Tag: writing fiction

Writing Research Notes: Bipolar

March 21st, 2026
Photo by Total Shape on Pexels.com

This post was published on Tumblr on September 20, 2024

I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age 19 and had a psychotic episode at age 21, so I’d like to say I know a bit about what I’m talking about. And I’m a writer! So today, I’d like to provide some facts about bipolar as a jumping-off point for your research.

This is just my opinion as someone who has lived with bipolar for a long time. Everyone experiences bipolar a bit differently, so not everything I mention will apply to everyone, and my own story may not reflect every single bipolar person. With that disclaimer, let’s go.

⤝❖⤞

Types of Bipolar Disorder

Photo by Yan Krukau on Pexels.com

Bipolar is typically separated into two types. What kind you have depends on your predisposition to either extreme: mania or depression.

Bipolar 1

People with Bipolar 1 tend to have more severe manic episodes and less severe depressive episodes. They are more predisposed to experience psychotic episodes, though psychosis can happen in Bipolar 2 as well. Bipolar 1 patients may only have very brief depressive episodes or they may only experience their “baseline” and mania. (As an aside, I have Bipolar 1.)

⤝❖⤞

Bipolar 2

People with Bipolar 2 lean more toward depressive episodes. They may experience hypomania, which is a less severe form of mania, but their primary symptom will be depression.

It’s important to note that while many say Bipolar 1 is more severe because of the manic episodes and risk of psychosis, this does not discount the extreme suffering that can result from Bipolar 2. Patients with Bipolar 2 have just as many struggles as Bipolar 1 patients.

⤝❖⤞

Phases of Bipolar

Photo by Alex Andrews on Pexels.com

Depression

This works much the same as the typical depression that people with Major Depressive Disorder experience, but bipolar patients may be more agitated, self-destructive, and aggressive when depressed.

⤝❖⤞

Hypomania

This is the “less severe” version of mania. This is demonstrated by DIG-FAST: distractibility, impulsivity, grandiosity, flight of ideas, activity increases, sleeplessness, and talkativeness. These happen in full mania too, but to a greater extent.

⤝❖⤞

Mania

A more severe, destructive version of hypomania: everything is dialed up to 11. People may become hypersexual, spend money they don’t have, destroy relationships, make inappropriate comments at work, or even fly into destructive rages.

Mania can be terrifying, both for the sufferer and for those around them. You can be so extremely happy that it’s almost painful, or so angry that you feel like you’re going to tear your own skin off.

⤝❖⤞

Psychosis

This typically is the “end result” of mania which happens to about 50% of people experiencing a manic episode. It is typified by delusions and hallucinations. We’ll discuss these a bit more later.

Contrary to popular belief, psychotic hallucinations are typically auditory, not visual, though visual hallucinations can occur as well. Other strange and less common hallucinations include olfactory (smelling things that aren’t there), gustatory (tasting things that aren’t there), or sensory (feeling people touching you).

⤝❖⤞

Euthymia

This is the normal, calm state in between depressive and manic episodes, where one has a sense of well-being and stability. It is the goal of therapy and medication management.

However, experiencing euthymia doesn’t mean that the bipolar disorder is gone: it just means that it is in remission. Bipolar patients must always be on alert for warning signs of mania and be active participants in their own care.

⤝❖⤞

Warning Signs of Mania

Photo by zhang kaiyv on Pexels.com

Manic episodes often come with prodomes, symptoms that appear before full-blown mania.

Bipolar patients and their families should be on alert for these warning signs and, if they continue to occur for more than a week or so, schedule an appointment with the patient’s psychiatrist to see if they need a higher medication dosage.

Here are some common signs that happen before full-blown mania:

Feeling either really great or really terrible for no reason. Sometimes you can feel really great and really terrible at the same time. It’s a very weird feeling.

Functioning well on little sleep for days on end. Not just one sleepless night, but being able to go to work and function on like 4 hours of sleep night after night.

Increased or decreased appetite. Either you hate food or it’s the most important thing in your life. Can fluctuate day by day.

Increased productivity. You’re getting soooo much done and so quickly! (It probably sucks but we’ll put that aside for now.) You just want to work on your passion projects constantly.

Sudden interest in multiple new hobbies all at once, and throwing yourself into them with such passion that it’s scary.

Weird physical symptoms. You may find yourself locked into a position and not want to move, or your skin may feel odd, like it’s too tight or prickly.

Sudden bouts of tinnitus. It sounds really weird, but it’s been proven to be a sign of impending mania along with the skin symptoms I mentioned before.

Your eyes look different. Your pupils are always dilated.

Not everyone will get all of these, but most people will have at least one trigger that happens to them every time before a manic episode. For me, it was hypergraphia (because of course it was).

⤝❖⤞

Symptoms of Mania

Photo by Paul Lichtblau on Pexels.com

Not all of these symptoms will happen to everyone, and every manic episode can be a little different. It all really depends on who you are. Now, I must say that anyone, bipolar or not, can have these symptoms. It is the intensity of them that defines mania.

Being physically incapable of sleeping.

It’s not insomnia like normal people experience, where you pop a melatonin or do some breathing exercises and manage to fall asleep. You cannot fall asleep.

Becoming extremely focused on random things, projects, and subjects.

For me, it was cleaning the house: I started throwing out old photos that I thought we didn’t need because I didn’t want any clutter. I would sweep the floor for hours at a time.

I also got really obsessed with Neolithic Scotland of all things. Now I can’t even remember half the shit I learned.

Hypersexuality, overspending, and kleptomania.

Unintentional pregnancies, STDs, and a whole lot of bad feelings can come from this.

Many people will go into extreme debt because of their mania, especially if they don’t have family support.

Other bipolar people feel an uncontrollable urge to steal things they didn’t even need to: they could afford it, they just wanted the thrill of stealing it.

Worsening of any addictions or developing new addictions.

Especially seen in gambling addictions because, well, you already want to spend a lot of money and it’s an extreme dopamine hit.

Sudden and intense aggression or emotional volatility.

Normally calm and relaxed people will go off the deep end about pretty much anything: screaming, throwing things, and then bursting into tears out of guilt.

Feeling invincible, or terrified of everything.

Manic people are convinced that nothing bad could ever happen to them and they can do whatever they want. Think of someone running into traffic, sure that no one will hit them.

On the other hand, others became terrified of random things or situations that never bothered them before. This can happen to the same person, sometimes simultaneously. You may believe everything is a threat, even when there is no clear and obvious threat.

Talking extremely fast and in an extremely disconnected way.

This is called flight of ideas; you start jumping from one discussion to another in ways that other people can’t follow. Your brain has made that leap but can’t articulate it for other people.

Shiny eyes.

You really can see mania in the eyes; it’s very unsettling. Manic eyes look dark, wide, and shimmery.

Mania can cause amnesia afterward, and the person may not remember large swathes of what happened, or it will feel “dream-like” and confusing. Of course, they’ve got some major damage control to do that can plummet them into depression.

⤝❖⤞

Symptoms of Psychosis

Photo by photoGraph on Pexels.com

Again, just like with mania, not everyone will experience all of these. If a person has multiple psychotic episodes, each one may be a bit different every time.

I’m going to separate this into several sections: common delusions, common hallucinations, and Other symptoms (which are often not discussed as much).

⤝❖⤞

Common Delusions

Delusions can shift throughout the course of a psychotic episode, seamlessly morphing from one to another without clear cause.

With psychoanalysis, one can often find that there are “seeds” of a delusion in the person’s everyday life, and they may be connected to current events. For example, someone may think they’re the reincarnation of a previous president during a presidential election.

Grandiosity
- Being god or a reincarnation of a famous person
- A belief that they have found the “key” to the universe and that everything is connected by some vast conspiracy
- Having some special role to play or a special status
- Being a member of a special community
- Having special knowledge or insight into issues, like world affairs
- Being ageless, immortal, or invincible
- Having a special connection with a celebrity, famous person, fictional character, people you know, or even strangers
Paranoia
- Being surveilled by a government entity, sometimes with the belief that they have had tracking devices installed without their consent
- Being stalked, harassed, or tormented by unknown entities or by strangers (gang-stalking)
- Being persecuted for a certain identity
- Being ill with another disease, like cancer or dementia
- A sense that loved ones have been replaced with clones or copies
- Believing that there is a secret “play” going on and other people are playing along with a secret “script”
- Believing other people can hear your thoughts, or that you can hear theirs
- A sense that a person’s face is not their “real” face and they are wearing a mask
⤝❖⤞

Common Hallucinations

Auditory
- Repeating noises, words, or phrases in distinct voices
- Spectral, unhearable music
- Nonexistent environmental noises, like train whistles or construction sounds
- “Ear worms” that loop for days or weeks
- Humming, whirring, or ringing
Visual
- Mutated or blurry faces, even of people you know well
- Haloes, auras, sparkles, flashes, and black spots
- Colorful lights, ribbons, or strings
- Seeing people you know who could not feasibly be there, like old coworkers, old partners, or deceased relatives
- Vague blurry shapes, or distinct monster-like entities
- Strangely shaped or mutated animals or people
- “String people,” “stick people,” or “void people”
- Shadows and skittering bugs, rodents, or snakes, often black or blurry
Tactile
- Bugs or small creatures crawling on the skin
- Itchiness or grittiness on the skin
- Light feathery touches along the skin, especially on the back or hands
- Goosebumps with no clear cause that don’t go away
- Sense that the mouth is full when nothing is there
- Prickly tongue
Gustatory
- Bad smells, like feces, garbage, body odor, or burning plastic
- Good smells, often those from childhood
- Losing sense of smell or taste
- Metallic taste (may be a medication side effect)
⤝❖⤞

Other Symptoms
- Muscle stiffness
- Catatonia
- Slurred or fast speech
- Lack of appetite
- Weight loss
- Migraines
- Parkinsonian symptoms (tremors)
⤝❖⤞

How Bipolar Is Treated

Photo by Karolina Grabowska http://www.kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

Bipolar is treated in a few ways, with the most important and prominent being medication.

Medication

Bipolar is typically treated with mood stabilizers, which is a vague class that includes anticonvulsants, SSRIs, SNRIs, and other groups of medications. (The medication I use, Lamictal, is an anticonvulsant.)

Psychiatrists must be very careful when prescribing antidepressants for Bipolar I patients because too much can bring on mania. Bipolar 1 patients will often have an antipsychotic added to their regimen as well. There are new classes of drugs that combine antidepressants with antipsychotics for a one-and-done deal.

Bipolar patients may also have antianxiety medications added to their regimen.

Psychosis is a medical emergency and must be treated as soon as possible. Fast-acting antipsychotics can be injected in the emergency room to stablize a psychotic patient. They may also use tranquilizers to calm a paranoid or combative patient.

Like with schizophrenia, patients who are not medication-compliant may opt for a long-lasting antipsychotic injection that only needs to be done once a month or once every three months.

⤝❖⤞

Therapy

Photo by Alex Green on Pexels.com

A history of trauma is one of the things that predisposes a person to bipolar disorder, so working on this can help reduce symptoms. EMDR therapy can be a safe and effective way to process trauma for bipolar patients.

However, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) doesn’t work very well for bipolar patients because, well, their cognitive distortions are brought about by chemical changes in the brain, not just seeing the world “wrong.”

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy is a better choice for bipolar patients because it helps them become more aware of their thoughts and, therefore, better able to manage their emotions.

Other options include equine-assisted therapy (my favorite!), art therapy, and family therapy to help build a stronger support system.

⤝❖⤞

Lifestyle Changes

All the stuff that helps “normal” people can help bipolar patients, too. For example, having a set routine, eating well, setting and keeping a bedtime, getting exercise, and eating well are all crucial for managing bipolar, in addition to medication and therapy.

⤝❖⤞

Common Myths About Bipolar

Photo by SHVETS production on Pexels.com

Bipolar people are dangerous and never get better.

Not necessarily true, though common media depictions show this as if all bipolar people are roving murderers.

In fact, bipolar people are more likely to kill themselves than anyone else: it has the highest suicide rate of any psychiatric illness, about 20 to 30 times more than the general population.

Bipolar comes with other issues, like executive dysfunction, that cannot always be managed or treated. BUT bipolar people very much can become stable and mostly asymptomatic with the right treatment.

A caveat, though. Even if you are in remission, you still have bipolar disorder and can relapse at any time. It is a brain dysfunction that causes measurable structural differences in the brain which do not go away.

Medication is a crutch and bipolar people can get better by themselves.

Wrong. Just like someone doesn’t magically get better from Type I Diabetes without treatment, bipolar people need medication.

Again, just like someone with Type I diabetes, you can’t just will the bipolar away. It is a chronic illness with genetic, epigenetic, and lifestyle factors. You need treatment.

Medication turns bipolar people into emotionless zombies.

Incorrect, with a caveat. The wrong dosage or type of medication very much can make someone into a zombie; I’ve certainly felt that way before. However, the correct treatment allows bipolar people to thrive and stay stable for years to come.

Once you snap out of psychosis/mania, you’re right back to normal.

Wrong. You don’t just wake up and are not psychotic anymore. It takes time for your brain to equalize and come back to baseline. I remember it as feeling like I was rising out of a long, long sleep.

Mania or depression causes brain changes that can last years after the episode. On average, the brain damage from mania exists for up to seven years after the last episode, and it worsens with each subsequent episode.

Any fluctuation in mood is a symptom of bipolar.

This is so, so, so annoying. Bipolar people are allowed to have bad days just like anyone else. If I’m having a shitty day but I’m not throwing phones at people, then I’m probably just having a bad day. If I’m really happy, it doesn’t mean I’m manic.

Bipolar people can’t help it and shouldn’t be punished for their actions.

What I like to say is that my bipolar doesn’t excuse my behavior, but it does explain it. Never use it as an excuse to be an asshole.

Everything about bipolar is terrible.

Wrong! Bipolar can have benefits like creativity, empathy, good problem-solving, and a unique perspective on life. A stable bipolar person can be a delight to be around. But these don’t discount the downsides and should not be a reason to refuse treatment.

⤝❖⤞

How to Create an Authentic Bipolar Character

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Do your research.

Read a mixture of medical journals, stories from bipolar people, and good depictions of bipolar disorder in the media. Go beyond what I have discussed here and seek out good, peer-reviewed research.

Create the character first, then add the bipolar.

Don’t add bipolar just for the shock value. This is annoying.

Every bipolar person is different, just like every person is different. Get a feel for your character and then determine how they might act when manic or depressed.

Use an array of symptoms.

Don’t just go for “ooooh scary monster in the corner of my eye” because that’s boring and overdone. Look through the list I provided and consider how you can fit a few of them in there.

Remember that it takes time to recover from an episode.

