People Worth Knowing
I have been fortunate enough in my life to earn a scholarship to an expensive private university. And to live in nice places for most of my life. I count my blessings. But one thing I have noticed is at a certain level of wealth, there is a line of demarcation in the sand, and many--if not most--of the people I encountered had some pre-conceived notion of who the "people worth knowing" were.
What do I mean? Stick a bunch of very rich white people in a room at a cocktail party, get them talking about nannies, don't tell them your significant other is a Mexican man, and watch the stereotypes fly out of their mouths. Nannies become entities not people. "They" (meaning Mexicans) are "good with kids, but you have to watch that they don't run up your long distance bill calling home." And I don't think people like that "see" their nannies for anything more than help. Housekeepers? A wonderful young woman worked for me for three years. I taught her English every week for a couple of hours. Her story of what she had experienced in life back home was astounding. She worked for another family in my neighborhood for a couple of years before she worked for me--they had no idea how many siblings she had, what her husband's name was, or even that she had never been to formal school beyond sixth grade.
Move out of the realm of hiring people and it's still often the case. Among the really elite (I am talking very wealthy) and you often find your name and "breeding" are more important than who you are--it delineates whether you are worth knowing.
Ever read a book on building wealth? Some of them will tell you to pick your church based on how many fancy cars are in the parking lot--because the contacts you want to make worship there. The people worth knowing. I'm not kidding. I worked as a freelance book editor with a lot of the very top names in that kind of empowerment thinking. And a lot of those men and women don't see people. As far as I'm concerned, they see "marks"--are you worth knowing. It's no more, in my mind, than a big con. I can go down to my father's old neighborhood, and hang out with the guy who can do the three-card monte, and it's no different. At least with the guy doing the three-card monte, you know he's trying to take you. These other guys put on power suits and take your thousand dollars to teach you how to be a success . . . . and it's all a smooth, silken con.
I think everyone is worth knowing. And that seeps into my books. Most of my secondary characters have fully developed back stories that leak onto the page. Which is why the phrase "kill your darlings" becomes HUGE for me. One of my writers' group members will ask me, "Do we see this character again?" My reply: "No." "Then do we really have to know about his parents and his childhood?"
And the answer is no. I have to walk a fine line. I want to know all my characters--their stories and where they came from and where they are going . . . but it's not necessary for the reader to know it all. They are characters worth knowing--but in small doses, I suppose. I realize that I do this now, and I stop myself. And I think, given this post, I know WHY. I think it's my nature. But it doesn't make for good fiction all the time.
How about you? Do you find yourself overly involved with secondary characters?
What do I mean? Stick a bunch of very rich white people in a room at a cocktail party, get them talking about nannies, don't tell them your significant other is a Mexican man, and watch the stereotypes fly out of their mouths. Nannies become entities not people. "They" (meaning Mexicans) are "good with kids, but you have to watch that they don't run up your long distance bill calling home." And I don't think people like that "see" their nannies for anything more than help. Housekeepers? A wonderful young woman worked for me for three years. I taught her English every week for a couple of hours. Her story of what she had experienced in life back home was astounding. She worked for another family in my neighborhood for a couple of years before she worked for me--they had no idea how many siblings she had, what her husband's name was, or even that she had never been to formal school beyond sixth grade.
Move out of the realm of hiring people and it's still often the case. Among the really elite (I am talking very wealthy) and you often find your name and "breeding" are more important than who you are--it delineates whether you are worth knowing.
Ever read a book on building wealth? Some of them will tell you to pick your church based on how many fancy cars are in the parking lot--because the contacts you want to make worship there. The people worth knowing. I'm not kidding. I worked as a freelance book editor with a lot of the very top names in that kind of empowerment thinking. And a lot of those men and women don't see people. As far as I'm concerned, they see "marks"--are you worth knowing. It's no more, in my mind, than a big con. I can go down to my father's old neighborhood, and hang out with the guy who can do the three-card monte, and it's no different. At least with the guy doing the three-card monte, you know he's trying to take you. These other guys put on power suits and take your thousand dollars to teach you how to be a success . . . . and it's all a smooth, silken con.
I think everyone is worth knowing. And that seeps into my books. Most of my secondary characters have fully developed back stories that leak onto the page. Which is why the phrase "kill your darlings" becomes HUGE for me. One of my writers' group members will ask me, "Do we see this character again?" My reply: "No." "Then do we really have to know about his parents and his childhood?"
And the answer is no. I have to walk a fine line. I want to know all my characters--their stories and where they came from and where they are going . . . but it's not necessary for the reader to know it all. They are characters worth knowing--but in small doses, I suppose. I realize that I do this now, and I stop myself. And I think, given this post, I know WHY. I think it's my nature. But it doesn't make for good fiction all the time.
