, increasing infection-fighting cytokines in the blood, and lowering cortisol (a stress hormone)
Depression as a risk factor for heart attacks
Broken-heart syndrome (Takasubo’s cardiomyopathy)

As a writer, why does this matter? Because you have to consider how a stressful situation might make your character feel and what it might do to his/her body. If they have multiple sclerosis, their disease might flare. If they lose a spouse, they’d be at higher risk of dying within that same year. If they have a new diagnosis of a chronic illness, depression may rear its head.

As a writer, you should also consider this—fiction is one thing; YOU are another. I know that snacking and sedentary habits often go hand-in-hand with a writer’s lifestyle. I rarely get on my doctor’s soapbox to lecture, but in this case, I shall for the benefit of my many writer friends out in the blogosphere.

In order to have a healthy mind to produce those amazing, brilliant pieces of writing you produce, a healthy body truly does help. Exercise can do wonders for writer’s block, and healthy eating can do wonders for a writer’s end.

Yes, I’m talking both THE END and the REAR END.

*jumps off soapbox*

Sarah, thanks for having me. I hope that T-Rex practices her Kegel exercises.

And readers, remember to make an effort to stay healthy and always consider the mind-body connection for your characters!

*looks up from scribbling down theories of Dr. Kang's deepest unconscious urges* Thanks, Lydia! I have to admit I sorely neglect my poor body, so this is a great reminder to take better care of it.

Don't forget to visit Laura's blog today, where she answers this month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question: "How do your pets/kids/plants (something you take care of) influence your writing? Do they help you, or distract you? Do you include them in your stories?"

Now--what's your mind-body connection? Do you try to ignore it, like me (and then realize you can't actually get away with it)? Or do you find exercise and eating right is an essential part of your writing routine? What about the mind-body connection in your characters?

Demystification: Opposites Attract

2011-10-03T06:25:00.000-04:00

Oh, it's been a long time since I've done one of these demystification posts! So ... the other day, I watched this movie. It's a few years old, but perhaps you've seen it: Knocked Up?

The premise of this movie is based in large part on an idea that's very popular in our culture: opposites attract.

You know:
Opposite = exciting! Thrilling! Oh, the passion!
Similar = boring, sad pandas. *snore*

So is this true?

Well, research shows that a lot of people believe this idea.

However, lots (as in, dozens) of studies have solidly demonstrated that the opposite is true. Who do Type A personalities prefer to date? Other Type As. Same pattern for Type Bs. And it's not just personality types--it's also values, attitudes and beliefs. This type of similarity is related to attraction as well as marriage happiness and stability. Oh, and friendships, too.

Interestingly, though, many people claim to want a relationship with someone who has opposing personality characteristics. But one study showed that although people personally endorse the belief that they are attracted to those with opposing traits, when asked to rate specifically the traits they find desirable ... they ended up with profiles strikingly similar to their own personalities.

So--have you been a believer in this opposites attract idea? Where have you seen it in fiction, either books or movies? Can you think of any YA books that play with this concept?

While you ponder that, let me announce that on Wednesday, the fabulous (and recently agented! Yay!) Lydia Kang will be guest posting here, discussing Mind-Body connection for writers and their characters!

Getting Into Character

2011-09-28T06:17:00.000-04:00

I was supposed to post this last week, but I figure better late than never. This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question was posed by yours truly:

How do you develop your characters? Do you flesh out the details before (like writing as that character, writing backstory, or filling out a questionnaire about their preferences and history) or invent as you go?

Now, first, Deb Salisbury is posting today--and today is her day to post, so go over to her blog and see her answer to this! Laura posted her answer at the beginning of this month, and Lydia posted hers two weeks ago.

As for me:

I am not a pantster. I tend to outline or at least write out a lot of notes before I start a project. I think of it as a gearing-up phase, sort of like on a rollercoaster--you have that series of meh ups-and-downs before you start up the steepest hill to get to the heart-stopping downhill. It's a kind of critical mass, like I have to build a bit before I start writing in earnest. Once I do, I write fast, sometimes thousands of words per day, and am often finished with the book within 10-12 weeks.

Interestingly enough, though, my gearing-up process doesn't include a lot in the way of character development. It's incidental for me. That doesn't mean it's not important! It's just ... I don't do anything like writing journals from the characters' points of view or completing inventories of their preferences. A lot of those details emerge as I write the actual story.

What I do accomplish in the pre-writing phase: establishing a few core traits, including strengths and weaknesses. My characters have to be consistent, even when they're going to radically change over the course of the story-arc. I try to keep character temperament firmly in mind as I write, and if we're talking the POV character(s), then I want the prose to reflect it, which means I have to understand it ahead of time.

So I guess my approach is:

I get the core traits in mind ahead of time, plus some history and background.
I don't bother with the detail stuff, including preferences, habits, mannerisms, and pet peeves, until I'm actually writing the story, because I know it will evolve organically as part of the story-creation process.

Now that I think about it, this character development process mirrors human development. We each come into the world, already wired up with a temperament. But it is only through our experiences--our daily walk through our own life stories--that we discover our preferences, pick up mannerisms, and develop our patterns of communication and ways of relating to other people. Go figure.

How about you? What's your process?

Baby Steps

2011-09-26T06:19:00.000-04:00

It feels like I've been away forever. This week, I'm going to start visiting blogs again! I'm sure I've missed a lot.

Update on me:

Current project #1 is at 52k and I still plan to be done by the end of October or beginning of November.
Current project #2 is super-secret, but I am so excited about it! Excited enough to interrupt progress on #1 in order to work on it. I'm hoping I can tell you about it sometime in the next few months, but for now ... shhh.
Nearly-ready-to-submit project is also on hold, because project #2 is .... well. Exciting.
And, finally ... that project I was in love with over the summer (the one set in Ireland) was halted at 100 pages because of all this other stuff, and someday I will return to it with the passion it deserves.
Yes, I am aware that 1-4 are probably confusing, irritatingly vague, and annoyingly coy. Sorry.
My day job is still intense, but we're trying to hire an Assistant Director in the next month or so, and that will lighten my load somewhat.
I stand by my assertion that Fall 2011 is going to be awesome.

Now ... please update me on how you're doing. Any news I've missed that you'd like to share? Any must-read posts to which you'd like to direct me?

Here are some I recommend: Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post!

I'm Elsewhere!

2011-09-07T05:24:00.000-04:00

I really hoped things would feel more under control by today, but ... honestly? Not so much. I want to apologize for being completely disconnected and absent. I really miss reading and commenting on all of your blogs, and hope to get back to it soon.

Update on me: I'm 39k into my current project and plan to have a first draft completed by the end of October (more details to come). Right now, it feels possible but a little bit crazy at the same time, in part because I have two other projects I'm going to be revising between now and then. And also because I've been working twelve hour days and am on-call 24/7, and that won't be going away anytime soon. I'm living in a sort of limbo world, where everything in front of me has narrowed to a fine point, and yet I know I'm missing about 90% of what's going on around me because I'm only focused on the urgent stuff.

So ... I'm not really here. I am, however, guest-blogging over at A Tapestry of Words today. Danya is having an AMAZING month-long event:

She has brought together a diverse array of folks--published authors, psychologists, psychology-savvy book reviewers ... it's really impressive and totally fascinating. I suggest you head on over there to visit, follow her, and visit frequently!

And of course, check out Laura's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog post! This month's question is one I came up with: "How do you develop your characters? Do you flesh out the details before (like writing as that character, writing backstory, or filling out a questionnaire about their preferences and history) or invent as you go?" Lydia will be up next week, I'll be posting my own answer in two weeks, and Deb is up at the end of the month.

Miss you guys.

An brief and unplanned hiatus

2011-08-29T10:22:00.000-04:00

I had no intention of doing this, but you know how life gets in the way?

Yeah.

Between Irene cutting the power (and the electric company telling us it could be "several days" until we get it back) and some brand new job responsibilities that include managing a staff of 35 or so--who all work intensely hard with families who have very complex needs, and therefore need every ounce of support I can offer--I'm not going to be blogging this week.

Right now, I'm thinking I'll be back next Wednesday, and I can't wait, because I've got some really cool stuff planned, and Fall 2011 is going to be generally awesome.

Until then, I'm underwater.

I hope all of you on the east coast weathered the storm well, and that all of you are enjoying this last week before fall is officially underway!

In Defense of the Emoticon

2011-08-24T06:24:00.000-04:00

It was so nice to see your comments on Monday's post about emoticons. Nearly everyone had a generally favorable opinion of these little glyphs or sets of keystrokes, saying they clarified meaning and intent in computer-mediated communication.

I *have* read other opinions on the use of emoticons. Namely, that they are crutches, that they are unsophisticated, and that some will not stoop to using them. These opinions come from writers, intelligent folks who pride themselves on precise communication using words alone. When we write for our readers, we don't generally use pictures (unless you do PBs or graphic novels). All we have is words. So I suppose I understand this negative attitude about emoticons coming from these particular people.

Sort of.

Except--these two types of communication are quite different, in my opinion. We use emoticons in interpersonal communication, and specifically, while communicating via electronic means. We use them as a substitute for nonverbals--gestures, facial expressions, body language, tone of voice. We use them for a REASON. My favorite comment on Monday was from Adam Heine, who said:

As someone who has gotten in a heated couple's argument because of misunderstood tone of voice in an e-mail, I am a big fan of emoticons.

And there you have it. I think Adam's comment beautifully demonstrates why we use emoticons. They help us make ourselves understood in a medium in which our nonverbals have been stripped from us, yet our need to communicate--quickly and effectively--is incredibly high. Research has demonstrated that emoticons facilitate this type of communication.

That being said, I'm a latecomer to the world of emoticons. I'm using them more often these days, but only in certain situations. When I see them over used :)))))))))))), I still flinch a bit. I can't help myself. If you're communicating with me and you're using strings of emoticons like the one above, I might tell you I'm worried about you. It makes me wonder if you're in some kind of manic state and require assistance. If one smiley is friendly, five (in close proximity) is trying too hard, and ten makes me wonder if we're headed for a breakdown.

This is in part due to the fact that the majority of my computer-mediated communication was strictly professional up until last November, so maybe I have a low threshold for this kind of thing. And believe me, when I'm communicating with a potential referral source, it's not really OK to type something like, "Thanks so much for the referral!!! :D My wait-list is a few months long :(((( But I'll try to fit them in as soon as I can :P"

In informal interpersonal communication, though, I'm increasingly finding them an easy way to make a friendly gesture. To make my intent clear. To smile at my communication partner through the computer screen. That seems worthwhile. Sure, any form of communication can be exaggerated or overused, but emoticons have their place, and I'm glad we have them.

And here, I present you with:

Your standard dancing banana.

Now, what's your favorite emoticon? Have you ever created one you thought was a perfect representation of your mood or state of mind? Do you use the .gif kind or the standard :) kind? Do you ever have trouble translating them?

And because it's a Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog day, check out Deb's answer to what genre she's been crushing on, and why she hasn't written it yet.

:-) You tell me: The Emoticon (-:

2011-08-22T06:52:00.001-04:00

Ah, the emoticon, a few keystrokes that come together to form some approximation of a facial expression.

No one knows who actually invented the emoticon, but its first use online was apparently in 1982, by a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. He suggested the use of ":-)" to indicate a joke was being made.

And now? THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. They've gone way beyond ASCII symbols, too. Now we have faces that hug or wink or leer or drink whisky and fall over. On the Absolute Write boards, my particular favorite is one that eats popcorn while wearing a wide-eyed expression, signifying the poster is a avidly watching whatever argument is going on. We have dancing bananas, too. You name it, and it probably exists as an emoticon somewhere.

My friends, we are writers. We're supposed to be able to move people with our words alone. So here's my question (ok, if you know me, you know there's actually going to be more than one):

What are your thoughts about emoticons? Do you use them?

If you do, are you unabashed about it, or do you feel a bit sheepish?

When you think of them, do you feel like this?

Or like this?

I'll be posting my thoughts about emoticons on Wednesday.

And of course, because it's Monday, go check out Lydia's blog and enter her 900 followers contest, and then peruse Laura's Mental Health Monday post, where she's talking about good mental health!

How Writers Are Like Chimpanzees

2011-08-19T07:44:00.001-04:00

Now, don't be insulted. Chimps are actually quite intelligent.

On Monday, I posed a question: Do you ever read someone's writing without expecting the writer to return the favor? And have you ever asked someone to read with no intention of reciprocating?

Most of you said you always offer to reciprocate, and that even if that reciprocation isn't immediate, the general assumption is that one good turn deserves another and it'll happen at some point.

As I was thinking of the rules of reciprocity for writers, I came across this interesting article about the concept of reciprocal altruism--the exchange of goods and services between individuals "such that one benefits from the act of the other, and then the other benefits in return." [Sigh. YES. I am a big nerd.] The article outlines three kinds of reciprocity found within the animal kingdom (and specifically, monkeys and apes).