You should not just have your character wake up one day and be cured. They will feel “off” for a while after an episode, like a very very long hangover.

Consider medication symptoms.

Decide what medication they will use and then look up the symptoms. Demonstrate how this makes them feel and whether it makes them want to continue treatment.

Think about how a character feels about their bipolar.

Some people don’t think it’s a problem because they like the energy, and others are terrified of relapsing. Some see it as a challenge to be overcome, and others find it to be a burden that they want to be rid of. And many will feel all of these at different times.

Show the impact on other characters.

Remember that your other characters are seeing and reacting to this. They may be terrified, frustrated, hurt, dismissive, or not want to deal with it.

Demonstrate times of stability, too.

Too many people use bipolar as an “ooooh soo sad” (especially psychosis) and don’t show the character just being a normal human being.

Show the ableism bipolar people face.

Yes, we do face ableism. People calling us crazy, denying us medical care, passing us up for jobs, or my very least favorite, “have you taken your meds today?”

Remember that many people are not medication compliant.

Medication compliance is one of the number one indicators of whether a person will stay stable long term. If your character refuses to take their medication, then they are more likely to relapse.

People have many reasons for not accepting treatment: they don’t like the way it feels, they’re embarrassed, they don’t see it as a problem, or they can’t afford it (some of these meds can be hundreds of dollars a month even with insurance). So make sure to explain why they are medication non-compliant.

And that’s about it. I hope you learned something that will help you create more realistic (and compassionate) fiction.
How To Write Strong Female Characters

March 18th, 2026
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

This post was originally posted on Tumblr on August 27, 2024.

Let’s get right into it without any preamble. Here are the main points we will be discussing:
- Trauma is not a stand-in for a personality.
- Strong does not always mean argumentative and/or stoic.
- Strong female characters do not necessarily have to be warriors or powerful leaders.
- Expertise can make strength.
- Even tough characters have moments of weakness.
- Being emotional does not negate strength.
- Give each strong female character a secret goal that gets in the way.
As usual, this is my opinion, I’m not the absolute source of writing information, you’re free to disagree, etc etc. Okay. Let’s go.

⤝❖⤞

What do I mean by “strong female character?”

When I say “strong female character,” I do not necessarily mean warrior badass. Instead, I’m talking about female characters who can hold a narrative on their own; who are not mere background pieces for a man, but who are fully-fledged and interesting people on their own.

These are characters that we love and think about fondly, no matter what genre they come from. They are not simple walking tropes, but interesting individuals who we want to understand and explore across a series.

My own beloved female character, Cerie Korviridi, is a strong woman who only grows more powerful over the series. We watch her grow into her own, and it’s all due to these simple tips.

⤝❖⤞

Trauma is not a stand-in for personality.

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

This happens with male characters too, but it seems to be an absolute curse when it comes to female characters. A lot of writers think that we’ll magically know a character is ~tough~ and ~resilient~ by telling us that they were abused as a child or having them be sexually assaulted on the page.

In all reality, trauma can blunt your personality. A lot (but not all) of people who were abused, especially as children, become numb and quiet and withdrawn. They lose personality, not gain it. There are so many people who just walk around in a daze because they haven’t processed their trauma, and it makes them less interesting as characters because … they’re not feeling or doing anything. (Again, not all, but some, or even many.)

I recently started a book that I gave up on because the author literally did a flashback just to show the female character being raped. Like, that was supposed to really do something for us. It was supposed to show us her character or something.

Well, it didn’t do anything but tell me that the author really wanted to write a rape scene. How am I supposed to take you, or the character, or the book seriously if you have to shove my face in it like “LOOK! There’s her personality!! Traumatized girl!! Feel bad for her!”

Some of the best books I have read with female characters who have gone through trauma don’t show it. Like at all. We feel their pain as aftershocks; we know it happened; but we’re seeing them for themselves, not for the horrible things that happened to them. This way, we understand how it informed their personality, but the trauma itself is not serving as the personality. It is serving as an explanation for why they are the way they are.

This takes more work, yes, but that’s the point: you can’t just lean on the trauma as a crutch. You have to create a personality and then twist it, or at least color it with what happened to them.

You’re totally free to give your character trauma. You’re free to discuss uncomfortable topics; in fact, if you’re comfortable with doing so, you should, in order to give better awareness to the topic. But you have to ask yourself if it’s actually necessary to show us the blood and guts on-page. Does it really do much for the character development to grab your reader by the face and make them watch?

My typical ethos (and again this is just my opinion) is that past character trauma does not need to be shown in flashbacks, but current character trauma can certainly happen on-page if you feel it’s necessary. This is especially true if we have already come to like the character; then we feel bad for them and we know they already have a personality.

If you’re going into flashbacks to show us fucked-up things that don’t necessarily have anything to do with the current plot, maybe you should ask yourself why you want to do that.

⤝❖⤞

Strong does not always mean argumentative and/or stoic.

Photo by Afif Ramdhasuma on Pexels.com

One of my very favorite female characters I have ever written, Asari, is the gentlest, sweetest lady ever. I don’t think I ever had her yell at anyone during the time that I wrote her, even in the worst situations.

She isn’t stoic, nor is she bold and brash; her strength comes from her calm. Asari exudes this commanding energy without raising her voice, nor does she hide her feelings.

In the same vein, one of my favorite female characters is Marta Cabrera from Knives Out. Why do I like her and consider her a strong female character? Because she’s nice but not a pushover. She’s excellent at her job (something I’ll discuss in a minute) and genuinely cares about people, and that’s why she prevails.

Marta does the right thing even when it would screw her over; yes, she fucks up and gets scared sometimes, but when it matters most, she follows her heart.

Kindness and softness can be its own kind of power, even if it’s not necessarily a cool and flashy kind. There are many different kinds of strength, even if we generally only see certain kinds depicted in media.

It takes strength to be kind in this cruel, fucked-up world. Stoic unemotional people are taking the easy way out by numbing their feelings and refusing to connect with others, and it makes them feel flat and uninteresting. The most interesting female characters are those that truly, deeply care about others.

You can make an interesting, complex, and enjoyable female character that people want to root for without making them loudmouth badasses.

⤝❖⤞

Strong female characters do not necessarily need to be warriors or powerful leaders.

Photo by Fernanda Neitzel on Pexels.com

This should be a given but, for some reason, it does not always seem to be the case. Someone thinks “strong female character” and immediately goes “give that lady a sword!”

Sure, you can give the lady a sword. I’m always for beautiful women with swords. But this doesn’t automatically make them a strong female character.

In fact, a lot of the time, Girl With Sword just comes across as a different type of substitution: brute force replaces personality rather than trauma. Someone assumes that just because the girl is hacking through monsters, she’s automatically a good, strong, powerful character, but that’s not true.

Another of my favorite female characters is Temperance Brennan (from the books, not the show). Honestly, they did her so dirty in the Bones: she’s not this cold, stoic badass in the books. In fact, she’s just a normal lady who is really good at her job and who really, really cares about getting answers for things, even when it’s not her job to do so.

In the grand scheme of things, Temperance Brennan isn’t some powerful leader who can change the whole world; she’s solving one crime at a time in different locations around the US and Canada. She’s brilliant in forensic anthropology and can notice clues that no one else does due to her experience and keen eye.

I’d like to challenge you to break the paradigm of the strong female character being the Chosen One, the ultimate badass, the most importantest lady there ever was. Think about how you can make a strong character without just “wow she’s so tough and she’s so fierce and she’s so special.”

⤝❖⤞

Expertise can make strength.

Photo by Artem Podrez on Pexels.com

This one is more challenging because it requires you to become an expert in what you’re talking about, and to balance that expertise with creating interesting characters.

The Temperance Brennan books are so great because Dr. Kathy Reichs herself is actually a forensic anthropologist. An incredible forensic anthropologist who testified before the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal about the Rwandan genocide and who helped identify victims at the World Trade Center. She’s a truly awe-inspiring woman and a damn good writer.

Dr. Reichs’ experience infuses the entire series with this sense of gravitas. You can feel that she knows what she’s doing, and that, by extension, Temperance Brennan knows what she’s doing. This, in addition to having a well-rounded personality, makes Temperance a great character because we understand that she worked very hard to get to where she is: she had to face a lot of challenges and setbacks to become such an expert.

One reason that this creates a strong female character is because to become good at anything, you need to believe in yourself, at least a little. You have to have persistence and not give up when shit gets hard; plus, you have to be very passionate about what you’re doing or, again, you’ll just give up.

Having authority in any field creates strength that you can lean on, and it also presupposes certain character traits that got your character to where they are right now.

A character that has an earned accomplishment, not just a Chosen One, is going to have some heft to them by dint of knowing shit. Of course, you need to give you some other traits, too; they could be shy but brilliant, and they had to overcome some of their shyness to get where they are. Or they could be really lazy but they were so curious about this one singular thing that it consumed them. That makes for interesting characters.

If you don’t have any special expertise, that’s okay: it just means that if you want to create a strong character based on their experience, you need to do some research and talk to people who know what they’re doing.

⤝❖⤞

Even tough characters have moments of weakness.

Photo by Raphael Brasileiro on Pexels.com

A pitfall that many writers fall into is thinking that their characters have to be strong all the damn time and can never cry, get upset, yell, have a little freakout moment.

The strongest woman I know is my mother. She survived 20 years of domestic violence and went on to get two Master’s degrees in her 50s while working full-time, and she’s now doing a PhD program in Death Studies. In her work, she has helped some of the largest companies in the world implement enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, which I can’t even explain to you how it works frankly.

Truly a very accomplished woman, and my absolute inspiration. However, she certainly has her bad moments. Of course she does – she’s a human being! When our family dog died, she was an inconsolable wreck, as were all of us. I’ve seen her ranting about the dumbest things, and she’s a total baby about any form of physical pain.

This does not make her any less of a strong person, nor does it make me respect her less. In fact, it makes me remember that she is very accomplished and strong despite having all the same stupid human temptations that we all do.

Characters aren’t people, but we want them to feel like people. That means letting them have a little cry once in a while, or screw up, or say something stupid and regret it. It doesn’t make them weak; it makes them complex.

⤝❖⤞

Being emotional does not negate strength.

Photo by Kate on Pexels.com

Let us look at the ultimate magical girl: Sailor Moon. Usagi Tsukino is the archetype Cancerian who cries about fucking everything. She’s such a big disaster baby, but she’s also a very strong female character, and part of the reason she’s a strong female character is because she is a big disaster baby.

Usagi shows that you can feel deeply without it making you a lesser person; in fact, part of the reason that she’s so tough is because she channels her energy into her magical persona.

All of the Sailor Scouts are quite emotional in their own way, which makes sense because, you know, they’re teenagers. They get upset and cry, or yell at each other and have fights, but it doesn’t get in the way of what they need to do.

We like Usagi and root for her because she puts her whole heart out there and doesn’t pretend that she doesn’t have feelings. She just oozes emotion all the time, and part of her journey is learning how to make her emotions work for her rather than the other way around.

It’s not necessary to make your female characters stoic, empty, and unaffectionate. They can be loving and kind without it detracting from their power.

As I have said before in other posts, people read fiction to feel things. Even if we don’t necessarily admire or enjoy a certain character, we’re going to have strong feelings about them if they show emotions. This is because human beings have mirror neurons that become activated when we see emotions. Characters feeling things makes us feel things. That develops a bond with them and, when combined with other character elements, makes for memorable characters.

⤝❖⤞

Give each strong female character a secret goal that gets in the way.

Photo by Engin Akyurt on Pexels.com

Typically, a character’s goal, especially if they are the MC, is obvious and straightforward. They want to save the world, or solve a mystery, or get the boy, or whatever. But strong characters often have a secret goal that is at odds with their ultimate quest, and it is this push-pull between their outward goal and their secret inner goal that creates complexity.

The secret inner goal may not even be necessarily known to the character; its mere existence will cause internal strife that leaks out into their actions.

For example, let’s say that we have a typical saving-the-world girl character. Perhaps their side quest is to find love. But what’s their secret goal? Maybe it’s finding a sense of belonging, having been a black sheep as a little girl.

Will saving the world fix that? Probably not, because now she stands alone; she may be loved and revered, but she’s also apart from other people by this brand-new status. She’s accepted yes, but she doesn’t necessarily belong.

Maybe her secret goal is to come to terms with her past. Will saving the world fix that? It could; perhaps it helps her accept that she can’t save everyone, but she can save as many as she can.

Or, perhaps, her secret goal is to feel normal. This is a nebulous term that means different things to different people. Saving the world will probably not make her feel normal, because now she’s a superhuman freak. So here we have her struggling to feel normal when she is decidedly even less normal than before.

Perhaps we see her trying to shape this newly-saved world into something that will make her feel that normalcy, and in doing so, she becomes a tyrant. That’s a fascinating problem to have!

The most satisfying triumphs are the ones where, against all odds, the character manages to get both. In a bittersweet ending, they may achieve the secret goal but fail at the outward goal. It may also be a tragedy if they achieve their outward goal but, in doing so, have to sacrifice the secret goal.

Most importantly, the secret goal needs to be secret. It can’t be outwardly stated because then it’s not a secret goal anymore. By holding it close, you perfume this story with a longing and tugging; you develop internal contradictions that make us wonder what the character is thinking or why they do things that may seem contraindicative to their ultimate goal.

Some possible secret goals include:
- Having a family (whatever that means to the character)
- Feeling wanted
- Feeling normal
- Feeling adequate
- Developing self-love
- Overcoming imposter syndrome
- Getting revenge for a past slight
- Living up to expectations
- Forgiving themselves for past mistakes
- Honoring someone’s memory
- Paying back a previous kindness
- Healing old wounds
That’s about it. Again, these are all my opinions based on my experience. I’m not telling you how to write your book or saying you can’t do anything.
The Writer-Psychologist: Literature as Therapy

March 14th, 2026

I often joke that in a different universe, I’m a psychologist. The human mind in all its permutation has been a persistent fascination throughout my life, perhaps because I have bipolar disorder and have spent a lot of time in therapy. Understanding my mind isn’t just an idle curiosity, but a necessity if I am to remain well.

As such, it should come as no surprise that I am also fascinated by what my work reveals about me. I don’t just think about what themes I place in my books, but also why I do so. Sometimes I’m not sure, but many times, I’m perfectly aware – and helpless to stop doing that.

Writing has been very therapeutic for me, and I doubt I’d be as healthy as I am without it. You have likely noticed the same thing in yourself, which means you can use this insight for self-improvement.

I will note that this is a more personal post than others; after all, I can’t very well discuss the therapeutic benefits of writing without sharing some of what it has done for me. But I still believe you’ll gain some benefit from reading it and that it may resonate with you.

