Thomas Sullivan: SEGAMI RORRIM
If something has to be kept secret, it must be true. Secrets are self-proving. Lies are loud and wear red hats, e.g. Santa Claus. Okay, I’m being a tad glib here. I do not mean that only secrets are true or that all red hats – i.e. loud proclamations — are lies (your red hat is still true blue, Santa). But secrets tend to be true, else they wouldn’t need hiding. I think that most people believe this at some level. In fact some OVER-believe it, glomming onto every “exposed” secret as innately true because life after all is run by conspiracies and manipulative forces. Consider the power that this reflex gives to persuasion. Want someone to believe something outlandish? Present it as a secret.
And in this way my premise statement moves from being a truism about content to a truism about style. Because if you pretend something is secret only to make it seem valid when you expose it, you’ve given it the style of truth but not necessarily the substance. And that can be a literary device to disarm the reader. An effective literary device. In fact, take it a step further. Let the secret be some discovery you make contrary to what the writer is saying. No truth is more acceptable than underlying truth you think you perceive by yourself, after all. Better yet if you have to pry it out, testifying to your astuteness. In this model the falseness is the literal statement, parading itself as truth. The truth is the secret you discern hiding behind the falseness, and it is its opposite. Thus we have Mark Twain giving us his truth about all humans being of equal worth by having Huck Finn believe he is going to hell for helping the runaway slave Jim escape. The world has it backwards, Twain is showing us. Social morality is the real falseness and Huck Finn in the simple purity and honesty of his soul has it right though he believes he will go to hell for his choice. Edgar Allen Poe gives us an even more direct stylistic example in the beginning of “The Tell-Tale Heart.” “True!” his first person narrator tells us too loudly in the very first word, “nervous, very dreadfully nervous I was and am, but why will you say I am mad?” Already you know the character is mad. (“Methinks he doth protest too much.”) He is in your face, asserting his “truth” so loudly that you immediately know it’s a lie.
Life is full of opposites, isn’t it? It is tempting – particularly in an improbable life like mine – to put more faith in the counterintuitive then into the face value of things. But that would be another grave error. Nevertheless, it is counterintuitiveness that seems to yield the most insight into truth when it comes to understanding people and presenting characters. We are devious, after all, you and I; yet relatively transparent as well to the observer who has developed objectivity. So, in human behavior, it is often enlightening to look for opposites, contrasts, and apparent contradictions lurking beneath the surface.
These show up most clearly under stress, but with some people the occurrence is pathological. I find these pathological types to be the most predictable because they always try to be unpredictable, and I often use them for catalyst characters. They are people who have discovered a game, a posture, an attitude, or a tone that works for them. They are usually one-trick types who continually use the single gimmick of reverse psychology. Over time they tend to lose credibility, and so they wear their audiences down to the gullible, the susceptible, or the impaired. You might see them holding forth where education is scarce, or playing the victim, or sounding witty under neon lights just before “last call.” Drunk or sober, “in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” Their conflicts are seldom internal but instead come from trying to manipulate the external world. That’s why they make good catalyst characters.
More fascinating to me are people who are internally conflicted, because they are not neatly consistent or as predictable. Especially if their emotions are strong. This happens more with women than men. And, no, I’m not saying that women are less rational than men. But I am saying that they tend to be influenced by a more complex range of emotions than men usually are. In evolutionary terms, anger and aggressiveness work strongest for archetypal men, while a fuller range of emotions has more survival value for archetypal women. The former (male) tends to solve immediate tactical problems and be direct; the latter (female) may address long-term strategic goals and be indirect. Which is probably why women get hung with the tag of being unpredictable. In any event, if this makes sense to you, you can easily see why marketing biases favor physical action books for men (external conflicts) and emotional tension books for women (internal conflicts). Of course, just as in reality these stereotypes of men and women exist as a mix within individuals of either sex, fully developed writing reflects a mix of simple action and character complexity no matter what the genre or gender. The nod, though, goes toward internal conflicts with its focus on substantial characterization, if only because most readers are women. I like that. It takes me right back to the deliciously counterintuitive wildcard that emotions introduce.
Think of how many things can go wrong with internal conflicts as opposed to external. In external you have things and events; in internal you have things and events plus all the interpretations and psychological/emotional consequences of external happenings. Internal is where external crosses into human experience, the nerve center, the point of impact – if a tree falls, does it make a sound? (Does it matter to you, if you don’t hear it – if you don’t internalize it?) If you want to experience and communicate life fully, free your characters to be human. Let them become contradictory, confused, emotional, unstable and changeable – then let them find their way back (or not). And while you’re at it, free yourself from being that writer/person who has a one-trick pathology and writes/sees with one eye open in the country of the blind. With two eyes open in life, you have twice the chance of seeing the magic.
Your thoughts are welcome, your attention valued.
Thomas “Sully” Sullivan
http://www.thomassullivanauthor.com
