Symmetry-based reciprocity--this one is the least demanding in terms of brain power. It happens as a result of mutual association (like family members ... or forum members). The similarity leads the involved individuals to behave similarly toward each other, and there's no scorekeeping. Capuchin monkeys do this. So do chimpanzees. So do writers in critique forums. We all do for each other.

Attitudinal reciprocity--this one is a step up in terms of thinking. Basically, your willingness to cooperate is influenced by the other person's recent attitude. If they've been stingy lately, you're not so willing to help. If they've been generous, well. That's different. But there's still not a lot of scorekeeping here, because it's based on social attitudes rather than a specific, value-based 1:1 relationship. Capuchins and chimps do this. As do crit groups. It is in our nature to reciprocate, but we start to notice if someone's not pulling his/her weight, and it affects our willingness to spend our time on that person.

Calculated reciprocity--ah, here we go with scorekeeping. Tit-for-tat, and it's specific to each pair. Like, one writer A owes you a crit because you read something of hers last month, but when it comes to writer C, you and he both know you owe him one. This is a pretty human thing to do, except: chimps do it, too. If Frederick Chimp grooms Lucinda Chimp in the morning, Lucinda's more likely to share her food with Frederick in the afternoon. But she's not more likely to share with Mortimer Chimp, who seems to think he can mooch off Lucinda without offering the appropriate reciprocal flea-removal services. But! Interestingly, if Mortimer gets off his a$$ and grooms for once, Lucinda's likely to notice it more than Frederick's daily toiling, and she will share more food with Mortimer that day. Except it only works in the short term, because Lucinda IS keeping score. If Mortimer doesn't de-flea-ify Lucinda tomorrow, he can fuhgeddaboudit.

It's possible none of that made any sense. Forgive me. It's been a long week.

Anyway, I think we all do that kind of scorekeeping. We notice when someone's not reciprocating, and we're less likely to go the extra mile for that person. It's true amongst writers, and it's true in daily life. We're not simple creatures, so it's NOT like tit-for-tat is the only thing that determines our behaviors, but it's certainly there.

How about you? Do you notice when someone's not pulling his/her weight as a crit-partner/beta-reader/casual reader? Have you ever said "no" to critting that person's work as a result?

The Genre For Which I Pine ...

2011-08-17T06:19:00.001-04:00

This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question is:

"What genre or category of writing do you wish you could tackle, and why haven't you?"

Lydia's answer is here, and Laura's is here. Deb will give her answer next week. For me, this is a pretty easy one. I haven't written anything contemporary. I think that's what people might expect a psychologist to write. Either that or psychological thriller-type things. I don't write anything close to that. All of my projects involve some sort of fantasy or supernatural element, which is sort of funny to me because I'm kind of a science person, in case you hadn't noticed. But also, I enjoy world-building, making rules amd mythologies, and letting my imagination unfurl on the page.

Nevertheless, I admit to pining to write exactly the kind of contemporary you might expect from me. I've even outlined most of the plot for one, to tell you the truth. I've done quite a bit of research. I want to write it. I love the characters already.

A few things are stopping me.

First ... my agent has informed me that contemporaries from not-yet-established authors are not selling well right now. No, I'm not saying no one can sell a contemporary or anything like that, I'm just saying I've been told they're harder to sell right now. I, personally, love contemporaries and they comprise a large chunk of my reading list. More, in fact, than urban fantasy or paranormal ... which is what I tend to write. That's because contemporaries are the books that delve deeply into issues of mental illness and health, and that's what I tend to read lately.

Second ... because I've got a lot of other stuff to write. Those of you who read this blog regularly know I recently started a new WIP, which is paranormal horror-ish. I got about 100 pages in, but now I've put it on hold (temporarily) because I needed to write something else. That's just how things go sometimes, and I know that project will be waiting for me when I return. But between my various WIPs and potential WIPs, it takes a lot to front burner something these days, and the contemp isn't making it.

Third ... you know what? You guys are so sweet to me, and several of you have commented how you think my characters must be so well-developed and their relationships so intricate and emotionally satisfying. I certainly hope they are! I work really hard on it. But with contemporaries, that's got to be pitch perfect (not that it doesn't have to be in other genres)--it's real life in a real place, not a haunted Irish castle or the afterlife or a futuristic canal city. I've read NUMEROUS excellent contemps this year, all of which accomplish exactly that kind of emotional intricacy. I think I'm a little intimidated. I honestly don't know how much of that nagging fear is present in my decision not to write the contemporary right now, but I'll go ahead and admit to it.

Now--your turn! Is there a genre you're considering but haven't quite committed to yet? Why not?

You Tell Me: Reciprocity for Writers

2011-08-15T06:57:00.000-04:00

On Wednesday, I'm going to post on reciprocity. The sort of tit-for-tat that makes the world go 'round.

Today I'll tell you a story to get your thoughts going. I have a friend, Brigid Kemmerer. She's a writer. When I joined the social networking world last November, Brigid, though we do not share an agent or agency or anything like that, was one of the first people to reach out to me. We tweeted at each other occasionally, gchatted occasionally, and read and commented on each other's blogs. We traded book recommendations. Nothing much, just a few exchanges.

But then, a few months ago, Brigid asked me to read some of her stuff. She was wrestling with the sequel to ELEMENTAL (which will be released by KTeen in May 2012) and she wanted an objective critical eye. She had drawn the conclusion that I had one, and so she very nicely, very hesitantly, very humbly asked me if I would do this for her.

And then she said, "Of course, I'd be happy to read anything of yours."

Now, this got me thinking about reciprocity. And writers. When you read someone's writing, do they automatically owe you? Does it matter if you offer or if they ask? Are there rules about this stuff? What are they? When do they work? When do they create awkwardness and resentment? What are the factors involved? Published vs. unpublished? Agented vs. unagented?

There's one more factor I've been thinking about. Sheer enjoyment. See, Brigid sent me ELEMENTAL, and ... I loved it. I loved it so darn much that I'm going to do a whole blog post on it as we near its May 2012 release, even though it doesn't involve any in-depth mental health topics. There's just something about it. I had a huge grin on my face through most of the book. I still remember some of the lines word-for-word for their utter awesomeness, and I'm not a person who remembers quotes. I had to stop a few times and email Brigid to communicate my adoration of her writing and characters. By the time I was done, I was dying to read the sequel, and she sent me the first half or so, because that's what she needed me to read in the first place. I loved that, too.

At this point, I would read anything Brigid writes, no strings attached, and I've made that clear. But still ... she kept offering to read things of mine. And, heck, I'm human. I took her up on it!

How do you negotiate this, my friends? Do you ever say no to people who ask you to read their manuscripts? Do you ever ask people to read your stuff with no intention of reading theirs? Do you automatically offer? Do you offer because you want to or because you feel obligated? Have you read people's work without the expectation that they'll read yours? Does it hover at the back of your mind? Do you ever offer to read someone else's stuff for the sheer pleasure of it, even though they see it as a favor? Do you ever resent when someone asks you?

Of course, it's Monday, so this is your reminder to check out the ever-amazing Lydia's Medical Monday post and the always-awesome Laura's Mental Health Monday post.

The Facebook Dilemma

2011-08-10T06:14:00.001-04:00

As I mentioned Monday, social media was a big topic at this year's American Psychological Association convention. One of the big talks, given by Dr. Larry Rosen, was about the effects of social media, and particularly Facebook, on teens.

The recent findings?

Tweens and teens who "overuse" media and technology are more prone to a host of mental health problems, including depression and anxiety.
Teens who are heavy Facebook users are more narcissistic, and may show more tendencies toward aggression and manic behaviors.
Facebook is legit distracting (huh? who knew?). Middle and high schoolers who checked Facebook at least once every fifteen minutes had lower grades.

WHOA. That sounds terrible! But then, there were also these findings:

Teens who spend more time on Facebook are more more adept at offering "virtual empathy" to online friends.
Networking via social media can help introverted teens reach out and connect with others.
Social networking can be part of innovative teaching techniques that engage tweens and teens.

What do you make of this stuff? Is Facebook good or evil or both?

Now, I have a confession. *SOME* of you have asked me why I'm not on Facebook. The answers have to do with my profession and my fear that it's a huge time suck.

However ... yeah. I bit the bullet. Sort of. I now have a page on Facebook, right here. It's a fanpage rather than a profile, so I guess you can "like" it and post on the wall and stuff. At this point, there's not much there. But there will be. Someday.

When I figure out the "there" that's supposed to be there.

Honestly? I really have no clue how the whole thing works. I don't even know if the above link takes you to the right place (will someone please tell me if it doesn't?). So ... please educate me. For those of you who are Facebook pros, give me advice! How should I use this? What am I supposed to do with it? I don't intend to use it for personal reasons and that's the reason it's a fanpage instead of a profile. I'm using it as a writer. Now, please help me. What am I supposed to be doing? What's the etiquette?

Also, feel free to laugh at me. It's okay. Really. I deserve it.

Because it's Wednesday, check out Lydia's answer to this month's Sisterhood of the Traveling blog question about which genre we're crushing on and why we haven't written it ... yet.

Cyberstalking and Cyberharrassment

2011-08-08T06:58:00.000-04:00

The American Psychological Association's (APA) annual convention took place this past week in Washington DC. I didn't go but have sort of been following remotely, and one of the major topics was social media. So this week, I thought I'd post a bit about that.

I've already posted about cyberbullying, but I thought it was worth another mention. One of the speakers at APA, Dr. Elizabeth Carll, presented on electronic harrassment, and made the point that it can be more stressful, anxiety-provoking, and traumatizing than in-person bullying and harrassment.

Why? Because it's a 24-7, global kind of thing. If you get bullied in person, you can (to some extent), escape it. It's more localized. And, while terrible, once it's ended, it ends. But with cyberstalking/bullying, there are multiple ways to get to someone, and once you've posted something nasty online, because of screen-capture technology and caching and whatnot, it's there more-or-less forever, accessible by anyone in the world.

Another set of researchers gave a presentation including results from a study revealing that over a third of students report being victims of cyberbullying at least once in the past year. For just one example of how young both victims and bullies can be, check out this article about a recent case (the kids who engaged in this bullying have now received their sentences). A significant minority of cyberbullying and stalking takes place on social media sites like Facebook. There's some indication that when the bullying is anonymous, like nameless comments on message boards or blogs, it's more distressing than when you know who's giving you a hard time.

This is, of course, fodder for timely fiction, in both adult and YA--and possibly in MG. Are any of you writing about it? But also--have any of you experienced this (there's a potential resource discussed in this article)? If so, were the bullies anonymous or known? Cyberharrassment seems to be one of the risks of our hyperconnected world these days, but it certainly carries a heavy psychological price.

Because it's Monday, be sure to check out Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post!

Meta-Emotion: How we feel about feelings, and how it can affect our writing

2011-08-03T06:28:00.000-04:00

Think about the last time you were in the presence of someone close to you who was experiencing a negative emotion. Anger. Fear. Sadness. Maybe this person was mad at you. Or maybe he had just received some really bad news. Maybe she was crying. Or yelling. Or hyperventilating. Or quietly seething.

Picture it. What did the person look like? Red face? Shaking hands? Furrowed brow? Head in hands? Piercing stare? Slumped shoulders?

What was she doing? Pacing? Weeping? Sighing? Flinching?

And now ... what was your FIRST impulse in responding to this person? Did you want to comfort? Appease? Stifle? Chastise? Did you want to grab him by the shoulders and shake him until he got ahold of himself? Cover your ears? Get away as quickly as you could? Embrace the person until the bad feelings were squeezed right out of her? Protect him from ever feeling that way again?

Got it in mind?

Now, whatever your response, it tells you something about how you feel about those feelings. We all have emotions, but we don't necessarily feel good about all of them, right? How we feel and respond to emotion has to do with how we're raised. Every day, every moment, parents socialize young children about how to express, think about, and regulate their emotions. That's just one of the many parts of becoming a human being who can function successfully in society--whichever society that might be.

Some of us were raised to suppress our emotions. To ignore our own feelings or stifle them. To distract ourselves until a feeling fades away, because they always do. The people who taught us that probably believed sadness was weak. That anger was scary. That bad feelings were uncontrollable and harmful. They might have dismissed a child's emotions just because he was a child, or maybe even punished emotion displays like tantrums or crying.

Some of us were raised to express our emotions to the fullest. To show the world how we were feeling, with no apologies, no regrets, because feelings are true, and whatever you do with them is okay. The people who taught us that may also have believed that feelings were uncontrollable, and that trying to control them is pointless. They may also have been reacting to how they were raised--possibly by parents who believed in suppression of emotion. They might have comforted a distressed child and empathized deeply. However, they probably didn't place a lot of limits on behavior and may have done a lot of appeasing.

Some of us were raised to feel our feelings but control our behavior. The people who taught us that likely believed feelings are natural and adaptive. That they are healthy signals and necessary for relationships. That feelings are just part of life and help us decide how we're going to solve difficult problems. These parents would have set limits on a child's angry behavior (hitting is not okay) but empathized with the feeling (it's natural to feel angry when someone snatches your toy). And then they would have helped problem-solve about how to feel better.