Let’s examine some ways that writing can serve as its own form of therapy, especially around untangling our subconscious. By doing so, we can make fresher and more enticing work that remains true to our unique voice.

⤝❖⤞

The themes in our work often reveal past experiences that we have struggled to overcome.

Photo by Luca Nardone on Pexels.com

As I mentioned in an Authoriview post, I have multiple characters almost drown in my books because I myself almost drowned when I was younger – and a friend of mine actually did drown around that same time. I’ve wrestled on and off with survivor’s guilt because of this; it feels very unfair that I lived while she died. I’m glad I did, of course, but I can’t help but feel that our fates were switched somehow, and I’m living the life she should have had.

I firmly believe that if something continually crops up in your work – a scenario, a theme, an idea – that’s something your subconscious wants to work through. Maybe you have multiple characters get betrayed by someone they love, or several people fall off cliffs, and so on.

Was this something you experienced before? Perhaps it’s time to go to therapy and work through that so that you can stop repeating that theme in your work. This will allow you to move on and find new themes to discuss, keeping your writing from getting repetitive.

⤝❖⤞

We don’t write just what we know, but also what we want to know.

Photo by Git Stephen Gitau on Pexels.com

Most of my works focus not on finding a partner, but keeping one. Yes, we see Uileac and Orrinir get together, but this is only a tiny part of their entire character arc, while the rest of it is an established relationship.

It probably doesn’t shock you, then, to hear that I have been single for most of my adult life. Sure, I’ve had my flings here and there, but nothing as enduring as what these two characters share.

For many people, writing is wish fulfillment; that’s why we have the entire trope of Mary Sues. If we did not crave power, beauty, or inner strength, then we wouldn’t want so badly to make our characters reflect this.

I believe that our characters are primarily a combination of what we have and what we want. We write perspectives we can understand, but we also provide those characters with the tools and benefits that we might lack, that we believe will help us reach those statuses.

What do your characters always have that you don’t? Is it a close circle of loved ones, a biting wit, an ethereal beauty? Of course, it might not be possible to achieve those things, but what if you could use your characters as an action plan to close the gap between what you have and what you want?

⤝❖⤞

We may also use our stories to explore questions whose answers have evaded us.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Later on in the Eirenic Verses, I have a sociopath character. Daiski Aina, bastard son of the Sinan royal family, has no conscience. He does whatever he wants without concern for how it may hurt others; there’s a reptilian quality about him. This is especially evident in his eyes, which I repeatedly discuss as being dark and soulless.

Sociopaths have a particular look about their eyes, as I know well. There’s a vacancy behind them, especially when they’re angry. Something’s missing there, a quality we can’t quite define except by its absence.

Some readers may scoff at the “simplicity” of a sociopath character. After all, isn’t that the true definition of evil: to have no conscience or empathy? I don’t think it’s quite that simple, though.

Much as people may want to ignore it, about 4% of the Western population are sociopaths. Daiski works as a character because he is very real. You’ve met someone like him, even if you don’t know it.

I was raised by a sociopath, as I mention in my birthday post about Funeral of Hopes. This has something I have struggled with throughout my life because no matter how hard I try to understand, I simply cannot comprehend why someone would so easily hurt others and feel no remorse. I can’t understand how someone could batter their own flesh and blood without blinking.

Reading the book The Sociopath Next Door provided me significant relief and insight, but I continue to wrestle with the concept of sociopathy. Every time I stop to let a deer cross the road, or offer to help with something even though I don’t want to, or listen to someone prattle on about something I don’t care about to be nice, I wonder what it would feel like to not have that urge.

It’s a chilling thought as someone who prides herself on empathy. And I can’t help but consider what quirk of fate allowed me to develop this quality despite having some of the genetic markers that would create sociopathy.

Your existential squabbles may not be so visceral or evident, but I’m sure they’re there somewhere.

What’s a question that you constantly return to in each of your works? Is it the nature of evil, the possibility of impossible bargains, the concept of fate? Have you gained deeper insight by exploring this, or has it only frustrated you more?

⤝❖⤞

Each of our characters’ flaws represents one of our shadow sides.

Photo by Mumtahina Tanni on Pexels.com

Everyone, whether they like it or not, has a dark side. I’m not saying you’re evil, nor that you may have any propensity to violence; don’t think I believe your fiction makes you a bad person. (I’ll discuss that more in a minute.)

Rather, I adhere to Stephen King’s principle of characterization: that our characters’ flaws and mistakes mirror one of our personal weaknesses. King said candidly that The Shining reflected his struggle with alcoholism and the demon it unleashes in him, albeit with a supernatural twist.

All my characters have something I don’t like about myself. I’ve said before that Uileac Korviridi is most like me because of his temperamental nature, but I’ve revised that: I think Cerie is.

Her holier-than-though attitude and rigid thinking most closely parallels my own downfall, which is that I really struggle to accept differing opinions because I’m so convinced that I’m right. I’m an extremely judgmental person, much as I try not to be. Everything has to be how I want it, or it’s bad; others who don’t think like me must be wrong.

This isn’t unusal for a bipolar person. Black-and-white thinking is one of our most glaring cognitive distortions, and it also reflects childhood trauma. I’m stuck in a lower developmental stage, even as I try to unglue myself from these preconceptions. I can see others’ perspectives and recognize why they may think that way, but I can’t stop my knee-jerk reaction to judge them as wrong.

But depicting this isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it makes your characters more relatable because others also struggle with these problems. A genuine flaw allows your characters to make realistic mistakes and exert pressure on the plot that moves it forward, all without resorting to idiot plots.

Pursuing this to its natural end can reveal opportunities for you to grow in real life by considering the negative impacts of your character flaws – and workshopping solutions.

⤝❖⤞

We can explore the grotesque.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Part of the reason I don’t think our writing necessarily reflects our proclivity for evil is because, well, I’m not an evil person. I feel bad about killing gnats. You’re not going to find me torturing anyone any time soon.

But I torture my characters a lot. In What Is Cannot Be Unwritten, Mordrek undergoes a horrific interrogation where he actually pisses himself. Cerie eventually gets her fingernails ripped out, like all High Poets, and I show this in vivid technicolor. There are other pretty grotesque scenes throughout the series.

And no, I don’t provide trigger warnings for any of these. My readers are adults, and I trust them to stop reading if something is too uncomfortable for them.

But why do I write such disturbing things? Am I sadist who gets off on these scenes?

No. I don’t feel any different about writing torture than I do about any other scene. Sometimes it makes me wince or grimace, but I don’t go to sleep at night cringing – or feeling particularly satisfied.

The reason I write so many disturbing things is because I know such disturbing things exist in real life. People do get tortured like that. People die in awful ways. It is senseless, evil, and unfair.

I am not going to be one of those people who says, “Life is hard. Suck it up, buttercup.” But I’m also not going to be one of those people who thinks that fiction should be all sunshine and rainbows and happy endings.

Fiction is a safe way to conceptualize the horrible – to accept that it exists and that, unfortunately, we can’t stop it all. The best we can do, at times, is refusing to look away.

⤝❖⤞

Fiction enables us to safely release painful experiences.

Photo by SLAYTINA on Pexels.com

In the book Happy Death Club, Westerman notes that trauma survivors are often drawn to horror because it allows us to relieve those painful feelings in a safe way. This has been proven, time and time again, in my writing.

I write so much about mutilation because I self-harmed for about a decade. I have a deep burn on my wrist from over 15 years ago that will probably be on my body, in some capacity, forever.

When my characters are branded, burned, or cut, I am drawing from my own experiences of doing the same thing. That’s why those scenes feel real in a way that some authors can’t quite pull off.

Of course, I would never, ever encourage you to do that to yourself in hopes of making your writing more visceral. The myth of the martyr-artist extends to self-harm, too.

One might think that someone who has done this to herself wouldn’t want to relive it, but the opposite is true. When I think of relapsing, I write a torture scene, and then I never want to do it again.

Through branding, burning, and cutting characters, I am able to channel those urges in a safe way. Perhaps not very safe for my readers, but it definitely reduces my desire to relapse.

I remember, viscerally, both the pain and the extreme endorphin rush that made me feel sick. So I don’t feel the need to do it in real life anymore.

⤝❖⤞

Writing is a way to rewrite the past and build a better future.

Photo by Alena Koval on Pexels.com

One of the most powerful aspects of writing is that it allows us to re-explore things that happened to us and, in a way, retell them to better fit our desires. This is something that is common in the therapeutic process as well.

People often don’t realize that each time we remember something, we rewrite it. The more we recall a period in our lives, the more permeable it comes and the more likely it is to be overlaid by new experiences.

Our reflections become colored with our current cognitive state, just like Tame Impala sings in “Lost in Yesterday:” eventually terrible memories turn into great ones.

This is often an unconscious process, but you can make it a conscious one, as I have throughout my writing career.

If something bad happened to you in the past with a non-optimal outcome, you can change that in a story you write. For example, I was bullied as a child, but I never stood up for myself. In 9 Years Yearning, Uileac gets bullied by Paint, but instead of lying down and taking it, he whips out a sword and attacks his attackers. Said bullies then get dressed down in front of the whole school for breaking the codes of valor. How absolutely cathartic, yet plot-appropriate!

⤝❖⤞

Writing is not a substitute for professional support in working through your problems. A good therapist can be invaluable for your healing journey and provide an objective perspective on your cognitive distortions. But writing can be a powerful adjunct to professional guidance, letting you process those insights on your own time.

I have benefited tremendously from my writing. To my greatest pleasure, readers have reached out to discuss how my work has helped them, too. I think you’ll find that in baring your soul to others, you can serve as a mirror for their problems, accelerating the social healing process for everyone who comes across your books.
Writing Sibling Relationships in Fiction

January 31st, 2026

Photo by nappy on Pexels.com

Sibling bonds are sadly underrepresented in most genres, something I aimed to fix in the Eirenic Verses. Cerie and Uileac’s bond isn’t idle window dressing but one of the most important connections in the series; multiple of the books hinge upon this relationship.

My brother and I are very close, so it just felt natural to me that I write about siblings. In fact, I couldn’t imagine not exploring how important family is to me, something I wish others would do, too.

I wouldn’t say that Cerie and Uileac have the same relationship as I do with my own brother, even though they are big brother and little sister like we are. All my characters are their own people. I may have taken some traits from people I know, but it’s all been blended into such a slurry that no one in the series fully resembles a real-life human – nor are they intended to.

Still, I have taken the essence of the sibling bond I understand and applied it to them, with adjustments based on their personalities and history. This is a difficult thing to do: siblings that are too close may spawn some uncomfortable suggestions, but those who are too distant may not feel authentic. So there’s a careful balance here, which I hope I have achieved.

I’d like to discuss some of what I’ve considered in forming my character relationships so that you can apply them for yourself.

Note that I am primarily talking about adult siblings. My series after 9 Years Yearning involves adults, so I don’t really discuss or explore those childhood periods. And I don’t like kids anyway.

⤝❖⤞

Do not use sexually charged descriptions.

Photo by Moose Photos on Pexels.com

This should be a total duh, but as displayed by the example I gave on perspectives in description, it is not.

I imagine that single-child authors don’t really understand that siblings’ brains are hardwired not to think about our blood relatives in that way, at least if we were raised together. They think about characters in terms of how they personally feel about them rather than how the character himself would.

In that post, I showed how Uileac talks about his little sister. He does mention her body, but it’s about how she looks different than he remembers.

What things should you avoid discussing when having one sibling describe the other? These are a few points.

Descriptions like “busty,” “toned,” “voluptuous,” “fit.” More neutral things like “slim” are okay, but “lithe” may be pushing it.

Any discussion of breasts, at all. But you shouldn’t be talking about those anyway, as I stated in my “men writing women” post.

Lips. People usually only talk about one another’s lips when they want to do something with those lips. Now, you might be able to get away with it if one of the siblings is on the brink of death and their lips are turning blue, or if they have been tortured and their lips are cracked and chapped. But if their lips look normal, don’t discuss them.

Calling one another beautiful or handsome, even if others use this term or demonstrate desire for one of the characters.

Things about their figure. For example, a brother would not discuss his sister having an hourglass figure.

In general, the way siblings talk about one another’s bodies will not be complementary. They are more likely to point out one another’s flaws than to discuss their attractive qualities because, well, their brains sort of edit that out. I will tell you if my brother’s beard is looking scruffy and ugly, and he’ll tell you if I’ve got a pimple.

⤝❖⤞

Be cautious about siblings tending to one another.

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

If you’ve got a grand adventure going on, it’s likely that someone will get hurt, and if the siblings care about one another, they will want to help. But they’re not going to be delicately sobbing and stroking their sibling’s hair. A parent might do that, but probably not a sibling.

In my next book, Absent All Light, I have a scene where Uileac tries to perform CPR on Cerie after she almost drowned. Cerie is revolted by the close proximity and shoves him away, finding this more disgusting than literally anything else she has recently endured.

I, too, would be hysterical with anger if my brother did that to me, even if it saved my life. It’s gross, and Cerie acknowledges that as any sister would.

Anything that would require a sibling to get naked or touch near to erogenous zones is off-limits. For example, washing a little brother would be offloaded onto someone else, such as the brother’s romantic partner or parental figure. The big sister might throw clothes at the brother and tell him to get it done while she retreats.

The presence of others also changes the way things feel. If anything is done that might become over-intimate if described wrong, then have someone else present while it’s happening, who can discharge any uncomfortable tension. For example, a friend or unrelated person – or even a sibling’s love interest – may be there to talk through what’s happening.

We’ve established through the other books that Orrinir and Cerie are very close: more like actual siblings than just in-laws. But, still, they are technically not blood-related, so we need to further clarify that nothing freaky is going on behind the scenes.

In Saint Luridalr and the Peony Phoenix, Cerie’s brother-in-law Orrinir feeds her, and Cerie whines that she can do it herself. This already helps to reduce any potential quasi-incest vibes because if she were into it, she couldn’t be complaining.

This is achieved through light-hearted banter. Orrinir says that if she’s going to act like a baby, she’ll be treated like one, and Uileac threatens to burn all her stuff so she doesn’t get them sick. Uileac’s presence also serves as a moderating force because we know he would step in if things seemed weird.

⤝❖⤞

The greater family dynamic influences how siblings react to one another.

Photo by Emma Bauso on Pexels.com

Whether they mean to or not, many parents play favorites, typically preferring those who are closest to them in personality or interests. This can breed resentment or make one sibling more closely resemble the parent who liked them most.

Later on in the Eirenic Verses, we meet Haniya, who really dislikes both of her siblings. Daiski, the bastard half-brother, is an evil troublemaker, and her sister Marget was the golden child despite not being the heir. It’s clear that both the siblings got more attention than her: either they needed constant management or were fawned over.

