In most arguments, Person A has a point they'd like to make, while Person B has an issue with Person A's style of communication/presentation.
(Warning: Like most people on this website, I'm politically progressive. My examples will follow my own progressive lens.)
Person A may want something from Person B. For example: Your roommate wants you to stop leaving clothes on the floor. If this escalates into an argument, Person B is unlikely to disagree with Person A's premise; more often, Person A is being "inconsiderate," or "picky" in Person B's eyes, and Person B will become aggravated by Person A's style of communication when they pause, when they don't listen, when their eyebrow twitches.
Person B may very well be in the right here; Person A could be manipulative, abusive, inconsiderate. Person A could be taking their problems out on someone else. But the premise itself-- that Person B is leaving clothes on the floor-- is rarely a point of contention (with exceptions; but these exceptions are unusual enough that they feel unrealistic on the page and downright uncompelling).
Jon Stewart famously humiliated one Republican state senator-- Nathan Dahm-- in a debate about gun violence. Jon Stewart doggedly pursues his very real concerns about policy. Nathan Dahm, however, later tweeted out that the editing of the clip was unfavorable to him, and he pointed out that Jon Stewart, for constantly interrupting him, is a "bully." Stewart's points were irrefutable, so Dahm's concerns fell to the ways the argument was presented, which most certainly involved steamrolling Dahm.
I don't give a rat's ass when Stewart steamrolls a senator to make an excellent point, but I'm a hypocrite (just like all of us), because I absolutely hate to see progressives steamrolled by the right. His name is a cliche, but we have to mention Trump, whose policy is as hated as his narcissistic behavior and constant interruptions. Maybe it's childish, but I definitely remember calling that guy a "bully," back when his debating techniques gave us some semblance of a shock.
By now, I should mention that there's nothing wrong with Person B.
Another way of looking at this is that Person A is driven mainly by "content," while Person B is driven mainly by "style" (of communication). What is said vs how it's said. We are all Person A, we are all Person B, and we can even switch places mid-argument.
Maybe Person A started it. Maybe Person B started it. Maybe both, maybe neither. Sometimes Person B is getting distracted, and this tendency can absolutely approach ad hominem. But Person B often has compelling disagreements with the content of Person A's words, sometimes veiled beneath a messier and less logical argument.
So! Now you know. Go write yourself some arguments! It's that easy!
It’s a Puzzle Game: How to Write Fantastic Dialogue
According to literary theorist Douglas Unger (link to a really interesting article), there are two basic types of dialogue that can be considered artful: dialogue of omission and dialogue of opposites.
Here comes the fun part.
There are infinite ways to imagine these techniques. You come across a fun and fascinating little puzzle when you convert raw, unfiltered information into these forms!
I’ve compiled a list of possible ways that these techniques can be applied. This is not an exhaustive list, and innovation is always allowed. But this should be close enough to exhaustive that you should feel comfortable and secure using this list as a model and a resource, and that it should inspire you to innovate above and beyond! Have fun!
1. Thou dost protest too much. They insist so vehemently about [X] that the opposite becomes implied.
○Example: “No! I don’t like Stacy. That would be… weird! Really weird! Ew! Gross.”
○Motive: Intentional lie to convince others.
Added a new entry! (This is also in the original post now!)
50. Projection. The speaker dislikes [X] about themselves, and therefore pretends another person/people has attribute [X] instead. Pointing out the same flaws/attributes in others gives the speaker a sense of superiority and a clear conscience, even when the projection has absolutely no solid grounding in reality.
○Example 1: "Stop touching my hand. You’re being so gay right now.” In this example, the speaker is gay, and insecure about it.
○Example 2: "Don’t apologize. You’re just trying to insult me you worthless, manipulative, coldhearted bitch.”
○Motive: Unconscious lie to convince self.
A New Skill for the Progressive Writer: The Difference Between “Agency” and “Control”
Time to throw some more tools into your toolset! With these tactics, you can discover new and empowering ways to structure conflict in your narrative.
Loosely inspired by the lectures of John Glavin at Georgetown University.
Have you ever read a choose-your-own-adventure? In a book like this, the reader becomes a character in the narrative. As you turn from page to page, you make decisions that change the story. The reader has agency, but the writer has control. (Alternatively: In D&D, the GM has control, and the players have agency.)
In power dynamics, we consciously point to the person with “control” in order to describe “power,” but this is an inaccurate assessment-- the reader will always feel an invisible thread pulling them to the holder of agency, while control is comparatively superfluous. This is why sexism in media is extremely prevalent, and why even progressive writers have struggled to untangle misogyny; because agency is what gives the “impression” of power, even if the audience can’t explain what makes that character feel “important;” why one character “calls” and the other “responds;” why one character “sees” while the other character “is seen.”
1. The Agent: The agent can be strong or weak, intelligent or naive. Agency is more important than an aesthetic of power.
The agent pursues a goal, and has push-back. The push-back is important to establishing a character as an agent. An agent must be motivated to a specific goal, and have to overcome (or fail) challenges in the way of that goal. Usually, the agent doesn’t succeed completely, or the success at the end creeps up by surprise.
This kerfuffle calls about the sympathy of the viewer. The unconscious eye and ear of the viewer then sets sights on the agent, and attaches to the agent. If the agent is unlikable to the viewer, that dissonance can cause some distress, because their attention and even favoritism are being called to that character.
2. The Operator(s): This character has control, not agency.
The operator provides obstacles to the agent’s goal. The operator may be hesitant about the agent’s goal, and therefore provide protective obstacles (often in the form of words-- “Are you sure? Won’t this ruin your career?”). Or, the operator may lose something when the agent succeeds. If the agent is aiming to kill the operator, then of course the operator will provide obstacles for the agent.
More often than not, the agent really just wants to convince the operator, and the operator provides obstacles while still hoping to be convinced. The operator and agent may just get along swimmingly.
While the agent is always one single character, the operator can be many people at the same time. While the agent is always a character, the operator may not be a character at all-- the operator might be nature, in which case the character is having trouble navigating a jungle. The operator might be machinery, in which case the agent is just trying to get that damn computer to work. The concept of the operator is pretty flexible.
So...
Conflict comes from the agent pursuing a goal, and the operator preventing the agent. This puts the operator in a defensive position. The agent acts, the operator reacts. It does not matter how many cards the operator has in their deck. It doesn’t matter who wins or who loses. The audience recognizes the power of the agent in a visceral way, because the agent makes all the calls. The agent is able to interact meaningfully with the world. The agent is the character whose power is recognized by the very structure of the narrative.
Example 1: Jude tries to convince Stacy to go with him to prom, but Stacy has other plans. Jude is the agent.
Example 2: Lola has decided to assassinate the president. She fails to do so. Lola is still the agent. (For legal reasons, this is a joke.)
This is my favorite formula for constructing a really interesting & fun narrative! Give it a go!
1. Pick an abstract internal conflict for your character.
MORE: “Abstract” means that it’s not based in any external goal. Your character should have a certain emotion, Emotion A, about their way of thinking and feeling (that’s right, they may be feeling something about what they’re feeling!). They are having trouble grappling with Emotion A, and feel tempted to repress Emotion A-- possibly because of shame, cautiousness, social norms, avoidance of negative emotions, or any other reason! This is usually more fun if the character doesn’t realize they’re grappling with this.
2. Now displace (transfer) that conflict onto something external & current. Something is happening around them which is relevant to their internal conflict, and the character latches onto it. The character turns that relevant information into a simple, straight-forward goal, and accomplishing that goal becomes the external conflict.
MORE: Pieces in their internal conflict should be represented by pieces in their external conflict. By interacting with them externally, the character is also working to grapple with their internal conflict. The external conflict's goal-post should be extremely obvious, and the readers/audience should be able to tell very easily what marks success and what marks failure. You can experiment with a lot of details here, but don’t try to make an unclear success state/fail state.
3. Cleverly disguise the relationship between your internal conflict and your external conflict! Keep your Step 1 internal conflict beneath the surface at all times, but show us hints and glimpses.
This post should help you convey your Step 1 internal conflict to the readership/audience!
It’s a Puzzle Game: How to Write Fantastic Dialogue
According to literary theorist Douglas Unger (link to a really interesting article), there are two basic types of dialogue that can be considered artful: dialogue of omission and dialogue of opposites.
Here comes the fun part.