How were you raised? What were you taught? How does it affect you today, both in terms of your own feelings and in how you respond to others'?

AND--do you think that affects your writing? When you have a character who is going through something, how do you approach it as a writer in terms of:

the behaviors the character exhibits (is the emotion display WAY heightened, or is it buttoned-down? Does that fit the character and the situation? Are you pulling your punches for fear your reader will hate the character or think she's weak or mean? Are you revving it up to make sure the emotion is clear?)
how others react to those behaviors (are they instantly comforting? Distressed? Dysregulated and disorganized? Rejecting and censuring?)
how you as the author resolve the situation (is the character left to feel that feeling, or must it be dealt with and dissipated by the end of the scene?)
how you as the author feel about that character and the resolution (do you worry your characters will look weak? Do you protect them from bad feelings? Do you wallow happily in those feelings?)

I think it's possible that, if you consider these questions, you might notice some things about yourself as a person--and as a writer.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that our readers have their own feelings about feelings. My most trusted beta-reader once told me that heroes shouldn't cry, EVER. Because if they did, that meant they were weak. So, there you go. Some of my readers will feel that way, too. And how I deal with that knowledge depends on my own feelings about those feelings, and how I feel about my feelings about feelings. Oh, and what my agent says in her revision letter.

BWAHAHAHAHA. Er. Sorry.

Your turn. Do you ever think about this stuff? Have I made your head hurt? Do you think your own emotion socialization as a child has affected how you behave today, and how/what you write?

Go check out Laura's blog for this month's round of Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog, in which she answers the question: "I have a genre-crush on _______ (in other words, what genre or category of writing do you like and wish you could tackle, and why haven't you done it yet)." My answer will be up here in a few weeks.

Emotions: What are they good for?

2011-08-01T06:44:00.000-04:00

This week I'll be going back to my roots. See, when I was in graduate school, I was mentored by Carroll Izard, a psychologist who has had an incredibly long, incredibly prolific career in the field of emotions research. He also happens to be a really nice guy who has helped launch a lot of psychologists in their careers.

Cal's Differential Emotions Theory (DET) posits that human beings, no matter what culture they're from or how old they are, have a set of basic emotions. These emotions are universal, and have evolved as a way for us to be able to predict how others are feeling and thinking, which is pretty essential to social functioning (keep in mind, there are other theories of emotion as well, and researchers get pretty feisty when they argue about this stuff).

If you're a writer, emotions are pretty key. After all--you're trying to evoke them in a reader, right? Using ONLY WORDS. So ... it's good to be familiar with them. Today, I'm going to give a quick overview of the purposes of the different emotions. On Wednesday, I'll talk about emotions in general--and how we feel about them. Yes, how we feel about feelings. It's called meta-emotion.

Now--if you buy into DET, you will believe that there are about seven core emotions, and that each one has its own adaptive function. Of course, any emotional response can become maladaptive if it isn't well-regulated, if it overwhelms or floods or stuckifies (sure ... that's a word) you, and I've posted about how to write those kinds of moments here and here. But what I'm talking about today is how emotions work for us. Because, if they only existed to get in our way ... why would we ALL have them?

FEAR: It protects us. Tells us to run or fight. Without fear, the human race probably wouldn't have survived very long. Sure, it can get in the way, but it's healthy to fear things that are actually dangerous.

ANGER: It motivates us. Without anger, we'd all be doormats. Wet noodles. Anger gets us going, fighting for our rights, trying to change the world or just a single situation.

SADNESS: It shows us what we value, and also draws others to us for social support. Recently, I tweeted that my day wasn't going well, and within a minute people were reaching out to me. First, that shows how awesome the writing community is, but also, it shows how, even electronically, communication of sadness elicits social support, compassion, and assistance from others.

GUILT: It keeps us from hurting each other, or, if we do, drives us to try to fix things. Without guilt, we'd be psychopaths.

SHAME: It keeps us in line with general social expectations. I know, that's not always a popular idea, but shame as an emotion is part of the glue that holds society together. Shame at least gets us asking ourselves if our behavior is appropriate.

JOY: It draws us together, helps us share triumphs with each other, allows us to connect with each other and create lasting bonds.

There are other emotions, of course, including disgust/contempt, surprise, and (according to some theories) love. How about it? Can you think of other functions of these emotions? Do you embrace emotion or are you wary of it? Are you expressive or buttoned-down? And what about your characters?

It's Monday, check out Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post!

A technique to avoid random acts of intervention

2011-07-27T06:11:00.001-04:00

On Monday, I talked a little about how I work at my day job. I hope you noticed one important thing about my approach--it's systematic. I really hate to waste my time--and I especially hate to think I'm wasting my clients' time. As a result, I am pretty much against the approach characterized by RANDOM ACTS OF INTERVENTION.

Random acts of kindness are cool, but random acts of intervention? Not so much. Basically, they'll make somebody feel good in the short-term, but because they're not well planned out or systematic, the benefit will be short-lived and narrow. It's easy to get carried away by the random-acts approach in therapy--it's the one where you go with your gut and do what feels right in the moment. Usually it means you're putting out fires or focused on getting rid of immediate distress (and the thing is, in a lot of effective therapies, you actually feel worse before you feel better).

Here's a guaranteed truth of therapy: if your interventions aren't based on some coherent theory or working model of what's causing the problems and what it will take to fix them--you're digging a trench with a teaspoon.

In quicksand.

I believe this approach applies to writing as well. Remember my diagram of what was causing Johnny's noncompliance? With that technique, you can take a problem, a conflict, or a triumph, and analyze what caused it. You can use this same technique for your characters.

In one of my stories, the main character (MC) is a tough girl who doesn't trust others, and I wanted her decisions to make sense in the context of what she's been through and what she's facing.

So, applying my little working model technique from Monday:

In the boxes you see the reasons she doesn't trust people. And for each of those boxes, I can identify an experience or pattern of experiences that led her to that belief. In the story, each of those beliefs is apparent at some point, and each leads her to make key decisions--or, when she makes a decision that is incompatible with one of those beliefs, there are emotional consequences.

If I take a bit of time to map this out for my character, then I can understand her better. Her behavior, her thoughts, and her feelings in response to each event within each scene will be clearer to me. It will keep me from having her do something that's too easy or convenient for ME, as the author. If I act in accordance with my working model, I'm forced to be true to HER, as the character. In other words, this technique keeps me away from RANDOM ACTS OF INTERVENTION that will conveniently help me slide through a scene or plot point, but that won't be satisfying, deep, or true.

This model also gives me the path for her to develop trust. Remember how, for each of those causes of Johnny's noncompliance, I had an intervention strategy? Well, for my MC, if I want her to learn to trust someone, we have to tackle those beliefs. Her trust shouldn't be magically or cheaply gotten--it should be earned, through modification of those beliefs with new experiences. So now I have a major element of my character arc.

You might have a character who doesn't trust others, too. But will all your boxes (causes) be the same? Probably not! That's what's cool about this. You can have the same outcome, but different causes (that's what we call equifinality). You can have two characters behaving in similar ways, but for different reasons. They'll each have a unique path to redemption (or ruin, depending on your genre ...).

OK, please tell me if any of that made any sense at all. What do you think? Do you engage in RANDOM ACTS OF INTERVENTION? Is your authorial hand heavy on your characters, or do you force yourself to respect their complex personalities and histories? It's harder than it looks, isn't it (it is for me)?

And it's Wednesday, so for the Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog, Deb answers the question: "If you're querying now, or have in the past, how do you develop patience to wait for responses?" Lydia's answer is here, Laura's is here, and mine is here.

An introduction to how I work

2011-07-25T06:01:00.001-04:00

Some of you have expressed interest in my work as a psychologist, so this week's posts will be about that. Of course, my thought processes bleed into my writing, so Wednesday's post will touch on that intersection, but for today ...

For those of you who don't know, I'm a child psychologist. (See this post if you want to know the details of my education and training.) I have worked with kids of all ages, from infancy to late adolescence, but about ten years ago, while I was still in training, I began to specialize in early childhood. Most of my clients are under the age of six.

Kids are usually referred to me because of concerns about disruptive behavior (noncompliance, defiance, and aggression), anxiety (selective mutism, specific phobias, separation anxiety), and common behavioral problems such as sleep, toilet training, and feeding issues.

I think the most common question people have is: what exactly do I do behind that do not disturb sign hanging on my office door? Do I have some kind of magic touch with kids?

Can I fix them?

Well. The easy answer is no, but I also believe that question is the wrong one to ask.

Here's a simple description of how I work:

Through assessment and observation, I develop a sort of working model of what's causing problems for my client, and in collaboration with that client (or, usually, the client's parents), I construct a plan for intervention.

Here's an example of one of those working models. The reason five-year-old Johnny has been brought to see me is in the center circle.

The boxes around the circle are what I think are the causes of the problem. Now, if you thought the above was a pretty good model of what was going on, how would you spend that precious (and expensive) time in the therapy room? You pretty much only get 50 minutes a week. Who would be there? The kid? The parents? Both? What would you talk about? What would you do?

A while back, Stephsco asked a related question: "Do you use art therapy in your work with children?"

The answer is no, not really. There are a few reasons why. The simplest is that I just wasn't trained that way. Sure, I use drawing and playdough and stuff like that to get to know a kid, build rapport, and observe things like cognitive organization, mood, imagination, activity level, attention span, and social reciprocity. But I don't ever read too much into what a kid creates apart from judging its developmental appropriateness/typicality in terms of content and theme. I'm not confident in the research evidence about more projective interpretations, or in my own ability to translate that into helpful information. I'll leave that to professionals who have that training.

But also, if you look at all those boxes up there, notice how many of them involve Johnny's parents? If I work individually with Johnny, it's going to be fun. Johnny will enjoy himself, and he'll want to come back to see me. I'm friendly, goofy, attentive, and I have an office FULL of toys. However ... I'm not sure that's going to make a big difference in Johnny's life, at least, not the kind of difference it would make if his mom and dad can get on the same page and create a home environment that makes it possible for a sensitive, intense, tricky-to-parent kid like Johnny to thrive.

So I keep my therapy sessions tightly focused on the items in the boxes. With this particular (imaginary) client, I would:

Work with both parents on co-parenting and discuss whatever issues are getting in the way of that.
Explore the parents' understanding of Johnny's behaviors, including what's appropriate for his age, but also WHY he's doing what he's doing.
Help his parents reframe/re-interpret any thoughts they are having about Johnny (and his behavior) that are getting in the way of them being able to respond to him in ways that help him improve his behavior.
Work intensely to help them repair and maintain loving emotional bonds with Johnny, including specific types of play and a focus on noticing when Johnny is obeying (and doing other great stuff)
Work with them to set consistent behavioral rules, consistent consequences, and to follow through every single time (which isn't really humanly possible, but maybe we can get close)
Work with them to respond to Johnny's anger as opportunities for closeness and teaching, in ways that validate his experience (while setting appropriate limits on behavior) and help him calm down more quickly

All along the way, I deal with whatever barriers come up that keep the parents from being able to make all those changes we're discussing. Because parents are people too, with stresses, heartbreaks, memories, traumas, wishes, and hopes of their own. If those aren't acknowledged, leveraged, or addressed, we're not going to reach our goal of helping Johnny do what his parents say.

If I worked with older kids, I might do more individual stuff with them, but with the 0-6 crowd, most of my sessions are with either parent-child together or with only the parents. Because, once I make a map of what's causing the problem, that's the thing that usually makes the most sense (and note--I design my treatment plans for each unique client, so there are always exceptions and sometimes I do see kids individually ... it all depends on what's in those boxes).

Any questions for me?

Be sure to check out Lydia's Medical Monday post, as well as Laura's Mental Health Monday post!

I just realized it's summer!

2011-07-22T06:05:00.000-04:00

You know what? It's summer. I want to keep my regular blogging schedule, but ... I'm not going to have a chance to take a break once the fall gets going. I have a tendency to work very intensely at anything I do, and it's difficult for me to cut back. And yet, I have a book to write and a few other important things to do.

So! Until the end of August, I'll be posting on Mondays and Wednesdays and taking Fridays off. I am giving myself permission to slow down for a few weeks.

Have a wonderful weekend, everybody, and I'll be back in the blogosphere on Monday!

(comments are off--I'm giving YOU permission to slow down, too)

Waiting for querying responses: A question of coping

2011-07-20T06:16:00.002-04:00

For this month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog, Laura asked the following question:

If you're querying now, or have in the past, how do you develop patience to wait for responses?

To me, this question is ALL about coping. I remember querying, and man, was it a roller coaster. At times I was elated, at other times, crushed, and at most times, just trying to deal with silence and waiting. Querying can be stressful.

Coping is defined as specific efforts we take to master, tolerate, or reduce the impact of stressful events.