Her iciness toward these two works to make her seem both petulant and vulnerable. It also serves as a nice contrast to Uileac and Cerie, showing that being blood related doesn’t always necessarily create a real bond.

However, traumatic events like losing a parent will either bring siblings closer or drive them away.

Uileac, being the oldest, adopted a more paternal role than most big brothers. It’s shown that Cerie was the baby of the family, who was spoiled and showered with care. She was born four years after Uileac, so she was likely a pleasant surprise for their parents, who may have thought they couldn’t have another.

Maybe Uileac resented this specialness before their parents died, but he’s come to absorb his parents’ attitude, perhaps as a way to keep them alive through his actions. Cerie is also his only family member left, so he’s more protective than other big brothers might be.

⤝❖⤞

Sibling relationships have power differentials that may not necessarily reflect birth order.

Photo by JAIRO BEIZA on Pexels.com

When I say “power differentials,” I’m not necessarily talking about status. One person may be a high-powered politician but still feel small and inadequate next to their accountant brother.

This comes back to the original family dynamic. The golden child could be a total fuckup, but they have authority over their other siblings, even if they’ve moved out or their parents have passed away. That sense of superiority remains long after everyone has become their own actualized individuals.

One of my friends has several siblings. They are all older now, and their parents have passed away, but she still talks about them in terms of who was the favorite, who was the black sheep, and who left to forge his own way. Our earliest memories leave a strong imprint and will flavor our relationships for the rest of our lives, even as circumstances change.

These differentials can shift over time, but they will still have a flavor of what we were like as children. If one sibling is very ill, then they will naturally require more attention than everyone else, and this can breed resentment or a sense of paternalism, depending on how old everyone is and how close they were before the illness.

Other times, a child may be saddled with what I call Residual Fuckup Syndrome. Maybe they had a drug addiction, or a mental health crisis, or made some bad financial decisions and needed to be dug out of the hole. But they turned everything around and are now doing well for themselves.

The thing is that our impressions of other people tend to be pretty sticky. Even if we logically know that the person is doing better, we may still treat them with mild condescension because we can’t release that feeling of superiority, pity, or disdain. The sibling’s new reality doesn’t fully penetrate our hearts and minds; they will always be the fuckup, whether they resemble that or not.

This can create some very interesting dynamics between siblings if one experiences significant character growth while the other remains stagnant. There will be a quiet, unspoken tension between the new reality and the old one, which can be played out in numerous subtleties.

⤝❖⤞

How well a sibling fulfills family expectations will influence how well they are treated by others and whether they have more power.

This depends on what the family values and how strongly these expectations are inferred.

If the siblings’ parents really emphasize the importance of having children, any child that gives them grandbabies is going to be favored, no matter how badly their life is going in other ways. If they value education, then the highest-achieving sibling will naturally gain authority over the others.

You don’t have to go into the siblings’ earliest lives and childhood in detail if it’s not important to the plot. Even in 9 Years Yearning, which sees Uileac and Cerie as children, we don’t get a lot of information about who they were before the story begins: just little hints that suggest at deeper themes. However, having a basic idea of who was the favorite, who was the outcast, and who was ignored can give you ideas of how they may relate to each other later on.

⤝❖⤞

External pressures, particularly other relationships, can change sibling bonds.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

For most people, their romantic connections predominate even family connections. As such, two siblings who have partners are going to interact differently than two single ones.

In the first half of the series, Uileac is married while Cerie is single. He continues to act like more her father than an older brother, always fussing over her and protecting her. Cerie presents as the pampered child of him and Orrinir.

Later, though, she gets her own partner, and we see this connection start to become a little more distant. Both of them are occupied nurturing their own relationships. While they still love one another, they don’t spend as much time together and tend to talk about external issues, not internal ones. We understand that they remain close, yet their connection is no longer the primary factor in either of their lives.

Uileac has essentially allowed his surrogate child to grow up, and now he can focus on his marriage more than managing her. In Shadow and Sword, he chooses to go off on a journey without Cerie, though for her benefit. This would have been unthinkable when they were younger, but now he recognizes that she can tackle challenges by herself and instead focuses on what needs to be done elsewhere.

Children also complicate an adult sibling bond. If one sibling has children and the other doesn’t yet (or doesn’t want any), they can no longer perfectly relate to each other: the parent-sibling is going through an experience that their brother or sister can’t understand.

When both have children, then they may commiserate or trade childcare duties, but they won’t have as much time to sit and chat together as they used to. Their focus has shifted to caring for their own children rather than supporting each other.

⤝❖⤞

Sibling banter is an excellent way to show closeness and camaraderie.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

In truth, I had siblings in my series because I simply love the banter that comes from two people who have watched each other grow up: the inside jokes, the fond insults, the exasperation. The way siblings mock each other is unique in the breadth of human experience and really cannot be replicated, even by close friendships.

The reason for this is that siblings can get away with much more than anyone else can. While teasing insults from parents may cause genuine harm, it doesn’t feel as hurtful when coming from a sibling because they are on the same level of power, assuming that they are close in age.

Moreover, siblings know one another more deeply than just about anyone else would, even parents. They are together so often during the formative years, observing each other and adjusting their perceptions as they change, that they have keener insights about what their brother or sister values.

Adult siblings often joke about how no one else would love their brother or sister, knowing full well that they do love them and value them. Another common topic of banter is ugliness – remembering that siblings do not generally register one another as attractive. We’re all ugly in the eyes of our brothers and sisters, no matter how beautiful we might be to others.

Uileac and Cerie constantly call one another stupid, ugly, whiny, bitchy, and so on, but we see their actions don’t match their words. It’s hard to believe they hate one another when they’re going the extra mile to care for one another when sick. For example, Uileac reads a bedtime story to Cerie in Saint Luridalr and the Peony Phoenix while also calling her bratty and annoying. She’s ill, so he sleeps outside of her door even as she complains that she doesn’t want him to help her.

It’s this mismatch between words and deed that makes their relationship warm and compelling. In fact, it would ruin everything if they actually said they love each other on a regular basis. This reluctance to compliment one another makes it all the more heartwarming when they do break that mask and admit how much they care.

⤝❖⤞

Much as people may act otherwise, romantic relationships are not the end-all be-all of human experience. A story that only highlights romantic love comes across as flat and empty. We are all defined by our connections to dozens of people: friends, family, coworkers, and acquaintances.

By highlighting this very relatable dynamic, you can develop a story that feels richer and more lived-in than if two lovers seemed to exist in a vacuum, devoid of other forms of care.
Common Problems for Slow Writers (And How to Fix Them)

January 17th, 2026

Photo by invisiblepower on Pexels.com

In this world, there are slow writers and fast writers. You’ve got the people who can put out a 70k book every month, and then you have the people who have not completed their 100k book they started ten years ago.

I am somewhere in the middle, as I can indeed write a 70k book in a month, but then I sit on that draft for months so that it’s perfect. I’m not keeping up that pace all year round; I’d go insane. My active writing process consumes about three and a half months a year, with the rest of my time devoted to other writing tasks.

So we will leave the 12-books-a-year people aside. They are superhuman and don’t need my help. I’m talking to those 100k-in-ten-years folks.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being a slow writer – unless it’s bothering you. If you’re happy with your pace, then I’m happy.

But let’s be honest: you wouldn’t have clicked on this blog post if it didn’t agitate you a teensy bit. Maybe you Googled “why do I write so slowly?” and here you are.

So now we will examine some of the possible reasons why this is happening to you.

I don’t know you personally, so maybe none of these apply, or there’s a secret other reason I haven’t even considered. I’m not omniscient. However, I hope you’ll be able to see yourself in at least one of these scenarios and gain benefit from what I tell you.

⤝❖⤞

You’re a new writer.

Photo by Mizuno K on Pexels.com

New writers are naturally going to be slower because they have to consciously apply everything they have learned. It’s no different than when you started a new job and took way longer than your peers to complete a task.

I muck stalls on the weekend. When I first started, I could only get two stalls done in two hours, which is frankly abysmal. Not only was I spending too much time trying to make each stall perfect, but I also didn’t have the actions down.

Now I can do six stalls in the time it used to take me to complete two. It all comes down to muscle memory.

As you become more experienced, the writing rules will be second nature, and you will be able to work much faster. You also won’t have to consciously think about things like themes, mood, environment, where to put descriptions; it will just come to you because your brain has perfected its pattern recognition.

So cut yourself some slack when you’re just starting out. This is completely normal. Every one of your favorite writers has been at the stage where writing a single paragraph feels like pulling teeth. The only way out is through. Keep practicing.

⤝❖⤞

You don’t have enough time to devote to your work.

Photo by Antoni Shkraba Studio on Pexels.com

Writing takes a lot of time. I spend probably 20 hours a week writing my books or blog articles, which is a luxury I can afford because I don’t have children and work remote.

You may not have that much cushion in your schedule, particularly if you have caretaking responsibilities. This is something you probably cannot change without cutting out all other recreational activities and eliminating any possible distractions, which would make you miserable.

I don’t want you to be miserable. Writing should be fun.

But, thankfully, you won’t be this busy forever (at least I hope). When your kids are older, or you are more established in your career, or when you are retired, you will have more time to devote to your work. So don’t beat yourself up if you can only devote an hour a week to writing for fun. You have a full life outside of writing, and that’s okay.

Just be aware that this does mean that you will likely publish later in life, as you won’t have time to complete your million words. Age doesn’t magically make you a better writer; practice does.

That’s alright, though. Life is about tradeoffs, and we can’t do everything for everyone. If your writing needs to take a backseat for a while, then just try to do a little bit on a set schedule.

⤝❖⤞

You have too much time to devote to your work.

This one sounds weird, right? After all, wouldn’t every author love all the time in the world to focus?

Actually, having too much free time sucks. Take it from this writer.

Said writer does pretty much every other sin I complain about here, too. No wonder they have not finished a novella in the time it took me to write multiple books. And I have even less time than they do!

Anyway, I can confirm that too much free time really sucks. At the beginning of Covid lockdowns, I was unemployed just like many other people. And I did nothing.

I didn’t write anything, barely read anything. My primary activities every day were taking my dogs on long walks (masked and socially distanced) and cleaning the house.

What helped me write more? Getting a job as a dog walker. I spent hours a day with no one but a sniffing canine for company, so that gave me a lot of time to think – but not as much time to write.

Now, I work as an SEO writer and write 20,000 words a week about boring stuff. I’m already primed to think about words and what they mean. When I finally get done with my quota for the day, I’m fired up and ready for more.

When your time is precious, you want to make the most of it. When you have way too much time, you start procrastinating like the above poster and don’t get anything done.

There’s also the fact that if you’re unemployed, you’re not getting as much social input. Sure, you might have a lot of time to read and check social media, but you’re probably not getting out of the house and talking to people, or sitting in traffic pondering things, and so on.

This is why I severely caution people from quitting their jobs to write, in addition to the fact that you need an income stream to finance your writing. Yes, tradpub authors also have upfront expenses and will likely not recoup their advance for years. You can’t rely on that money.

Of course, I can’t magically make a job descend from the heavens for you. If you do find yourself unemployed for some reason, then find additional hobbies and tasks to keep you busy.

The first one, of course, would be applying to jobs. You can’t do that for 12 hours a day, so you can find other things: cleaning house, completing all those to-dos you’ve been putting off, working out, visiting with friends. Those are all cheap or free for the most part, so you won’t be eating into your savings. We want to ensure you’ve got a roof over your head and food in your stomach.

Then, segment out a bit of time every day to write – and stick to it. Whatever schedule you’ve given yourself, commit. And don’t let that time bleed into other blocks.

Life, and writing, and everything else, is about – say it with me – balance. No time, no writing. Too much time, no writing. Sweet spot of time? Perfect.

⤝❖⤞

You are stressed about something else.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Whether the above poster realizes it or not, being unemployed is stressful. I’ve seen this in myself and in many others I’m close to. Your self-esteem takes a huge hit if you’re laid off; you have basically been told you’re not good enough. And that hurts.

But there’s also the financial aspect. How far can your funds stretch? Will you have a place to live in a year if you don’t find something soon? What are you going to eat? How do you scoff down ramen noodles ten times a week without losing your mind?

So unemployment will naturally reduce your motivation to write, as will pretty much anything else that impacts your mental health. The most productive writers are also the ones with great mental health (don’t believe the myth of the martyr-artist).

I’m in pretty good shape for someone with bipolar disorder, and that’s why I am productive. If I stopped going to therapy, stopped taking my meds, stopped devoting my time to other enjoyable and prosocial activities, I would also stop writing.

These stressors may be self-inflicted, like refusing to get treatment, or they may things you can’t fix on your own, like the death of a family member or a serious illness.

That doesn’t mean you have to stop writing entirely, though. Get help in whatever way you can. If you can’t afford a therapist, talk to a friend, or journal, or even just learn about psychology so you can identify why this is happening to you.

⤝❖⤞

You are editing as you go.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Notice that above poster? They reread their entire novella twice a day and then write one singular paragraph. And then the next day, they do it all over again. I presume that they are editing and pecking all throughout that time.

Which is bad, and I discourage you from doing that.

Writing and editing are two separate processes, as I discussed in my stages of writing post. They require entirely different cognition patterns.

This is a form of multitasking, and multitasking does not work. In fact, it means you do worse on everything you’re trying to do. And if we want to be great writers, we need to ensure we’re giving ourselves the best possible conditions to perform.

If you have this bad habit, turn your font gray or white. Don’t even look at anything while you’re writing. Turn off your spellchecker if you have to. Remind yourself that you can deal with all of those other things later, after the draft is done.

⤝❖⤞

You second-guess everything you write.

Photo by Chinmay Singh on Pexels.com

I came across someone who had been writing their book for three years and was only at 50k. Why? Because they’d let it sit, then decide that it was bad, and nuke it all and start over again.

Presumably they were not attempting to write the world’s first Sisyphian novel. This all came down to the fact that they did not have confidence in what they were writing and couldn’t stop themselves from editing during the process, as we already discussed.

They did not like my suggestion: pick one possible path, finish the book, and then reassess. Write the other ideas down and ponder them later. It’s possible, as I told them, that they may have more than one story in them and those potential endings could be reshaped for something else.

But that, in my humble opinion, would be the best possible way to solve the problem. It doesn’t matter if a first draft is perfect. The perfect first draft doesn’t exist. All that matters is that the damn thing is done and you can move on to the next parts of the process.

The white-text thing could help you here as well. I also think just dumping other ideas into a separate document (I use Notepad) is very helpful. I have a big dump sheet for all the books in my series that I will pick through when I get to those; this way, I’m not jumping between books. I also leave notes for myself on Word so that I can go back later and fix those things, but I’m not getting distracted during drafting.