There are infinite ways to imagine these techniques. You come across a fun and fascinating little puzzle when you convert raw, unfiltered information into these forms!
I’ve compiled a list of possible ways that these techniques can be applied. This is not an exhaustive list, and innovation is always allowed. But this should be close enough to exhaustive that you should feel comfortable and secure using this list as a model and a resource, and that it should inspire you to innovate above and beyond! Have fun!
1. Thou dost protest too much. They insist so vehemently about [X] that the opposite becomes implied.
○Example: “No! I don’t like Stacy. That would be... weird! Really weird! Ew! Gross.”
○Motive: Intentional lie to convince others.
▼
2. Thou dost protest too much to your own damn self. They insist so vehemently about [X] that the opposite becomes implied. They’re speaking to others, but they’re also trying to convince themself.
○Example:
A: I was just trying to protect you.
B: Okay.
A: I was definitely just trying to protect you.
B: I heard you. I believe you.
A: I was trying to protect you! Nothing else! That’s what I was doing!
○Motive: Unconscious lie to convince self. In psychology: a form of “reaction formation” or “denial.”
▼
3. Obvious cover-up. The real meaning is implied by the circumstance.
○Example 1:
A: What’s with the black eye?
B: Oh, uh. This is, um. I fell down the stairs. That’s all.
○Example 2:
A: STAY OUT!
B: OW OW OW! LET GO OF ME!
C: How was the club?
B: Lame. I got outta there as fast as I could.
○Motive: Intentional lie to deceive others.
▼
4. Motive says it all. A reason to lie is mentioned alongside the lie. Because the speaker has a reason to lie, we know that they’re probably lying.
○Example: “Nothing’s wrong. For real. Please don’t worry about me... okay?” Because the speaker doesn’t want the listener to worry, they’re pretending that everything is okay.
○Motive: Intentional lie to convince/deceive others.
▼
5. The give. The speaker has a reason to lie and another reason to tell the truth. They opt for lying, but they don’t go all the way-- they say something that gives away the lie, because they want to tell the truth as well.
○Example: “No no no, I’m not into you! That would be weird! Uh. Right?”
○Motive: Intentional lie to convince/deceive others.
▼
6. Another cook in the kitchen. An outside observer comments on and describes the exchange. This observer might be trying to judge how the exchange is going from a distance, or they may act as hearsay.
○Example: “Ken looks upset. Now George is leaning in. I think he’s apologizing.”
○Motive: Assumption, lack of knowledge.
▼
7. Self-description. Never trust how a person describes themself, particularly when it comes to simple adjectives. When someone describes themself, they are more often describing their ideal self, and the more vague the description is, the more inaccurate it tends to be. Potentially good measure for egotism.
○Example 1: “I’m really smart. Yeah. I just know how things are, and I tell it how it is. I can see right through these people, it’s like I can read their minds. I bet you’re like me. You seem like you know. Do you get what I’m saying?”
○Example 2:
A: Get away! I’m going to call the police!
B: I’m respecting you right now! I’m being respectful! I’m being kind, and I’m being respectful!
○Motive: Unconscious lie to convince self. A form of denial.
▼
8. Showing off simple ideas. The speaker says something which is common knowledge or public opinion. Because they’re stating [X], we know that [X] is non-obvious to them. They just found this out, or they’re flaunting that they know/believe [X], as if this simple fact/idea is that hard to grasp. Can make them look like an idiot or a douchebag, depending on the situation.
○Example 1: “Y’know, black people aren’t always scary like people think they are.” No shit, Sherlock. This just makes you look racist.
○Example 2: “Dogs and cats don’t even have to be enemies. Sometimes they can be friends. Did you know that? So anyway...”
○Motive: Attempting to compensate for character flaws, unconsciously manipulating information.
▼
9. Suspiciously focused. Repeatedly bringing something up in conversation. Without intention to do so, they’re showing what they’re focused on, and that information can be very telling.
○Example:
A: How’s your girlfriend?
B: She’s great, she’s a dentist’s assistant now. I’m really excited for this party!
A: Yeah. Is your girlfriend coming? I feel like I see you guys together all the time. For like, everything. You seem very... attached by the hip.
B: Yeah, we’re mushy. She’s probably busy, though. Hey, wanna see pictures of my dog?
A: Sure. Did you and your girlfriend get that dog?
○Motive: Attempt & failure to conceal truth while undergoing separate motives.
▼
10. Freudian slip. Not usually sexual. They mean to say one thing, and accidentally reveal something they’ve been thinking about.
○Example 1: Here’s a conversation between friends. “B” has been relying on “A” a little too much lately.
A: Brought you some food, homie.
B: Thanks, Mom. I mean Kelly.
A: Oh.
B: Anyway. Cool. Thanks. See you later. Bye.
○Example 2: “Kill me. I mean-- shit. Bill me. I meant to say ‘bill me.’”
○Motive: Genuine attempt & failure to conceal truth.
▼
11. Camo third person. Pretending to talk about someone else, actually talking about themself. The speaker makes it clear that they’re talking about themself.
○Example: “My friend has this problem... and uh, I wanna give her advice, but I don’t know what to say to... to my friend. She cheated on a test, and now all the teachers are saying all kinds of good things about her, and she feels really bad about it. But if she tells the truth to everybody, it feels like it’d get even worse. What should she do?”
○Motive: Plausible deniability (while undergoing a separate motive). Both the speaker and the listener understand the truth, but by using third person, the conversation has a fallback, a safety; if necessary, they can pretend the conversation never happened. After all, maybe it really is just “a friend.”
▼
12. Illusory third person. Pretending to talk about someone else, actually talking about themself. The speaker is actively hiding that they’re talking about themself. Usually the reader/audience needs a lot of context clues to sniff out this lie.
○Example: “Hey, I think Johnny might be autistic. He thinks he might be autistic, actually. Since he doesn’t know, he doesn’t know what to do about it. And he doesn’t know how to get help.”
○Motive: Intentional lie to deceive others.
▼
13. False empathy. Their comments about other people or events are actually just the speaker describing their own mental state.
○Example: “Elliot’s not a good person. He’s just faking. He’s only helping old ladies cross the street when everyone else is watching.” Context is usually necessary to understanding projection.
○Motive: The speaker is just assuming that all people work the same way they do.
▼
14. Almost talking to yourself. Tells another person things they want to tell themself. Not necessarily uplifting, but can be. Usually reinforcing something that they’ve already said to themself, but they want to continue to tell themself.
○Example: “You’re weak. You’re weak and pathetic, but they don’t have to see that. Swallow it all. Keep it all tucked away inside. It doesn’t matter, just as long as nobody knows.”
○Motive: Genuine attempt & failure to conceal truth while undergoing other motives. They may or may not know that they’re talking to themself (conscious or unconscious).
▼
15. Thought revival. Trying to recreate a past event (or sometimes, a current concern/obsession) in the present circumstance. Context is usually an imperative to understanding the meaning of the dialogue.
○Example: Consider that the “thought revivalist,” Speaker A, is thinking about her dead husband, who used to wear gray suits. The reader/audience is already well aware that the dead husband wore gray suits.
A: Try this one on.
B: But I liked the other one--
A: Give it a chance.
B: It’s not my style, though.
A: It can become your style. Don’t be so closed minded, come on.
○Motive: Ambiguous/circumstantial. Could be conscious or unconscious. The listener may have some suspicions (with plausible deniability), or could be completely oblivious.
▼
16. Action excuse. Coming up with excuses while performing certain actions.
○Example:
A: Let’s hold hands so we don’t get separated.
B: We don’t have to do that.
A: It’s helpful. Just hold my hand.
○Motive: Intentional lie to convince/deceive others.
▼
17. Action rationalization. Coming up with excuses while performing certain actions. These excuses are in part ways of convincing themself.
○Example:
A: I need kissing practice. Help me out.
B: That’s pretty gay.
A: It’s not gay, I need to kiss my girlfriend better. Help me out.
○Motive: Unconscious lie to convince self.
▼
18. Irony. Works best for things that you could actually say in converse circumstances.
○Example: It’s raining. “Lovely day, isn’t it?”
○Motive: Filling dead air. Talking in order to talk.
▼
19. Double irony. Saying things that are so obvious that they can be perceived as humor.
○Example: Jason is about to cross the street. His friend says, “Don’t get run over.”
○Motive: Filling dead air. Talking in order to talk.