Two broad types of adaptive strategies have been identified:

Problem-solving: efforts to do something active to deal with the stressful circumstances
Emotion-focused: efforts to regulate the emotional consequences of the stressful circumstances

Those are the more approach-oriented coping styles/strategies. Most people use both types, but of course, some people are more prone to use one or the other more. For example, Lydia's response to this question is here. She writes and CLEANS, which are both active, more behaviorally-oriented coping strategies. Laura's response is here. She has a plethora of coping strategies, several of which are cognitive in nature. But, interestingly, both of them are describing more emotion-focused efforts--because, with querying, once you've done it and you're just waiting for a response, there's little you can do other than emotionally-focused coping ...

Except for avoidant coping, in which a person engages in behaviors or mental states that keep him/her from dealing directly with the stressful stuff (alcohol and drug abuse often falls into this category). Research shows that avoidant copers report more depressive symptoms than do approach/active copers. There's also a host of non-productive strategies, including obsessively worrying or ruminating over the stressful circumstances. These are generally not the best strategies if you want to feel better in the long term.

Now, waiting for a response from somebody is a pretty helpless place to be sometimes. Querying is NOT the only time I've experienced this in my life, and I suspect many of you are the same. I waited to hear from colleges. Grad schools. Internships. Post-docs. Jobs I'd applied to. And that's just professionally speaking. Sometimes I got good news, sometimes I didn't. Same thing with querying, of course (and submission is very similar).

How I cope:
My chief strategy for this type of waiting is cognitive. Put simply, I think about the worst thing that could happen: a rejection. And I imagine how I will cope with that, how I will go on living my life, how I will move on and survive emotionally even though this thing I want means a lot to me. I experience those feelings in a sort of simulation, walking myself through what it's going to be like, anticipating the emotions I'll have, thinking about how exactly I'm going to deal.

Please note: this is not the same as worrying or rumination, both of which just lead to uncontrolled bad feelings and a focus on how terrible things are. No, this is a kind of active, controlled, emotionally-oriented coping strategy with a focus on the fact that yes, it could be bad, but regardless, I'LL BE OK. This strategy got me through the entire querying process without shedding a tear (in fact, I didn't weep until the week I had to juggle five agent offers--THAT sent me right over the edge, I tell you).

Once I've gone through my little cognitive process, I move on to more behavioral strategies, most notably writing something new, beta-reading, blogging, and engaging with writing friends who are experiencing similar things. I turn to them for support on a regular basis, and WOW, have they ever been there for me (by the way, thank you to Justine, Stina, Brigid, Jaime L, Jennifer W, Dawn, Matt, and also to many of you with whom I've had more fleeting--so far--yet incredibly positive, interactions). The support available in the blogging/Twitter community is truly incredible.

That's how I do it. Now, your turn. Tell me how you cope with waiting for a response, whether it's querying, submission, contests, jobs and other professional endeavors, interpersonal relationship stuff, whatever it is. Are you an active coper, or more avoidant? Are your strategies more oriented toward problem-solving, or are they more emotion-focused?

A map of my WIP research (beware, spoilers below!)

2011-07-18T06:16:00.001-04:00

I'm about 20k words into my new WIP, and it's been a pretty fascinating ride so far (er, to me). This one seems to be coming slow and steady, in part because it's complicated and I'm still figuring things out, and in part because my job has been incredibly demanding lately. I took a pause yesterday afternoon to plot my way through the next 30k words or so (I usually do a broad outline with lots of notes, then create more detailed scene-by-scene maps, connecting the "dots" of the big moments). I also did some more research.

I don't know how you guys do this, but when I get going on research, I really go. It's a little like Alice down the rabbit hole. Sometimes I follow a thread that ends up being irrelevant to the WIP, but I don't mind because I learn a lot of new stuff and I think it's just part of the process. To show you what it's like, I've created a map of my research-y thoughts and searches from one afternoon. But beware. There are spoilers down there. Somewhere. Maybe.

There we go. That is ... pretty much what the inside of my head is like. For most of those boxes (plus several others I couldn't fit onto the page), I did multiple searches, followed hyperlinks, cross-checked facts, explored related topics, and occasionally watched instructional or informational videos. For some, the search wasn't quite as intense--like for "sundresses", I was just looking for something to describe my MC as wearing, because fashion for my characters is not exactly my strong suit (heh). Then I went scampering back to my WIP outline and frantically typed notes to myself, tying things together and mapping things out.

If your brain works like mine does, then you are now privy to my entire plot, so SHHH! Don't tell! If you're wondering about my organizational skills ... bwahahaha! I'm well known at work for having the messiest office in the suite. I get a lot done, but my organizational style is idiosyncratic at best.

What's your research process like? Do you chase down every thread in order to be completely accurate? Do the minimum because you don't want it to interfere with your creativity? Get it all done up front? Pick up information as you go? What would your research map look like?

Remember to check out Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post (Laura's is a must-see today)!

Are we in the midst of a narcissism epidemic?

2011-07-15T06:16:00.002-04:00

To end this week's series of posts on narcissism, I wanted to talk prevalence. The findings of a survey of nearly 35,000 adults living in the US indicate narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) occurs in nearly 6.2% of the general population. WHOA. More men than women have the disorder (7.7 vs. 4.8%). NPD was found to be "significantly more prevalent" in black men and women, Hispanic women, and young adults. Dr. Jean Twenge, the author of the book The Narcissism Epidemic, claims that the prevalence among young adults might be as high as 10% (!!!).

I was ... shocked by that. And also--when the prevalence of any mental health disorder is that high, it makes me question how it's defined and assessed. Apparently I'm not the only one, because the developers of the DSM V, the anticipated revision to the diagnostic manual of mental disorders, are making some major changes to the definition of narcissistic personality disorder. There was some indication that the disorder might be eliminated altogether, but at this time I think it's still in there, just with significant revisions to the criteria--INCLUDING a change that takes norms within cultures and subcultures into account.

Regardless of the precise definition of the disorder, however, Dr. Twenge's argument is this: narcissism is part of our culture right now. She points to the frequency of cosmetic surgery as an example, and the first thing to come to my mind is reality television. I don't know, you might not agree, but ...

[hang on a minute. I'm still giggling]

[thanks for your patience. I've almost got it under control]

[deep breaths ...]

Ahem. I solemnly swear I will never ever again post a Jersey Shore video on this blog.

OK. What do you think? Is this an epidemic--particularly among young people? With the emphasis on appearance, material goods, and status in our culture, are teens being raised in an age of narcissism? For YA authors and readers--is this reflected in YA these days?

Love Thyself (but not too much): Narcissistic Personality Disorder

2011-07-13T04:53:00.002-04:00

On Monday, I posted about the normal-ish side of narcissism. It's considered a continuous personality trait, which means some of us have less, some more, but we all fall somewhere along the continuum. Today, I'm going to talk about folks who fall on one of the extreme ends of that spectrum--those with narcissistic personality disorder.

If you read my quick-and-dirty guide to personality disorders, you'll remember that narcissistic personality disorder falls into Cluster B: those marked by a high degree of drama and emotionality. According to the DSM-IV, narcissistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity and need for admiration as evidenced by at least five of the following symptoms:

grandiose sense of self-importance (for example, expects to be recognized as superior without achievements to match)
preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, beauty, or ideal love
believes he/she is unique and special, and should only associated with people of higher status
requires excessive admiration
takes advantage of others to achieve his/her own ends
lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize the feelings and needs of others
is envious of others and believes others are envious of him/her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes

To be considered a disorder, these symptoms have to manifest across situations and settings, MUST cause clinically significant distress (in this case ... usually for others) in one or more important areas of functioning, and can't be better accounted for by another mental disorder (bipolar disorder, for example, as individuals in a manic state can sometimes be quite grandiose). Narcissistic personality disorder can, however, be diagnosed along with a primary psychiatric disorder such as depression or substance dependence.

Risk factors for this disorder include things like learning manipulative behaviors from parents, unpredictable or unreliable caregiving, lack of affection and praise as a child, and being neglected or abused. If you learn early on that vulnerability is unacceptable, you might grow a pretty thick emotional shell, thick enough to keep you from recognizing and empathizing with others. However--remember my post about multifinality? Lots of people experience these things and don't turn out to have this disorder.

There are plenty of individuals with narcissistic personality disorder depicted in movies/television. How about this guy?

Dr. Christian Troy of Nip/Tuck via fanpop.com

Christian Troy was a pretty classic case. As far as I can recall. I believe he might have exhibited every single symptom in the DSM-IV criteria, and there was no doubt his behaviors caused a clinically significant amount of distress, both for himself and for many others. He showed the classic pattern of strong first impression that deteriorates quickly once you get to know him a bit, and short-term relationships as the norm.

Can you think of other movie or book characters who have this disorder? What tips you off? And how about real life? Have you ever had someone like this in your life? Do you recognize any of these qualities in yourself?

This week for the Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog, Lydia answers the question "If you’re querying now, or have in the past, how do you develop patience to wait for responses?" Go see what she has to say!

The normal-ish side of narcissism

2011-07-11T06:15:00.000-04:00

You've heard the myth of Narcissus? There's a tragic unrequited love story involved, but the end of the story goes like this: Narcissus was a young, handsome dude living in an extreme state of ignorance with regard to the concept of a reflection. He saw his for the first time in a pond one day and was struck by how lovely the guy in the water was. He fell in love and pined away by that pond, eventually starving to death, until all that remained of him was the flower that bears his name.

Narcissism is basically excessive self-love, often associated with a grandiose view of oneself and the need for admiration from others. Like introversion-extraversion, narcissism is a continuous personality trait. In other words, we all fall somewhere along the continuum.

On Friday, I linked to one version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) over at the PsychCentral blog and invited each of you to take it and see where you stand with respect to this personality trait (here's the link if you want to go take it now). The NPI is not the only measure of narcissism, and it's not perfect, either. Many of you noted the limitations of the forced-choice format (having to choose between two things, neither of which fit perfectly--and in some cases, both of which fit to some extent). Nevertheless, high scores on the NPI have been linked to obsession with appearance, being more likely to cheat in games and in romantic relationships, and general selfishness (taking more for yourself while leaving less for others). It might relieve any high scorers out there to know that the NPI is said to measure "subclinical" narcissism in the general population. Even if you got a really high score, it doesn't necessarily mean you have narcissistic personality disorder.

[For those of you who are wondering, my score on the NPI was 10, which is on the low end of average. Like many of the commenters, much of my score was due to my higher self-ratings on the authority dimension.]

You can see how it's necessary to have a certain amount of narcissism to operate confidently in the world. If you believe you're good, that you can keep up, it empowers you to go after things you want. There's actually a concept acknowledged by some theorists called "healthy narcissism." Now, if you're a writer, you can see how this quality might come into play. Why are we writing? Many of us write for the sheer pleasure of it. I certainly do--but obviously, that's not all of it. If it was, I would never have sought publication. I will willingly admit that one of my reasons for writing is the desire for recognition from others, as well as the enduring belief that I'm pretty good at it. I'm sure many of you feel the same--and I think you need to if you're going to play this particular game.

The key to the less healthy form of narcissism is this: inflated self-view. Unjustified expectation for admiration. And a very high sense of entitlement. It's easy to imagine how these things could get you in trouble with other people and make relationships pretty rocky. If you're too far along that continuum as a writer, you're probably in for some frustration. There's a difference between thinking you're pretty good and thinking you're the best. There's a difference between wanting some recognition from others and needing or expecting others to tell you how fabulous you are.

If you're a high narcissistic writer, when people don't recognize your brilliance, you're gonna be ticked. When an agent doesn't respond quickly to your oh-so-amazing work, you're more likely to be offended. When a beta-reader gives you some negative feedback, you're likely to give him/her the finger. Narcissistic writers believe they are beyond criticism and deserving of special treatment. And when they don't get it, they are likely to tantrum. Ever witnessed something like that in one of the writing forums? I have.

Now, if you're worrying about whether or not you're a narcissist ... don't. Instead, go read this fabulous article about how narcissists often KNOW they're narcissists. Seriously, it's a great read.

On Wednesday, I'll talk about narcissistic personality disorder, a condition defined by extreme and unhealthy narcissism, and on Friday, I'll discuss how understanding this concept can help us thing about characters, particularly in young adult literature.

Because it's Monday, check out Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post--those ladies are smart and always have interesting tidbits to share!

Now--do you think you have a healthy amount of narcissism? Do you know anyone who you think might be high on this dimension? What tells you that? Ever had an encounter with a narcissistic writer? How did you handle it?

Narcissistic much?

2011-07-08T06:07:00.000-04:00

Next week I'll be posting about narcissistic personality disorder, narcissism in general, and how this trait can manifest in characters ... and in writers.

Michelangelo's Narcissus

But for today: would you like to find out where you fall on this particular continuum? It takes less than 3 minutes. No need to report scores here unless you're dying to share, but if you do take it, I'd love to hear your thoughts about the questionnaire and how it felt to complete it (I'll share my score on Monday).

And if any of you are interested, I reached my word count goal last weekend (plus a few thousand) and I'm hoping for another productive weekend! How about you?