How about you? Do you find yourself overly involved with secondary characters?
posted by Erica Orloff at 7:10 AM
20 Comments:
Hey Erica!
I love this post. I think everyone is worth knowing, too. And it reminds me of a writer's workshop that I went to once when I was a reporter. It was invitation-only, so it was "elite" status on a micro scale. The instructor started by saying, "Raise your hand if you think everyone has a story to tell." Only a few of us did, and she said, "Good. The rest of you need to open your eyes." I loved it, because I really do think EVERYONE has a story to tell. And I think anyone who DOESN'T believe that is overlooking the richness of the diverse human experience.
OK...your actual question! I'm wrestling with a secondary character right now who wants her own story. I'm trying to tell her to be patient. Secondary characters, to me, give a book a sense of fullness, but I can get carried away sometimes!
Louise :)
Hi Louise:
That is my problem, too. I have a secondary who wants his own book. :-)
E
P.S. And I LOVE that story about the instructor.
I despise that 'people worth knowing' mentality. I've seen it applied to not only wealth, but profession and even education. As though attending XYZ school somehow lessens your pedigree.
Even people you don't necessarily like are often worth knowing for the reason Louise pointed out: they've all got a story!
Always overly involved with secondaries. And it is probably the single reason I have word count issues. I think I do it so I become better acquainted with my characters, but you're right, a lot of it needs axed. Makes me write in circles by times, but I'm learning. :P
lainey:
I agree . . . I used wealth and race and class to make a point, but there are a million ways people draw distinctions--if you have that mindset, you miss out on so much of life.
E
Usually I love my secondary characters, and I love knowing their backstory. Sometimes I have to go in search of them, sometimes they're full blown and I have no idea where they've come from. In the current WIP they're a huge part of the story and they'll probably have their own stories--they're also the hero's siblings and they tie into the worldbuilding so I actually know quite a bit about them. Or the brother--the sister will come now that she's on the page =)
I traveled to a conference in Monterey, California, recently. The driver that picked us up at the airport was delightful. While my traveling companion carried on business calls on a cell phone, ignoring the driver, I learned that the man was the owner of the limo company and was doing one of his driver's a favor by filling in. Turns out the gentleman was from my husband's hometown, is involved in county government, and organizes an international Blues festival every year. I know this because I took the time to carry on a quiet conversation and asked lots of questions of the limo driver. I doubt seriously that my traveling companion took any of this in, afterall, the man was JUST the "driver."
Two of my secondary characters have become quirky support characters, who, without restraint, could take over the pages. BUT they're SO much fun--AND insistent!
Hi Amie:
I do a lot with sibling characters, too. And right now, with writing for Nocturne, there is a lot of worldbuilding--so I totally get what you're saying.
:-)
E
kathy:
That goes to what Louise said. EVERYONE has a story. I love asking people questions. My favorite one is to ask married couples how they met--you always get fun stories. It's also nice to see people's eyes sparkle as, even if they're been married a long time, they remember for a minute how they fell in love.
E
Erica!
I just read "The Nanny Diaries" recently. I felt sick after I read how the nannies and housekeepers were treated - as if they weren't really human or less human. It is a fiction novel, but based on two womens' real life experiences.
It is frustrating to know we live in a world with people with such elitist attitudes.
(Love your blog!)
Kelly
Last Saturday night, I escorted one of my patients downstairs to smoke a cigarette, a twenty-nine-year-old African American female who had been admitted with cocaine overdose. We chatted while we smoked, mostly about her life. What I learned reinforced what I already knew: Addicts are full of shit. They're con artists and manipulators. Until they face death or rock-bottom consequences, the only thing on their minds is getting high. They don't care how many people they hurt, how many people's time they waste. They'll cry and tell you how much they want to change and at the same time sucker you into being a leaning post or worse. It's very sad. Yes, I felt sorry for that young lady. I tried being nice, then I tried being tough, but neither tactic worked. Before my shift was over, she signed out AMA (against medical advice) and went back to her world. There was nothing I could do to stop her.
But I got to know her for a brief time, and that helped me. It helped me realize there are changes I need to make in my own life. It's something I've known for a long time, but seeing where this young woman was obvilously headed made me take a look at myself even deeper.
So, yes, all people are worth knowing, and sometimes it ends up being for selfish reasons. That's not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.
As far as my secondary characters go, there are some walk-ons in my first book who will take a more prominant role in the second. Now I need to get to know them better.
Perhaps one of them will be a young woman who--as an addict--is not quite ready to turn her life around.
I'm glad I got to know my patient because, when you get down to it, the patient is me.
