Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Writing: Use of mirror characters

I saw this information on a writing message board and it made a lot of sense to me. Thought I'd share.

I read somewhere that that's why they introduced Robin to the comicbooks: the writers (and probably the readers, too) were tired of having Batman talking to himself so much.

Hey, what great timing! I'm working on a story right now where I realized I was going to have to use a lot of internal monologue. And since that is something I don't do well, I needed a solution. So I decided to bring in Lucy as a 'sounding board'. It's great to see I'm doing this right

(Of course, the only reason I brought in Lucy was because I don't do internal monologue well. I wish I'd realized sooner that it was an approved technique )

ML

Sounds like a good technique...but what I don't get is why the hero (man) rates a capital "H" but the heroine (female) only gets a lowercase "h". Does that seem fair to y'all?

I have to say that this has always been a method I've particularly not enjoyed in fiction. It really has to be done well, otherwise it simply becomes boring exposition.

Maybe I just haven't seen many good examples of it so far. Or it reminds me too much of TV shows where the character informs the audience "Oh, look, here's Brian" when we can see perfectly well for ourselves that Brian just walked in the door.

OTOH, if it's going to be done effectively, our authors are the ones to do it. Maybe some of them will change my mind in the future. <g>

Interesting too to read that romance readers expect introspection as I'd been of the impression that - in common with most published novel genres - introspection was something to avoid when writing a modern romance novel. Learn something new.... <g>

LabRat

They could also be referred to as a big "h" and a little "h" -- and men are generally bigger than women.

As far as introspection and exposition, it's a matter of balance. I have one friend who is often heard saying "It's ALL in the execution." Boring exposition versus boring introspection? It's still boring.

Original post edited because after rereading this again, I answered my own question <g>.

Anyway, since I'm here, I agree about the expository problem of having characters launch into dialogue just to have information disseminated. It's very annoying to be treated like we can't figure out stuff ourselves.

I've always understood that any character in a story should serve a purpose, and I have a hard enough time doing that without adding characters whose sole reason for existence is to provide an invisible friend for the hero or heroine. Maybe I'm just a lazy writer <g>.

But I have to concede that too much internal dialogue and introspection does get tedious, so perhaps there is a happy medium.

Lynn

Ah, something I actually know something about to pull me out of deep lurk mode.

There is one major element to take into consideration when talking about introspection in romances as opposed to other genres and that's the almost routine use of dual perspectives in the romance novels of today. Thirty years ago, romances were almost exclusively HER story and not his. Most of the time then it was rare to even get a clue to what he was thinking much less feeling until the end of the book and even then readers couldn’t be sure. A situation that eventually led to some major discontent within the genre's readership and basically a writing revolution as authors began experimenting with the tried and true format.

Nowadays, romances are for the most part THEIR story and it's a big distinction with regards to introspection and points of view. It's actually uncommon to find a romance today that doesn't have both the hero's and heroine's point-of-views intermingled more or less equally. Sure sometimes that gets to the point of head-hopping but that is not always the sin it sounds like in the hands of a good romance writer and especially in love scenes.

More than anything else, though, one of the cardinal rules of romance writing today is that romance readers expect to know what's going on in HIS head and heart right along with hers. They want to experience that total emotional journey of TWO people coming together and that's when introspection becomes of immense importance.

And let’s not forget to mention the total sensory aspect of love scenes themselves. I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the romances author's I've read who are able work conversations into love scenes without ruining the mood.

So, yeah, romance readers probably do expect more introspection but it's not necessarily because of the emphasis on internal conflict alone. Put it this way, keeping all the above in mind, consider this - as much as romance authors might want to use conversations and actions to convey these emotional internalizations, is there not a limit on how much one can realistically expect a MAN to vocalize, or even act on, what he's thinking and feeling? (ducking)

Seriously, though, I doubt that most other fiction genres encounter THAT particular problem on a routine basis even when multiple points of views are used in stories. Even poor Clark, as sensitive as he was portrayed on L&C, had a strong tendency to clam up most of the time when it came to romantic issues instead of having those "important" conversations.