Boy Toy: Perspective makes all the difference

2011-07-06T06:01:00.002-04:00

Boy Toy, by Barry Lyga, was recommended to me by Helene Dunbar, who greatly admired the writing (I believe she said you could "bounce a quarter off" it, which sounds just about right) and wanted to know what I thought about the book from a psychological perspective. Once again, thank you, Helene, for recommending it!

Boy Toy is the story of eighteen-year-old Josh Mendel, who has spent the last five years bearing the weight of an open secret. When he was twelve--in seventh grade--he was sexually involved with his social studies teacher, Evelyn Sherman.

Yep.

Helene was right; this book is worth reading for the writing, for the intricate structure of the paragraphs and chapters that drags you back and forth between past and present, sometimes within a single sentence. It's worth reading if you want to see how to give the reader a visceral and jarring experience right along with a character. It's also worth reading for Josh, who is utterly fascinating in all his quirks and interests, and for Rachel, the girl who is closely tied to the crests and troughs of his journey.

It's also worth reading if you want to understand how a few things work. The first thing this book shows in harrowing detail is how a pedophile grooms a child. If you don't know how this happens, maybe you should. Basically, it's pretty common for a pedophile to do a bunch of stuff that lowers the child's guard and makes it more likely the kid will go along with what's happening without telling anyone. Sharing interests. Sharing secrets. Nonsexual touch first, then ... you get it, I'm sure.

As an adult, I recognized each of these steps as Eve lured Josh in. But because it's told from Josh's perspective, you see that he ... doesn't. He is a boy when all this happens. And his world is quite small. I see this all the time in my work with parents as I try to help them understand why a child would behave in a certain way.

When you reach adulthood, it's really easy to forget the perspective of your child self.

That's the second thing Barry Lyga shows brilliantly--the younger Josh's perspective. As an adult, you have a sense of how vast the world is, and your place in it. You have a sense of others' motives, of what they might want from you, that they might not mean what they say. But kids don't know that stuff, and they also don't know they don't know. That makes it disturbingly easy to manipulate them. For Josh, he only knows what he sees. The dark workings of Eve's mind? They don't exist for him. Despite being highly intelligent, the twelve-year-old Josh still has the perspective of a boy, even as his body sexually matures.

Which brings me to the third thing this book depicts with amazing psychological accuracy and heartbreaking detail: how some adults have difficulty understanding sexual abuse against boys when the acts appear to be consensual. The choices Mr. Lyga makes with regard to Josh's age and his physical and intellectual maturity, as well as allowing the reader to see things through Josh's eyes, only heighten that feeling of ambiguity--which is exactly what needs to happen in order to understand how Josh evolves throughout the book.

Although sexual victimization in girls is well-studied, the same is not true for boys. One review of over a hundred studies concluded that this phenomenon is common, underreported, and undertreated. What we know about sexual abuse is that is accounts for a lot of symptoms in kids that have been victims, but there's not ONE behavior that stands out. In other words, there's no single, simple result of being sexually abused.

And yes, that's related to the fourth thing I loved about this book--Josh's unique journey. At the beginning of the book, he's pretty much locked himself in a psychological box, with occasional explosions to relieve the pressure. How he emerges is so satisfying in its complexity (albeit truly heartbreaking at times) that I wouldn't dare spoil it for you. You need to read it for yourself. There's actually a quote I really wanted to share, because it might be my favorite in any book ... ever ... but I won't, because I think it gives too much away (if you've read the book and want to know what it is, email me and I'll tell you!).

Have you read Boy Toy? What did you think? Have you read other books that showed the limited perspective of a young person without patronizing or simplifying? What made it work? Ever read something where it didn't work, and if so, can you put your finger on why it failed?

And because it's Wednesday and the beginning of the month, there's a new question for the Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog: "If you’re querying now, or have in the past, how do you develop patience to wait for responses?" Laura's posted her answer this week right here.

A little break ...

2011-07-01T06:00:00.006-04:00

I'm going to give myself a little break. Wednesday's post took up my entire quota of blogging time for the week, my WIP is only 3k words long and calling my name, and it's a holiday weekend.

SO! I'll be gone until next Wednesday, when I will tell you about a book I loved but that broke my heart. And by that time, I swear, I'll add another 5k to my WIP. You can hold me to that.

Until then, happy writing, happy reading, and happy 4th of July!

WSJ Redux: Let's Talk Research

2011-06-29T06:49:00.001-04:00

I need to apologize right now for the length of this post. And maybe the topic. I really didn't intend to respond to Meghan Cox Gurdon's most recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. I responded to her first one, and, in general, I am truly uninterested in debates in which the opposing parties repeat the same arguments, only louder.

But then I read the thing (and was asked about it on Twitter), and ... oh, she (sort of) cited some research:

There are real-world reasons for caution. For years, federal researchers could not understand why drug- and tobacco-prevention programs seemed to be associated with greater drug and tobacco use. It turned out that children, while grasping the idea that drugs were bad, also absorbed the meta-message that adults expected teens to take drugs. Well-intentioned messages, in other words, can have the unintended consequence of opening the door to expectations and behaviors that might otherwise remain closed.

Wow. That is a mighty strong claim. Allow me to unpack it for you. If you're wondering (I know I was, since she didn't cite any specific studies), I believe she's referring to research on Drug Abuse and Resistance Education (DARE) and a few similar programs.

A few bits of contextual information:

DARE is a zero-tolerance program that involves police officers teaching the anti-drug curriculum to kids--starting when they're in elementary school. Researchers' explanations of why DARE isn't effective include limited opportunity to practice social skills involved in drug refusal, as well as presenting material and concepts to kids who are too young to understand it (the Surgeon General's report is here).
Although Mrs. Gurdon makes it sound like prevention programs definitely lead to an increase in substance use in kids, and there are a few studies that found increased risk for substance use associated with DARE, the bulk of the evidence suggests DARE is mostly just ineffective. It has some positive effects that decay over time, and overall, results show that kids who've gone through the program are no less likely to use substances than kids who haven't had DARE.
Numerous other substance abuse prevention programs have been found to be effective, specifically, those that involve practicing social skills related to refusal, making the interventions developmentally appropriate, and dissemination of accurate information regarding social norms related to drug and alcohol use. If you're curious, go to this incredibly useful site and click "substance abuse prevention" to find a comprehensive listing of evidence-based programs.

This is your brain on YA.

That social norm bit up there is the link. In her attempt to support her point about YA books "normalizing" stuff like self-mutilation, drug use, killing reapers with Khopesh swords, and kissing vampires, I *think* Mrs. Gurdon is alluding to the research on social norms that indicates that, if you give people information about how their peers behave, they're more likely to conform to that standard. That's the social learning theory I mentioned in my response to her first opinion piece. And you know what? That shouldn't be dismissed. Peer pressure is not just a kid standing next to you, whispering "do it do it do it ..." If you believe everyone around you is doing something, you're more likely to do it, even if no one tells you to do it.

This is what fuels the bandwagon effect. It's real. If YA books make teens believe that nearly everybody's engaging in self-harm, that could be a problem. Perhaps we could actually do some research before we assume that's how teens think when they read a book like Cheryl Rainfield's SCARS, though?

In addition, Gurdon's argument about YA is strikingly narrow. It doesn't hold up for other mental illnesses, trauma, and membership in minority cultural/ethnic/sexual/gender-identity groups. Reading about someone with OCD won't give you OCD, for example. Reading about this stuff *might*, however, help you see individuals who are different from you as worthy of respect, kindness, and equality. But if her concern is that kids will understand that one in five of their classmates is struggling with a mental illness, or if it helps them avoid assumptions about the preferences and backgrounds of their peers, or if it helps them realize they're not the only one having those feelings ... er, wait. Is that a problem?

Please consider a few other things as well. First, inaccurate social norming is not the primary criticism of those substance abuse prevention programs. It's one of them, but note it's not the only one. My concern about Mrs. Gurdon's quote is that she seems to be saying that substance abuse prevention programs are BAD because adults are talking about these issues with kids, or, at least, providing them with information, and OMG THAT'S SO WRONG.

We have a decent amount of evidence to suggest that when adults take a ZERO-tolerance, highly restrictive approach to just about anything, kids are not going to automatically fall into line. There's research to show that using scare tactics to keep kids on the straight and narrow does NOT work. And--withholding information from kids might be harmful. That's certainly what one study seemed to indicate when it showed that kids who received abstinence-only sex education were just as likely to have sex as their peers--but they were less likely to use protection. That's in contrast to the kids who received comprehensive sex education (which includes abstinence). To read a review of research on both types of programs (from the Journal of Adolescent Health), go here.

Second, is the information kids get through music, video games, television programs, movies, and social networking sites the same as information delivered via literature? I'm not sure, but IF you were to do a survey of where and how kids get their information about self-mutilation, substance use, and sexual behaviors, my guess is ... it isn't from a YA book.

Third, and just for fun, the idea of books as therapeutic is far from new. And also: more time spent reading is associated with lower levels of depression (note I'm not claiming reading causes those lower levels, but interestingly, the opposite is true of time spent listening to music).

And finally, let me tell you, the mechanisms surrounding the emergence of mental illness in young people are complex, varied, and far more fundamental roots than the YA books kids read (for those who do read ...).

The big-bang-for-your-buck variables (apart from genetics)? Parenting. Social environment. Trauma.

Part of me sort of wants to scream WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS instead of supporting parents to really engage with their kids, become educated and empowered consumers of both research and literature, and make good decisions about how to guide their teens? How about we talk about how to get more teens to read? Oh, heck, why don't we all go and work on our WIPs?

Once again, I'm done. Your turn.

Did you bother to read Mrs. Gurdon's second opinion piece? Did you find it more convincing than the first? Are you swayed when people cite research results? How do you judge the accuracy of that information and whether it is being used appropriately? [If anyone's ever interested, I have tons of information on this subject and would be happy to do a blog post--I've taught a short course for mental health professionals on how to be smart consumers of research.]

As I continue to wallow in WIP, you tell me: Researching a setting

2011-06-27T06:34:00.000-04:00

Thank you guys SO much for all your comments on Friday. June has been a crazy-making month, and I really appreciated all your kind words, as well as your encouragement as I began writing a new WIP. It also sounds like several of you are actively engaged with your own WIPs, so I thought we could take today to discuss research, and specifically, researching a particular setting.

My new project is set in a place I've never been. In two of the three manuscripts I completed before I started this one, that was true as well, but that was because the settings of the manuscripts were, in large part, made up. One is set in the afterlife, and the other is set in futuristic, post-climate-disaster Boston. The other was set in present-day Michigan, and I made liberal use of Google maps, and especially the street views, to walk myself through and help me add accurate details to my setting.

This new project takes place in Ireland. Rural Ireland. Never been there. And I'm not Irish.

Google maps and earth can give me a satellite-level view, and there are plenty of tourist websites that give me a sense of some of the scenery. I've chosen a very particular spot for the story to take place, and I pull up the Google map and stare at it quite frequently. But ... there is no Google maps street-view for this area. So, almost by accident, I discovered a pretty cool way to get to know the area where my story is set. It's not possible to do this for every story, but man, I do recommend it.

Here I present a tour through the Irish countryside where my new story will take place (you really only need to watch for a minute, if that, to get a sense of it). Ignore the guy shouting in French. I'm sure he's just saying, "Drive safely, dear friend."

There. What do you think? Pretty cool, eh? Now tell me: how do you research a setting? Do you visit it (I wish I could afford to do that in this case)? Do you use Google maps? Do you search YouTube (I'd never done this before, but I've decided it's awesome)? Do you reach out and get to know someone who lives there? What methods do you use to infuse your manuscript with the detail it requires to build your world, to paint a picture for your reader?

Oh, and because it's Monday, remember to check out Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post.

Shh ... inspiration in progress

2011-06-24T06:10:00.000-04:00

For today's post, I was going to write an essay on an absolutely fantastic book, but ... that's going to have to wait. Inspiration intervened (in the form of a looooong conversation with my fabulous agent, Kathleen). As a result, right now, I am deep, deep in the throes of brand new WIP love, and will not be able to think about anything else for at least a few days.

I am researching. And daydreaming. Churning. Hunting and brainstorming and shaping. Outlining. Squinting at maps. Reading up on mythology. Reading up on geology. On cuisine and vernacular. I am considering characters. Their motivations and passions. The cadence of their speech. The lenses through which they see the world.

I am staring at the space between two people.

I am plotting mayhem. Betrayal. Sacrifical love.

I know myself, and, having completed three manuscripts in the past 18 months, I understand how this works. When I get in this mode, the momentum builds and builds, and then I'll start to type (my forecast for when this will happen: Saturday morning). In a few months, barring unforeseen interruptions, I will have completed a first draft.

So ... what are you up to? Do you have a WIP? Where are you with it? Drafting, revising, querying, submission? Between projects? Waiting for inspiration to strike? If you're up for it, please share your progress, and let's encourage each other.