⤝❖⤞

You are constantly seeking validation from other people.

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

Lastly, pretty much every single Redditor who is constantly asking things like “what program do you use to write?” or “does this story sound good?” is a slow writer. Because they are spending more time asking questions than doing anything.

I don’t think most of these questions actually need to be asked. They could all be Googled for suggestions. Hell, even just searching the exact same subreddit for the exact same question would bring up the exact same discussion that was probably posted two days before.

The poster just wants validation and interaction. Or they don’t know how to Google.

These writers have not yet realized that writing is a solitary activity. They assume it is like other hobbies, where you’re constantly getting feedback from others throughout the process. But it’s not. Only you can write your book, which means that while you’re actively writing, only your input matters. Everything else can wait until you’ve finished the draft. Then you have space to go back and review everything you have done, determining whether there are things you can change.

If you are in active writing, close down Reddit. Restrain your urge to ask the same questions that ten other people have posted in the same week. You do not need that validation; you need to get your draft done. Develop an appetite for being alone, because writers work alone.

And if that sounds insufferable to you, then perhaps writing isn’t your calling. That’s okay. You can write a short story a year and be fine with it.

⤝❖⤞

Slow writers are not doomed to be slow forever, and being a slow writer isn’t a moral failing. It just means you need to refine your process and practice more so that you can get more done. Keep going, and try applying some of these tips. I think you’ll be surprised.
Writing Nitpicks for Greater Engagement

January 14th, 2026

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I do not finish probably 70% of the books I start reading unless they are so terribly bad that I’m intrigued. Simply put, there are too many great books out there to waste time on one I don’t enjoy.

Generally, I decide whether a book is worth my investment within the first page, sometimes the first few pages. I’ve highlighted the glaring problems that absolutely make me click off, but there are more subtle ones, too: warning signs that others may not even notice. I’ve decided to share some of those from my most recent DNF experiences so you have an idea of might make some (but not all, of course) readers give up.

I’m not the ultimate authority on reading or writing, so these things may not matter to anyone but me. Still, I’m also not the only person in existence who is like this, so just keep some of these in mind when you’re writing.

⤝❖⤞

The authorial viewpoint is too obvious.

Photo by pascal claivaz on Pexels.com

Here’s one you may never have thought of. This is a paraphrased example from a recent book I gave up on.

“Sandra wandered through her desert hometown.”

That’s it: all that was necessary to make me give up.

But why? What could possibly make this singular sentence so annoying?

The same reason as a fish would not refer to themselves floating through water. Someone who has lived in the desert their whole life isn’t going to think “I live in a desert town.” Because it’s their hometown.

Now, if someone came from outside of the desert and visited a desert town, then of course they would note that. I was very aware that I was in the desert when I visited Albuquerque last year. But that’s because that environment isn’t my normal, so I note it because it’s unusual.

Additionally, the desert doesn’t tend to encroach inside of a town. The desert is “out there” beyond the scope of their neatly arranged streets and shops. Someone could walk into the desert from their town, but unless they are living in a saguaro, the fact that it is a desert doesn’t occur to them.

I get why the author did this. They wanted to quickly tell us what the environment is without “wasting time” on descriptions. But that’s lazy writing. The descriptions are the story: they set the mood, infuse themes, help us feel that what we are reading is real. So don’t skimp on them.

Furthermore, the author isn’t thinking like the character. They don’t realize that a character who is from the seashore, or the desert, or the mountains, etc, isn’t going to always describe their hometown as being on the sea or the desert or mountains or whatever. They won’t say “I live in a mountain town” to themselves; that would be something they’d say to someone else who doesn’t live in the mountains.

The author could have easily made a more interesting story (and kept me as a reader) by just describing the desert scenery without simply saying “it’s a desert.” Every desert is a little different, too, so this could have given us a better sense of place. We would have felt that we are seeing the story through Sandra’s eyes and would have recognized that she belongs here: this is her land, and she sees it as normal.

If you have trouble with descriptions, you can check out my blog post on how to create stunning descriptions.

⤝❖⤞

Key details are hidden to create too much mystery.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Another book I started had an in media res beginning of character running from “them.” I’ve already discussed my annoyance with in media res multiple times, so I won’t focus on that.

The author’s goal here is to invite mystery and make us wonder who “they” are, of course. Oh, we’ve got a creepy shadow organization that’s hunting people down! How stunning!

Except that it’s been done hundreds of thousands of times before. We need to know who these people are, why they are a threat, and why the character is running from them.

Your goal in the first few pages isn’t necessarily to create mystery; that can come later. Rather, we need to be immediately plopped down in the world and to empathize with the character.

This is why cold opens, like a character running from a nebulous “they,” are the fastest way to make people click off. We don’t care about this person yet. They have not done anything to earn our interest or our compassion. Refusing to reveal something that both the author and character already knows doesn’t add to that intrigue: it just makes us annoyed that we’re not given this valuable information upfront.

Now, I should note that when I’m talking about in media res, I’m not saying that nothing should happen in the first chapter. Not at all. But your very first few paragraphs shouldn’t be someone running, fighting, being stabbed, whatever. Give us a bit of time to bond with the person – and tell us the basic details of their plight.

That includes explaining who they are running from. Could be a pack of wolves, the police, an angry ex. The character already knows who they’re running from, so we should know too.

My next book, Absent All Light, has Cerie get her fingernails ripped out in Chapter 1. (If you’ve already read the rest of the books, you know why that happens.)

But I don’t start with her getting tortured. Rather, the first few pages are about her emotions and some of her backstory. We feel her stress, her fear, and her determination to go through with what’s to come.

Heightening that anxiety gives us a reason to care about Cerie before something bad occurs. While readers may not be extremely invested in Cerie yet, they do have a sense of her personality and want to understand why she would let someone hurt her so badly.

⤝❖⤞

The book starts with characters chitchatting about irrelevant things.

Photo by Atlantic Ambience on Pexels.com

Now we have the other side of the spectrum. The author knows that they need to make us care about the characters; they understand that we have to bond with them before we are concerned about whatever situation they are in.

But instead of finding a compelling way to do that, they just show the characters talking to one another about nothing important.

A while ago, I started a book that had two princes shooting the breeze in a throne room, teasing one another about sexual conquests. Okay, you’re establishing that these two are Lotharios; maybe one is a bit more prudish than the other. But then, out of nowhere, their sister the princess swept in and started going “As you know, we’re at war with this other kingdom and they just took half our land and now we’re all gonna die.”

I’d have been happier if you started with them all discussing the whole Everyone Might Die thing first; it’s not necessarily in media res because it’s not action.

And no, the relationship stuff never mattered, either. It was just to show off that these two were horny and didn’t take their roles seriously.

Whatever happens in the beginning of the book sets the stage for everything else. Those first few pages tell us what we can expect, what will matter, what the characters’ goals are.

It’s fine to have things be a bit more lighthearted at first to ease us in. But people shouldn’t just be yammering about something that won’t matter. You can have a soft, low-stakes tone that still prioritizes the key themes and plot points.

⤝❖⤞

The book starts with an irrelevant minor character who will not play a key role in the book.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Readers are sweet, soft, fuzzy ducklings: they imprint on the first few characters they encounter in a book. Once this bond has been established, their natural instinct is to follow that character around, quacking inquisitively.

So imagine the sorrow and disappointment your highly literate waterfowl friends will experience when they find out that their new blorbo is essentially a store mannequin. We don’t want to bond with someone else! This is our new protector and source of entertainment! Give us our human back.

Extreme negative points if you kill that minor character off within the first few pages and try to make us imprint on someone else. It won’t work. Now we’re confused and unhappy; we’ve lost interest.

Whoever you start the book with should play a key role in whatever happens. They don’t need to be the MC, but we should see them around throughout the story.

⤝❖⤞

The dialogue is too expository.

Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com

When I see a character say, “as you know,” I typically lose interest. There are some cases when this would be helpful, and those cases rarely come up at the very beginning of a book.

This can be used to great effect later on, as a courtesy to the readers: whatever the character discusses is something we have likely already encountered, and we don’t need an exhaustive recap. It ensures we know everyone is up to speed like we are and can progress with problem solving.

But “as you know,” in the intro, is shorthand for “My character is now going to walk you through all the important information so I can get it out of the way without making you work for it.”

In other words, you’ve signposted the beginning of an infodump.

I will say that this is better than just giving us a sudden nonfiction-but-fiction rundown of everything, but it’s still annoying.

Also, people rarely say this in real life except if they’re being bitchy. It gives strong “per my last email” energy. So, given what I have experienced in over three decades of living in a society, I am automatically prejudiced against that character because I assume they’re an obnoxious know-it-all. If that’s what you intended, cool – just make sure that the character is insufferable.

But if you actually want us to like this character, then don’t use this phrase.

⤝❖⤞

The author just tells us who the character is without showing it.

Photo by Davyd Bortnik on Pexels.com

Here’s an annoyingly common occurrence: the author wants us to understand that a character is athletic, intelligent, etc, so they just tell us that. But they never show the character doing anything athletic or intelligent.

Sometimes this will be that they are a nuclear physicist (we assume they are smart) or that they are a professional rock climber (we assume they are athletic), but then neither of these things ever show up in the book.

We’re just supposed to infer that because they have these titles, they automatically have these qualities, and the author’s work is done. The author then doesn’t have to show us the character thinking through a difficult problem or fighting for their life and winning.

It is my opinion (though you may disagree) that characters should only tell us lies about other characters. Everything else should be shown to us so that we can make up our own opinion. This way, we are always surprised by what happens because our perceptions have been challenged.

For example, have a character constantly call themselves a coward. Then show them standing up to a corrupt leader or taking a beating without shedding a single tear. Have everyone call a character stupid, then show how they defeat the Big Bad through their clever schemes.

Now we have to decide who to believe. Why does everyone think this brilliant character is stupid? How are their perceptions different from ours?

Underplaying a character always makes them more intriguing. Now we don’t know what will happen next. Are they going to conform to what other characters are saying and give up at the crucial moment, or will they be brave and push forward? Are they an idiot who will be squashed by the enemy, or are they going to show an incredible feat of intellectual prowess?

This approach also silences the naysayers who will go “you said this guy is the greatest hero to ever exist, but then he was defeated, so he sucks.” No one said he was the greatest hero ever; the author, and all the other characters, said he’s a total loser.

It’s surprising to the cast, and to us, that they were able to push through. Such an approach activates our instinctive desire to cheer on the underdog.

Of course, there will be a point where this shtick doesn’t work. If someone has done something miraculous, then it would be stupid for everyone to still insist they’re a loser who can’t do anything. We can’t let them get such bad Imposter Syndrome that it seems fake. At this point, you can have in-universe critics who downplay their achievements, which pushes us to sympathize with them more.

⤝❖⤞

The authors uses character actions as virtue signaling.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

I left this one for last because it’s a more modern phenomenon and may not apply to everyone. It’s also less of a nitpick and more of a “stop doing that, for the love of god.”

Anyway, it’s become alarmingly common for younger authors to desperately reassure us that they don’t agree with whatever bad things their characters do.

I didn’t really come across this much when I was a young adult writer discussing nasty topics like rape and murder; people didn’t assume that I was a murderer for writing it. But, for some reason, the newer generation is terrified of being labeled problematic, even as they explore taboo topics, so they go well out of their way to break the fourth wall and assure everyone that they, themselves, aren’t that Bad Person.

Common examples I have seen:

The piece will usually start with a long, exhaustive list of trigger warnings for every possible theme, no matter how slight. (We know my stance on trigger warnings already.)

Characters will suddenly give an infodump about some social justice issue to another character as a way to show that they are super progressive and reasonable, even if it makes no sense for the scene.

Excessive verbal consent for sexual activity, which is usually fade to black. No one gets to third base without passing a phalanx of “are you sures?” And don’t even think about drunken sex! That’s basically illegal!

If a character drinks or uses drugs, there has to be someone to remind them that drugs are bad. The drug-using character is almost always the bad guy. It’s basically a DARE commercial.

Everyone talks like therapists and assures one another that they don’t agree with the Bad Things that are happening; in other words, they are acting as the author with their hands up, going, “Don’t sue me!”

Good characters are simply not allowed to do the wrong thing, ever. It’s very black and white. Good guys never lie, never steal, never kill the wrong person, never manipulate anyone. They don’t get angry, and they talk through things with total calm in situations that would not be calm in real life.

No good character has any internal biases. None of them discriminate, all of them are totally down with every progressive movement ever, and they aggressively stand up for these values as much as possible (to show the author agrees with these things).

Listen, I am a noted lesbian. The Eirenic Verses has an entire country that ships gay people off to a desert island and lets them be torn apart by wild dogs.

Does this mean that I think all gays should be tossed in prison camps and eaten? No, obviously not. I don’t intend to see the inside of a canine digestive system at any point in my life.

But it’s interesting to me. Homophobia exists in real life. I want to understand how it impacts people, how it starts, how to snap people out of it.

A fictional world with nothing bad in it is boring. There’s no conflict. There’s nothing to fix. That’s why no one gives a shit about utopias and they’re extremely rare in the literary world.

You can write about bad things without being a bad person. If someone comes after you with pitchforks and torches for writing about bad things, that’s because they enjoy being the persecutor. They will do anything possible to get that delicious high of being Morally Correct and Right.

Nothing you write will ever be good enough for a prude. They will always find fault with it, pushing the Overton Window further and further toward a completely sanitized world. If you comply with them, they’ll just find something new to consider “problematic.”

The best thing you can do with such bullies, either in fiction or real life, is to not play their game. Let them sharpen their pitchforks. It doesn’t matter.

⤝❖⤞

Every book is imperfect because writers are imperfect. But, we want to minimize the imperfections whenever possible and focus instead on making unique, exciting works. This ensures that our imperfections encourage speculation, not ridicule.

Take a look at your work and see what sticking points you may have. You may find that with a few simple adjustments, you have something even more amazing to share.
How to Write a Morally Gray Character

January 3rd, 2026

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

After creating Mordrek Willets, I really caught the morally gray bug. His exploits in What Is Cannot Be Unwritten sparked a fascination with how to make a character just insane enough to be “not good,” but redeemable enough to be “not bad.”

This deeply informed what creative decisions I made in Absent All Light (coming June 23), which features the Bremish cast, and allowed me to create a richer story.

But morally gray characters are very hard to do. Just a few years ago, I published an article admitting that I had never done a morally gray character because I didn’t feel up to the challenge. It was only after 15+ years of consistent study that I decided to take the plunge. I’d like to share what I have learned so that you, too, can find the exciting in-between of a shady character.