It’s definitely all about finding that balance within the context of what’s expected in the genre.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

Interesting point you bring up about POV. Silhouette is bringing out a series this year that will detour from the norm and be written solely in the hero's POV. I'm looking forward to it.

I've heard about this and I'm definitely curious about how successful it will be, although I do tend to view it as another grand experiment that may or may not succeed at all. Okay, let me rephrase that so that it doesn’t seem like I’m not even willing to give them a chance because I am. I am really interested in how romance readers in general receive them, myself included.

Playing with limiting the stories to the hero’s POV is also probably the next logical step in the “evolution” of romance novels but I don’t think it’s necessarily a step forward. In terms of variety it could easily be seen that way if done in limited amounts but, as a long time reader, I would not want to see it become the norm because I’m quite happy with the dual perspective format.

If nothing else having some books in the hero’s POV could provide a type of balance, though, because there are the occasional romances written entirely from the heroine’s point of view (limited third person) today that do work quite well. There are also those written in first person heroine POV but they’re even more rare because there one doesn’t have the benefit of the occasional views of support characters to help flesh out the story and action. (Not to mention that I hate reading love scenes in the first person. Ugh.) Generally, though, limited third and especially first person viewpoints require additional plot elements than the core romance to work for me, personally, and usually that additional thing is a mystery of some type.

Mystery there means not just a whodunit but anything from whodunits to paranormal happenings to secret identities to hidden supernatural abilities – whatever might put the role/motives/identities of the “other” in question. Think traditional Gothic romance. Consider the difference if Superman’s story had originally been told entirely from Lois’ point of view, at least until the revelation happens. In any of those instances a very logical argument can be made for keeping the reader in the dark to enhance the final impact. IOW, to me there at least has to be a logical reason for choosing to present a romance that way or I become one very frustrated romance reader, so I'm really curious to see what the publishers and authors think are good reasons for presenting hero POV romances.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

The only books in first person heroine POV that I enjoy reading are Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum books. And the love scenes are usually limited to a smidgeon of foreplay and then an "OHMIGOD!" Most of it is left to the reader's imagination.

Harlequin/Silhouette is constantly looking to evolve the romance novel. They've added new lines (Flipside - longer romantic comedy and Luna - paranormals) and within existing lines new guidelines have been drawn up. My favorite line is Desire which is heavy on the emotion and sensuality but not as explicit as the Blaze line. Desire got a new editor last year and she's put the kibosh on elements of intrigue and too much comedy. Also the use of children in Desires has been discouraged -- hard to get the H and h together when they're tending to the kids. I personally hate to see any elements limited because I could name favorites that included humor, intrigue and a secret baby.

Interesting idea about the Lois and Clark story being told exclusively from one POV or another -- up to the revelation. Or imagine if it was told say from Perry's POV. Or Cat's!

I have a question here? Do men think the way women do about problems in their lives?

The reason I ask is this is that I wrote a story once and gave it to a friend to read. After she read the story, I asked what she thought and she said: 'Do men think that much?'

Anyway, when I thought about it, it occurred to me that the way I discuss problems with the men and the women in my life is quite different. When I talk to women, I find that we spend most of our time talking about the emotions behind the problem. When I talk to men, they seem to be looking for the solution. So is it the same when we think? Do men think about finding the solution more than they dwell on the emotions?

Any men (in particular) out there who would care to enlighten me?

ML

A wise sage once told me<g>. A man thinks in a straight line from point A to point B. A woman thinks in circles all around it. Men and Women think differently. It is a proven fact. Different parts of our brains are active. If you have ever read Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, you will understand the differences better<g> That was a delightful book that came out early 90's I believe. It is a fun way to explain our differences. Laura

I was going to mention the Mars/Venus book but Laura beat me to it. One thing that men need to learn is that when a woman comes to him with a problem, she doesn't want a solution; she just wants a sounding board.

