Thursday, May 10: Femme Fatale
TAKE A SEAT
by Deborah Elliott-Upton
In my “Writing & Marketing the Short Story” classes at the local college, I could tell who would be the best writers from the moment they chose a seat.
At first, I thought it was a fluke when the students who would write the most interesting stories chose to sit in the same area where my students had in previous classes. Semester after semester, the same scenario repeated itself and I realized my theory had credence.
Mr/Ms Imagination seated themselves in the same chairs as all the Mr/Ms Imaginations had taken before. They composed delightful, unpredictable and memorable stories. I knew I would soon see their bylines in print.
The writers who argued instead of listened during critique would take the same row and chair as the Complainers had in the former class. These people did not believe their stories needed any rewriting. Obviously, I was not “getting” what they meant. When I recognized this type of student, I rarely spent much of the valuable and limited class discussion time on their work.
Why bother? The sad thing is they truly believed what they had “in their head” about the story had shown up “on the page.” If the Complainers would stop and listen to the questions their classmates asked concerning the story, they would realize much work needed to be done on the manuscript before the story would be publishable.
Clustered to my left side and to the rear of the room would be at least two students who would drop the class when they realized they were expected to write.
The person who never missed a class, yet whose work never improved, would occupy the same space — usually near the front where one would assume those most interested in learning would sit. The Always A Student took spare notes and enjoyed talking about writing more than she did actual writing.
When the phenomena repeated again and again, I expected to hear the theme from “The Twilight Zone.” It soon became my private project to see if the students shared other similar qualities with their chair’s previous tenants.
As a personality trainer, I am conditioned to note the traits of those wandering into my life or me into theirs. Every personality type comes equipped with their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. When we work on eliminating our weak traits while fortifying our strengths, we naturally become happier individuals.
As a mystery writer, I take notes on people’s nuances, quirks and motivations for my own character studies. I often use personality charts to help deduce my character’s probable reactions. Knowing their innate weaknesses and strengths guides me along a blueprint of sorts to know how they may respond when trouble comes calling.
My popularity as an instructor rose when I assigned homework watching at least one episode of “Survivor” and the movie, “Die Hard.”
On “Survivor” the plot is the same for everyone: to outlast their competitors and win the cash prize. The story playing out is altered each season not so much from the environment or challenges as much as the players’ personalities and life experiences. In “Die Hard,” Bruce Willis’ character, John McClane, takes charge because that is what a rogue cop who has a personal stake (his wife is among those held at gunpoint by the terrorists) does in that situation.
If, while sitting in my classroom, a group of Uzi-bearing terrorists entered — dressed in full commando-like gear — what would you do? What would I do? What would the person next to you do? Aha! Our actions would depend on our personality, beliefs and skills. Not all of us are the Bruce Willis action-figure type. Who would emerge as the hero of this story? I am not asking who would take on the enemy. I am asking whether you wrote or read this story, whose viewpoint would you most want to hear? If the story were told from Mrs. McClane’s point of view, wouldn’t it be a completely different film?
Studying movies, television programs, short stories and novels for the writer’s choice of characterization techniques is a vital tool to both creating and enjoying good fiction. Plot is important, but it is the characters that make the story come alive.
Bruce Willis’ portrayal of McClane makes “Die Hard” stand out from other action movies. If another actor played the part, would it have been as dynamic? Imagine someone other than Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. What if Captain Butler was played by Humphrey Bogart, Gary Cooper or Tyrone Powers? Or hey, even Bruce Willis?
Does it make a difference where we choose to sit? Would the ones who excel do so if they sat in the Quitters chairs? Would the Complainers gripe less and learn more if they sat on the opposite side of the room or those whose writing never evolved flourish if only they sat two seats back? Perhaps. But, consider this: What if we can create success wherever we choose as our place when we decide to conquer our doubts and forge through personality flaws we can alter?
Here at Criminal Brief, we are about to embark on an exciting adventure. So, take a seat wherever you are most comfortable and let’s see where this ride takes us.
Interesting story. Reminds of when I was taking Psychology 101 back (oh how many years ago) at a secular college, after having been at a Christian college for a year and a half. The professors at the Christian college didn’t swear and always were quite pleasant. The professors at the secular college were “tough guys, been around the block more than once” kind of persons. My Psych 101 teacher was a great mentor. The first day of class, she walked into the room (we were in a square room in the center of the classroom area (kind of octagonal shaped and the other rooms had no doors to speak of but ours was square and had two doors one on each side of the instructor’s desk – or how I remember the room being set up) and sat on her desk. She perused the room of students (about 30 of us in the class) for what seemed like an eternity. Now picture someone who looks like something that stepped out of the 60s with costume jewelry everywhere, frizzy hair and tie-dyed skirts to her ankles (this was in the mid 1980s when I attended this college). Anyway, when she first spoke, I was almost flabbergasted at what she said (not that I’d never heard the language before, but having just transferred from a “christian college” and hearing a professor say this, well you know it was weird in a way). She said that her class was not a crip couse and that she didn’t tolerate any bullshit (excuse me – that was her speaking) and that if we thought we were going to just sit in the class and not work for our grades then we had another thing coming. She went on with stating that she could tell which students were the workers and which ones thought it was an easy A, even though it was a basic level course. She told the class that if anyone was in there just to take an easy course, “there’s a door and there’s a door. Don’t let them hit you in the ass when you leave.”