Here I am on the couch again, Doctor. Got any words of wisdom for me? :)
kelly:
Thanks! And yes, it's really sad people think like that. I feel sorriest for the children.
E
Jude:
Welcome to the couch.
But I have no advice, really. You and I are vastly different and there's probably nothing I can say that would peel away your cynicism. I start from the point of view of compassion. I may see the con, but I don't think I view the addict in the same way you do.
Here's the quote I use when viewing an addict:
When another person makes you suffer, it is because he suffers deeply within himself, and his suffering is spilling over. He does not need punishment; he needs help. That's the message he is sending.
~Thich Nhat Hanh
Peace,
E
Hi Erica: I guess I am too cynical sometimes. Something I need to work on. It's just that...I've been exposed to so many dysfunctional people, and have gotten personally involved and burned so many times. I always have my guard up. I don't think I could go through that kind of hell again. There's help out there for those who truly want it, but most of them are too sick to even realize they have a problem. I'm just not emotionally skilled enough to deal with it anymore.
Well, I'd rather go through life getting burned. Compassion is different from being sucked into dysfunction. There is a middle compassionate ground between "abuse me" and "I can have great empathy for what demons you must have that make you do this." I spent time mentoring unwed teen mothers as young as 12. I would go into crack neighborhoods and seen the horrific blight and poverty and addicts who always had a con. When a 12 year old with one baby already says, "I want to have another baby to love"--and is meanwhile still doing drugs with the baby's father, I don't see what cycnicsm does. And if you go to the roots of many addicts, they are the CHILDREN, now grown, of people caught up in that cycle. I don't have the answer, but I chose to get off my couch and volunteer for three years to work at saving one family and one baby at a time. It's just in how you look at it, I guess.
E
I deal with it forty hours a week, every week. It's not that I lack compassion and empathy, but you get to a point when you realize it's not healthy to take it home with you. Not healthy at all. You have to maintain a distance, or you crack up. It's self-preservation. If you can't stay healthy yourself, you can't help anyone next week.
It's no wonder to me that psychiatrists have the highest suicide rate of any profession. Dysfuntional and mentally ill people will wear you thin, no matter how strong and compassionate you are.
As far as drug addiction goes, I'm not wholly convinced that it's a "disease," as current wisdom leads us to believe. I think the psychiatric community made it a disease so insurance companies have to cough up the dough for treatment. I'm addicted to tobacco, but every day I light up--knowing the consequences--it's a conscious choice. It's a choice. It's my own damn fault. And, since nicotine is supposedly the most addictive substance on the planet, I have to think people hooked on other drugs are making a choice too.
Jude:
There is, again, a big slippery slope between what you just posted and "All drug addicts are full of shit." There's a HUGE difference between what I posted and "taking it home with you." I think you can have compassion without getting sucked into it--at least in what you wrote there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. You say you have compassion and empathy, but there's nothing in your original post that gave me that impression at all. I went into those neighborhoods, and yes, my heart ached for the babies and their mothers, and yes, I took it home with me, but eventually, you have a shut-off valve that lets you go back the very next day with the SAME compassion and empathy and smile and energy, not some degraded version of it. You still give them your loving-kindness, but you don't stay up all night agonizing over it.
E
Since I haven't met every addict in the world, I can only say the ones I've known are full of shit. And I've known plenty. It doesn't mean I don't have compassion for them, it's just a fact. Only when they themselves REALIZE they are full of shit can any meaningful change occur. I have compassion for anyone who decides to throw their life away, but I can't fix them. They have to come to a place in their lives where they're ready for help. It's up to them.
*Addicts are full of shit. They're con artists and manipulators. Until they face death or rock-bottom consequences, the only thing on their minds is getting high. They don't care how many people they hurt, how many people's time they waste. They'll cry and tell you how much they want to change and at the same time sucker you into being a leaning post or worse.*
What part of that isn't true? In my experience, it's all true. Out of context it sounds like I'm a heartless asshole. But, in my next sentence, I said I felt sorry for the young lady, indicating compassion. I did feel sorry for her, but as a realist I know there's nothing I can do to help her until she's ready to change. I spent two hours with her--two hours that could have been spent with my other needy patients--and then she walked out AMA to go get high. She wasted a lot of people's time. I felt sorry for her, but I'll stand by "full of shit" because that's what she was.
This post has been removed by the author.
Jude:
There's no point in my continuing this . . . we're so far apart on the issue of compassion and what it means and what it is. Doesn't make me right or you wrong. We're just so vastly different that I don't see any middle ground to even come to an understanding. I wish you peace, I hope your way of looking at the world makes you happy inside . . . it's just not my way of looking at people.
E
Peace back.
It doesn't make me happy when people choose to abuse themselves and others. It makes me very unhappy.
Post a Comment
<< Home