I can't say for sure, but men probably do think a lot. They just don't verbalize about it. I'll be anxious to see if any of the fellas post here.

The Plum books are also some of the few I like in first person but then again technically they’re not romances. I forget but they’re either listed as straight fiction or mystery. Personally, I think they’re more comedy than anything else but that’s just me. <VBG> Another set I like that’s not romance but mystery with romantic elements and is in first person is the Amelia Peabody series by Elizabeth Peters.

I have run across at least one or two romances within the last year or so written in first person and that did have extended love scenes. All I can say is that frankly I always find those scenes in particular to be just weird reading in first person. Thing is, though, that I don’t normally have any problem reading a mystery or even the occasional fantasy in first person but it does tend to drive me crazy in a romance unless there’s a logical reason for it as I explained earlier. So much so that I’ve developed the theory that the reason I feel that way is because first person romances without any other plot focus tend to have an extremely narcissistic quality to them that I do not personally enjoy. Dual perspective is like a healthy whole by comparison. All of which explains why I’m sticking way clear of the new wave of Chick Lit because so many of those ARE intentionally written in first person, have barely any romance and absolutely no extra plot. (Think Bridgett Jone’s Diary.) Oye.

I don’t think I could ever feel completely comfortable writing in first person but I’ve been playing with Lois’ POV in limited third idea at least until the revelation in at least one of my own WIP for years now. It’s an interesting exercise because we’ve become so used to “seeing” through Clark’s eyes that we don’t normally take into account how those things that the others aren’t supposed to know really affects their reactions. Superman’s story is one of those where we as “readers” can’t go back and unlearn what we already know, so it’s really difficult to put myself in that place at times. It really would be nice to have the benefit of Herb’s time machine.

An interesting tip I’ve picked up from romance writers is to color code and/or thread the POV of the various characters so that they can be separated out even if you plan to use them all. That way, you can visually “see” what each person is saying, thinking and feeling to see if you’ve overlapped where you weren’t supposed to or if you need to use another character to tell that part of the story instead. It also lets you more easily see if that character stays in character, too.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

A really good romance novel written throughout in the first-person POV of the heroine?

Simple. Jane Eyre.


Wendy

Count me in on those who avoid chick lit. I've only read one that I enjoyed -- STRAPLESS by Leigh Riker -- and it was NOT done in first person. Many reviewers also don't feel that it's true chick lit either.

As for Jane Eyre, I know it's a classic, but like lots of other classics, I just couldn't wade through it. My husband and I were having a discussion last week about un-favorite authors. The Bronte sisters, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne topped the list for both of us. Of course we each had a few favorites in common and a few that one liked and the other didn't. Just shows how everyone's tastes are varied.

Jane Eyre? Are you kidding? /me starts looking for a place to hurl. I've been forced to read that book for one class or another around 10 times. Like all things labeled as "classics", it's depressing. Hate it. I'd rather read something that makes me laugh and have a good time. I'm not fond of wallowing, and they seem to do a lot of it. Give me Evanovich any day--the mental images are *priceless*.

Laura (who has to read a lot of "classics", because she's an English major)

I'm sorry you guys hate it... personally, the Brontes and Jane Austen are among my favourite writers ever. But, regardless of whether or not you like it, Jane Eyre is a classic and much-loved example of a first-person POV heroine... and it works precisely because we have no idea what Rochester is really up to and whether he really loves Jane or was simply leading her on the whole time.

You should try reading it again when you're not being forced to read it for English class, Laura. I know I appreciated Wuthering Heights far more re-reading it as an adult than I did when it was on my Leaving Certificate syllabus.


Wendy

<revolted> Wuthering Heights? Yuck. That's probably among my most hated books. And not all of those were for classes, actually. My grandma is a big believer in classics--she conned me into reading Jane Eyre at the tender age of 12. It has not improved upon successive rereadings. None of the Bronte's stuff has. I hate the style. The heroines don't move me, and I don't care what happens to them.

