What I am, and what I'm not

When I tell people I'm an introvert, I often get looked at as if I left the milk out to sour. I assure you, I put it in the fridge.

I admit to being an introvert because I know it's not a bad thing like other people assume. Some people believe that introverts are socially stunted losers. This is definitely not true. Some of us are hard to spot in social settings because we have become so good at putting on a face that allows us to do many of the things that extroverts do. Small talk, for example, is something that a lot of introverts loathe with a passion. I know as of late, there have been a lot of comments on how rainy it's been and the part of me that loathes small talk would say, "Yeah, wet stuff does fall from the sky sometimes." Instead, I say something along the lines of, "I know! It's terrible. I wonder when it will stop." I admit that this bothers me because opening my mouth to say something should communicate something meaningful. I like learning about people and various subjects. I like pondering how the problems of the world can be solved. Is there such a thing as being too deep? For me there really isn't.

Am I shy? No. Am I a loner? Only when I feel like it. I actually enjoy going out and getting to know other people, but at the same time it saps me. My uncle had a wedding party a little over a month ago and I had fun meeting my new aunt's family but at a certain point I ran off to one of the rooms and laid down in the dark for an hour. I later went down to rejoin the party because who wants to be left out of the action? To some of you this may sound strange, but to other introverts this is perfectly normal. I was overstimulated. I needed a break from the people I was talking to. I liked them but my nerves were buzzing at that point.

For the longest time, I thought something was wrong with me. I used to think that the time I spent thinking about what I said made me stupid because I didn't talk all the time. I was socialized to think of my introspectiveness that way. I don't think out loud like some people do and that's fine with me. Extroverts think this is strange, especially in my culture where it feels like you should say what you think the moment you think it. That idea is problematic for me because words are powerful. Once words are issued forth, you can't take them back. Words (and actions for that matter) are like currency and as such can be spent in myriad ways. You can purchase wonderful things such as love, inspiration and joy. They can also purchase terrible things too: disgust, hatred and sadness. I'd rather take my time thinking.

I had been told that if I was a little more outgoing and a little more social that I could have been popular in high school. Looking back, I know a lot of teens long to be popular, but I would have liked to think that I saw popularity for what it was. I saw how others would be nice to popular kids but then turned around an gossiped about them. I was happy to not have other people talk about me. The only problem I came across in school was discovering that other kids hated and I do mean HATED that I did better than them in some of our subjects together. I once had a classmate stand up right next to my desk and ask very loudly, "Do you go home and study this every night?!" to which I replied, "I do my homework." I understood that he thought that since I didn't run with any particular crowd (as I was new to the high school) that I had no life other than my studies. I just didn't want to be someone who spoke about fashion or what someone is wearing or who is going out with whom. I couldn't help it if talking was about meaning rather than simply exercising my tongue.

I guess my point is, I'm not shy. I'm not a snob. I'm not deficient because I like my alone time. I'm not some loner sociopath about to go on some killing spree. (Even I will pick up the phone after a couple of days alone and call someone.) Most of all, I'm not an idiot. A majority of gifted people are introverted. Albert Einstein, Steven Spielberg, Jaqueline Kennedy, Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzche are just a few. Introverts may be quiet, but we're movers and shakers too.

About the Process

I'm not sure how many of you are out there--those like me who are dedicated to the people in their head. Before the rest of you deign to call someone to put people like me in white jackets, think about the authors you like to read. Better yet, think about the good authors you like to read. For some it takes months, sometimes years to come up with the dynamic, engrossing stories that they tell. A writer's dedication to the people in her head brings you protagonists you love and sometimes want to yell at for being so phenomenally stupid. It brings you the antagonists you: wish weren't so clever; and love frighteningly enough.

This brings me to my rant of the day.

There are certain writers whom I've read enough of to know that they are possibly at the end of their creative rope. There is a point at which you become hyper aware of the same devices and descriptions. I know that we all hope for happy endings and I know that there are some genres that only write happy endings. It's not to say that there's anything wrong with those genres. There is something wrong with the writers. I think even with a genre such as romance where most people expect a happy ending, the author should be challenged to keep some of the mystery alive. I shouldn't be able to guess midway through the book how the happy ending is going to unfold. (Yes, I'm looking at you Nora.)

Another thing I have problems with are cookie cutter characters. We have the ingenue, young and plucky. There is the quiet, demure shy girl and then there's the amazon who just kicks ass when she needs to and moves on. There is nothing inherently wrong with these archetypes. Every character is an archetype to some degree, but the best authors are the ones who add so much depth to a character that we forget. Many of the problems I see in writing have to do with the characters of whom we are only shown photos. It seems like going to a dating site and seeing photos of a guy and having someone tell you, "Isn't this guy great? You should marry him!"
Are we expected to fall in love with characters when we've only seen a photograph? Of course not. It's not enough to see what type of character you have, but how the character came to be that way.

In addition to the mistakes listed above that even seasoned writers make, I'd like to add something that most beginning (and sometimes seasoned) writers miss. (Nora, you are indeed overly seasoned. Have a rest.) No one likes a perfect character. NO ONE. They get on our nerves and oftentimes piss us off. As human beings we're not perfect and we don't want the characters we read about to be either. Could a character have something backfire? Let it happen. Is there a way the character can struggle with him or herself? Let them. Have a character agonize over an action that has to be taken even though it may hurt someone they love dearly. If a character can breeze through life and not have to bat an eye at what he or she does, then there's no point in telling the story.

The last think I would like to add is avoid things that make (obviously support) characters annoying. The chief problem I've seen are stereotypes. Please no stereotypes. I don't want to see the Black street thug with an absent father, the Asian nerd or a Hispanic roughneck. I don't want to see the oversexed Black or Latina woman and I don't want to see the docile Asian woman either. Don't write a minority character just so they can be used for fodder later. If screenplay writers had L.L.'s character live to the end of the movie Deep Blue Sea you can write a minority character that will live to see the end of your story too.

In contrast, if you want to find out what you should do, read good authors. A good author can make you laugh out loud, make you cry and make you think. Authors I recommend are: Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clark, and Lynn Flewelling.