Psychopathy revisited.

2011-06-22T05:58:00.000-04:00

Awhile back, Jjdebenedictis asked:

Psychopaths feel little empathy and are usually cruel and often thrill-seekers, but how many of those traits could I believably omit from my character? Can I, for example, have a psychopathic character who--although capable of it--doesn't make any habit of hurting others? And not out of fear of being punished, either, but because s/he really just doesn't feel like it? I'd like to portray my character as oddly clueless, rather than evil--more like someone who has a learning disability with regard to emotions than someone who does harm without remorse (although she's certainly capable of that.) In your opinion, is this characterization believable?

I love this question (which is, of course, actually multiple questions) because it gets at all the confusion surrounding psychopathy. And ... I don't have all the answers. I'm not a total expert in that area, but also, there's a bit of debate among the experts with regard to the definition and diagnosis of psychopathy.

Ted Bundy was a classic
psychopath. Charmer, liar,
sadistic killer.

So I'll just give you some information from Robert Hare, who has literally written the book on this subject. He describes psychopaths (which he distinguishes from individuals with the DSM-IV diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder--more on that in another post) as "intraspecies predators", individuals who lack conscience and empathy, who use everything in their arsenals--sex, violence, intimidation, charm--to get the things they want. Psychopaths don't care much about other people, but they also don't take great care of themselves. There's research to show they don't learn lessons about avoiding pain and tend to continue to engage in behaviors that might be harmful to them when most people would pull back.

Although a large proportion of incarcerated individuals meet diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder, a much smaller percentage also meet criteria for psychopathy (as measured, for example, by Hare's Psychopathy Checklist). The question JJ has, though, is about someone who is not incarcerated. Someone who is not hurting other people, but who, I assume, has other characteristics of psychopathy. Would that person still be considered a psychopath? The first thing I suggest is going to check out the twenty items on that checklist (people are considered psychopathic if they receive a certain score, as rated by an experienced, trained clinician), just to see what kind of symptoms, behaviors, and tendencies are related to this condition.

I also suggest anyone interested in "socially acceptable" psychopathy check out this article in Forbes about this phenomenon in some CEOs. In that piece, it is suggested that the same lack of conscience and empathy can make for pretty good business sense, at least in the short term.

Now, JJ also questioned whether some other disorder might account for a disregard--but not malevolence--for human beings and emotional involvement. Absolutely. There are a few, actually, that you could consider (depending on the details of the character's presentation).

Autistic disorder (or Asperger's disorder) or nonverbal learning disability--individuals with these disorders often have some difficulty reading others' emotion cues, including facial expressions and nonverbal behaviors. Some of these folks shy away from social interaction because it's exhausting, aversive, or uninteresting, and some desire interaction but have trouble achieving social connection.

Schizoid personality disorder--individuals with this disorder show a long-term pattern of social isolation and indifference to others. They appear aloof, detached, and have no desire to share intimacy or engage in close relationships, even with family members.

Now--I am by no means saying that all individuals diagnosed with these disorders show a total disregard for their fellow humans. I'm saying that a tendency of that type might come along with those particular diagnostic profiles.

OK! Questions? Ever tried to write a psychopathic character? If so, how did you go about it? What tendencies/behaviors did you use to show that condition?

Also--check out Deb's response to her own Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question: How would you personify your muse?

You Tell Me: Control

2011-06-20T06:16:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking a lot about control over the past week or so. Mostly because several things have happened in various areas of my life, and I've had almost no control over any of it.

In my work with clients, I spend a lot of time talking with parents about their children's "high need for control." They wonder why a child would do something so obviously self-sabotaging as laughing at a parent's reprimand or intentionally hurting someone. They're shocked that the child seems to be so excited and delighted at causing them distress and frustration.

Sometimes the word "manipulative" gets used.

I always shy away from that particular term. Words are powerful, and if you use a word like that, I think it attaches a lot of adultish meaning and intention to the behavior of a child.

So instead of "manipulation", we talk about control. And how some kids, some people, seem to need it more than others. It comes out in so many different ways, too. Some good, some bad. The need for control is a basic human feature, after all. One central to many of the rights and values we hold dear. It's important. But some of us are better than others at letting it go, or at facing the reality that we don't really have that much to begin with. And some of us struggle with it.

That's what I've been thinking about. Now I'll give you an example from my own life, from just last week, which, I confess, was a rough one. Because she is lovely and sensitive, Kathleen, my agent, asked me if there was anything she could do in light of the various things I'm dealing with (nothing life-threatening or devastating, so no worries!). She reassured me I could take longer to get certain things done, et cetera. And I said to her--send me the revision notes for my WIP as soon as possible, please. I need to dive into them. I need to bury myself in something. I need to feel like I have control over something.

She came through for me; she sent me a five page editorial letter. And for the last few days, I've been happily tinkering with the world I've built within this WIP, writing new chapters, clarifying character motivation, slicing out inconsistency, wrestling with how to shoehorn the economic concept of the gold standard into a futuristic monetary system based on electronic credits (it's an action-packed urban fantasy/romance, I swear).

Let me tell you, this revising felt good. Cleansing and thrilling. This was something that was all me, all about what I could do in response to critique, how far I could stretch my creativity, whether I could meet the challenge. If these revisions suck, that's because I screwed them up. If they're good, that's me, too. I'm so grateful to have had this task--because I needed something to control.

While I sort out my control issues, tell me. Do you have a high need for control? How does it come out in your life? How about your writing? When does it help, and does it ever hurt you or get in the way?

Remember to check out Lydia's Medical Monday post and Laura's Mental Health Monday post today!

Alexithymia: What it means for us ... and for our characters

2011-06-17T06:22:00.000-04:00

On Monday, I mentioned I'd be posting about alexithymia today, and I linked to the Online Alexithymia Questionnaire, a 37-item self-report measure that gives you an instant score and some indication of whether or not you are reporting significant levels of this particular trait. Higher scores indicated higher levels of alexithymia. Several of you reported back, and your scores varied tremendously (my score was 67, if you're wondering).

Before I go on, I have to say this: the people who follow this blog, in addition to possessing keen intelligence and thoughtful natures, are some of the best sports in the world.

So what is alexithymia?

It's considered both an "affect-deficit disorder" AND a continuous personality trait (like introversion-extroversion, we ALL fall somewhere along a continuum).

Basically, it's a disturbance in emotion processing that includes:

difficulties identifying and verbalizing feelings
a tendency to focus on somatic (bodily) sensations that go along with emotional arousal
limited imagination, with a focus on the practical and concrete

People who have full-on alexithymia (less than 10% of the population, and no, it's not a simple gender difference) tend to have trouble talking about feelings, recognizing feelings in others, and telling the difference between emotional and physical sensations. These individuals tend to have few dreams or fantasies, and a logical, practical cognitive style that excludes emotions from the problem-solving equation.

Keeping in mind that this is a continuum, you might either recognize yourself or someone you know in that description. I know I did.

Note: Alexithymia is NOT a DSM-IV disorder. However, it does tend to co-occur with psychiatric disorders. It shows a lot of overlap with autism spectrum disorders like Asperger's disorder. It also occurs in large percentages of individuals diagnosed with depression, PTSD, panic disorder, eating disorders, and substance abuse.

Now, as I expected, most of you reported very low levels of this trait. For those of you who scored high: DO NOT PANIC. Remember this was a quick-and-dirty measure, that there is a continuum, that less than 10% of folks have actual alexithymia, and that many folks who do are highly successful individuals (I know some of them personally).

As writers, you can see how alexithymic tendencies might make the job hard. We're supposed to have loose, flexible, and vibrant imaginations. We're supposed to be sharp-eyed observers of the human condition--and able to render that condition in naked, unflinching emotional detail using only words. We're supposed to use language so skillfully that it evokes emotions in other people.

Understanding the underpinnings of human emotion, both the animal impulses and the feelings driven by our thoughts and interpretations, is probably important for most writers. Based on what I've read (which includes novels and blogs), many writers have an instinctual understanding of these things.

HOWEVER, here's what I've been thinking: a little alexithymia in our characters might not be so bad.

In fact, it might be essential.

So you're an intuitive, feelings-oriented writer? Great! But ... you know what's not so compelling? A character who knows exactly what she's feeling and why, all the time. A character who just tells the reader (or her co-protagonist) flat out: I feel guilty, and here's why. I'm sad because blah blah blah. I'm elated, all due to XYZ!

Where's the fun in that?

This is where alexithymic tendencies come in handy. Those statements above? ALL TELLING NO SHOWING. The opposite of what we're supposed to be doing.

We're supposed to be showing the reader what that character is going through, demonstrating the effect a situation has on him/her--and doing it so well that the reader feels present in the situation. You don't get that kind of effect by having the character understand every twinge of emotion and interpret it perfectly. You get it by painting a picture, one that goes far beyond simple emotion words. You get it by letting the character be confused and distressed, and by not allowing him/her to have it all figured out. By trusting yourself and your reader enough not to over-explain.

Examples of (just a few of the many) authors who have done this very well: Courtney Summers (Cracked Up To Be), Barry Lyga (Boy Toy), Heidi Ayarbe (Compulsion). If you've read any of those books, you know what I'm talking about. They are RAW. Brimming with emotion, in some cases to the point where it actually makes the reader uncomfortable. But in each of them, the protagonist is sincerely mixed up as to what is driving his or her feelings, including what exactly those feelings are.

Their characters have alexithymic tendencies. And ... that's a good thing.

Does this help you understand alexithymia? Can you think of any books that include characters with alexithymic tendencies? Do you notice the difference between characters who do and those who don't? Which do you tend to write? And, if you took the Online Alexithymia Questionnaire, did your score correspond to the type of characters you gravitate to or tend to write?

Personifying the Muse (or, how the Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog revealed my total lack of imagination)

2011-06-15T06:08:00.000-04:00

This month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question came from Deb: How would you personify your muse?"

Laura answered this question two weeks ago, and Lydia took her turn last week. Both of their posts were brilliant, and I have no doubt Deb's will be as well.

As for me ... I could have tried to be cute and make something up. But have you read Lydia's post? Trying to be cute after what may have been the cutest post ever ... seemed lame. So instead, you guys will get honesty. (sorry)

A "muse" is a source of inspiration. The Muses were Greek goddesses who inspired creation of literature and art. They were personifications of inspiration, like Deb's talking about. For the past three weeks, I've been thinking about that.

It just doesn't work for me.

So I thought about why.

And here it is: When I was in training, I had a family therapy supervisor who said, "Don't think about one person or the other. Think about what's between them." I spent several co-therapy sessions eying that space between while listening to him work with them. Now that's how I think about things all the time. I'm not really inspired by any one person, nor am I satisfied at the thought of cramming my inspiration into a single imaginary being.

I am inspired by interaction. The space between two people. The possibility. The chaos. One person alone can think and do great things. Two people? Ah. Infinite potential.

The space between two people can produce stories. Or, at least, the kind of stories I want to write. It drives me to build worlds in my head--just to create an atmosphere that supports the interaction between two people. So their voices don't echo or die; so they can hear each other. So they can tear each other apart and stitch each other up. So they can do entirely unpredictable things.

That space crackles with electricity and is awash with poison and passion. It is striped with chasms of misunderstanding and filled with oceans of sacrifice. Every moment, every situation, every word, every bit of interpersonal and individual history makes the terrain more intricate and vast.

There you have it. If I had to personify my muse, it would not be one person. Or two people. It would be the space between them.

So, er, I hope that doesn't seem like a cop out.

How about you? Do you have a muse out there in the world? If not, could you personify the source of your inspiration? And if not--what is the source of your inspiration?

Are you alexithymic?

2011-06-13T06:16:00.001-04:00

On Friday, I'm going to be posting about alexithymia in us and in our characters. Alexithymia means "without words for emotions" but is a bit more complicated than that. Before I talk too much about it, though, how about heading to this online questionnaire and seeing if you have any alexithymic tendencies? (I've taken it myself. A box will pop up asking if you want to open or save; just click "open" and you can take the test, and at the end your score and its interpretation will appear). It takes about 3 minutes.

No need to share your score unless you really want to. It's just something to think about. And on Friday, I'll talk about what alexithymia is really about--and what writers should know about it when they're writing characters.

And, as it's Monday, don't forget to stop by Lydia's blog for her Medical Monday post, and then hop over to Laura's blog for her Mental Health Monday post!

Triadic reciprocity happens.

2011-06-10T05:51:00.001-04:00

In a comment in response to Wednesday's post about equifinality and multifinality, Linda Gray asked an awesome question: "What is it that makes people from similar backgrounds, even the same family/upbringing, react and behave differently? Personality factors? Other experiential factors?"

Well. You guys all said you liked diagrams. How about this one?

This is a somewhat elaborated model of Albert Bandura's theory of triadic reciprocity (or triadic reciprocality, or triadic reciprocal determinism, whichever you prefer). The blue squares in the middle? That's the core of the model. The red circles are just some of the components of each square (added by yours truly).