▼
20. Triple irony. Treating bizarre statements so casually that the statement reads as irony. Works best when it’s not a reaction to anything in particular, but rather, an offhanded comment.
○Example 1: “Time to get run over.”
○Example 2:
A: See you later.
B: I won’t miss you.
○Motive: Filling dead air. Talking in order to talk.
▼
21. False irony. Speaking the truth in a humorous context, presenting it as irony (even though it’s not).
○Example: “Haha! I wanna kill myself!”
○Motive: Expressing self while otherwise facing difficulties exploring personal emotions (often due to social conventions). By disguising truth as irony, they’re allowed plausible deniability, and can put the listener at greater ease. Conscious of this partial repression.
▼
22. Dark joy. Presenting dark feelings in a casual manner, usually while smiling.
○Example: “Y’know what’s weird? This is actually where my dog died, hahaha. So! Yeah! Oops!”
○Motive: Expressing self while otherwise facing difficulties exploring personal emotions (often due to social conventions). The content is true, but the intensity of emotion is allowed plausible deniability, and can put the listener at greater ease. Conscious of this partial repression.
▼
23. General to specific displacement. Emotional towards [X], but has had no outlet to express that emotion. In an instant, speaker sees that talking about [Y] is a great excuse to express themself.
○Example 1: Amy has always considered Chloe a coward, but that’s not usually acceptable to express.
A: I've never taken a taxi alone. It sounds creepy. I don’t wanna be alone with a taxi driver.
B: Chloe, what are you talking about? Taxi drivers are some of the safest people to be around! They have their license taken away if they act creepy. My dad is a taxi driver. Are you calling my dad creepy?
○Example 2: Julie is in love with Diane, and has never had any opportunity to show Diane any kindness.
A: I just feel so lonely.
B: Come here. It’s okay. I’m going to be with you for as long as you need it. Maybe more.
○Motive: Expressing self within acceptable social conventions and the appropriate limits of the relationship. Most likely conscious of the displacement (but decide this yourself).
▼
24. Personal displacement. Emotional about something specific, but has had no outlet to express that emotion. Instead, they displace that feeling onto the same person/object for a completely unrelated reason. The target and emotion remain the same, but the rationale/topic changes.
○Example: Louis’s father is upset that Louis didn’t come to his 60th birthday party. That feeling becomes transferred onto a new stimulus.
A: Don’t smoke in front of me. I don’t wanna see that.
B: I haven’t smoked all day. I need this. To get through the day.
A: You’re 35. Don’t throw a tantrum like a little kid. Put the cigarette away.
See how his father’s reaction would seem overblown without any context? It’s not really about the cigarette at all.
○Motive: Expressing self while otherwise facing difficulties exploring personal emotions (often due to social conventions and the limitations of acceptable behavior within the relationship). Unconscious of this displacement. It’s unintentional.
▼
25. Projectional displacement. Emotional about one thing, but displaces that onto a new target. The topic and emotion remain, but the target changes.
○Example 1:
News anchor: When little Archie was rescued and reunited with his mother, Juliet was excited to return to the good old days, before Archie got lost on the preserve. But ever since Archie was rescued, he’s become cold and distant towards his mother.
A: Oh, that’s... that’s so tragic, that’s... He just wanted to be with his mother. He wanted to be with his mother and now it’s not real to him. Oh, god.
○Example 2: The positive spin on projectional displacement is vicarious experience. “Go on that date with Beth! You deserve it. I don’t care, I’m not interested in her anymore."
○Motive: Expressing self while otherwise facing difficulties exploring personal emotions. Unconscious of this displacement. It’s unintentional.
▼
26. Mood displacement. Has been left in a certain mood from recent events, and now displaces that mood upon completely unrelated targets and topics. The most obvious form of displacement, and the most challenging to present in a coherent narrative.
○Example:
A: How was work?
B: Horrible. I don’t wanna talk about it. Hold on, you still haven’t washed the dishes? What the fuck?
○Motive: Expressing self while otherwise facing difficulties exploring personal emotions. Usually unconscious of this displacement (but not in every case).
▼
27. Excuse search. Finding a (somewhat) logical excuse for an action or argument which hasn’t occurred yet. Another form of displacement, as well as rationalization.
○Example: Rebecca doesn’t want her boyfriend, Dan, to go on a boat trip. She’ll miss him. However, she’s been repressing that feeling, because it’s illogical. Until... “Dan, I know you’ve been looking forward to the trip, but. I saw this. Do you see how common boating accidents are?”
○Motive: Expressing self while otherwise facing difficulties exploring personal emotions. Unconscious of this displacement; it’s unintentional.
▼
28. Coded flirtation. The most typical way to express romantic/sexual interest before the relationship becomes “officially” romantic/sexual. Can be subtle or borderline blatant.
○Example: “I don’t have any chairs. Do you want to sit on the bed?”
○Motive: Plausible deniability while undergoing other motives. Both the speaker and the listener understand the truth, but by speaking in code, the conversation has a fallback, a safety; if necessary, they can pretend the conversation never happened. After all, maybe their intentions were pure all along.
▼
29. Affectionate teasing. A way of expressing endearment which can range from gentle anti-insults to harsh and brutal mockery, all for humor. The harshness of teasing simultaneously reflects the comfortability between two individuals, and derives humor in the idea that these two individuals wouldn’t get along, thereby emphasizing the unspoken affection within the relationship. This is very difficult to pull off tactfully, so I don’t particularly recommend this form. Give it a shot, though.
○Example: “I’ll fucking kill you in Mario Kart. I will fucking destroy your ass.”
○Motive: Plausible deniability of affection. Both the speaker and the listener understand the truth, but by speaking in code, the conversation has a fallback, a safety. This can occur in even the closest relationships. It prevents awkwardness in any lack of reciprocity. (This is healthy; not a sign of bad communication.)
▼
30. Anti-teasing. Casual expressions of endearment which are subversively honest.
○Example: The following example is from one friend to another, within a completely platonic relationship. “You’re so beautiful. I’m going to cry. Oh my god I wish I was your boyfriend so I could fuck you.”
○Motive: Hyperbole and/or humor allow for a plausible deniability of affection. Both the speaker and the listener understand the truth, but by speaking in code, the conversation has a fallback, a safety.
▼
31. Camouflage teasing. “Harmless” teasing is used as an excuse to offload genuine aggression. Can occur between friends or otherwise.
○Example: “Jared, you got LOST? Walking from two blocks away? How did you do this? Physically, how did you do this?” It’s usually clues about the scene and the context of the relationship that make teasing appear as camouflage for aggression.
○Motive: Expressing self while otherwise facing difficulties exploring personal emotions (often due to social conventions and the limitations of acceptable behavior within the relationship). Usually conscious of this displacement. It’s intentional, at least to a certain extent.
▼
32. Emotional overshoot. Intentionally performing an emotion, and going too far with it.
○Example: “I’m so happy for you... really! I’m just so happy...”
○Motive: Intentional lie to deceive others.
▼
33. Reflexive pep talk. Performing a positive emotion in an attempt to cheer themself up. Here’s a hint: it’s not going to work. As long as the performance goes on, it will continue to be just that-- a performance. In psychology, this is called “masking.” The true feelings of the character are usually implied by the context of character and plot.
○Example: “Let me tell you, I love being single. I have so much freedom now. Can’t get enough of it.”
○Motive: Intentional lie to deceive self.
▼
34. Performing the ideal. Lying that that they have [X]. This in turn informs the listener that they want [X] but don’t have [X].
○Example: "Fuck you, I have a shit ton of friends! I counted them yesterday. In my head. It came out to like 98. That’s why I’m always looking at my phone, I’m just swamped with texts from all my different friends.”
○Motive: Intentional lie to deceive others.
▼
35. Kidding yourself. Constructing and believing in an alternative reality. More likely to show up in areas of ambiguity, such as believing in a positive outcome where none are likely to arise.
○Example: "She was singing to me from that stage. She saw me. Carly Rae Jepson was singing to me.”
○Motive: Unconscious lie to deceive self.
▼
36. Reductive euphemism. Understating a negative message, usually but not necessarily in an attempt to protect/uplift the emotional response of the listener.
○Example:
A: I have some personal stuff I should be working through, but...
B: You killed my dog. You call that “personal stuff?”
○Motive: Ambiguous/circumstantial.
▼
37. Ironic euphemism. Flipping the dark tone of a situation into a light, chipper sentiment. Should be treated as a strategic choice; not a quip.
