Here’s a handy dandy color reference chart for you artists, writers, or any one else who needs it! Inspired by this post x
- Wide Eyes
- Raised Eyebrows
- Flared Nostrils
- Clenched Mouth
- Larger personal space
- Slouching or hunching to minimize their exposure
- Taller or squared shoulders as in an aggressive response
- Feet may be pointed to locate a way out of the situation
- Crossed arms and hands
- Drumming of fingers
- Rapid Breathing
- Shaking or tapping legs
- Breathing more rapid and shallow
- Increase in blood pressure
- Increase in pulse rate
- Dilated Pupils
- Dry Mouth
- Body hair standing on end
- Tense and energized muscles
- Increased perspiration
- Digestive and Immune systems slow down
- Trembling and shaking
- Peristalsis reduced
- Increased glycogen to glucose conversion
- Norepinephrine and epinephrine secreted
- Sweaty Palms
- Nervous Ticks
- Increase in thoughts and Mind Racing
- Screaming, yelling or inability to do these things
- Immobility or paralysis
- Hives or skin rashes, skin conditions
- Accusatory: charging of wrong doing
- Apathetic: indifferent due to lack of energy or concern
- Awe: solemn wonder
- Bitter: exhibiting strong animosity as a result of pain or grief
- Cynical: questions the basic sincerity and goodness of people
- Condescension: condescending-a feeling of superiority
- Callous: unfeeling, insensitive to feelings of others
- Contemplative: studying, thinking, reflecting on an issue
- Critical: finding fault
- Choleric: hot-tempered, easily angered
- Contemptuous: showing or feeling that something is worthless or lacks respect
- Caustic: intense use of sarcasm; stinging, biting
- Conventional: lacking spontaneity, originality, and individuality
- Disdainful: scornful
- Didactic: author attempts to educate or instruct the reader
- Derisive: ridiculing, mocking
- Earnest: intense, a sincere state of mind
- Erudite: learned, polished, scholarly
- Fanciful: using the imagination
- Forthright: directly frank without hesitation
- Gloomy: darkness, sadness, rejection
- Haughty: proud and vain to the point of arrogance
- Indignant: marked by anger aroused by injustice
- Intimate: very familiar
- Judgmental: authoritative and often having critical opinions
- Jovial: happy
- Lyrical: expressing a poet’s inner feelings; emotional; full of images; song-like
- Matter-of-Fact: accepting of conditions; not fanciful or emotional
- Mocking: treating with contempt or ridicule
- Morose: gloomy, sullen, surly, despondent
- Malicious: purposely hurtful
- Objective: an unbiased view-able to leave personal judgments aside
- Optimistic: hopeful, cheerful
- Obsequious: polite and obedient in order to gain something
- Patronizing: air of condescension
- Pessimistic: seeing the worst side of things; no hope
- Quizzical: odd, eccentric, amusing
- ribald-offensive in speech or gesture
- Reverent: treating a subject with honor and respect
- Ridiculing: slightly contemptuous banter; making fun of
- Reflective: illustrating innermost thoughts and emotions
- Sarcastic: sneering, caustic
- Sardonic: scornfully and bitterly sarcastic
- Satiric: ridiculing to show weakness in order to make a point, teach
- Sincere: without deceit or pretense; genuine
- Solemn: deeply earnest, tending toward sad reflection
- Sanguineous: optimistic, cheerful
- Whimsical: odd, strange, fantastic; fun
Credit to http://www.mshogue.com/AP/tone.htm
Types of Commas [thenamenononehas]
- They no longer serve a purpose. You can find this often in fantasy novels, where the protagonist usually has a mentor who often dies immediately after imparting meaningful lessons upon the young hero.
- It changes things. Where the characters may have done one thing while someone was alive, they will now do this other thing because they misinterpret the dead character’s wishes, want to honor/avenge the dead character, because they lack the dead character’s steadying hand/impulsiveness/trait, or basically act in a way that differs from how they would have acted with the character’s survival
- Motivation. You want your character to do something. You’re fresh out of angsty teenage rebellion, out of the goodness of one’s heart is running low, and loyalty to the cause is in the red. There’s nothing like grief to spice things up.
"But clevergirl!" you cry, "These are the reasons you said we shouldn’t kill off characters for!”
Yes and no. You can kill off characters for these reasons but you must disguise the fact as best you can that you killed them off for these reasons. The character’s death shouldn’t come across as necessary for plot advancement. It should come across as a tragedy of the highest caliber. You’re writing from a character’s perspective. They don’t know that a character died because they outlived their usefulness. All they know is that their best friend is dead and they don’t know what to do with themselves.
To that end, here are some ways to make character death more meaningful:
- Do it sparingly. I say sparingly within the context of the work. War, plague, or disaster novels might have people dying left and right, but secondary/main characters don’t die every other page. (Also, if you kill characters off too much, you risk desensitizing your readers to death.) If you’re writing about a softer topic, don’t murder the grandmother and the dad in one day.
- Acknowledge the character’s existence. The dead character might have family or other friends who are also reacting to their death at the same time as the MC(s). The character’s absence should be noted in all aspects of their life, from the knitting club to the desk in the corner. The absence should have an impact on the proceedings of these aspects. The knitting club should disband without the dead character’s conciliatory influence. The desk in the corner should go unoccupied and is generally avoided for weeks.