Tolkein is more fun, and he's long winded...

Laura

Ah, Jane Eyre... That's brings back memories bothe bad and good.

I was first exposed to it when I was (quick calculation) thirteen, in an English literature class. I hated it. (Then again, I wasn't too taken with the class, either. Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against reading or the classics, either, for that matter. I was a particularly avid reader during my childhood and teenage years. I just didn't like the way the subject was taught.)

Back to Jane Eyre: I really hated it! The odd thing is, I can't even remember why. I just found it an excruciating effort and the story had no appeal for me whatsoever.

In fact... I hated it so much that couldn't even finish the book. (I managed to pass the exam with flying colours, though, because we had a choice of questions, so I only answered those relating to the first third of the story, which I had read properly!)

A few years ago, however, I decided to reread the book. (Odd, I know, given how much of an impression it had left on me.) To be frank, I fully expected to hate it again, and I wouldn't have bothered to try at all were it not for the wonderful ninety-nine pence Wordsworth Classics that were coming out at the time. (These were great, because I got to experiment with all sorts of classics I wouldn't have tried otherwise. Hey, if buy a book for ninety-nine pence, you don't feel nearly so guilty about ditching it as if it cost 6.99.)

To my complete and utter surprise, I adored it second time around. And we're talking I-couldn't-put-it-down type adored here. Okay, so there is gratuitous use of the semi-colon in it, but... <shrugs> How had I missed all the feminist subtext before? And all that simmering tension below the surface! And, perhaps most surprising of all, I really cared about the characters in it second time around.

So, I guess, somewhere between thirteen and thirty something, I must have generated a tolerance (and in this particular case a love of) tortured heroes and poor put-upon heroines who defy the odds and managed to carve destinies for themselves anyhow.

So, all told, I have to put myself in the pro-Jane Eyre corner.

Chris

P.S. Beverly: I don't read romances regularly, so I've found your insights in this thread particularly fascinating. Thank you.

You’re very welcome.

I’m kind of glad I didn’t post anything else last night because I think I was more tired than I realized. When Wendy mentioned JANE EYRIE my brain translated it to Jane Austin and I probably wouldn’t have made much sense saying anything at that point. After a good night’s sleep, I can now read correctly again. I think.

Thing is that while both JANE EYRIE and WUTHERING HEIGHTS are definitely romantic stories, I’m not sure either one would actually be considered romances today in the “genre” sense. For one thing, do either one of them have a happy ending with regards to the romance? I’m pretty sure WH doesn’t but I’m drawing a complete blank on how JE actually ends. (Can you tell neither one rank as personal favorites?) If the endings weren’t happy in that sense, then they’d probably be considered more women’s fiction than romances in today’s market. That’s not a bad thing but simply acknowledging the reality of the genre expectations today.

Jane Austen’s works in general, OTOH, have a lot more in common with the basic romance format today and not just because they’re not nearly as depressing. There are heavy tearjerker romances out there but the one thing that IS absolutely necessary in romances today is having a happy ending to the romance itself. Publishers do occasionally allow authors to get away with playing with that aspect but readers tend to scream bloody murder when it happens. Put it this way, if Austen’s works were written today, basically the only thing that would need to be changed, besides possibly a slight language update, would be for the hero and heroine to get to spend more time together throughout the story. Romances today are heavy on relationship time to actually develop the sense that they WILL have a happily ever after . . . which is not the same thing as a happy ending or even the promise of a happily ever after tacked on at the very end. The kiss of death for a romance author is to hear readers say something like "Well, I like her stories but her couples don't spend nearly enough time together for my tastes."

For examples of the distinction, compare SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE with WHEN HARRY MET SALLY. SIS certainly has a happy ending and a bare minimum promise of a happily ever after but, really, how much did they actually know about each other to make it work in the long term? Not much. It’s romantic but it isn’t necessarily a romance by today’s standards even though as a story it could probably squeak by a romance publisher with some minor revisions. In the abruptness of the ending it has more in common with stories like Austen’s when the whole point was to get them together in the end but not show the actual relationship between the two. For the most part, those are romances of the past, however.