About half the class got up and left. Those of us that stayed got the rest of the speech that we earned what we worked for and she would let us know in no uncertain terms if we had studied or not on tests and when we were bsing on papers and stuff. Best class I ever took and had I been smart and she talked me into changing majors, I probably would have and would have taken more courses by her.
So yeah, personalities come into play in all walks of life and where we take a seat and learn the best and participate is where we know that we will succeed. – E
Wow, I love that story. Wish I’d taken her class!
This was both fun and informative. I love the way you worked movies into the lesson. Made it easier to really ‘see’ what you were saying!
Thanks!
And do you believe personalities change over the years or are you just what you are ?
There is never a dull moment in one of your classes. I’m sorry I was way before this class!
I believe personalities change. I’m pretty sure mine has because back then I was considered a “Miss Goody Two Shoes” (you know the type, didn’t drink, didn’t swear, didn’t smoke – there was a song at some time about “Miss Goody Shoes” and that was me). But since then, since getting married, I’ve changed – I’m depressed more often now than I ever was (never was depressed and always seemed to be a happy-go-lucky type person) and I see things differently. I still don’t smoke or drink but I’ve changed.
I think you can see it in kids very often (some are easier to see than others). But on the other hand, some don’t change for whatever reason (my kids are perfect example of that – one changed before my eyes and he’s only 12 and the other has been the same through her whole life for the most part and she’s 14).
I lean towards the changing personality through the years, even though some things do tend to stay the same – E
I don’t think personalities change as much as evolve. Just by looking you can see what most babies personalities will be. A lot of time, we aren’t “allowed” to be who we really are under our parent’s thumbs. Teenagers are trying to find themselves and are often hard to pigeon-hole, but if you spend enough time with them, the personlaity will show itself. Many of us don’t realize our potential until we’re adults. The journey is interesting though and well worth it.
I want to take the personality training.
You enjoy observing people – in fact, you enjoy people – and it shows.
Thanks for writing, for teaching, and for being you – a fun-loving, enjoyable inspiration to all of us beginning writers!
Be forewarned: Personality training is addictive.
Deborah, awesome article. It makes me sit back and think which chair would I sit in. Thanks.
My wife has been tryign to train my personality for the last ten years.
Great info regardless of the genre you are writing, but I wish you would have told us where those highly imaginative people sit so I’d know which seat to take the next time I enrolled in a class.
Aha! Gotcha, Travis! The problem is you already know you are a magnificent writer…you are one of the Imagination Giants and always welcome in my classroom.
Fascinating thought…classroom geography as destiny.
Here’s another interesting fact: The original Die Hard movie was based on a novel by Roderick Thorp starring the same character as his novel The Detective, which was also made into a movie. So Bruce Willis was theoretically playing a character who had earlier been played by…Frank Sinatra.
Dooby dooby do.
That is a fantastic article. Great insight into human psychology AND writing…which are, of course, hopelessly intertwined.
Bruce as Sinatra…I can see it. Same personality, anyway, so it isn’t that far of a stretch. Great info, Rob, thanks!
Thanks, Frank! I always appreciate your comments. It’s nice to know that so many great writers are finding their way to this web site.
Deborah,
Thanks for the great piece of insightful writing. As a teacher for many classes myself, I catch what you are saying. Though, except when I was teaching in high school, I’ve seldom had the luxury of having multiple classes sitting in the same classroom!
Great article!
Thanks, Tony. It doesn’t have to be the same exact classroom though. The setup is usually the same…I’m saying that from where the teacher’s desk is, the students still situate themselves in the same pattern. It is a bit eerie, a bit exciting and a bit fun. Thanks for checking our web site here…come back again and bring all your writing pals.
I just read your article and it’s great! When you talk about the different kind of people in your class, I could see faces of people I know who fit each of those categories. Kind of funny… thanks for sharing!
Thanks, Jeremy! That is exactly the reaction I wanted to place in your mind. We’re all in this together.
I’m so happy to see you on my computer screen, Deborah Elliott-Upton. People think I’m working, but I’m eating Cheez Doodles and reading your excellent article. Can’t beat that. Keep up the good work!