○Example:
A: Why did you kidnap me?
B: I didn’t kidnap you! You’re my guest here, and you’re going to be treated like it! Would you like a cheese cube?
○Motive: Ambiguous/circumstantial, but almost always intentional.
▼
38. Suspiciously lukewarm. A statement is so lukewarm that a strong opposite is implied. Usually comes in the form of a response; speaker is unlikely to initiate this awkward exchange. A mark of conflict avoidance.
○Example:
A: Does this dress make me look fat?
B: No. It’s fine.
○Motive: Not wanting to lie, not wanting to tell the truth. Answering as safely as they can while putting in minimal effort. Intentional lie to deceive others.
▼
39. Telling how it isn’t. A statement stresses what isn’t true, rather than what is. In the process, the real truth is implied to not be so appealing.
○Example: “I mean, you’re not, like, the worst friend I’ve ever had.”
○Motive: Not wanting to lie, not wanting to tell the truth. Answering as safely as they can while putting in minimal effort. Intentional manipulation of information.
▼
40. Encoded signifier. Constantly referring to one thing while unconsciously thinking of something else entirely. The speaker uses [X] as a symbolic way of referring to [Y], in order to feel more safe and comfortable.
○Example: This one is extremely contextual beyond even the requirement for summation, so I’m going to use an example you’re probably familiar with. “I need to restore my honor.” In Avatar: the Last Airbender, when Prince Zuko refers to “honor” in the first two seasons of the show, he is actually referring to his father’s love. Zuko doesn’t know this.
○Motive: Unconscious lie to deceive self.
▼
41. Meaningful silence. Saying nothing incidentally becomes a form of communication, usually through unintended implications. A broad, adaptable form with many uses.
○Example:
A: Well hey, you gave it your all. There’s no shame in that, no shame in an honest loss.
B: Yeah.
A: I mean. You didn’t take the money, right? Right...? Sammy?
○Motive: Ambiguous/circumstantial.
▼
42. Peak up the sleeve. The actions and speech of the character are in conflict. Creates an aesthetically pleasing juxtaposition.
○Example: While committing an act of violence: “Sh, sh. It’s okay. I love you.”
○Motive: Ambiguous/circumstantial, but usually tends towards an unconscious lie to deceive self while undergoing separate motives.
▼
43. Tip of the hand. A quick switch in topic from [X] to [Y] indicates that either [X] or [Y] is disingenuous.
○Example: “My husband left me and I’ve never been happier. Bartender! Another drink!”
○Motive: Unconscious lie to deceive self.
▼
44. False presentation. The actual content contrasts tone. The content and tone tell two different stories, but the tone will always be the truthful half.
○Example 1: “I AM CALM!”
○Example 2: “I hate his face, and his eyes, and his lips, and his cheekbones, and his jawline. Just makes me want to throw up.”
○Motive: Unconscious lie to deceive self.
▼
45. Emphasis implies lacking. [X] is emphasized, rather than [Y], the topic you’d expect to be emphasized. This implies that the speaker does not have [Y].
○Example 1: “Is this a fight scene? It sounds really cool!”
○Example 2:
A: Have your dad sign this.
B: Would my mom be okay?
○Motive: Ambiguous/contextual.
♦
11/30/20 Additions
♦
46. Euphemism for illusion. Censoring truth/accuracy [X], despite knowledge of [X] being shared between the speaker and listener.
○Example:
A: He could’ve survived. What if he comes back? What’ll we do?
B: He’s dead.
A: But we don’t--
B: He’s. Dead.
A: Okay.
○Motive: Conscious lie to deceive self and others as a unit, despite knowledge of falsity. Very well may succeed as a mechanism to deceive self as well as others, because it involves re-evaluating information, but failure is also completely plausible.
▼
47. Suspiciously blunt. Saying very little indicates that the speaker wants to share very little. The speaker is either “not in a sharing mood” or is consciously motivated to limit information.
○Example:
A: I care about you more than anybody else in the whole entire world.
B: You too.
○Motive: Intentional lie to convince others.
▼
48. Assuming the question. The speaker misreads the words, thoughts, and intentions of the listener. Most often, the speaker denies [X], but the speaker is the first person to bring [X] up at all. [X] wasn’t on the listener’s radar.
○Example 1:
A: You haven’t gotten a boyfriend yet.
B: Okay, listen, me and Christina are just friends.
A: What?
○Example 2:
A: Wow, that was intense.
B: I’m fine. Don’t worry about me.
○Motive: Genuine attempt & failure to conceal the truth.
♦
12/02/20 Additions
♦
49. Cathartic irony. Resembles triple irony in its bizarreness, but rather than emphasizing what is not true, expresses an emotional state, or communicates a desired attribute.
○Example: Laura is a cisgender woman who is small, and not particularly strong. “As you can see, I’m one big buff boi.” This reflects not her gender identity, but her desire to be strong. She feels comfortable and expressive, though, by reframing those feelings as humor.
○Motive: Expressing self or living out desires through the safe falsities. Unconscious of this partial repression.
♦
4/16/21 Additions
♦
50. Projection. The speaker dislikes [X] about themselves, and therefore pretends another person/people has attribute [X] instead. Pointing out the same flaws/attributes in others gives the speaker a sense of superiority and a clear conscience, even when the projection has absolutely no solid grounding in reality.
○Example 1: "Stop touching my hand. You’re being so gay right now.” In this example, the speaker is gay, and insecure about it.
○Example 2: "Don’t apologize. You’re just trying to insult me you worthless, manipulative, coldhearted bitch.”
○Motive: Unconscious lie to convince self.
♦
11/4/22 Additions
♦
51. Dissociative argumentation. The speaker wants [X], and therefore constructs an argument for [X], often a logical argument that positions [X] as a necessity or a moral imperative instead of as a want. The speaker will pretend to be emotionally cold to the issue, acting out of “concern,” or may even fake disdain for [X]. When a dissociative argument is made, the speaker is most likely uncomfortable (but not necessarily) with their own emotions-- across most/all situations-- or feels that their desire for something is not justification enough for getting it. For this reason, dissociative argumentation is sometimes a symptom of toxic masculinity; this speaker has been taught that their emotions don’t matter, but that their words do. The speaker argues that [X] benefits the listener, or the speaker otherwise appeals to values or “reason.” In terms of the speaker’s self-awareness: that will vary from person to person.
○Example 1: "Let’s get this stick shift! It would be good for you to learn stick shift.”
○Example 2:
A: She makes my heart skip a beat.
B: Don’t be silly! That’s just your arrhythmia acting up.
○Motive: Unconscious lie to convince self OR, less frequently, intentional lie to convince others.
♦
3/20/23 Additions
♦
52. Internal misattribution. The speaker describes a characteristic of [X]. However, in the context, we have a sense that it’s not really a characteristic of [X], but a characteristic of the situation.
○Example: “I’m the type of person that experiences trauma responses for things that are basically nothing.” In reality, the speaker has experienced a lot of real trauma and is minimizing the situation’s seriousness and/or blaming herself. Often requires some background information and setup for us to understand the speaker’s hidden meaning.
○Motive: Unconscious lie to deceive self OR a complete lack of knowledge, unaware of the true information being transmitted.
♦
53. External misattribution. The speaker blames the situation (or celebrates the situation, describes the situation...) when the source of the problem (or the source of the success) is actually just a characteristic of the topic, [X].
○Example: “I keep ending up in places where everyone hates me.” In reality, the speaker is projecting his fear of being hated onto different situations, or he continuously misbehaves up until others hate him. Often requires some background information and setup for us to understand the speaker’s hidden meaning.
○Motive: Unconscious lie to deceive self OR a complete lack of knowledge, unaware of the true information transmitted.
♦
Do you have questions about any entries on this list? Do you have ideas for additions? You can drop me an ask letting me know, and I’ll answer it right away!
When you’re piecing together a character’s way of speaking, a selection of exclamations are extremely important. Even in the most realistic and grounded story, different characters should not use the same exclamations-- real people are very idiosyncratic in their exclamation usage. Here’s a catalogue of exclamations you can choose from.
Tip 1: You probably don’t want to invent your own exclamations, unless you have a particularly young target demographic. You’re free to remix an established exclamation, however-- repeating common words in a strange way (”What! What! What!”) or elongating certain syllables (”Ohhhhh my god”).