- Appropriate levels of grief. Another thing that annoyed me about the Inheritance Cycle was that Eragon bawled his eyes out when he had to kill some snakes and insects to gain their power. When actual people died, he shed “a single, shining tear”. Come on! Your characters don’t need to descend into a frenzy of grief for every dead character - indeed, they may feel happy or can only sympathize with people who were impacted worse by the sudden loss. Save the real grief for character deaths that really impact the MC. If there are multiple deaths, the MC should not react in the exact same way to all of them.
- Emotions other than sadness. When one of my relatives died of terminal cancer, I was sad, but I was also relieved because they weren’t living in pain anymore. In the same way, a child might be happy their parent is dead so they can receive money they desperately need to pay off their debts, but still deeply mourn the parent’s passing. Some characters might feel anger or self-hatred if their actions led to the death. They might feel overwhelmed because of events other than the death or events stemming from the death. They might feel betrayed if the character died doing something stupid or contrary to orders. Grief is many emotions, of which sadness is one.
- Grief is not overcome by a single reason/event/person. Probably the worst thing ever in the history of literature is the belief that romantic love will overcome anything. In this case, many grieving characters will soon find their emotions taking a backseat to their new love, who will teach them to find a middle ground. In an equally annoying and false trope, characters automatically find their grief satisfied when they avenge the dead character’s death by killing the character’s killer. NO. You don’t automatically get over someone with a new love or by satisfying some goal deep inside you. It takes time and a variety of factors, not just one.
Hello, fellow IN-J friend. I read a basic description of INFJs here and that’s what I’m basing the rest of this post off.
- Put emphasis on different aspects. The website says INFJs are creative, intuitive, stubborn, and warm to those close to them. Let’s say you’re really intuitive, really creative, but not terribly stubborn or warm. You might make the character different by making them really stubborn and creative, and not so intuitive. They are still within the INFJ personality, but their major personality traits are different.
- Give them different quirks and interests. Nothing says all INFJs bite their nails or like action flicks. You can diversify there. You can also explore the INFJ’s personality through said interests. They like action movies because they follow a structure, and this INFJ likes structure and order in their lives.
- They don’t need the same morals. Your character doesn’t need to share deep convictions like political alignment, religion, morality, and thoughts on controversial topics with you. They don’t even need to believe in them for the same reasons you follow your convictions. Again, emphasize different parts of their personality. If your INFJ is very orderly, they could be religious because it gives the world structure. If your INFJ is very warm to those close, they might find and oppose “others” who are not part of their group.
- Give them different flaws. General INFJ flaws are stubbornness, perceived aloofness to strangers, messiness, sensitivity to conflict, and ignoring other people’s ideas. I’m sure you have some but not all of these flaws, and in different levels, ex. being aloof but generally organized. Your character will have some but not all of these problems, and in different levels than you do, ex. being very sensitive, kind of aloof (like you, but to a lesser degree), and messy.
Diversity doesn’t end with race so not all discussions on diversity can apply to one another (i.e. some aspects we consider diverse can transcend culture, time period, or place while others cannot) and I don’t recall saying that certain characters need to exist even if it “makes no sense for the area”. If you’re referring to posts on history in which the OP is presenting evidence for the presence of POC in certain places and time periods, well it’s just that. Those posts are meant to dispel the idea that certain eras were all white (or all male).
With the “just because” reason behind diversity, I think there are two things people think of when they hear it:
1) Just in Case
Putting in certain characters “just in case” is a bad reason for diversity. It’s used to avoid getting called out for a lack of diversity and it leads to tokenism. This is just putting pieces on the board with no intention of using them. If this is what you’re referring to, yes I agree with you, but I haven’t ever spread this idea as a good thing.
2) Just Because
Because why not? Writers never have to justify why their character is white, straight, male, thin, able bodied, etc., but the second someone writes a female character in a traditionally male role or a gay character or someone else who doesn’t fit the “default”, we have to explain ourselves and it’s really annoying.
It’s extremely difficult to find fiction books with bisexual male characters, it’s frustrating not to see that part of me in any mainstream media (or even outside of mainstream media because even then it’s heavily monosexual), and it’s invalidating when people think that you need a good reason for making a character something other than straight. I’ve come across way too many people who say that a character can’t be X or Y because “there’s no reason for it”.
Of course putting a character in a story doesn’t automatically make it diverse and inclusion is not the same as representation. All characters should be round, dynamic, and important within the story.
You have to normalize it and use these words in contexts that hint at when and why they are used. For example, let’s say that the word “malin” is a term of endearment that adults use to describe children. If enough adult characters use this in an affectionate manner when referring to different children, the reader might catch on. A lot of writers also put these words in italics to make them stand out.
For another example, let’s say the word “bigalé” is a word that can be used to say any of the following:
- That’s ridiculous
- I don’t believe you
- That’s a lie
- Other variations
Using this word in the right context, i.e. when a character is experiencing disbelief or when they think someone is lying, can start to reveal its meaning to the reader. It might sound weird at first, since any word the reader doesn’t know will come of as odd, but over time the reader will get used to it.
Go in writing like it’s completely normal to your characters. Give them the confidence to use these words and they will come off as more natural.