~cg
Good article, gal. Keep the info coming. I like it.
Tell me where to sit! Loved reading your article! Inspired me today – and I needed it!!!
Linda
This teacher would like to be in your class. Never a dull moment say the least!
Deborah,
Great take and a great read! And I agree wholeheartedly. I do a thing on “beliefs and values.” Really shakes out how people approach life, look at people and act upon situations. Most folks think the two are pretty much the same. I think there’s a hierarchy to those two that lead to attitudes, actions, habits, etc. I look at my characters that way. And having that perspective helps working with different cultures and having a constructive intereraction.
I know, this is long winded. Will mention that my first mystery novel Death Stalks the Khmer, was picked up by a professor of social work at a university. He made it required reading for his classes, plus had an exercise and test on it. Very flattering. The gist of his using it was that his students could better learn how to work with and help a refugee group that had gone through horrendous traumas. My amateur detective, Bridget O’Hern, working with Seattle area cops, had to help them understand what motivated–what beliefs and attitudes–propelled the actions of the Cambodian (Khmer) suspects.
And thanks for the insight.
Pat Harrington
Thanks to all of you for the kind words and do visit often. I think we’ve got a great little group here and it promises to be anything but boring.
Wow, how funny is that! Why do you think it is? And how much do you think was cultural?
Very educational, Deborah. I thought I had it all figured out when I concluded that the girls with the best legs always sat in the front row, and catnappers like me always sat in the back. Now you’ve taken me to a much higher level of observation.
Seriously, you obviously know what you’re talking about, and I found your article extremely interesting.
Good work.
Dear Deborah,
I enjoyed reading ‘Take A Seat’ and a variety of inter-related events, experiences, situations, theories et al came to mind as I did so, pausing periodically to either recall, reflect (viz, on past events/experiences etal., from the point of view of the present and a more fully-informed and developed personality) and/or reread…
I have experienced a situation whereby small groups of people, (to be gender-specific, all were young women) were invited to ‘take a seat’ without knowing or realising that they had been ‘guided’ towards seating themselves in certain chairs in certain positions. I realise this is not what you are saying , however, it wsa notably comparable for me as I read.
Some of the other things that came to mind were:
Cesare Lombroso’s notion of the Born Criminal/Criminality as derived from Phrenological studies he performed on certain persons (mostly in the South of Italy and confined to prison: in order to understand the nature of his findings however, one would need to understand someof the physical and sociological differences that existed between persons in the North and South and the underyling nature of the Panoptican at that point in time…(as we also see it further developed in theories on ‘blond-hair and blue-eyed’ [twins for example] and the dire poverty-stricken situation of the darker Southerners [compared to the fair Northerns of Italy] who were over-represented by concepts of evil and bad as a result of being darker or having eyes close together or a square jawline or an oval shaped face etc etc..) I mention this briefly, in passing, since Lombroso came to mind as I read and in further-developed forms (including Freudian concepts)such as what we now know as being ‘Psychoanalysis’, Epistemological Cartesian notions of Self – Ego,Id, Sup-Ego and more contemporary forms of knowing such as simple counselling and so on…the ongoing developmental process there-of and so on..
I remember a time in which I was in a similar situation to Elysabeth [ E:) ] and then – the transformation of [my] Self as I was faced with a life filed with aspects I had never considered or known to exist..
Part of what I discovered as I observed others at close range over time was that in my atemtp to survive the unexpected hand Fate dealt me, I had a deep desire – as indeed I have always had even from birth – to know and understand myself and others on many levels…I wanted to know about change and the effects of change – upon one’s life in such areas as simple decision-making, relationships/interactional relational value and so on..and how change – forced or otherwise as seen by some – impacted on and influenced personal beliefs systems, one’s foundational structure, desire, intentions – apriori or otherwise – and further,how my findings impacted on/influenced thedevelopment of self,notions of self / worth, identity, expectations imposed upon Self by Self and the Other and so on…and how such impact on the individual – on emotional, physical, psychological, financial et al
levels et al…
One of my conclusive findings over time was that choice and change are complimentary…we can alter every moment of every day in the way we decide to decide…the thinking process can change if the person determines to take steps to change the process, no-onw can do it other than the individual him/herself…
For example, how will I lead my life today? Will I be just-minded and honest as I enjoy being or will I rob my neihbour, usurp the throne so to speak, storm the bastille and take what’s rightfully mine according to the Gospel of Jane?
Will I continue to reinforce the type of person I know I am and wish to improve upon, focussing my attention on deeper levels of the asanas I am practising or will I tread on it and sit on 200 on the highway, with a bottle of Chivas Regal on my lap and the motor-cycle cop waving a red flag in my rear vision mirror?
What about my relationships with others…What about my job…my hopes my goals and how my choices/decisions impact on wider society…even, as some would say, on a psychical level.