Tip 2: The inflection changes the meaning. “Aw man!” can indicate positive excitement or shocked disappointment. Plan for which usage your character applies the phrase to-- excited, frightened, etc. You can add even more realism by using different phrases for different situations. Most people have specific stock phrases they recycle in conversation, and separate phrases they use for their own experiences of shock or awe.
•Oh my god!
•Oh my goodness!
•Oh shit!
•Dude!
•Bro!
•Bruh!
If you’re having trouble formulating your cast of personalities, or your characters are feeling nebulous, then try this: begin with an archetype, and then complicate it or subvert it.
Arguably, the most efficient strategy is to begin with your character’s interests, and/or their chosen subculture. (This list is not exhaustive, and it spans a variety of styles and genres. Ignore the concepts which are too exaggerated or too bland for your reality.)
These are just a few ideas to get you inspired! Have fun, and be sure to absolutely ruin the archetypes you select-- don’t play them straight! In other words, these are all stereotypes, and it’s up to you to shift away from these stereotypes!
Rock - A passionate musician who feels more than they think. They list band names just to show off, and they hold extremely strong opinions on obscure controversies (e.g. slap-bass is best thumb-down). They can be talented or terrible. Stereotypically, they are slackers in almost every subject: they refuse to try in school and prefer unemployment to hard work. However, when they are passionate, they don’t recognize that they’re working. With their instrument, they are persistent, and may even become skilled. If they like the idea of pulling up in a flashy car, they’ll learn how to drive, and they’ll do it well enough. But if driving is a chore, they’ll be homebound or hitching rides.
Related interests: Even if they are characterized by their interest in rock, they are likely to have similar feelings about other, lesser interests. Common examples are comic books, D&D, and other nerdy media. They’re likely fond of tv & movies from the 80s and 90s. They may have an appreciation for some other genres, such as hip-hop, but will select genres to hate in order to establish an out-group (commonly classical, country, or radio pop). Stereotypically, they have an aversion to mainstream media and intellectualism; both make them feel inferior.
Dark counterculture - Goth, emo, and all those unlabelled. They are angry about something, but don’t know what to do with those feelings, so they choose society or authority figures as the target of their anger; they might seem very justified, or they might seem completely silly. Some brandish weapons, such as aesthetically pleasing knives, as a symbol of rebellion, but (usually) not as a tool for malice. Similarly, they gravitate towards dark iconography, which to them reads as “truth”-- satanic and violent imagery seem to call attention to the actual darkness they perceive in the world, a darkness often hidden away (although they do not believe in the devil, and do not necessarily advocate violence; if they do, it’s probably all hypotheticals, and never actions). Despite all this, most have personable, friendly, and often cheerfully childlike mannerisms by default, at least when socializing within the in-group.
Related interests: They probably have personal idols who they latch onto. Musicians are most common, but any celebrity is fine, as long as they can classify as a personal symbol of rebellion. A superstitious attitude has taught them to trust tarot, to believe in ghosts, and maybe even to practice casual witchcraft. They cope with internal pain through their vices, primarily drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. Particularly among girls/women (according to stereotype), they also may have a strong liking for childlike or “pretty” media-- Disney movies and children’s shows, for example, although older/nostalgic media for teens & adults may also make the cut. They are averse to mainstream media by virtue of it being mainstream, but older mainstream media, particularly from the 80s and 90s, can appear left behind and forgotten, and regardless of gender, the character may seek to protect this forgotten & broken toy, thereby developing a great fondness.
The idea of America - This trope only applies to Americans, as it describes American nationalists. They love symbols of America, including the flag, the eagle, the army, the police, and sometimes the fire department. In appearance, they have a high level of self-confidence, showing off their toughness and their perceived moral integrity. They are probably politically conservative, if not libertarian or independent. This type is proud to be loyal-- they are proud of how they stand by their family, or their clique, or even how they stand by their own self-- as a result, they resist changing social groups on principle (breakups are especially hard), and they may be willing to make great sacrifices in order to prove their loyalty (e.g. putting themself in danger). Personal sacrifice, to them, demonstrates their heroic nature. They are similarly loyal to America. Country music probably appeals to them, and so does mainstream media, such as pop music and action/superhero movies. In some areas towards the south, these characters are popular jocks, and may have brains as well as brawn; their futures may be promising, and they are well-liked. If younger, they may party, and if older, they are a parent, beloved by other parents in the area, possibly coaching a little league or joined to a PTA. In some areas towards the north, these characters are rebellious and countercultural. In this case, expect spiteful & defensive behaviors, paired with a distrust in authority; they will still have mainstream tastes, but they might be wary of the charming and well-liked. They may find themself stuck, on a loop, talking about leaving town or starting a business, but they mistake their own dreams for goals; it will never happen. In contexts that frame them as rebellious, others may describe them as annoying, childish, or aggressive.
Regarding gender: Not all of them are men. Within this archetype, many pride themselves as “tough ladies,” but be wary that they are not feminists. The men will be loyal to their families, and the women will be loyal to their husbands. Both men and women will place great importance on their gender role as a symbol of tradition, a loyalty to their upbringing and to each other. Women of this type may be proud gun owners, or may be athletic in the realm of “feminine” sports, such as tennis or softball; almost never football or basketball. If these women/girls are countercultural & rebellious in their context, expect them to spite well-liked women for being vapid, superficial, or boring.
Regarding moving: Someone who has grown up in the south well-liked for these qualities will still be confident & sociable in other cultural contexts. In the case of a countercultural rebel, it may depend.
Broader queer community - Not all queer people integrate their queer identity into their lifestyle-- but some do. Without an enormous subversion, this trope is better off written by queer writers. (This admin is queer in many respects.) Social politics engage them, invigorate them, and infuriate them. They’re a leftist if not center-left, and they have probably gained a lot of their knowledge & wisdom from social media, to varying degrees of accuracy; they’ve spent long hours scrolling through socio-political facts and opinions, lighting a fire in their stomach. According to stereotype, legitimate distress has left them spiteful at a young age, and they are quick to anger, quick to correct others. Friendships within the queer community bring them a sense of comfort. When comfortable, they are energetic and indulge in childlike behaviors; speaking too loudly, bursting into song, offering inappropriate emotional responses, etc. They are openly affectionate and may even enjoy cuddling with friends or openly cuddling with a partner(s). After previously feeling limited at a younger age, they are now desperate to express themself through any medium, and therefore gravitate towards wacky/colorful clothing, talk constantly about their queerness, and may decorate their houses/rooms with bizarre, sometimes queer, paraphernalia.
Related interests: If they’re invested in a tv show, podcast, movie series, book series, or other piece of media, they are probably very deeply and passionately invested. This media will usually be current, and will usually be just outside of the social norm-- for example, serious-toned animated shows, but not quite children’s television; if it’s live-action, then it’s science fiction or fantasy with a distinctive lore. Their chosen media falls into three categories: A. media with canonical lesbian relationships, B. media in which two or more men have a warm, positive relationship (which doesn’t always have to be interpreted as romantic by fans), C. it’s a YA story in which a vibrant cast of characters come together as a team or clique. They spend significant time talking about, thinking about, or writing about their favorite media.
Female celebrities - They have a vast knowledge of their favorite female celebrities, and keep closely up to date through social media. They are fiercely loyal to these celebrities, and take any spite towards these celebrities as an ethical offense. Unconsciously, they’ve developed a very strong sense of importance towards the gender binary, and for their own reasons, believe in supporting (certain) women, and distrusting men. Unconsciously, they imitate their favorite celebrities, and learn how to behave from them-- because of this, their world has a high bar for fashion and presentability. Their clothes are a perfect fit, style, and shape, and if they’re a woman/girl, their makeup is a wonder; in this way, they, too feel a little bit more like the women they admire. Stereotypically, if they’re a gay man, they probably imitate their favorite female celebrities consciously more than unconsciously, dancing along to the choreographed dances and attributing these imitations of femininity to their own homosexuality. In any form of imitation, their obsession with celebrities informs their norms, and informs their sense of self. Because they learn to view themself externally, comparing their own behaviors and presentation to that of celebrities, they will become experts in their own presentation, and as a result, become very well-liked, with many friends. Their lingo is very much up-to-date. They’re a fan of male celebrities as well, but they do not make it a hobby; it holds much lesser importance.