OTOH, in WHMS enough time was actually spent developing the relationship that one comes away pretty convinced they can make it, so there’s not just the happy ending but also some pretty firm assurances that they can have that happily ever after instead of simply an empty promise of one. A similar type of "relationship story" can found in most romances today. That's the distinction today - romances have relationship time between the pair and that sacred happy ending while women's fiction has relationship time between the heroine and whomever, meaning family, friends, etc., but the ending can be up for grabs. Women's fiction can be romantic but that doesn't make it romance.

LOIS & CLARK would most definitely be considered a romance in all ways due to the amount of time that was spent actually developing their relationship, something that’s not always found in other “romantic” series.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

It's Jane Eyre, Beverley, not Jane 'Eyrie' - and, yes, it does have a traditional happy ending. And very satisfying it is too! I would definitely call it a romance.


Wendy

I have problems reading stories written in first person. It just doesn't seem right, and it's a struggle for me to get through it. I prefer the omniscient narrative rather than a single narrow perspective.

I can see why publishers insist on the happy endings nowadays. Anything else is depressing, and romance novels are meant to be an escape. I actually threw one romance novel across the room because it didn't have a happy ending, and I cherish my books. Needless to say, that was one book I did NOT filch from my mom.

I've never read any of the Bronte sisters, even though I know I have one of their books lying around somewhere. The only "romance" from that period that I've read are more along the lines of Louisa May Alcott. An Old-Fashioned Girl has a nice romance ending to it, along with the rest of most of her children's novels.

I saw that . . . after it was posted. I think I'm still half-asleep. :rolleyes:

If I'm remembering both it and WH correctly they probably are more comparable to Gothic Romances, while Austen's stories have more in common with the traditional Regency Romances of today. Regencies have always been popular to some extent but you might be interested to know that Gothics are experiencing a revival of sorts in the genre currently. In the last year or so, there have been several new books published and marketed as Gothic in style from various publishers. I think one of the publishers has gone so far as to create an imprint along those lines, but I'm drawing a blank on what it's called.

Beverly

Are you thinking about Dorchester's Candleglow imprint?

Ah yes. The HEA. It's what I love about romance. They sail into the sunset -- figuratively speaking though I did read one last summer where they literally did. And as for the relationship time, the H and h must get together quickly in the story. I'm part of a brainstorming group and one criticism that some of the writers had heard from editors or contest judges was that their H/h didn't meet soon enough. The sooner they meet, the more time you have to explore and develop the relationship, have the black moment that drives them apart, and bring them back together for that happy ending. On these boards, there are no word count constraints, but in the real publishing world, there are, so you must make the best of the 50,000 or 80,000 or however many words your editor wants.

I don’t think so but it could be. Hasn’t Candleglow been around for a while? My first impulse was to say it was the Luna new imprint I was thinking of but I do think that’s more paranormal in nature than what I remember the discussion being about. The Luna stories may be Gothic in mood and tone, yes, with everything from werewolves and vampires to psychic stuff, but I could almost swear I remember someone on one of the romance lists I’m on mentioning a new publisher line that was going to be more Gothic-type romances with some of those old style mystery sub-plots and with more modern sensibilities. If I can find the list of titles I made note of I’ll see if I can also find out what lines they’re in.

Ah, yes, the semi-mythical 50 page limit. OTOH, it’s still amazing just how sensitive one can become to the timing feeling “wrong” after reading so many romances and editors are sensitive to that whether they judge it literally by page counts or not. It’s probably more that experienced readers simply know when the pair should’ve already met for that particular story and start getting impatient when it doesn’t happen - more a matter of rhythm and pace than page count. If those are off, they’re just off no matter how many pages into the story it is.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

Ah ha. This explains why so many romance novels I had were EXACTLY 132 pages long. I kept track of what books I read one summer, complete with pages counts, and I noticed that trend.