⤝❖⤞

Why are morally gray characters so hard to write?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The answer comes from the careful balancing act involved in crafting an individual with murky morals.

Most real humans are somewhat morally gray. We make unethical decisions sometimes. We care about things we know we shouldn’t – or don’t care about things we know we should. Catch a great person on a bad day and they may be a total asshole.

However, a morally gray character in fiction is often involved in things that the average human would refuse to do. Their lives are grander and stranger than ours, which is why we want to read about them in the first place. Someone being a bitch on Facebook isn’t enough of a hook in most cases; we can just scroll through comments on a contentious post and derive satisfaction without paying a dime.

With these greater decisions come greater downfalls and more heinous acts. We can make a morally gray character do something genuinely evil, but if it is balanced with introspection, then we understand the tradeoffs.

So let’s get into it now and see what really makes morally gray characters tick.

⤝❖⤞

We must be deeply embedded in their head.

Photo by MART PRODUCTION on Pexels.com

The reason why a morally gray character is not a villain to the reader is because we understand why they do the things they do. From an in-universe perspective, they are almost always a total asshole who ruins peoples’ lives for selfish gain.

Mordrek Willets’s actions in What Is Cannot Be Unwritten are objectively Not Good. To someone living in the world with him, he is a bad person, no question about it. He works for a tyrant, kills people without remorse, ghosts dozens of lovestruck women, sneaks into unauthorized territories, burns houses down.

We see other characters reacting to his awful behavior in an appropriate way; they hate his guts, even if they don’t know everything he has done.

But we, the reader, have access to information that fellow characters don’t. We see his good acts that would be downplayed by others; we see his crises of conscience, his hopes and fears and dreams. We know that he doesn’t always agree with the things he does but privileges survival over ideals, even when he doesn’t want to.

Because of this, he becomes more sympathetic. If we didn’t have this deep understanding of him, we wouldn’t like him as much. So your morally gray character is almost always going to be written in first person or in third-person close. Omniscient POV will not cut it; they will seem terrible.

If they aren’t the POV character, then we still must gain enough insight into their world to recognize that they’re not a villain. Often, this means that they are friends with the MC, who gets to see their multiple sides. It is this closeness to their perspective that makes them morally gray.

⤝❖⤞

Morally gray characters are typically charismatic and superficially charming.

Photo by Mert Coşkun on Pexels.com

There’s an “it” factor that comes with being morally gray. A loser incel could be morally gray by definition, but they’re not as interesting and will be cast as a villain instead.

Charisma makes us forgive the character even though we know we shouldn’t. In many cases, the charm comes from wittiness and confidence. They leap off the page because they believe they are special. Doubt and rumination are likely going to come from external factors, like fear of consequences, their position in society, or the impact of their actions on people they care about.

When building a morally gray character, ensure that they believe in their positions and decisions. Let them crack jokes to relieve tension. Make them woo ladies (common morally gray tactic) and charm more innocent characters who don’t see the dangers.

Common patsies for morally gray characters are gullible, naive characters and those who also have a slightly dented moral compass. People with strong moral convictions will not like someone who challenges those, but people who like to bend the rules will.

⤝❖⤞

Their bad behavior must be truly reprehensible.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Here’s a common issue with some characters that are packaged as morally gray: they do bad things only to people who deserve bad things. They hunt down a puppy kicker, or they financially ruin the landlord who was stealing from a single mom through obscure but ultimately legal means.

Those are, for most people, just slightly tarnished heroes. They’re doing things that most of us would want to do in a world without limits. In many cases, they won’t murder anyone who hasn’t done anything truly vile.

But a morally gray character can take a mildly bad situation and go overboard. Their murkiness comes from the fact that they have disproportionally violent or maniacal responses to things when a normal person would not do that.

⤝❖⤞

The morally gray character has a personal ethos that is in contrast with societal mores or objective morality.

Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA on Pexels.com

Mordrek Willets lays out for us exactly what his personal ethos is: survive at all costs. He is, at least in the beginning of the story, an atheist who doesn’t think he’s going to be judged at the end of his life, so he’s not concerned with salvation. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, and he’s going to feast.

This is a pretty standard worldview for morally gray characters. They wouldn’t make the same decisions if they were thinking about the fact that other people have the same deep feelings, hopes, and fears that they do. In a way, moral grayness is also about objectifying others and dismissing their concerns.

But, like many other morally gray characters, Mordrek does feel things, and he does get attached to people. Those individuals become extensions of himself who also must be protected at all costs – sometimes to his own detriment (but not often).

This means he picks and chooses who he shows kindness to and who he will kill without concern. And sometimes he just finds people interesting and wants to see what they will do next, so he shows them a basic modicum of decency so he can keep observing.

It must be clear that a morally gray character’s personal opinions aren’t aligned with what a person “should” think, but are internally cohesive. As such, they live in accordance with their own desires, and this makes them objectively murky.

⤝❖⤞

There is solid internal justification for their terrible behavior.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

A morally gray character is, in most cases, a pragmatic individual. They do think about the consequences of their actions – mostly so they don’t get caught. If they just did whatever they wanted, and those happened to always be bad things, then they would be a simple villain.

As such, they make tactical decisions about what level of evil they will personally accept at this moment in time. Sometimes the most appropriate thing to do is also the most moral one, and sometimes it’s not.

But, and here’s the catch – they don’t always choose the morally wrong thing to do. Sometimes they allow emotion to overtake them. They may spare a child because that child reminds them of themselves as a youth. They may help the love interest because they like them or want sexual access to them in the future. They may refuse to defame an ally, even when everyone else is, because they know that person will likely be helpful to them.

⤝❖⤞

Morally gray characters are often morbidly curious.

Photo by Noelle Otto on Pexels.com

I’ve discussed before how good characters are nosy characters. They have to be invested in the plot or we aren’t, either.

But there are different motivations for curiosity. The timeless example of Bilbo Baggins is the “good” kind of curious, the one that spurs the adventure and leads to mishaps. I doubt any of us would characterize Bilbo as morally gray because the plot doesn’t portray him that way, and his actions don’t either.

So the difference between a morally gray character and a hero is that they are morbidly curious, like a child beheading a frog because they want to see what it looks like when an animal dies. Morally gray characters want to see how things work – including when they stop working to catastrophic effect.

Later on in the Eirenic Verses, specifically Poesy, Mordrek joins the main characters for a quest. He doesn’t really do anything terrible during this quest, but he also doesn’t have much of a reason to join other than “why the hell not? I don’t have anything else going on.”

He withholds crucial information from the MC because he wants to see them work it out themselves. He’ll avoid providing his theories, which leads to greater calamities, because he likes the domino effect of things falling down.

Morally gray characters will often decide when to intervene and when not to based on how interesting the outcome will be, not whether it is positive or negative. In most cases, the bad outcome is more interesting, so they choose that one.

This gives them a sense of twisted whimsy that is fun to read about, even if it would make them absolutely vile in real life.

⤝❖⤞

Other people react badly to them.

Photo by Vera Arsic on Pexels.com

Moral grayness doesn’t necessarily come from the actions themselves, but how others respond to those actions – both inside and outside of the narrative. The reader may feel disgust and fear of the character, but so do other characters.

And different characters will have varying levels of unease and distrust based on their own moral compass. Upright and honest characters may be revolted by the morally gray character; they can tell that something’s off about this person.

In the seventh book, Shadow and Sword, we see Mordrek meet Irith Druidinn, who we already know to be a very moral, very peaceful woman. And she despises Mordrek immediately. He hasn’t even done anything, but she senses he’s bad news and doesn’t want him around. She chases him from the meronym and tells him not to come back under any circumstances – all without him actually exposing his misdeeds.

In fact, a lot of the High Poets don’t like Mordrek despite not knowing much about him. Except Cerie, who knows firsthand how violent he can be. That probably tells us a lot about her.

This makes sense, of course. People don’t like those who break rules and get away with it, or who flout societal expectations about morality and decorum. If everyone around the morally gray character is totally okay with them or even complimentary, then they are not really morally gray because they’re not really going against social norms.

Note particularly those of high status, who will likely have the strongest reactions to a morally gray character. If they themselves have mercenary mindsets, then they won’t be so upset; they’ll think about how they can use this person for their own ends. Those who see themselves as upholders of morality and social cohesion will be far less complimentary.

⤝❖⤞

I regret that I didn’t try out a morally gray character sooner. They’re fascinating, and perhaps I would have gotten further on my writing journey in a shorter timeframe if I had taken the plunge.

You can rise to the challenge if you understand the balance between good and evil. Don’t be afraid to go “too far” with your character; memorable fiction breaks the rules and wanders places where others don’t want to follow.

And I think you’ll find that these characters are a hell of a time to write. They’ll stick in your head long after you’re done with the project. More likely than not, you’ll want to play with them again – probably more than with your heroes.
Breaking the Perfectionist’s Curse as a Writer

December 27th, 2025

I try not to spend too much time on Reddit because I only end up fighting with strangers; I really can’t help myself. The same thing happened on Twitter, which is why I gave up that hellscape.

But beyond the verbal brawls, Reddit does offer inspiration for blog posts. Like the one you’re reading.

Here’s my muse:

Unfortunately, many would-be writers are afflicted with this curse. They simply cannot accept that whatever they’re going to write at the very beginning of their journey will be more artificial than a 1950s aspic cake – and just as unappetizing.

Let’s explore this unique affliction and determine some possible explanations, then get into solutions.

As usual, this may hurt your feelings because it hits too close to home. Please know that nothing I say here is meant to hurt or demoralize you. I wouldn’t say it if I wasn’t hoping for your success; that’d just be petty bullying. I want you to finish your books, to enjoy writing, and to keep going.

Anyway, try to go into this post with an open mind. Set it down for a bit if you have to, but consider pushing through to the end.

Let me clarify that I’m not a psychologist. I have a deep interest in the human mind but no training in it. Except for being very mentally ill myself. Experiential credentials!

⤝❖⤞

Writing perfectionism, in my opinion, is different than normal perfectionism.

Photo by Vika Glitter on Pexels.com

Garden variety perfectionism is the fear of making mistakes, often due to past trauma or overly strict parenting. However, that’s not really what is powering a perfectionist writer, at least from what I have seen.

Instead, a writer’s perfectionism is about ego. These are individuals who are extrinsincally motivated: they want the attention and praise that comes from writing.

As such, the type of writing advice I offer here – that writing should prioritize intinsic motivation – often falls very flat.

And that’s what I tend to fight about on Reddit. I find myself dragged into arguments with these individuals who spend a lot of time daydreaming about being a writer but not very much time completing their projects.

These individuals get extremely angry when I, or other experienced writers, tell them to stop worrying about the result and just do the thing. They love to get my goat, feed it Poptarts, and let it loose in a Kroger. That is their primary hobby, not writing.

We see this in the above post. The OP is talking about all the rewards that will come from writing: the praise, the breathless excitement, the worldwide acclaim. They are jealous of their friend who is writing a story because other people are paying attention to the friend.

So there is an essence of fear for perfectionist writers, but it’s not the fear of making mistakes: it’s the fear of being ignored. The fear of not being good enough to get the attention they want.

⤝❖⤞

Extrinsic motivation creates high pressure, which causes writer’s block.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Extrinsic motivation is awful for getting yourself to do anything, because it ties your success to something you can’t control: other people’s responses.

OP could write a beautiful book with heartfelt lines and jawdropping quotes … and no one might read it. Does that mean it didn’t matter? Given OP’s current perception, yes.

So the whole time OP is writing, they are thinking about what other people want from the book. It’s all about, “How will people react? What will they care about? How can I make this seem heartfelt but not too mushy but also deep but not childish but but but ….”

Sounds exhausting. No wonder OP can’t come up with a story idea. There’s so much pressure in there! How are you supposed to work with such high expectations riding on you?

Even extremely accomplished people will crack in stressful situations. This is why world leaders seem 40 years older at the end of a term: their bodies are under so much stress that it physically ages them. Maybe not twice the rate of a normal human, but it definitely adds some gray hairs.

High stress also reduces creativity, because creativity is one of the most intensive forms of Higher Order Thinking imaginable. (Hah.)

But the sad thing is that in OP’s case, this stress is self-imposed, and it has everything to do with their perspective. No one’s forcing OP to feel such anxiety about their work – which doesn’t even exist because of that anxiety.

That mentality is extremely unhelpful. Let me tell you why.

⤝❖⤞

Writers have no clue who their real audience is and may never know.

Photo by ICSA on Pexels.com

In a similar post on r/writing, which I won’t bother to share here, I got into a fight with another Redditor. Yeah, sigh, of course I did.

That Redditor was complaining that having intrinsic motivation is too hard and unrealistic. They insisted that the whole point of writing is to share it with other people, because, according to them, the concept of writing came from storytelling around campfires or whatever.

Actually, it didn’t. Writing emerged to keep track of stuff: grains, debts, and so on. The oldest writing systems were basically Excel spreadsheets.

Later, people realized that they could write down the stories they were telling around campfires so other people could tell them in other places. That was a happy little accident of counting our sheep.

Why does that distinction matter? Because writing is not the same as telling a story around a campfire. Those stories were told face to face. Over the glowing coals, narrators could physically see the reactions of those around them.

The origins of fiction were more akin to tabletop roleplaying games: a collaborative process, where the storyteller may change their story slightly depending on how others are responding to them.

That is extrinsic motivation. A storyteller wants to keep their audience engaged because the audience is directly in front of them. It feels good to share a story with people you know, who you can see, who may pat your back at the end of your tale and say they loved it. It’s the reason I enjoyed roleplaying when I was younger.

But writers are not guaranteed that audience. We may never meet or hear from those who read our stories. They probably won’t leave a review anyway. So, unlike the storytellers huddled around prehistoric campfires, we can’t rely on audience reactions. We have to tell stories for ourselves foremost because we have no clue who our audience is.

We can use Theory of Mind to imagine our ideal audience and then tailor our marketing to them. However, this is only a guess. The real, live people who interact with your work may be completely different.

For example, I thought my books would be popular with gay men … but most of my readership is fujoshis. Go figure.

If you want to share your stories with a greater audience than your five friends, then you have to vanquish your urge for praise.

⤝❖⤞

Accept that readers don’t care about you.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

OP’s ultimate curse here is they want the audience to care about them. That’s the whole problem with extrinsic motivation, and thus perfectionism.

We can presume that they don’t just want other people to like their books, but to tell them the quotes were amazing, the themes perfect, etc, etc. Otherwise, why would it matter if people fell in love with their work? OP would never know, so it wouldn’t really matter.

Readers don’t care about you. Readers don’t want to think about you when they’re reading your stuff. You have produced something for their entertainment, not your gratification. The book shifts from a labor of love to a product: from satisfaction for the writer to satisfaction to the reader.