Related interests: In general, their tastes sway mainstream. They like watching celebrities because they like people, and so socializing and partying are their primary pastimes. With their heightened empathetic skills, they could relate to those in the out-group, but have trained themself not to, in order to feel most comfortable in their in-group. So they spend time with people similar to themself, and avoid or even act cruelly towards those they don’t immediately understand.
Classical music (for characters below 30 or so) - Their classical tastes span infinite times and locations. However, they take separate interest in European (or Ancient Grecian/Roman) history, and in this regard, they are probably fixated on a particular country during a specific period: for example, the Italian Renaissance, Soviet Russia, or Classical Greece. They’ve read a lot of classic literature from and outside of this setting. They feel disconnected from contemporary society and mainstream media, although their complaints may be diverse. They do extremely well in school, and heel to all authority figures. They relish in their ability to follow the instructions of teachers, bosses, and elders, and when they lack ability to fulfill commands, they become anxious and panicked.
Related interests: When they connect to contemporary culture in their own way, however, their hearts swell with pride-- maybe they make memes about classical art, and tote this as a character trait. Humor is a common way to show off that they don’t take their obsessions “too seriously,” and it often becomes central to their self-expression. Otherwise, they may have any number of interests, but it’s common for contemporary media to be handled with humor and irony.
School - Bookish, quiet, and unhappy. Stereotypically, this archetype is guided first and foremost by authority figures. They feel pressured to do better than anyone, and have either limited or failed to incite their social life. Since success in social relationships remains unquantifiable, friendship always ends up on the back-burner, even long after they’ve realized their mistake, and long after it’s too late. They get straight As most of the time, and feel proud of their ability to do better than anyone else. But they can’t write essays because they struggle to form their own opinions; if they get better at writing through shear hard work and perseverance, they will still struggle when an upper-level English teacher tells them to “cultivate your own unique voice,” because as far as they can see, they don’t have any voice of their own. They don’t know themself and are not sure how to learn about themself. Their actions follow the instructions of others. If they’re a college student, they’re having trouble picking a major, or have picked a major for pragmatic (not emotional) reasons.
Related interests: Poetry is a likely interest, whether it’s Instagram poetry, printed poetry, or the act of writing poetry. Even if they never seem to know who they are, if they write poetry, those poems seem to write themselves. They may also have nerdy interests, such as kpop, children’s tv shows, or anime. They aren’t explicitly averse to mainstream culture, either. Because they study so often, they’ve probably tried, at one point or another, studying with music on, so they have developed music tastes. They probably know their musical niche very well, whatever it may be (and no genre is necessarily off limits).
Academia - Perhaps a professor, or just as likely, a wannabe. They have some knowledge in many fields, and specialized knowledge in one field or a few. However, they will proudly bare their broad, shallow knowledge on the subjects they’re less familiar with. They form strong opinions on hardly familiar subject matter, and become domineering in conversation. They probably think that psychology is a nonsense field made up of unprovable, and therefore irrelevant, theories. Others will constantly be Googling the obscure words they speak. Lateness and disorganization illustrate the disconnect between their deep thought and a pragmatic reality. However, in their private life, they may exhibit extraordinarily silly or childlike mannerisms, in their own adult way. Such mannerisms appear to be a disclaimer to their personalities-- that they are not serious all the time, which makes them feel a little cooler, or at least, a little less cold, insociable, or nerdy. But in fact, they are indignant about any silliness which contaminates art or academia, and thus, they section off maturity (thoughtful, logical, serious, rigorous) and childishness (pointless, for entertainment value only, not strictly beautiful or strictly grotesquely beautiful). They are serious about serious matters and silly among silly matters. Contrast to the young fan of classical music, who approaches the mature, academic, or artistic as a form of entertainment worth joking about. According to stereotype, both the young classical listener and the academia enthusiast use humor to disarm their perilously serious interests, but the academic is much more cautious to distract from beauty or knowledge.
Related interests: They have a strong appreciation for the arts & culture. Classical music is the highest form of music to them, and hip hop is “not real music.” They are deeply moved by literature, sculpture, and painting; the older it is, the more they like it.
Skateboarding - Relaxed and sociable, this character can be seen skating from class to class on an outdoor college campus, or trying tricks with other skaters in back of the public library. They are fascinated by appearances, and are very careful about their presentation in regards to fashion (probably includes a beanie), their language, and the tastes they share with other people (in movies, television, etc.). Therefore, they may slip into superficial behaviors, judging others by first impressions or even just their appearances or their social status. They are aware of how others perceive them, and are both conscientious and self-conscious. The skateboard itself is an aesthetic flare taken very far, reflecting their strong sense of nostalgia. Their nostalgia shows up in their other interests as well: they watch television & movies from the 80s and 90s, they started playing D&D after “Stranger Things” came out, and they genuinely enjoyed reading The Catcher in the Rye. Their tastes and tendencies may be nerdy and subversive, but because they are conscientious about how others perceive them, they are great at forming good relationships with others. They are sociable and know how to be likable. Sometimes they try to simplify themself for the easier consumption of others, and they definitely hide some of their stranger interests & ideas.
Related interests: Music is important to them, but that could take the form of hip hop, rock (likely punk), radio pop, or the generally alternative & obscure. Whether they’re smart or they’re stupid, they probably have at least one significant academic interest, such as literature or history, and they don’t care if other people know.
Musicals - Loud, eccentric, melodramatic. The theater kid is so boisterous that even they can’t deny it, and with full self-awareness, they break from social norms. They usually have trouble taking things seriously. They don’t take rules or laws seriously, and will stand on tables while authority figures demand that they get down. They first and foremost chase their bliss, against odds, threats, and authority. If a loved one passes away, they will become somber and cannot contain their pain, sobbing every waking moment, and they will cry suddenly at birthday parties, (understandably) calling attention to their latest thoughts and feelings for all to hear. However, if an unimportant or disliked acquaintance passes away, they may be stealing away with a friend to the corner of the funeral home, whispering jokes about something else and laughing inappropriately. They will speak sexually explicitly in church and laugh as they catch the glares of a passerby. They are not themself without friends, because they need someone to be in on the fun, on the joke. However, unlike most of the archetypes on this list, they primarily target people within the in-group. Like their friends, they are feeling, and highly sensitive. But like their friends, they are not conscientious of other people’s boundaries, and they don’t like to be told what to do. They make enemies of other theater kids, and can be genuinely aggressive, scheming, and villainous. They feel no shame when they talk behind people’s backs, which is one of their pastimes. But most importantly, you can always expect them to burst into song at the absolutely wrong time. Expect very intensive knowledge about their favorite musicals, but probably not their inner workings-- they can recite scenes from memory, and they know the names of all the original performers, but they are less likely to know names of writers, and they tend to care less for trivia. They may know some music theory and how to play piano, but otherwise, they will remain in their lane, focusing on performance aspects.
Related interests: If they are of high school age or younger, they can party without any drink or drugs; otherwise, they modestly drink alcohol and then trick themself into thinking they’re completely hammered. Assume they first tried alcohol at a young age. Despite how loudly they talk about sex & drugs, they may be inexperienced & naive about drugs. If they do drugs frequently, though, they do party drugs at parties, or try out drugs at other social gatherings to feel hip & cool.
Furries - No, they don’t want to fuck real animals. They want to fuck cartoon animals, but more importantly, they want to be cartoon animals. Like the theater kid archetype, they are bombastic, emotional, and sociable, but unlike the theater kid archetype, they lack any social awareness at all, and they are strictly countercultural. Theater kids read the room and don’t care what they see; furries can’t read the room at all. Amongst the in-group, they are childlike: loud, offering inappropriate emotional reactions, and constantly crossing other people’s boundaries. They can be very inappropriate (sexually & otherwise), regardless of the setting, and regardless of other people’s reactions. But more importantly, they are fiercely affectionate. They hug strangers of the in-group, and otherwise actively pursue physical contact. When a loved one gets attention, they are quick to become jealous, and they pursue their loved one’s attention overtly or covertly; they become angry and demand attention, or they show off their sadness and hope their loved one will notice. Amongst the out-group, they expect others to limit their true self. They are either quiet, or they become overtly rebellious, treating the out-group as the enemy who will stifle them. When rebellious, they try their best to be obscene: they curse & insult haphazardly, they feel proud when authority figures come down on them, and they gravitate towards obscene gestures and lewd implications. They are either proud of their sexual experiences, or shame others for their sexual experiences. Self-expression is extremely important to them, so they wear edgy, suggestive, or brightly colored clothing. However, they only care about bringing the inside to the outside, and they’re not very aware of the gaze of others, so they may not take care of their hair very much, and they don’t wear makeup; these are superficial matters, not matters of the heart. They are attracted to the cute and to the dark, sometimes simultaneously, so it’s common for them to flirt while using childlike language (and perhaps to use childlike language in general). Stereotypically, they have an aversion to "basic” types and to intellectualism; both make them feel inferior. But from the “basic” types-- in other words, people who are well-liked with socially acceptable interests-- they are mostly averse reflexively. They may insult others for being vapid, prudish, and mean (even without cause), but they expect such people to look down on them, and become defensive in preparation for cruelty.