Sounds like you were reading from one of the series/category lines like Harlequin or Silhouette and not from one of the single title lines like Avon, Leisure/Love Spell, Kensington, etc. Within each line, there are specific page count ranges but the series/category books as well as the traditional Regency Romances are by far the smallest. I don't have the paperback page count numbers handy but those shorter books generally top out at a couple of hundred pages and publishers are a lot stricter about staying within the individual line guidelines. By comparison, most single title paperback romances fall in the 300-500 page range and the length variation between individual books even for the same publisher is a lot less strict. It's rare for any romances to reach epic lengths (700+ pages) nowadays but it does still happen on occasion.

Beverly

I'm late, but want to weigh in on the JE/WH discussion. There are different things that can influence a persons's appreciation of stories. I first read 'Jane Eyre' when I was about ten. My older borther subscribed to a book club called Heritage Classics (?) and their edition of 'Jane Eyre' was a beautiful hardback tome with absolutely fantastic engraved illustrations. At ten, I was fascinated by the rotogravure and by the fact that the first half of the book was about a little girl just about my age. Then came the fascinating Mr. Rochester and the story line that was later embodied in a more contemporary book, 'Rebecca' by Daphne du Maurier (?). Yes, Bevcerly, a delightful gothic romance, Jane Eyre has been one of my favorite stories every since, and I think I have almost every one of the many film versions on tape. There have been some very satusfying Edward Rochesters and a few disasters. My favorite is George C. Scott, and my least favorite, William Hurt. But I don't think anyone has ever properly caught Jane.

As for Wuthering Heights, I've never been able to read the thing all the way through. I know critics conisder it the masterpiece of the two, but I say de gustibus and what do critics know.

Ok, I have this long list of things I'm supposed to be doing right now but....
- Thanks, Marilyn, for these posts on writing
- So what's so bad about invisible friends???
- Jane Eyre - never trust a man who locks his first wife up in the attic
- Loved Wuthereing Heights!!! soooo atmospheric, + a ghost and Heathcliffe! - yeah I know my inner feminist should hate him
- Jane Austen rules!

CC Malo

Which reminds me-

For an excellent example of how effective the use of a mirror character can be, Yesterday Upon the Stair is a must read.

I love how this character gets at things, so much more so than if Lois was just "thinking" them to herself.

Really interesting discussion, by the way.

the other CC

edit- you know it, had the belated thought that it might be helpful if I mentioned that this story is on the archive, is written by one CC Malo, and is one of the best things I've read all year. Go see.

Here's the info on the Luna imprint from the Harlequin site. I suppose Gothic could fit in there.

As for category romances having the same number of pages, I had an author explain a little of that to me. Let's take the Silhouette Desire line, for example. There's a 55,000 to 60,000 word guideline, which means that the page length of course will vary. However, the publisher gets a better deal from the printer if every book is the same number of pages because the printer only has to set up the presses once (or something like that). If you look carefully, some Desires have larger print and some smaller. Some have more pages of advertising than others. This is how they adjust for the variance in word count.

I *like* using mirror characters. I was the first one to cheer when my professors labeled tons of introspection as evil and to be avoided at all costs. There's a balance that must be struck, and mirror characters help achieve that balance.

Laura (who's writing professor likes how she handles introspection and mirror characters)

Since this thread has gotten a lot more play here than on Zoom's mbs, I asked her if I could post her comment about the use of mirror characters. Since Zoom isn't a member here, she graciously agreed to let me share:

"Money is the root of all evil," is probably the most misquoted line from the bible. It actually says "For the love of money is the root of all evil," and I think we have something of a parallel with introspection

Introspection itself isn't evil. In fact, it's useful for giving us a glimpse into a character's emotions or motivations when no other plausible way is available at that point in the story. However, when it drones on paragraph after paragraph, or worse, page after page, it starts working against the impact of the story and causes more than a few readers to skim ahead in frustration.