See the red arrows? They're the key. Note they aren't just pointing one way. People don't develop along a linear path. We aren't affected by one thing, one time, and that's it. This model shows how our personality and preferences, for example, influence the environments we choose (and vice versa), which in turn influence how we behave in those situations (and vice versa).

We are constantly involved in these complex interactions between our external environments, internal headspace, and outward behavior. Each of these things changes and impacts the other. We are not simply products of our environments--we shape our environments, including how others behave in response to our behavior. We get feedback on our behavior and it changes the way we think (our expectations, our fears, our desires and goals). Of course, the way we think changes our behavior as well (just an example, if you are prone to over-attend to or over-interpret negative messages and threats in your environment, you're going to see them more often and be more likely to respond to them with avoidance or hostility, which of course changes the way others behave, whether you revisit a particular situation, etc.).

In answer to Linda's question, this model could give you an idea about how two people could emerge from similar environments with completely different perspectives and behaviors. People come into the world wired differently. Two siblings can have entirely different temperaments. Along with aspects of the environment that, to some extent, change depending on the person (birth order, life circumstances, parent gender and gender preference, parent personality and goodness-of-fit with the kid's personality), the kids are going to make different choices with regard to how they respond to those environments (withdrawal vs. connection, calm vs. jittery, happy vs. sad/mad, and so on).

One of my professors once said, "there's no such thing as shared environment." He meant that, even if two kids are raised in the same home, that's no guarantee they experienced the same stuff. And this goes for any situation. That's because of this daily, complex interaction of the person, the behavior, and the environment.

I could do (and maybe will, over the next few years) a dozen posts on this kind of thing. Human development is so fascinating. It's one of the reasons I became a child psychologist. I love thinking about this stuff.

How about you? Can you trace your own (or a character's) development through this model? Can you use it to help you understand how your character became who he or she is? Does it clarify that concept of multifinality, when one predictor can result in multiple paths or outcomes?

I will share my jargon: equifinality and multifinality

2011-06-08T06:16:00.000-04:00

Here's a quick post for those of you with a fondness for cool words. It's sort of relevant to writing. I mean, if you want to avoid one-dimensional, predictable characters, this could be one way to think about their development.

OK, honestly, this post comes from the realm of DUH, but I hope the concepts are still fun to think about. They were fun to draw pictures of. #nerd

Equifinality: the same outcome can result from multiple predictors, stressors, pathogens, or developmental paths.

In other words, there's not one obvious path or set of experiences that will lead to whoever your character is. In fact, for characters, usually the twisty, less-traveled roads are more interesting to readers.

Multifinality: One factor can lead to any of several outcomes, depending on the person and the context.

In other words, early experience doesn't lock a character in to a particular outcome, life choice, career path, ambition, passion, etc. Be creative. Flexible. Don't go for the obvious or easy.

And ... all my energy has been spent writing psych evals this week, so this is all I've got for you today. Can you apply these concepts to your characters? If you have characters from similar backgrounds, how do you craft their development along different paths? What kinds of things do you consider? And if you have characters who arrive at the same place in life, how do you vary the paths they took to get there?

Or, if you don't want to think about that, can you at least agree with me that the words are delightful?

Today is Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog day! Please go visit Lydia, who is posting on the question: How would you personify your muse? Here's the link to Laura's answer from last week.

My Take on the Wall Street Journal Article About YA

2011-06-06T06:05:00.003-04:00

Yesterday I watched Twitter explode in response to a Wall Street Journal article by Mrs. Meghan Cox Gurdon, entitled "Darkness Too Visible." In the article, the author makes the argument that YA is rife with all flavors of depravity and peddled by editors eager to "bulldoze coarseness and misery into children's lives."

My initial reaction to the article was incredulous amusement--when my agent sent me the link, I assumed I was going to be reading something well-informed and balanced. However, it was immediately apparent by the contemptuous and smugly dismissive tone that this was a completely one-sided opinion piece.

OK. The lady is entitled to her opinion.

The problem I have is if her opinion is mistaken for thorough, well-informed analysis.

Here there be dragons. Or, er,
OCD and depression. BEWARE.

Her argument: YA is full of "hideously distorted portrayals of the way life really is." And then she targets several books (most of which I have read, some of which I have discussed here on this blog) that include main characters grappling with mental illness, trauma, or substance abuse. She implies that describing these struggles in "stomach-clenching detail" is harmful to teens, and further implies books that either omit or gloss over these conditions are preferable.

To which I say: huh?

Guess what? One in five teens has a diagnosable mental illness. Anxiety? Thirteen percent. Mood disorders? Seven percent. Disruptive behavior disorders (this includes ADHD and conduct disorder)? Ten percent. And that's just a few categories. In EVERY high school classroom, there are at least a few adolescents struggling with one of these conditions, not to mention abuse, bullying, dating violence, or other trauma.

To pretend these individuals don't exist is offensive. To imply books written for teens should not include them--as if their experiences are not real, as if knowing what they really go through is harmful to others, as if reading books full of sunshine and light will fix them--is highly distressing. And, I'll say it: harmful.

I mean, is that the message we want to send to teens? Let's brush kids with problems under the rug? Let's only tell the stories of well-adjusted kids from two-parent homes? If you read about someone doing drugs, having sex, self-mutilating, feeling depressed, going through a trauma, or living the brutal reality of poverty and violence, you'll be messed up or catch a mental illness like a bad cold?

There's NO empirical evidence to suggest that is true.

Mrs. Gurdon asserts that reading about a behavior, such as self-mutilation, gives teens ideas they do not otherwise have and encourages them to try it. Although she probably didn't know it, she was referring to the concept of social learning, a well-tested theory which postulates that human beings learn through watching others engage in a behavior and get rewarded for it. An example: teenage girls might watch ultra-skinny models vaunted for their beauty and portrayed as living glamorous lives, and get the idea that starving themselves is a good idea. There is evidence to suggest that is, to some extent, true (though the mechanisms behind eating disorders are MORE COMPLICATED than that by far, or every girl in the US would have an eating disorder).

However, is that really the case with YA? For those of you who read this blog regularly, you know the kind of books I read. Nearly all of them are about mental illness or trauma. I've read dozens of them. Not once have I read a YA book that glorified unhealthy behavior. YA authors are brilliant at showing the complex consequences of their protagonists' choices. No, the writers are not preaching. But OH YES are they showing realistic outcomes. Do they cultivate sympathy for their characters? Absolutely. Do they show their characters getting out of situations unscathed? No way.

If someone publishes a peer-reviewed prospective study of how reading specific content in YA leads directly to the portrayed behavior (while controlling for other predictive factors, of course), I will humbly eat these words. Until then ...

Mrs. Gurdon also laments that YA books that realistically portray mental illness or disturbance might normalize this stuff.

To which I say: ARGH.

Again, recall how many teens experience mental illness. Think about what they face. In one study, ninety percent of kids diagnosed with a mental illness (and taking medication) reported experiencing some type of stigma. They were socially isolated and felt ashamed of their conditions. Do increased feelings of shame and isolation help a person to heal? One guess as to the answer.

Research shows that the more middle schoolers and older teens know about mental illness and its treatment, the more healthy their attitudes become. Research also shows that fostering empathy is an important tool to prevent bullying. Based on my observations, YA does two things relevant to those research findings: it shows kids they're not the only ones going through this stuff. And it shows all kids the perspectives and experiences of others with whom they share the world.

But here's the thing: each kid is an individual with strengths and vulnerabilities. So is every parent. What will be good, even redemptive and life-changing, to one teen will be triggering or disturbing to another. Just like everything else, literature isn't one-size-fits-all. When parents come into my office and ask if roughhousing or video games are okay, for example, I do NOT say, "no." I answer based on my knowledge of the child (and the parent). And the answer is not AN ANSWER. It's a discussion. A collaborative consideration of the individual kid, parent, and environment.

With teenagers, it's a more complex conversation. At that point, it becomes a matter of negotiation and problem-solving rather than one of parent-decides-kid-obeys (actually, ideally, parents begin having problem-solving discussions with their children long before adolescence--the earlier you're in the game, the more likely your kid is to keep letting you play). Parent-child communication--and appropriate parental limit-setting-- protects kids from all sorts of risks. Parental autocracy? Doesn't.

What I've seen many, many YA authors suggest is that parents should read alongside their kids. These authors are NOT saying every kid should read every book. Rather, they are saying parents should talk to their kids. Decide together (and the older the teen, the more freedom he/she has to make independent decisions). Have frank discussions about the material. Be open and receptive and don't freak out. This is the approach mental health professionals happen to advocate as well.
All right, I'm done.

Have you read the WSJ article? What did you think? Are you concerned about teens being desensitized? That mental illness or substance abuse will be "normalized"? Do you find there is a dearth of light-hearted or "innocent" books out there? Are you a parent? Are you having to negotiate the world of books with your kid, and how are you accomplishing that?

Lenny Lee Fest: Is Happiness Contagious?

2011-06-03T06:11:00.001-04:00

Today is a special day. I, along with about two dozen other bloggers, am going to spread a little Lenny Lee sunshine. You don't know Lenny Lee? Check out his blog here.

To accomplish my goal, I'm going to answer a question posed by a visitor to this blog a few weeks ago.

Christina Auret asked: "Is happiness contagious? I have heard that one of the easiest ways of becoming happier is to make friends with happy people. Is this true in a worthwhile way or is it simply disingenuous? Obviously making friends is a good thing, but how much does the general mental health and happiness of your friends influence yours?"

And you know what? When I read Christina's excellent question, the first person I thought of was Lenny Lee. I mean, when I read one of this kid's comments, I smile. Every time I read one of his blog posts, I smile (even if I'm tearing up at the same time). How could I not?

But if you know me, you'll understand I'm not one to confuse my subjective experience or opinion with reality. I usually turn to the research to see whether systematic and controlled exploration backs up my experience--or not. This case was no different--I headed for the psychological literature.

Guess what? HAPPINESS IS CONTAGIOUS.

A major study (of over five thousand people) has shown that happiness spreads as far as three degrees of separation within social networks. Even if you don't know a person, he/she can increase your happiness level if you associate with people he associates with, or his associates' associates.

Of course, the opposite is true, but there's evidence that sadness isn't as powerfully contagious as happiness (so don't ditch friends if they're sad!! Do the opposite!).

Yes--happiness is robust. Powerful. Healthy. And apparently, it can spread like wildfire. That's why we're so fortunate to have people like Lenny Lee around. No, he's not happy all the time. Nobody is. But his general attitude certainly is cheerful, and he has shared it generously with his blogger friends. If you don't know Lenny, you STILL may have been affected by him--because by knowing me, you're separated from him by only two degrees of separation.

And today, we're sharing that sunny happiness with him, and in his honor.

As Lenny would say: How cool is that?!

Introversion/Extroversion and Social Media

2011-06-01T06:24:00.001-04:00

Thanks to all of you who commented last Friday and this past Monday (on Memorial Day! You guys are dedicated and AWESOME). As writers, it seems like we're mostly an introverted bunch, but there are definitely a few extroverts and ambiverts (folks who are pretty much in the middle) here.

A few of you mentioned having had to face the whole "extroverted is better" thing, and that's definitely out there--in fact, in some diagnostic systems, introversion is considered a symptom of a disorder. There are plenty of folks who heartily disagree with that view, though, and there's even a book about it. Research shows extroverts do tend to be happier, but it also demonstrates that happiness is not the number one goal in life for introverts. Introverts brains are more active than those of extraverts, and this may be why more introverted individuals choose to spend more time alone than with others.

What a bunch of wallflowers we are.

Also--introversion is not shyness or social anxiety. These concepts overlap, but there are some key differences. Socially anxious folks will avoid parties because they are nervous about doing or saying something stupid. Shy folks might avoid those situations because they're nervous about having to introduce themselves or about ending up with no one to talk to. Introverted folks will avoid parties because they would simply rather be alone. Introverts can absolutely function socially and many of us don't really have a problem with it.

Now--what about social media? If you Google "introversion [or extroversion] and social media", you will find all sorts of conflicting opinions about who's using it and how well they're doing it. When I see that kind of thing, I head straight for the research.

What the research says: extroverts tend to use social media more than introverts.

That certainly makes sense to me. Extroverts crave social contact more than introverts, so when given another outlet for that kind of thing, they'd use it. Introverts have less need for that kind of contact, so they might not reach out.

However, I found some other stuff, too. I found (unscientific) polls indicating that a huge amount of social media users consider themselves introverted. I found several articles citing anecdotal evidence about introverts making great use of social media to measure and control their social contact--in other words, social media is a way for them to get their socializing done in manageable doses that don't overwhelm or irritate.

My agent
IS. Adorable.

Now, if you recall, I said I was pretty introverted. I actually didn't use social media at all until I was agented. However, I intentionally chose an agent who is extremely knowledgeable about social media so she could guide me in how to build an online presence. Interestingly, I asked Kathleen about this, and she said she's on the introverted side of the continuum despite her fabulous online presence as @KOrtizzle. She loves communicating with people online and in person--but absolutely needs her solitary time to charge up.