What about such things as notions of Justice and the terrors of injustice? Of being wronged or standing aright for what I believe in, or simply sommunicating [in whatever form] with others..?
What about the choices with which I am confronted. While I really wish to make Choice A, do I find myself denying myself ‘for the greater good’ or deciding at last to gratify Self…
‘Take a Seat’ is multi-faceted and well-worth consideration if not dialogue.
How is the notion of Self and Identity created by the Other? Which is how we are able to say such things as, ‘Birds of a Feather Flock Together’ and ‘Sleep with a dog get up with fleas’ or ‘Liek attracts like’ and so on…all of which share one thing in common, that is, ‘it ain’t necessarily so.’
Sometimes environment determines outcomes and sometimes we are nurtured not only by environmental factors but by the qualities of Sel and Soul that are inherent…and so Nature-Nurture comes into play along with a host of other variables…
Another interesting find has been that, in the case of a relatively ‘innocent’ nature – that seems to be both inherent and reinforced through ‘ways of seeing’ and ‘ways of being’, the most terrible and gravest of injustices or other horrors, doesnot and cannot destroy that one element of ‘good’ that enables by Faith, the sheer determination to survive and/or succeed against the odds.
JS Mill asked, ‘What happens to an innocent man condemned?’ Who is able to truly say except the innocent man condemned himself?
What happens to the newborn who loses his mother at birth and finds himself ‘labelled’ [for the rest of his life] ‘orphan’ or anythingelse and how does definition (as applied by the Other) determine out comes that may not have otherwise occured? See, for example, Labelling Theory, Profiling and the like…and the societal breakdown of identity unto the influential factors affecting change in Self…what is the plumbline for identifying the true nature of self?
In looking at the human and personality we need also look at such things as reactional behaviour which really advances a more closely identifiable revelation of Self than does behaviour itself.
Take, for example, the hypothetical: An innocent person who has been wronged and locked up. He badly treated over time and frequently bashed senseless for no ther reason than that others want to further oppress him and subject him to their misguided notions of self.
Year after year he is subject to cruel and ongoing abuses and accusations yet, we learn more about this character when we observe him at close range (or even from a distance) and we see that at no time does he lift a little finger, at no time does he fight back. Even though by not doing so he could easily lose his life.
What we are looking at is reactional [behaviou] but what we are gaining deep insights into is the amazing resilience of his developing personality in which he is choosing to turn things around, to constantly make choices that further advance him as he seizes every opportunity to benefit by even the cruel actions of others as they attempt to force him to react in a way in which they think/believe he ought to react. What they don’t see is that he IS reacting but because he is not reacting in an identifiable and known way to the, they think he is non-reactive, maybe stupid or even ‘weak’.
He is simply strengthening his personality – the very foundation of goodness inherent in him that will enable him to survive against the odds.
Someone, skilled in interpretation of the human, but not having investigated this type of personality, may be baffled and ask, ‘How did you manage to survive when others haven’t?’
Someone else, in trying to further make a fool out of abusing him may find an intelligent, insightful person and stand dumb-found, ‘You’re nothing like I thought you would be..?’
How do we form maladjusted notions of the Other? If not through the ways in which personality [frequently miscontructs notions of] perceives others from ‘behind a dim glass’…
I once came across someone by the name of Emile Fachenheim – a Survivor of the Holocaust – and I wept as I listened to him speaking on tape, declaring that,
‘The Jews have been given the command to survive.’
The ‘command to survive’? I wondered as this poignant statement sunk into my heart.
Would not most people be changed into angry revengeful and even spiteful personalities?
What enables on person to remain just-minded, compassionate, empathetic and carry such qualities through out life no matter how bad and what casues another to become hurt, angry, embittered?
‘And so on and so forth’ [Kurt Vonnegut Jnr, ‘Slaughterhouse Five]
I hope I haven’t bored you all witless. I’m not always like this…Your article spurred me on – at least that’s my excuse for today:)
Cheers,
Jane
hi i posted a reply but it is not showing up. i tried to re-post it but got a mssg saying it was a duplicate post. if someone could plse advise? could it have been that my reply was too long and therefore not acceptable?
I have no idea, but “hardboiledoperative” sounds like someone we’d probably like to hear from. Try again, perhaps comment on another of this group’s posts. I
This made me think back to some of the classes I’ve taught. It is interesting to think about each student’s personal contributions to the subject matter and where they physically sat in the room. Since I train for my company, I still see many of them quite often. It is truly apparent who was there just to be seen, to kill time, or to take it to heart and apply the information to their lives. Just because some were on the front row didn’t necessarily mean they were in there to learn. Wouldn’t it be interesting to block off certian chairs and see what happens? Excellent article! Thanks!