Here’s the funny thing: I would be utterly mortified if readers were thinking about me when reading my stuff. When people want to tell me in excruciating detail about how much they liked it, I speedwalk away. It feels too intimate, too weird.

Once, I even had a reader get into a super parasocial relationship with me. They literally “fell in love” with me through my fanfic and started to mold their life around things I referenced in my stories. This reader told me if I stopped writing, they’d have nothing to live for.

Not flattering! Bunny boiler! Scary! Go away!

Alas, that discomfort with acknowledgment is the paradox of publishing. My work has me all over it, but it also doesn’t. The finished product is out of my hands and the reader’s experience is all that matters.

The Redditor I argued with asked me why I bother publishing if it’s not for extrinsic satisfaction. I didn’t grace them with a response, but I’ll tell you because I like you.

I publish because I want other people to enjoy my work for their own sake – not because I want them to fawn over me. I want them to be happy about what they read, and I don’t care whether they tell me about it.

My requests for reviews doesn’t come from wanting to stroke my ego; it’s so more people can discover my books and like them. I want to ensure more readers have the opportunity to explore my work.

That’s a completely different framing, but one many refuse to accept.

I’m not a super special person who has achieved ultimate ego death and totally detached from human desire. At my core, I’m just like everyone else; no mystical enlightenment, no nirvana fast pass. So why can I perform this magic trick when others can’t?

The answer is because I enjoy the process of writing more than I enjoy getting attention for writing.

⤝❖⤞

You have to enjoy the process or there’s no point.

Photo by Jill Wellington on Pexels.com

If you don’t enjoy the process of writing, then don’t write.

I’m not saying you have to like every aspect of writing, mind. I certainly don’t. (Revisions. And marketing.)

But you have to like enough of it to put up with the parts you disdain.

The original post didn’t say anything about the joy of writing. There was no discussion of how fun it is to play in your own imaginary world, to plot, to create characters, to explore human nature, or even the excitement of learning something new. Everything OP said was about what they could get from other people liking what they wrote.

Frankly, it doesn’t seem like OP even likes writing. I wonder if a lot of perfectionists have the same issue. By worrying so much about what other people think, they don’t stop to consider if they enjoy anything but the finished result.

I like writing a lot. That should be clear by now. I wouldn’t have written over 8,100 words in a single day if I didn’t.

When I am in the thick of a draft, nothing matters but having fun with my characters, planning cool plots, finding the perfect description. I don’t think about whether anyone else will like it; that comes later. I like making it, which is the only crucial detail during the active writing phase.

If you find yourself gritting your teeth at the process of sitting down and making a story that no one else might ever read, this may suggest that you have too much extrinsic motivation and not enough intrinsic motivation.

During revisions, perfectionism is good because you have already determined that someone else will read this, and you want to offer them an amazing experience. During active writing, perfectionism is bad because it means you’re thinking too far ahead.

You’re not in the moment. You’re not being present with your writing. So you don’t get much done.

⤝❖⤞

How to tackle writer’s perfectionism

Photo by Startup Stock Photos on Pexels.com

The standard advice about perfectionism does not work for writers because, as I said before, I suspect it comes from a completely different source. The curse is external motivation and a desire for praise.

We need to tackle that first, and then maybe we can unwind the problem. Here is a hypothetical game plan to fix your perfectionism.

Write a poem you will never let anyone read upon pain of death. I’m serious. Create a piece that you know no one – not beta readers, not your friends, not your professors – will ever read. Commit to your promise. Never let anyone read it.

Do that a few times until you get bored.

Write a short story that you will never let anyone else read. Do this a few times.

Begin your million practice words. For the first 500,000, don’t let anyone read them right away. Polish them, play with them. Don’t tell anyone that you’re writing anything. You don’t need beta readers at this point because all of this is practice.

During this time, you should also be reading as widely as you can and studying craft through free resources.

Now, start on your next 250,000 words. These you will share with people – but under a pseudonym. You could put your silly tales on Archive of Our Own, publish them on an anonymous forum, whatever. Make sure that it’s not tied to your real name. The goal is to divorce yourself from the satisfaction of having people know who you are. If you decide you like something from your first 500,000, then put them up somewhere.

For your next 250,000 words, you’ll share them with people under your real name. You could share them with friends, join a writer’s group, or start a website. By now, you should have developed some intrinsic motivation. This will help you determine whether you genuinely enjoy writing or merely want attention.

Now you’ve done 1 million practice words! Congrats! You could be on the cusp of publishing. Devote more attention to your next projects. Get feedback. Consider the audience.

Many younger writers hate the Golden Million Word Rule. They yell at me every time I suggest it, saying I’m gatekeeping and elitist or whatever. If they already self-published, they get defensive and think I’m saying their work is shit. Work that I have never read and probably never will.

How is it elitist to say you should write stuff? You can write a million words, even if it takes you 10 years. Anyone can do that if they feel like it.

If you enjoy writing, then a million words is nothing. For me, that milestone flew by in about a year.

But if you don’t actually enjoy writing for the sake of writing – if you primarily enjoy the attention that comes from it – then the million word rule will seem like torture.

That, my friend, tells you everything you need to know about where your true motivation lies. And you need to fix that. And my potential game plan will help.

Okay, I’ll be real with you. I didn’t follow this pattern. Instead, I wrote 1.6 million words of fanfic under a pseudonym: Topazadine, which has no connection to my real name. The only people who saw it were random Touken Ranbu fans – and you, I suppose, if you go look it up.

Yes, I did get some external validation, but I knew that no one who read it cared about me; we were bonding over our mutual love of the characters. Nobody in my real life knew I was doing all of this because they don’t care about Touken Ranbu.

I also knew that attention was never guaranteed, and I was writing because I like the characters. I wanted to explore them more and play with them, just as I play with the characters in the Eirenic Verses.

Not only did this validate what I already knew – that I like writing – but it also helped demolish any ego I might have had about people breathlessly running up to me, squealing their praise.

⤝❖⤞

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again, as many times as necessary.

Ego is one of the most dangerous poisons for a writer.

It is ego that makes people publish early, makes them defensive about negative feedback, and causes them to blow up at people who are only trying to help them see their cognitive distortions.

And yes, it can keep them from bothering to write at all. Perfectionism in writers is because they care too much about what others think. An obsession with audience attention (important distinction) creates boring, derivative work that sounds like every other mass-market book on the planet. Yawn.

So please, for your own sake, stop caring about everyone else. It’s very unlikely that you’ll make a living wage from your work, especially as a self-published author. The joy and satisfaction must come from within. Otherwise, you’ll never publish at all.
How to Build a High-Stakes Story

December 13th, 2025

Photo by alexandre saraiva carniato on Pexels.com

Everyone loves a high-stakes story, right? Of course we do. I sure do. I want to be on the edge of my seat, crying about whatever is happening, anxious and worried that my faves might not pull through.

However, like everything in writing, we need balance in our stakes. If things are too high-stakes, then it feels over the top and melodramatic. If we’re promised high stakes but the author chickens out, then we’re frustrated.

I don’t know what story you are writing, so some of the things I say may not apply. The key to good writing is finding advice, deciding what works for you (and what doesn’t), and then integrating it into your own story. Take what you like and leave the rest. Let’s get into it.

⤝❖⤞

Kill someone important.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Not in real life! And not “in Minecraft,” either! I am a fiction writer and there are no dead bodies in my basement. Prommie.

Anyway, the best method to up the stakes is to kill or severely incapacitate someone important. Usually you don’t kill the MC, though it would be awesome if you disabled them and then explored how their new disability impacts their life.

Why slaughter? Because it shows us that there is true danger in the world. There is genuine risk to everyone involved, including the main cast.

Choosing exactly who to kill or maim can be challenging. It needs to be someone sympathetic who has been established to have a strong personality and good traits, even if they aren’t the main focus of any of the stories. A recurring, second-tier cast character is a good option.

You don’t want to pick The Ultimate Fan Favorite because, well, fans will be mad. But Second or Third Favorite? Put ’em on the chopping block.

Remember that the fan favorite may not be your MC (or not your MC in every story if this is a series). By this point in the Eirenic Verses, I have established that Orrinir Relickim is everybody’s itty bitty cinnamon roll. As such, he is Marked Safe From Murder. I can traumatize him to hell and back, but everyone would be angry if I killed him. Alas.

There must be ramifications for this person’s death. They cannot just be memoryholed. The MC and other cast members must mourn them, be sad and angry about it. There has to be grief. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter, and their death was for nothing.

Let them haunt the narrative. Have them be referenced. Do a funeral scene. This not only makes the main characters more empathetic, but it reinforces that the loss mattered and that said person is never coming back.

⤝❖⤞

Combine more than one dilemma.

Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA on Pexels.com

We generally know that the MC isn’t going to die, as I will discuss later on. So we need to have more than just “oh no, everyone can die!” to get people invested. Here are a few other options.

Interpersonal conflict. Two loved ones may have opposing ideas for how to solve the problem. They may disagree with whether the Big Bad is a problem at all.

Legal conflict. One person may not be authorized to fight the Big Bad. There may be political power plays related to the issue.

Moral conflict. Fighting the Big Bad is not an immediate black or white issue. It may challenge someone’s worldview.

Conflicts of interest. Someone may find themselves switching allegiances or questioning their loyalty to a person/group.

Intrapersonal conflict. The MC may struggle with self-doubt, prejudice, trauma, or their ideals.

The best stories will seamlessly blend multiple of these with physical danger to make a richer and more compelling story. We have to wonder how all of these will be resolved, how the character will grow through their experiences, and what lasting changes will occur as a result of the disaster.

⤝❖⤞

Include plot twists without adding new primary conflicts.

Photo by Mehdi Khoshnejad on Pexels.com

Some writers, particularly in adventure and fantasy, erroneously believe that the only way to raise the stakes is to throw a brand new capital-b Big Bad at the characters before the primary Big Bad has been defeated.

For example, they may be fighting a villain, but suddenly there’s a nuclear holocaust looming on the horizon that has absolutely nothing to do with the villain. Or a second evil person shows up out of nowhere and now they are fighting both. Or an ancient curse has been unearthed and now the villain wants it too.

This is lazy writing. It’s the literary equivalent of distracting a child from a cookie by jingling some keys. You’re demonstrating that you’re not capable of raising the stakes without just throwing everything away and adding in something completely different.

As I’ve discussed before, I use the Plot Mountain method, primarily because it reminds me that we have an end goal and a return trip (more on that later). We know what the goal is, and we always have known what the goal is: to get to the top of the mountain. There are things that could cause the characters to turn back or make their victory uncertain. But we don’t just suddenly skip-hop to a completely different mountain and start over.

Every plot point in your story should be directly or tangentially related to that ultimate goal. Of course you can have downtime; I built my plot method to ensure that. But you cannot let the characters forget what they want and how they want to achieve it.

A good story explores a few key concepts in enough detail and shows the journey to that goal. Readers prefer this over fractalizing into a dozen side quests or abruptly pulling a U-turn and going, “You know what? Actually that Big Bad didn’t matter. Now we have this Big Bad to worry about. Forget about the first one.”

So, in raising the stakes, you are revealing ever-more danger pertaining to the original Big Bad. You uncover scarier things. There are obstacles that make it seem like your heroes won’t get to their goal. They may be injured in a fight and be unsure of if they can actually get to where they need to.

Particularly frustrating series will completely reverse everything the characters have fought for and start over again with a new Big Bad. For example, think about how bullshit it was when the Thanos “Snap” was reversed and suddenly everyone was back and happy in the MCU series. Don’t do that. If something happens, commit to it. Don’t go back on your word. Everyone will despise you for it.

⤝❖⤞

Show the fear of other cast members.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

In most cases, we know that the MC is going to make it out alive. It’s pretty rare for an author to kill off their MC, especially in the middle of a series. Yes, MC may be banged up and bruised and in pain; they may be traumatized. But we do know, for the most part, that they’re going to pull through somehow.

However, the other characters don’t know that, because … well … they don’t know that the main character is the MC. They are blissfully unaware that their friend, partner, schoolmate, dog, whatever, is Chosen by the Plot to Survive and Cannot Die.

It is so, so very important to remember this. Your story needs to feel like a real thing that happened, which means that the people around your MC need to have blind spots – particularly about how special the MC is.

This is part of the reason that some stories feel fake and, therefore, don’t have high stakes. It appears that everyone around the MC is aware that they are the most important in the narrative, so they treat them differently. They don’t get mad at the MC, they forgive them all the time, they defer to them when they have no reason to.

And they don’t show fear when something bad happens to the MC because it seems like they subconsciously know the MC won’t die.

So when something bad happens, make sure that everyone is in fear for their lives – and for the MC’s, too.

There’s a part in my fifth book, Absent All Light, when Cerie (one of the two MCs) is sucked into a whirlpool. Obviously, because she is the MC, we know she’s going to make it out somehow – she kinda has to.

But her brother Uileac, who is there with her, is losing his goddamn mind about it. He’s utterly terrified, screaming, performing Ye Olde CPR, yelling at her.

This reminds us that Uileac is perfectly unaware of his sister’s OP status and that he genuinely believes she could die. Even though she does survive, it warns us that there are consequences in this world – and reminds us that other characters aren’t always safe either.

⤝❖⤞

Ensure that everything has a price.

Photo by Yan Krukau on Pexels.com

Our stories, even if they take place in another world, should align with the basic concepts our readers know from our real normal world. That includes the idea that everything has an equal and opposite reaction.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch in the real world. No free lunches in your world, either.

While a character getting hurt and being scarred forever is one of the most obvious prices you can choose, there are many others. Mixing and matching these can provide higher stakes and help us feel there are real consequences for what the characters do. Here are some options (not an exhaustive list):

MC is physically injured and must be healed. Even if they are healed, they may be weak and not at full strength.

MC is traumatized by what happened and suffers from psychological injuries requiring treatment – or are ignored and cause more problems later.

A secondary character dies, or a large number of people die and everyone is pointing fingers at one another.

Secondary characters are injured and must live with the physical consequences of helping MC. Even if they remain loyal to MC, the MC will face guilt and remorse for hurting someone they care about.

MC loses their optimism or hope in a just world.

MC and their loved ones disagree with one another and their relationship is damaged by this argument.

MC faces legal consequences for what they have done, like being jailed or tortured.

MC loses the trust and respect of others because of what they have done. (Bonus points if some people revere them and others hate them for supposedly “saving the world.”)

MC loses trust in themselves and their abilities.

MC has career consequences for what they did, especially if they “go rogue” and disobey orders. They may be fired, demoted, put on probation.