Another problem with introspection happens when a writer is not good at keeping the character busy doing something while he/she is spewing internal monologue. In one fanfic, for example, it took 20K of the story just to have Lois walk down a single flight of stairs while her introspection chugged along. I've heard of people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but poor Lois couldn't think and walk down the stairs at the same time

Even worse than that, though, is when long passages of introspection interrupt a conversation. I mean imagine Lois and Clark holding ice cream cones on a warm summer day ...

"Lois, have you given any further thought about what we discussed last night?" Clark asked.

"Well, life has been hectic," Lois stalled.

What could she really say? Men had abandoned her all her life, she thought ... and thought ... and thought ....

3 paragraphs later ...

After those humiliations in high school, there was the humiliation of college ..."

6 paragraphs later ...

But Clark was different! He was so sweet and so understanding and ..."

"Lois."

"Huh? Clark, are you in my head?"

"Yes, Lois. I know it's rude to cut into your introspection, but did you notice that while you're thinking on and on telling the readers about things they've read a thousand times before that I'm just standing here not saying or doing anything? Did you notice my ice cream is melting down my fingers and pooling on the tops of my shoes?"

"Well, I ..."

"It's embarrassing. People are walking by staring at us frozen in time. I wish I could say the same for my ice cream."

"What am I supposed to do, Clark, I have issues!"

Clark mentally shrugged. Thankfully, being inside Lois' head, she was able to see it. "Have you thought of discussing these things with a mirror character, Lois?"

"You mean actually speaking aloud and interacting with someone? Isn't that a little radical?"

Clark laughed ... internally of course. "No, it's a lot of fun for you and the reader."

Just then Jimmy Olsen, a character whose last name is chronically misspelled in fanfic, joined the throng of onlookers on the sidewalk who were watching Clark's ice cream melt. The young man smiled. "Lois doing that internal monologue stuff again?"

"Yeah," Clark replied, surprised his voice hadn't atrophied from disuse. "If you could just be her sounding board while I go clean my hands, I'd really appreciate it."

"Oh, no sweat, CK, I did that on the series all the time."

"Thanks, Jimmy." Clark discarded the empty, soggy cone and began to navigate towards the nearest washroom, but pivoted on his heel. "And be sure to tell her I'm not like her dad, or the guy in high school, or the one in college, or Claude and I'm definitely not like Lex Luthor," he said, recalling happily how often Lex's last name was misspelled in fanfic and at least once in the series.

"Got it," Jimmy said and then snapped his fingers several times in front of Lois.

"Wh..what happened?" she asked drowsily, but then noticed the pistachio puddle where Clark had been and the chocolate lake at her own feet. "I was doing it again, wasn't I?"

Jimmy nodded, his eyes filled with sympathy. "But don't worry, Lois, I'm here to help you out of the introspection trap. So's Perry, or your mom for that matter."

"Thanks," Lois said and pulled a moist towelette from her purse to clean her hands as she and Jimmy walked up the street. A small dog followed close behind lapping up her chocolate footprints. "I don't really want to talk to my mother, though."

Jimmy laughed and unclipped Lois' cell phone from the side of her purse and waved it in front of her. "CK probably has clean hands now. Maybe you should let him know you're trying to get over your introspection addiction."

Lois sighed. "I guess so," she said and dialed his number. "Clark?" she asked tentatively. "Can you hear me now?"

The End

Zoom (who has been a prisoner of comic book thought bubbles for years)

As for my own opinion on introspection vs. mirror characters, I think that both serve a purpose, but need to be done well. And as Zoom says, not go on so long the ice cream melts.

Schoolmarm

To repeat what I said on Zoom's board:



Well said, Zoom!

Jude

As I said in another thread, it's all - to borrow a cliché - horses for courses. In other words, different people have different tastes. I'm not talking about 'forgetting to mix actions and introspection' - that's something very minor, which any writer can fix once a good BR or thoughtful commenter points it out. I mean introspection in general versus dialogue, use of mirror characters or whatever.