Related interests: They party. They lost their virginity at a young age, have tried every drug, and may cope with their problems through drinking and smoking. They talk a lot about the demons they’ve struggled with (usually mental illness, trauma, or feeling like an outsider), and they blame their bad behavior and these demons. Whether these demons are lesser or greater, they feel unequipped to deal with these problems; their demons haunt them incessantly and, usually with full awareness, run away from their problems through drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. They are also deeply involved with rave culture. Although they get high while they rave, they do not rave in order to cope, but in order to express themself. Being a furry is not the only thing they want to express about themself, though, and they probably have many, many labels they very closely identify with. These labels may include any of the following: leftist, nazi, communist, emo, e-girl/e-boy/e-they, gay, bisexual, pansexual, nonbinary, trans, punk, clinically depressed, clinically anxious, etc. The more controversial the personal attribute they have, the more closely they identify with it, and the more they seek to express it within and outside of furry culture.
Eastern philosophy - Woke, but not really, this archetype is attracted to obscurity. This trope applies to outsiders of the relevant cultures; they are unlikely to be East Asian in ethnicity or nationality. In casual conversation, they make quick and awkward connections, hopping spontaneously from topic to topic. Somehow your political opinions on big business have lead them to go on about chakras. But that lasts only a moment-- now they’re talking about Nietzsche and Kant, and now they’re connecting it back to chakras. You don’t see the connection. They’re well-read and they very much know it; otherwise, they skim books and talk constantly about the couple pages they’ve read. They’re always looking for something deep and meaningful that can bring them realizations about the world around them, but the packaging of information can make or break wisdom. The more distant from their world this wisdom comes, the more likely they are to trust it-- new superstitions from within their country are deceptive, ignorant, and nonsensical playtoys. However, methods of divination from Africa, China, Japan, India, and Indigenous America pique their interest. They find these methods fascinating, beautiful, and artistic. They are either convinced that foreign superstitions are accurate, or they perceive it aesthetically first and foremost, maintaining a respectable distance, and taking pictures for social media. Ancientness, acclaim, and foreignness may all be factors in whether or not they respect a source or a piece of media. They frequently throw out names in European philosophy, but in Eastern philosophy, they have formed a blind trust, and they live their life assuming truth of the third eye, of chi, of chakras, etc. Whatever their preferences and beliefs were in youth, they have moved on. They’re on a constant hunt for novelty, and the familiar is too comfortable, too convenient, to be true. They probably have good ideals-- love, community, globalism-- but they exhibit some egocentric behaviors. To them, the modern is inauthentic (it is plastic, monetary, commodified), and the ancient or foreign is authentic by virtue of it being obscure. In their constant hunt for authenticity, they speak honestly to a fault. They cannot filter their thoughts, and others will become frustrated or disturbed by some of their harsh criticisms. They may also become socially isolated due to their tangents, their rants, their overconfidence, and their delusions of grandeur. For this reason, they socialize with others of their kind, and those with other shared interests.
Related interests: They are guaranteed to have some typical nerdy or mainstream tastes, despite dwelling on extremely unaccessible media. They’ve experimented with various drugs, but they are not the partying type. They listen to experimental music which to most other people sounds only like sound.
Drag - This stereotype primarily refers to drag queens, who dress up in flamboyant exaggerations of women’s clothing. This archetype is very conscious of their appearance-- their sense of self is deeply connected to their physical traits, and as a result, they discuss and amplify the physical traits they closely identify with. This applies out of drag just as much as it applies in drag. If they are visibly non-white, they may very closely identify with their ethnicity, and engage in (probably harmless) self-stereotyping, or otherwise significantly engage with their heritage (e.g. cooking, dressing, speaking the language/wanting to learn the language and never getting around to it). If they are especially skinny, they will dress to emphasize it, and they will carry themself with the confidence of a skinny person who wants to be skinny. If they are especially overweight, they care deeply about body positivity, or in some cases, will purposefully make themself the butt of the joke, and tell fat jokes about themself all the time. A blond/blonde will take extra care to coif their hair, a curvy person will move to emphasize the shape of their body, etc. Other facets of their personality and background may also become the subject of some verbal self-stereotyping (usually of the purposeful, joking kind)-- they may talk about how southern they are, or how “poor” they are, or how communist they are, etc. They may have a (flexible, ever-changing) list of attributes they ascribe to themself, and go out of their way to express these traits, while holding a complex, passive-aggressive relationship with their undesired traits. If they are a drag queen who generally lives as a man, then he wears distinctly male clothing most of the time, but his look is distinctive-- not necessarily fashionable, and unlikely to be flashy, but most certainly distinctive. In this case, he might wear something which represents a surprising, subversive hint of femininity amidst a masculine look: for example, a pair of earrings, or carefully done eyebrows, or a quiet hint of lipstick, or beneath a men’s shirt, a corset. They may not necessarily be extroverted, but they certainly will be sociable and conscious of the feelings of others. If they are rude and obnoxious, then they may be consciously ignoring the needs of others. They have some slight, superficial social justice tendencies, but in being an ally to other groups, they end up with a foot in their mouth. They are not angry for the sake of any minority group; they are merely an advocate, and they are proud to advocate, and when they do put their foot in their mouth, they expose a hidden chink in their advanced social skills. Sooner or later, they will drastically misunderstand the needs of others, because they are quick to project their experiences and ways of thinking and feelings onto others, and in trying to make others happy, they may be seeking out the happiness of an imagined other self; it’s empathy, if a bit misguided.
Related interests: They love pop music, and have had their fair share of drinking and clubbing. Their tastes swing mainstream and they have had strange, adventurous experiences. They are more likely than most people to be superstitious, because they like it when things are simple, stereotypical, and easy to explain; they believe in predictions of the future, and they latch onto astrological stereotypes of other people.
Live laugh love - They have an addiction to inspirational quotes, and it’s beginning to effect their personal relationships. They post inspirational quotes on Facebook. They decorate kitchens with little signs and chalkboards and potholders, inspirational quotes adorning them each. And yes, above all, they worship those three words: live, laugh, love. They are probably a mother in their 40s or above. If not, they have a great and loving relationship with their mother; they openly share interests and hobbies with their mother, and treat their mother the same as a friend. Either way, they live a privileged life. They are financially safe, and they are guaranteed food, housing, and comfort every day, possibly for their entire life. They may live comfortably in suburbia, or they might be filthy rich. If they work, it is not too intensive, and they have a lot of time for their many hobbies and interests. They’re caring and giving with a lot of patience, and they’re quite extroverted, with a lot of friends they meet regularly. However, while they pretend to be adventurous, they are not adventurous; they are aspirational, while remaining comfortable. Their magnetism to inspirational quotes comes from a comfortability with self-love and self-care, which comes from a privilege to take time for oneself, and the privilege of a healthy upbringing.
Related interests: Pets. They’re a cat-lover or a dog-lover. Caring for another creature is an important hobby for them. They love aesthetics, particularly simple interior design, conventional makeup, and plain yet expensive clothing. They probably have an interest in a specific country or region, and cultural inspiration may or may not be respectful. They may be on social media. If they’re young, they’re on Instagram. If they’re on the older side, they’re all about Facebook.
Some primary interests which fit less cleanly into archetypes, or which I otherwise will not be describing on this list: discovering the culture of parents or ancestors, a specific culture unrelated to oneself, being religious (should be specific to religion and sect), true crime/serial killers
Keep an eye out for a second post about secondary interests, and the difference between primary and secondary interests.