I had a few reasons for being invisible on the internet--first, I'm a psychologist and I do have clients, and there's a boundary issue there (would anybody be interested in hearing more about those issues in the future? I don't know how interesting that kind of thing is for people). But second, I just ... didn't see the need. I still don't do Facebook at all. I have my blog now, as well as a Twitter account. I've found a lot of joy and fulfillment in making contact with people through these avenues, and I love being a part of this community. For a group that tends toward introversion, we writers certainly do have a fun time, don't we?

I do find myself getting overwhelmed sometimes, though. I'm not a voluble Tweeter, and I often find myself watching more than I participate, which is just fine with me. I'm a lurker. And, unlike in-person situations, when I lurk online, no one really knows I'm there. Sometimes I like that. Sometimes I don't, and then I have to try to reach out--because otherwise, I'm totally invisible to people!

So--how about you? Are you more likely to socialize if there's a screen between you and other people? Are you on the reserved side, even as a social media user? Do you have an outgoing persona, or do your introverted/extroverted tendencies carry over to your online behaviors? Do you lurk, like me, or are you out there and involved? Has social media replaced any of your in-person relationships? Does it fill the same need? And do you get overwhelmed and turn it off sometimes--or not?

Also, it's Wednesday, and that means Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog! Check out Laura's blog (she's also an introvert, by the way), where she'll answer this month's question: How would you personify your muse?

Introversion, Extroversion, or Both? (in which I get my geek on)

2011-05-30T06:50:00.002-04:00

Before I launch into today's festival of nerdishness, I'd like to:

Thank all the individuals, past and present, who have served in the United States military, and on this day, remember and honor those who gave their lives in the service of this country. Amidst the barbeque and the giddiness over the beginning of the summer season, let's take some time to remember the reason this day is a holiday.
Thank each of you. Saturday was my six-month blogoversary, and since the end of last November, nearly 300 of you have become followers of this blog. I'm really touched by all your comments and participation, and I'll keep working hard to make The Strangest Situation worth your time.

NOW: Introversion vs. Extroversion.

On Friday, I asked you if you were one or the other or both. A significant majority of you (24 out of 37, or 65%), indicated you were introverts. Many of you used phrases like "100%" or "hands down", indicating you're quite definitely introverted. Several of you referenced your Myers-Briggs Type (I have GOT to do a post on that thing, and I will sometime this summer)--and they all started with "I".

Now, this shouldn't be surprising, right? Most of us are writers. And ... generally, writing is a pursuit that includes a lot of activity between the ears. Yes, to be good, you've got to get out of your own head and get others involved, but a lot of the process is solitary. In other words, we are NOT a randomly selected sample. If you polled individuals in the House of Representatives or actors on Broadway, you'd probably get a different result.

If any of you are wondering, yes, I am most definitely an introvert. When I was in college, I took Personality Psychology, and the professor handed out personality inventory results for the entire class (we'd all been assigned numbers, so no one was publicly outed or anything). But my number ... was on the extreme end of the continuum. According to that test, I was the most introverted person in that class of 40 people.

That doesn't mean I'm not socially skilled or don't enjoy being with other people. I do. I'm also quite a good public speaker, and I actually enjoy that kind of thing as long as I know what I'm talking about. However--I dislike parties and crowds. They wear me out quickly. I am easily overwhelmed by both the social expectations and the sensory stimulation. And in general, I am happiest when I have A LOT of alone time.

Many of you said very similar things. Quite a few of you were asking questions or stating you had tendencies toward both extraversion and introversion. In other words, you were saying you didn't fall neatly into either category. A lot of you were really trying to puzzle out "which one" you were--introvert or extrovert.

Now--if you are to believe a lot of these "personality type" tests, personality traits would be distributed like this:

This is a cute little bimodal distribution.

If this was the reality, most people fall into one category or another, and only a few people would fall in between. But is that the way things are?

No. Here's the way things are:

Personality traits like introversion-extroversion are normally distributed. MOST people fall somewhere in the middle (about 68%). In other words, if you randomly selected a hundred people from the general population and gave them a test that measured introversion-extroversion, only a few would come out as extremely introverted or extroverted.

Admittedly, if you take our little sample, our curve would probably look more like this:

This is an adorable positively skewed distribution.

As a group, we are probably more introverted than the general population. Even so, most of us will have scores that fall somewhere in between. We're not one or the other!

We're on a continuum.

So! Don't feel bad if you couldn't figure out what type you are, or if you felt like you had qualities of both, or if you are an introvert in some situations/moods and not in others. I'm quite sure you're right. And if you think about this as a continuum, it might make it easier.

On Wednesday, I'll talk more about introversion-extroversion as it relates to social media. But for today--does this make sense? Are you more comfortable thinking about introversion-extroversion (or any persoanlity trait) as a continuum rather than a category you have to fall into? Or do you feel more comfortable as a "type"?

You Tell Me: Introvert or Extrovert?

2011-05-27T06:22:00.002-04:00

First, huge thanks to Carolyn Kaufman for guest blogging, and thanks to all of you who stopped by and asked questions! If you haven't checked back yet, Dr. Kaufman answered them in the comments.

The winner of the signed copy of The Writer's Guide to Psychology is:

LINDA GRAY

Congrats! Please email me with your address so we can send you the book!

Now I give you this:

Extroversion: "the state, act, or habit of being predominately concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self." Enjoying time spent with other people more than time spent alone. An extrovert fades when alone and is easily bored without other people around.

Introversion: "the state or tendency toward being predominately concerned with and interested in one's own mental life." Enjoying time spent alone over time spent with others. An introvert tends to fade when with other people and may become easily overstimulated with too many others around.

Now I ask you this:

Which are you? One or the other? Both? Somewhere in between? And: has social media (Facebook, blogging, Twitter, etc.) changed your interaction style? Has it enhanced it or enabled you to compensate for it somehow?

Next week I'll talk a bit about these personality traits, but first I'd love to hear what you have to say about yourselves! (and if you share, I'll tell you where I fall on this continuum next week)

OH, and if you're commenting through Blogger/gmail, unclick "keep me signed in" if it asks you to log in again. See if that works. Sorry, folks. I have no idea what Blogger's problem is lately!

Dr. Carolyn Kaufman Guest Blogs: 21st Century Treatments for Depression

2011-05-25T06:17:00.000-04:00

Hi everyone! On Monday I talked about how The Writer's Guide to Psychology is useful and generally fabulous. Today, the author, Dr. Carolyn Kaufman, is here to tell you about cutting edge treatments for depression.

I don't know if you folks know this, but Dr. Kaufman is an assistant professor at Columbus State Community College and also teaches classes at Otterbein College. She'll stop by later to answer any questions you have, but as a result of her teaching schedule, it will probably be in the afternoon and evening.

In addition, she's giving away one signed copy of The Writer's Guide to Psychology to one of my commenters today! I'll be announcing the winner Friday. And without further ado ...

If your character has a serious problem with depression, you probably think she has two options for treatment: psychotherapy or medications. And you’d be right – sort of. Those are the first two things a good therapist will try. But what happens if neither approach works? Are there cool new 21^st-century alternatives?

You bet there are.

Now, in most cases, your character will start with psychotherapy, and in many cases, psychotherapy alone is sufficient. Sometimes, however, medications warrant serious consideration; here are a couple of examples of situations when your therapist will want to consider referring to a psychiatrist:

The client is so depressed that she’s unable to really get much out of therapy – she needs additional help.
The client has numerous close family members who are taking medication for the same condition – and they’re benefitting from that medication or medications.

Once in a while, however, an individual has what we call Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD), which means that various psychotherapeutic approaches and medications have been inadequate to help the person. Research suggests that for these people, Treatment as Usual (TAU) may only be successful in about 7% of cases.

The Old Standard

Traditionally, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been used as a last-ditch effort in these situations. The good news is that ECT is not the brutal, barbaric thing portrayed in most movies, where the wide-awake patient is strapped down and subjected to painful, terrifying shocks that cause convulsions. Rather, the person is both asleep (thanks to a general anesthesia) and still (thanks to a muscle relaxant). Miraculously, some people feel significantly better after a single treatment, but for most people, several weeks’ worth of treatments are necessary. After that, medications and psychotherapy are usually effective.

The biggest downside of ECT is that it interferes with what we call the “consolidation” of memory. In other words, over the few weeks that you’re doing ECT, you may have trouble storing information in long-term memory. That can certainly make it hard to remember your next appointment if you don’t have it written down!

Though most people say they would do ECT again if they needed it, and though it has been called “no more unpleasant” than going to the dentist (?!), some people have really bad experiences with it. For example, once in a while people who have undergone ECT say that they have problems with anterograde memory loss (which means they have trouble remembering things even after the ECT is done). Others say they have retrograde amnesia, which means they have forgotten chunks of their past. The hard thing about these situations is that normally ECT is only done when the doctors don’t know what else to do to keep someone alive. So which is worse – being dead, or having some memory loss? The answer genuinely depends on the person.

But scientists have been working on new, drug-free biological treatments for people with TRD. Here are three.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is the least invasive of the three new treatments I want to discuss. Unlike the other two, there is no surgery and no implantation of a device.

During TMS, the client sits in a chair that resembles a dentist’s chair (I know, what’s with the recurring dentist theme?), and an electromagnetic coil is placed near the left front of the head. The coil turns on and off rapidly, creating a magnetic field that stimulates the brain’s cells (called “neurons”) to release brain chemicals like serotonin and norepinephrine. (In people who are depressed, serotonin and norepinephrine levels are too low.)

The machine makes a very loud (and unpleasant) tap-tap-tap-tap sound as the electromagnetic coil is turned on and off, so both client and doctor wear earplugs. Many people experience prickling or discomfort of the scalp under the coil, and some experience twitching of facial muscles or headaches afterward. Research suggests, however, that about half of the people who undergo TMS experience some relief of their depression symptoms.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS)

Both Vagus Nerve Stimulation and the next treatment we talk about, Deep Brain Stimulation, involve a bigger commitment than TMS. Both involve the surgical implantation of an expensive pacemaker-like device under the collarbone.

With VNS, wires run from the main device up into the neck and are wrapped around the vagus nerve, which travels up into the brain and down into the body. Every five minutes, the VNS unit emits a mild electrical pulse. At first, this pulse is noticeable: it feels like a very mild shock accompanied by the requisite prickle of electricity on the left side of the voice box. Over time, however, the body adjusts and the individual is no longer aware of the pulses unless she’s paying close attention, exercising heavily, or speaking loudly (the pulse makes some people’s voices a little bit husky or hoarse). The prickling sensation goes away, and the pulse itself feels like a finger laid very lightly against the left side of the voice box.

The effects of VNS take time, and patients may take up to a year to get the full effects. The battery in the unit is said to last up to 7 years in some patients; when it runs out, a whole new pacemaker-like device has to be implanted.

Research argues that significantly more people with TRD respond to VNS therapy than treatment as usual (ie therapy and medication alone), with about a third of patients getting significant relief and up to 80% of patients getting some relief.

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)

Still in the experimental stages, Deep Brain Stimulation also involves the implantation of a pacemaker-like device under the collarbone. Rather than wrapping around the vagus nerve, however, the electrodes are placed directly into the brain. Patients are awake when the electrode is actually inserted, and many, fascinatingly, report an immediate lifting of their depression. Early research has shown that patients have remained in remission while the current is left on, but experience a return of symptoms when the current is switched off.

What makes DBS unique is that it may help people for whom electroconvulsive therapy has not been effective. TMS and VNS are not usually helpful for this group.

Since DBS has not been proven in large groups of people, it has not yet been approved for depression in North America.

Particularly with the last two treatments, you may think that you wouldn’t want someone implanting anything in your body – and especially in your brain – for any reason! But for people for whom depression is an unrelenting specter, these treatments offer new hope. Unfortunately, although both TMS and VNS have been FDA-approved for depression in the US, insurance companies aren’t usually willing to pay for them, forcing individuals to find ways to pay for them out of pocket.

For more information on TMS:

NAMI: http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Helpline1/Transcranial_Magnetic_Stimulation_(rTMS).htm

Neurostar (company that makes the TMS machine): http://www.neurostartms.com/Home.aspx

For more information on VNS:

VNS and Me: Wordpress Blog of someone who was implanted with the VNS device: http://vnsandme.wordpress.com/

Cyberonics (company that makes the VNS device): http://us.cyberonics.com/en/vns-therapy/

For more information on DBS:

Time Magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1214939,00.html

What do you think? Had you heard of these treatments? What questions do you have for Dr. Kaufman (they don't have to be limited to these treatments--feel free to ask general questions or anything about The Writer's Guide)? Remember--one commenter will win a signed copy of The Writer's Guide to Psychology, so ask (or just comment) away! She'll stop by after 3pm (EST) to answer!

And finally, on the Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog front, Deb Salisbury is posting today about what she does when she loses her writing mojo. Please check it out!