As I commented in Yvonne's thread, different readers have different tastes. For those who enjoy introspection, getting inside the characters' heads, there are published authors such as Mary Balogh, Mary-Jo Putney and others who write in that style; for those who prefer lots of dialogue and less 'thinking', there are plenty of other writers who offer that kind of writing. It doesn't mean that one is 'right' and the other 'wrong'; it's quite simply a matter of preference. And variety - I do occasionally enjoy reading something in a different style from my usual preference. For example, CC and I have this little running debate going on the merits of introspection - I like more, she prefers less - but that doesn't stop me loving her stories and having most of them on my Kerth list.

Sure, I have used mirror characters - what are Jonathan and Martha there for in many of the episodes, and in a heck of a lot of fanfic, if not to allow Clark to explain what he's feeling? I'd use such a device more often for Lois, but that's not a pattern the series established for us. If Lucy had stayed around a little longer, then I'm sure we'd have seen Lois confiding in her sister. But Lucy disappeared and Lois very, very rarely discussed her feelings with anyone. So when she did so in Target Jimmy Olsen, it seemed so off the wall that she'd confide in Sarah that a lot of FoLCs, from what I can tell, were sceptical (and not only because of the way that episode went even in its final version). Lois wasn't in the habit of confiding in people she barely knew; she rarely even confided in those closest to her. Perry came closest to a confidant, until she truly felt like part of Clark's family and confided in his parents.

Still, for someone who prefers to write dialogue rather than introspection, there's scope to have Lois talk to Perry or Lucy or - at a stretch - Jimmy. Or even Martha Kent, if the circumstances are right. Carol Malo's Yesterday, Upon the Stairs worked because Jeff was a childhood friend of Lois's, but more especially because we didn't find out who Jeff was until near the end of the story and, because he wasn't actually there, it was easier to imagine Lois confiding in him. (If you haven't read the story, run and read it and you'll see what I mean! ).

I think writing in general, and fanfic in particular, offers us enough scope to allow us to write in whatever style suits us best - and, best of all, offers readers plenty of variety.


Wendy

Wow - this thread is all over the place. However, I'll stick to one small part of it.

Personally, I think a lot, but don't verbalize it very much at all. Which has led to more "disagreements" with my wife than I care to admit to. I'm a worrier. All day long, my mind is chewing on all kinds of things. How long is our tired, vernerable mini-van going to last? Where will I find the money to replace it if it decides to go belly-up? How do I teach my youngest one to quit being such a drama-queen? Is my oldest one ever going to be able to overcome her Sensory Integration problems enough to live a "normal" life, or will I have to be her filter and buffer her whole life? How much money is left in the checking account, and how many days till pay day? <THAT MANY?! - worry - worry - worry...> My wife's birthday is coming up, and she keeps telling me I don't need to get her anything, but I know from past experience, I'd better get her something... The laundry basket looked like it was getting a bit full, but it's only the middle of the week - could we really have filled it that quickly? What in the world are we going to eat for supper tonight since we have X number of places to be in Y number of hours, not counting homework, getting the kids a bath and a snack, spending SOME quality time with them...

It's just a constant running commentary in the background. Yes, I spend a lot of time trying to find solutions to things I think of as "problems." Right or wrong, my thinking is, "I'm the man of the household. I'm supposed to be the provider and problem solver. I'm supposed to be the one who knows what to do."

Since I don't verbalize it much - if any - my wife often thinks I don't think about anything but my work, and when the next meal is.


Anyway - probably more than I should have said, but once I got to typing, I couldn't stop.

This is interesting, because my theory about my brother is that his whole approach to life is based on problem-solving. This includes finding a partner, keeping said partner, and, dare I say it, even finding a way to love said partner.

Yvonne
(fervently hoping that her brother never does a google search on her name and finds this post!)