When characters A and B are facing some danger and character A puts out an arm to protect character B
Good variations:
-Character B doesn’t realize the danger until character A puts out his or her arm
-Character A isn’t the larger or stronger character but still takes responsibility for character B’s safety
-Character A doesn’t stand a chance against the danger
-Character A continues talking like there isn’t anything wrong while standing between character B and the threat
-Character A doesn’t get along with character B and/or vice versa
-The danger is comically minor
-Character A has seemed helpless or bumbling but is now revealing inner depths and hidden strength
Make sure that your villain does what she does for a reason!! You can do more than “bad for the sake of being bad.” You can connect to that character!! I believe in you!!
Here’s a list of villainous motivations and how to write them!
Selfishness - In the real world, this is probably the most common motivator for so-called “villains.” The selfish villain feels threatened and acts in self-preservation; this may be preservation of her life, of her pride, of her belongings, etc.
Reasonable variant: The reasonably selfish villain sees an actual, real threat and evades it, screwing everyone over in the process. This villain is sacrificing others in order to survive. She may appear impulsive and afraid, or thoughtful, patient, and furious. Whatever helps her sleep at night.
Unreasonable variant: The unreasonably selfish villain imagines a threat which is not there. She acts in self-preservation when she or her possessions are not in danger; maybe she thinks that innocent black kid in a hoodie is going to kill her. Greed also goes under this category; she sees anyone who takes potential money from her as a threat. She’s creating a narrative which is completely unreal, and responding to it accordingly.
Don’t make greedy characters into hateful people. Hatred does not drive greed. Self-preservation mixed with an inflated importance towards money is what creates greed. She wants more for herself, not less for others. Greedy people don’t kick puppies, spit on children, or for that matter, rub their hands together devilishly.
Don’t think of your villain as selfish in all ways, at all times. Your villain is committing a selfish act (or promoting a selfish idea), but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t take care of her family.
Don’t have her act “maniacally.” She believes she’s doing something perfectly normal in her selfish act: protecting herself. Otherwise, she’s guilty-- all the more reason to not be maniacal.
“Protecting her own” sub-variant: The very most selfish people have trouble promoting their values, because nobody gains anything from Mrs. “I come first, so fuck you.” Group selfishness is far more dangerous: people can become allies under selfishness. Consider fascism, as well as other forms of aggressive group hatred. Her selfishness extends to a group beyond herself, but not infinitely. Maybe she wants to protect her friends. A man “protecting his family” can do some weird shit.
Revenge/“giving them what they deserve” - Some villains are motivated by hatred, anger, or spite. Villains who want revenge see the hero (or victim) as the embodiment of a trauma. A villain who “gives them what they deserve” hates the hero (or victim) for some other reason; it could be personality, minority status, or anything else.
Don’t rely heavily upon monologues or flashbacks. A monologuing villain is a sign of an overcomplicated motivation. Like jokes, the best motivations need not be explained.
Reasonable variant: Some villains seek revenge for a genuinely atrocious act. This puts the hero (or victim) in a shade of moral gray, and your audience will be absolutely intrigued and elated.
Unreasonable variant: More often, villains want revenge because of some unintentional or insignificant slight committed by the hero; the hero accidentally slipped the villain’s secret, and all of a sudden the villain is out to kill. This puts the hero in the moral clear, while still allowing the villain some believability. But the reasonable variant is far easier to justify than the unreasonable variant.
Don’t make the slight too small. You won’t make the villain seem more intense; you’ll make the villain seem ridiculous.
Destruction out of sadness - Some destructive behavior comes from deep feelings of emptiness. Think of your villain’s foul action towards others as a sort of suicide; instead of destroying herself, she destroys whatever she can find. She may consider her feelings to be sadness, but she may also consider this boredom (either conclusion is valid from the observation “nothing makes me happy and I don’t feel anything”). She may have a very clear and concise excuse for why she’s targeting something/someone, but the true answer, as you the writer know, is destruction out of sadness.
Don’t just blame mental illness. Mental illness can be aggravate destructive thoughts or feelings, but mental illness on its own does not cause destruction. A person with a particular disposition may react to mental illness in an unhealthy fashion (e.g. depression causes empty feelings, but most people do not respond to these feelings by destroying things). It is the unhealthy reaction which causes destruction.
Don’t make these characters stoical as they act. These characters usually appear intensely emotional, and are filled with a great desire to feel something; anything.
“Giving up” variant: When plunged into a depressive state, your villain no longer finds joy in those things held dear. She has probably lost her previous motivation (e.g. the person she tried to save has died), and with all hope lost, and nothing good to do, she only has bad to do on her radar. She will probably have an excuse, a story in her head, about why her actions are suddenly destructive (e.g. “it’s your fault she’s dead”).
“Always empty” variant: Rather than giving up, maybe your villain never had hope in the first place. Maybe she has always been building up to this level of destruction.
Don’t rely on flashbacks to illustrate that she’s always been this way. You should have an idea of how long this destructive pattern has lasted, but the audience doesn’t need to know that. Other characters also don’t have to explain how long she’s always been this way.
Because she can get away with it - Some people want to see the world burn just because it’s not supposed to. They’re told not to do something, and when you look away, they will absolutely do it, just for the sake of it. This is actually far more common than you might think-- package thieves, shoplifters, and even serial killers usually feel powerful by existing above the law. This is often an extension of destruction out of sadness; characters who feel empty unconsciously seek a thrill through rule-breaking. To consider more believable thrill-seeking villains, I recommend this brief video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyszHongpf0
Don’t make thrill-seekers out of those comfortably in power. The “because she can get away with it” motivation relies upon a desire to break rules, not to make rules. I’m calling out Hunger Games (as fun as that series is). No thrill-seeker wants to see suffering unless it’s taboo and they’re curious. (Hint: Most Roman colosseum fights portrayed in fiction are historically inaccurate.) If your police officer villain is abusive on the job, unless she’s doing something that could threaten her employment, it’s probably not for the thrill. She has something else going on. She might be trying to demonstrate her power above others out of insecurity, so try "selfishness” (at the top of this post).
By accident - Villains who commit foul acts accidentally are potential heroes with bad luck; the most tragic villains. Your villain might have been on drugs, or maybe there was an element of miscommunication. Fantastical elements, like transformations, create most accidental villains. Regardless, your villain is probably not in the ethical clear. Why was she on such dangerous drugs? Why would she do something so extreme just because of a rumor?
Don’t assume that your villain deserves forgiveness. Many fantastical romance stories forgive villains too quickly. Be careful not to structure your story around the assumption that the accidental villain just needs help or love; on drugs or not, we cannot just pretend that she didn’t kill a man. The bigger the rule broken by your villain, the harder it will be to forgive your villain (e.g. any form of killing in a society like ours should be near-impossible to forgive). The logic of fault is irrelevant; it’s about the emotional trauma or shock, which your characters should not forget easily. If you frame your accidental villain as forgivable, your audience may stop suspending their disbelief.
Don’t just blame mental illness. Mental illness is not like mind control. It does not take over a person’s being to have her commit a certain act. A person with a particular disposition may react to mental illness in an unhealthy fashion (e.g. depression causes empty feelings, but most people do not respond to these feelings by destroying things). It is the unhealthy reaction which causes destruction. Although mental illness can coincide with many motivations, the accidental villain cannot be caused by mental illness.
Differing morals - If used alone, this is probably the easiest motivation to justify. Your villain believes herself to be acting ethically, and she has a genuine argument against the actions and beliefs of your protagonist. Your story may argue against the villain’s beliefs, or it may play around with her philosophy. This motivation can also be layered onto any of the above motivations.
Don’t make her dialogue smug in regards to her philosophy (e.g. “Oh, but don’t you know? So-and-so-a-moral was the true meaning all along.”) This is a cliche, and will also put her in constant danger of info-dumping her relevant ideas and character traits via monologue. If she wants to convince the protagonist of her beliefs, have them argue back and forth. Don’t let her dominate the conversation.
Don’t assign her a moral which is too obviously immoral. If your villain represents the ethical implications of white supremacy, readers may feel patronized or bored by constant arguments of “racism is bad.” Just about everyone theoretically agrees that racism is bad. If you argue against a popular moral stance, or debate something morally non-obvious, readers will feel a lot more respected.
She “had to do it” - Many villains do not consider themselves powerful agents of their own making, but rather, slaves to a cause. Sometimes the most dangerous person around is an underling or a follower. She may be loyal to a specific person, alive or dead, or maybe she works to put the words of a god/s in motion. She may understand this person/cause as intended, or she may be misunderstanding it completely.