Others exploit MC’s actions for their own gain, such as lauding them to make themselves look better or allying themselves with MC in hopes of usurping them. MC is now suspicious of former allies.

MC has a crisis of conscience, particularly if their actions harmed others for the greater good.

MC loses hope in a higher power and wonders why a loving god would let horrible things happen to them.

Cities or the earth itself is damaged by their actions and must be painstakingly repaired, with all the expenses and anger this may cause.

Relationships between political factions, government agencies, or international governments are damaged and must be repaired. The consequence may be a civil war, international war, or simply bureaucratic strife.

MC loses economic stability because of what they have done and needs to take a second job, borrow from family, etc.

MC’s allies face consequences and resent MC for putting them in that position. These allies may change sides, or they may stubbornly stick by MC to their own peril.

⤝❖⤞

Move the climax up so you can explore the ramifications.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

One of the problems I have with a lot of stories is that there’s the climax and then … nothing. Everything all neatly wrapped up and everyone’s happy. There are no lingering ramifications, no questions; the characters frolic off into the sunset.

This is fine for low-stakes stories. Pride Before a Fall, the second in my series, has the climax pretty close to the end because there’s not much else to do. We already knew that whatever the climax was, it wasn’t going to be world-changing. But if I had sold that as a high-stakes story and then just left the dolls on the table after the Big Bad, everyone would be furious with me.

With my fifth book, Absent All Light (coming June 23, 2026), the climax is in Chapter 18, but the book has 30 chapters. Those remaining 12 chapters aren’t filler; they are all about exploring the consequences of the climax. There is physical, emotional, and political fallout from what happens for all the characters. We get to see how things aren’t tied up neatly in a bow; there are lingering questions that continue to be explored multiple books later.

I built my Plot Mountain method specifically to remind authors that you cannot just let everything peter out after the climax. The return trip from the peak can be equally perilous to the climb up, and it deserves attention too.

If you intend to write a one-book, high-stakes story, but the climax is two chapters from the end, that is simply not enough. It does not feel earned if there aren’t consequences.

Again, those consequences could come in a different book if you have a series; that’s perfectly okay. But those last chapters should be priming us to want more. To wonder what’s going to happen now.

I found that was a problem with my sixth book, Poesy, which is in revisions. Readers already know that there’s going to be another book, but I didn’t signpost that enough, so I need to go cut some boring stuff out and add more to the end so we feel like there are lingering questions.

And that, my friends, is why we write ahead and let things sit before revisions. If I hadn’t let that book sit for nigh-on three years now, I wouldn’t have thought of that.

⤝❖⤞

High stakes does not necessarily mean adding more and more ridiculous plots to disorient readers. This is called “jumping the shark,” and it often happens when you have not planned out your whole series before getting started. You run out of ideas and aren’t sure what to do next because there is no overarching goal.

This sort of fish-hopping happens when someone intends to only write a one-off, but then is pressured into adding more books. Yonder Tradpub is very notorious for either refusing to commission another book or demanding a sequel even though the story doesn’t really need one.

You can avoid the “second book slump” by simply not publishing before you’ve planned everything, determined the stakes, and added your mini-climaxes. That’s much easier in self-publishing of course, but if you intend to go tradpub, you should do this too.

So, in addition to sticking with one primary conflict that threads throughout everything, I encourage you to start writing the next books in your series before you have published anything. You may even be insane, like me, and just write the middle book before going back and writing everything else before and after that middle book.

Oh no! That’s a lot of delayed gratification! How are you supposed to become The Most Famous Author Ever Right Now if you write something you’re not going to publish for years?!

If this book series really matters to you, then the publishing timeline doesn’t. I wouldn’t have written the first five books if I hadn’t written the sixth one first, because I wouldn’t have realized there was more story to tell.

I’m in this for the long haul, baby. The entire series isn’t going to be complete until 2028. That’s four years of publishing two books a year. And that’s okay to me, because I care about what I’m doing and I don’t care how long it takes to get me there. I have strong intrinsic motivation – exactly what you need to succeed.

Time, patience, and good planning is crucial to ensuring your stakes are high, your stories are consistent, and victories feel earned. Don’t rush your writing; let it unfold naturally and see how much better things can be.
How Men Can Avoid “Men Writing Women” Pitfalls

December 3rd, 2025

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

“Men writing women” is such an obnoxious occurrence that there are whole subreddits, listicles, and even articles on college websites complaining about it.

I particularly like that last link from Emerson College explaining three key issues with men writing women, which I’ll highlight now:

Objectification. Men write entirely about women’s bodies and not about their personalities.

Weird sexual language. A lot of men apparently do not understand how women work sexually, despite supposedly having sex with them.

Their existence centers around men. The women are always love interests, married to a different man, daddy’s little princesses, or a sexual antagonist for the male hero.

Though I am a lesbian, I like men (platonically); I wouldn’t write a whole series with prominent male characters if I didn’t. Harsh as I might sound here, I’m not a man-hating harpy. I say everything here as some tough love.

I want men to do better in all ways, including writing. So let’s examine some of the ways you can avoid being accused of this heinous crime.

⤝❖⤞

Do not discuss breasts. For any reason.

Photo by Sherman Trotz on Pexels.com

This is one of the major elements that gets men called out as misogynist pigs, and it’s so easy to fix, so I don’t know why y’all haven’t just done it already.

I read David Guterson’s East of the Mountains as a teen and absolutely loved it. There really weren’t any women in the book, so I didn’t know that David Guterson is kind of a creep. I only realized this when I read Our Lady of the Forest where every single woman, no matter their relationship to the protagonist, had to have a full overview of their chest meat, often multiple times.

Again, it wasn’t like the protagonists were sleeping with all of these women. Guterson just felt like the only way to differentiate the female background characters was by what kind of breasts they had. Including a very young character who I believe wasn’t anymore than 16, and who everyone had to mention had small boobs. Eww????

As of now, I think there is only one reference to a love interest’s breasts in the entire Eirenic Verses – which is going to be 10 books, by the way.

Before you complain that “oh, well, you’re a woman, you don’t look at boobs” … remember, I am a lesbian. I sure do admire an attractive bust. I may sometimes wax poetic about them – just not in my books.

So go through your draft. CTRL + F to find any breast references (including synonyms). Remove it. Immediately. Find something else to discuss.

⤝❖⤞

When discussing a woman’s physique, focus on the face and any unique identifiers.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Descriptions of women from male writers often sound like they’re describing a porn star. You’ll see something like this:

She had a lean, taut body with perfectly round breasts that jiggled softly with each step. Her waist was so small that he could easily wrap his hands around it with a little extra space, but her hips flanged like a Coke bottle.

Ew. I could keep going on but it would make me a bit nauseous.

And the very worst male writers will even include hip, waist, and bust measurements as if this is at all useful or important. It’s not, really; these authors just want to get their male audience horny by making up numbers that sound good. But are usually physically impossible.

The thing is that this doesn’t help us visualize her in any depth. That is because most normal people look at someone’s face first.

Said author didn’t even say anything about the female character’s … well, anything but her body. We don’t know her hair color, eye color, facial features, height, weight, anything. Everything above the boobs is a blur.

All we know is that she looks pretty fuckable by Western standards. And this isn’t a very interesting description anyway; it doesn’t stick with us.

Let’s look at an example from my most recent book, What Is Cannot Be Unwritten, where Mordrek describes his love interest Juliska during their first meeting.

“My name is Juliska Sygnis,” a gentle voice told him. “I’ll be taking you to our meronym in Vercingetorix.”

He jerked his face to the woman, eyes wide. In his fragile state, she was the most ravishing dame he had ever seen. Snow-white hair that curled at the edges like wings; dark eyes and pale skin; a blue robe cinched with black at the waist. If he could speak with any coherency, he would have told her she looked like an angel.

Mordrek doesn’t mention her body at all except to say what she’s wearing. Amusingly enough, he defaults to the simplest color descriptions, as men tend to do. No “sapphire” here, just blue and black.

Instead, he focuses most of her attention on her fascinating hair: pure white with curling ends. It is this, not her cup size, that makes him say she looks like an angel.

Later on in the book, he talks about how he loves her crooked teeth. This is something that makes her less than perfect, and therefore it makes her memorable.

⤝❖⤞

You can write sexual encounters with women without objectifying them.

Photo by Katie Salerno on Pexels.com

I do not think there’s anything wrong with writing sex scenes in fiction. But part of the reason that people don’t like sex scenes is because they are often far more explicit than most are comfortable with, and they treat women like a Fleshlight.

If the scene is written from a man’s perspective, there’s not really much about what the woman is thinking or feeling. We don’t get the sense that she is enjoying it; she doesn’t say anything funny, make weird noises. The POV centers on how the man is enjoying thrusting into his partner and how he likes the way her body looks.

Rarely does the woman take agency and flip things around, getting dominant with the man. She’s quiet and receptive, or she just moans and accepts what he is doing.

And, of course, there are even more depictions of how hot she looks while she’s getting railed.

In a healthy relationship, most people aren’t really thinking about the other person’s body while they are having sex. They are thinking of how good it feels, wondering if their partner is enjoying everything, worrying about their sexual performance. Their visual focus is likely going to be on the partner’s face to watch their expressions (if they’re in missionary), or on whatever body part they are currently pleasuring (if they’re doing something like oral).

Think about the woman’s feelings during the sex act and deprioritize bodily descriptions, especially in the thick of things. You can talk about their body while they’re undressing – and you should, particularly if this is the first time the two are being intimate – but once the lights dim and the two are in bed, it’s time to think about emotions.

Use your Theory of Mind to consider how the other character is feeling, then match that to dialogue or action. Then remove any breast descriptions that may have slipped in during your writing fugue.

⤝❖⤞

Ensure that women are defined by something other than their relationships to men.

Photo by Christina Morillo on Pexels.com

Of course, if you have a mixed cast of men and women, the women will relate to men in some form. They could be lovers, friends, relatives, enemies, or whatever.

But they have to have something beyond this – something for them alone.

In the first three books of the Eirenic Verses, we know Cerie Korviridi through her relationships with Uileac (her older brother) and Orrinir (her brother-in-law). She is a child and young adult in these books, so of course she doesn’t have much of her own going on just yet.

Still, we see that she does have things outside of them: namely, High Poetry and the High Poet Society. In Pride Before a Fall, we see her studying with Uileac and Orrinir, who are attempting to help her prepare for her big research paper, and we also get to see her recite a poem she wrote for a festival.

China Mieville, noted male writer, is excellent with this. All his female characters have their own goals and purposes, even if they are in relationships with men. They take active roles in the plot, they have hobbies that don’t necessarily align with others in their lives, and they solve problems the men around them weren’t able to.

In Perdido Street Station, Lin is essential to the plot; most of it wouldn’t have happened without her. She is displayed as both confident and scared, willing to take risks but terrified of the consequences. We also learn more about her strange upbringing, her species’ history and culture, and how she feels about the discrimination she faces.

I also don’t remember him ever discussing breasts in any of his books, and he is an extremely successful author. If he can do it, so can you.

⤝❖⤞

Explore the female character’s motivations and beliefs.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Let’s return to Our Lady of the Forest by David Guterson for a minute. One of the characters, Tom, is going through a contentious divorce with his ex-wife after he intentionally paralyzes his son during a logging accident.

Despite the fact that he is the sole cause of this tragedy, Tom is painted as a martyr figure with a bitch of an ex-wife who is determined to make his life difficult for no reason. All the women around her are also portrayed as terrible people out to get poor ol’ Tom.

We have no idea what his wife thinks about anything. In fact, she’s so forgettable as a character that I don’t even remember her name, and I’m not bothering to look it up either. Her sole purpose is to be an antagonist for Tom who he also wishes he could fuck again.

And every woman in the book is like this. All of them. They are all viewed through the men’s eyes as flat, two-dimensional characters who exist to sexually torment or steal from the men.

This is rampant misogyny, no question about it. And Guterson is not trying to make a statement about misogyny either; he’s actively participating in it, with no hint of authorial dissent.

If there had been a single male character who actually treated women as humans and not fuck toys, we could discern that Guterson doesn’t agree with his characters and is trying to portray something about the state of society.

But no. He spends more time discussing logging and setting the atmosphere for this Pacific Northwest town than he does exploring any woman’s motivations, beliefs, or passions.

Look at your female characters and compare their motivations to what you have provided for the men in your book. Write it all down if you have to. Does the woman have any goals? Are those motivations as interesting as the men’s? If not, work on that.

⤝❖⤞

If you hate women, don’t write about them.

Photo by Alex P on Pexels.com

You likely don’t expect a female author to tell you this, but if you don’t want to write about women, you don’t have to.

There’s no reason you have to put women in your book unless you want feminist brownie points – which you won’t get, because your book is misogynistic.

Some of the most successful books by male authors don’t have a lot of women in them. I love Moby Dick, but it has approximately one woman in it. The whaling ship is entirely populated by men, and the only woman Ishmael interacts with extensively was a female innkeeper at the beginning of the book.

Of course, I’m not saying Herman Melville was a misogynist, though we can argue about that based on his biography if we want. He just didn’t put any women in his book because he was talking about a mostly male-dominated profession. Other books I enjoy, like Remainder, also prioritize men with only a few female background characters.

Is it kind of douchey, given that women are half the population? Yes, it is. But not every book in the world has to include every single type of person or focus on every possible experience.

People may not like your book if it doesn’t have women in it, and they may complain that you didn’t pass the Bechdel test, blah blah blah.

A lot of my books also don’t pass the Bechdel test, btw, particularly the ones with male POVs. The Bechdel test is a simplistic determination of whether women are prioritized in storytelling and was never meant to be some litmus test of Good Woman Writing.

So you don’t have to write a feminist anthem. But readers will like your book even less if you refuse to portray women in a sensitive and compelling way.

No women in your book = moderate readership, decent reviews, a lot of people may not even comment on the lack of women.

Objectified and useless women in your book = everyone but raging misogynists will hate it.

While I always encourage all writers, of any gender, to experiment and try new things, you’re also not obligated to write about anything you don’t want to.

If writing women feels like pulling teeth to you, then I’m giving you permission not to do it. I probably won’t read your book, but losing my readership isn’t the end of the world for you or anyone else.

But, you might find that you can have a more engaged audience and higher readership if you work hard to improve your female characterization.

Work with female beta readers when you’re done. Ask them specifically to address the female depictions in your work. Listen to their suggestions without judgment or defensiveness.

I do understand that writing about people you don’t fully understand can be very challenging. Only a few authors are able to capture the nuances of numerous human experiences in their stories, such as Michael Ondaatje and David Mitchell. I’m not good at writing characters who are very unlike me, and most authors aren’t.

However, trying something new is always worthwhile. It will get easier the more you do it – and you may find you grow as a human being, too.