HANDWRITING ANALYSIS OR GRAPHOLOGY

Hi folks,

My friend Kari posed some questions and issues about handwriting analysis and I was going to just reply and thought I’d do a post on it instead. It’s much too big a topic for a simple reply. Hope this helps, Kari, and everyone else. It’s very important to be accurate in our facts in novels and stories (and screenplays, but no one much pays attention to facts in movies…)

 My lovely wife Mary, as seen through my big feet. (Us professional photogs call this "framing." I trust you caught the irony there...) You'll meet Mary further down in a little story about felon's hooks and vacuum cleaners...

First of all, to establish the bona fides of handwritiing analysis or graphology--it's a reputable and acknowledged science. It's accepted in courts in all 50 states, and courts don't allow anything that isn't provable or scientific. They don't allow tea leaf reading or horoscopes, for example, or allow dog whisperers or horse whispers to take the stand and present evidence. There are several leading teaching medical schools that have a graphologist on hand to diagnose various diseases and illnesses. I had an interesting experience years ago with a teaching colleague when I noticed a trait in her handwriting and said to her that her handwriting showed she had pain and disease in her shins. Shocked, she looked at me and said that no one knew this, but that she had severe shin splints. It showed in her handwriting through a trait called “stasis.” There are four leading universities at present that offer accredited courses or degrees in the U.S. In many western European universities, if you get a degree in psychology, you're required to take a course in graphologhy to obtain your degree. It's a bona fide, legally-accepted science. There are provable tenets, in other words. And, there are three things you cannot tell by handwriting analysis: age, sex, and handedness. Those are all old wives' tales. Also, I'd beware of Internet sources for facts, particularly Wikipedia. Those are notoriously unreliable. Anyone can post anything on resources like that and most are just opinion and not to be trusted.

Everybody's handwriting is different. Within a family, a son or daughter's handwriting will often resemble the parent or guardian who was the most influential (not necessary the most loved), but it's still unique to that person.

What most people "think" looks like "male" handwriting is that it's larger or perhaps "sloppier." The fact is, there are just as many women as men who have large or sloppy handwriting. More accurately, large handwriting is a trait of being an extrovert. Sloppy handwriting is often a trait of higher intelligence than average. Small handwriting is a trait of being an introvert. No one trait defines a personality. It takes literally dozens to produce a reliable picture.

“Waverly” handwriting can be an elderly person’s handwriting; it can also be the result of disease or ill-health. It can also indicate emotional illness. By itself, it doesn’t indicate age at all. It also doesn’t matter what cursive system a person was taught by, Palmer or otherwise. It really isn’t “handwriting” analyasis. Properly, It is graphic movement. A person doesn’t even have to be able to write to have their writing or doodles or drawings studied and by the same elements as handwriting is accessed. Children who haven’t yet learned to write can be analyzed with the same traits as those can do write, just as easily.

Your handwriting is your handwriting and it is unique to you. Even if it resembles your dominant parent, it’s still unique to you. There are dozens and dozens of traits that need to be analyzed to give an accurate picture. Just a few include: slant, baseline, margins, spacing, pressure, size, speed, zones, printing vs connected writing, connecting strokes, signatures, the personal pronoun I, and many, many others. No one trait can identify the three things mentioned and even with all the traits analyzed, those three things can’t be told.

If a person is say, right-handed, and loses that hand and learns to write with his left hand, his handwriting will, over time, become the same as the right-handed writing. If he loses that hand also and learns to write with his foot or even his teeth, the handwriting will eventually become the same. Handwriting is a function of the brain and exhibits personality traits. I had a student years ago who had suffered a stroke and had lost the use of her right hand. She learned to write with her left. About a year before I had her in class, her feeling returned and she reverted back to her right hand to write. When I told the class that about it doesn’t matter which hand you write with, if you write long enough with the other it will become the same as the original hand. She gasped and said I was exactly right. The next day she brought in samples from before when she wrote right handed and later samples she’d written just before her feeling returned from her left hand, and a sample of her present writing. All three were exactly the same. That doesn’t mean the day after she lost use of her right hand, her left-handed handwriting was the same—that’s impossible. But, after about a year of writing with her left it had gradually returned to the same handwriting she had produced with her right hand.

The thing I felt was wrong in the book I mentioned was that the character professed his take on handwriting as “fact” and it was absolutely wrong. That this guy was a detective compounded the error. He didn’t say he “thought” his dead girlfriend’s hair seemed longer; he stated it as an absolute fact that it was. That’s different than a character giving an incorrect opinion. He observed the dead woman and reported what he “saw.” Which was impossible. Hair does not grow after the body dies. Impossible. And, what made it worse was that he didn’t say it grew a tiny bit—he indicated it had grown a lot, had been growing for the two years since she had died. And, then, this same character interpreted a handwriting example as being “male” and then from an “older” person. Neither are possible to determine. This ruined this character’s reliability for me and ruined the book as well and probably will keep me from reading any more of this writer’s books. These are extremely easy facts to research and verify (not from Wikipedia, sorry!). In fact, if anyone’s interested a good source to begin a study of the science is Andrea McNichol’s Handwriting Analysis: Putting it to Work for You. It’s very accessible and easy to understand. Andrea teaches the subject at USC and has solved hundreds of crimes for law enforcement agencies through graphology, including the legitimacy of the Howard Hughes will, the Ted Bundy murders, the Hitler Diaries, and the Billionaire Boys Club case. She’s regularly called in to solve in-house theft by Fortune 500 companies.

In fact, most people are unaware of this but the majority of Fortune 500 companies employ handwriting analysis of their candidates for middle- and upper-management hires, and increasingly for routine hires. They just don’t tell the applicant. There’s a large firm in Louisville who has the lion’s share of this business, analyzing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of handwriting samples for the business world. If you ever interview for a job and the ask you to just “jot down a paragraph or two about your life goals” or “where you see yourself in five/ten years,” it’s almost certain they’re going to send that sample to the Louisville firm or another like it. They won’t tell you that’s what they’re doing, but it usually is.

Here in Ft. Wayne years ago, I interviewed Barry LaBov for his international company, LaBov and Beyond. Barry’s company pioneered on-hold phone messages and does all kinds of advertising business, such as create jingles for companies for advertising. Among their clients are Disney, Chrysler, Ford, G.E… in short, just about all of the major corporations. Their business is unique, in that their employees not only have be to salespeople, they also have to be musically-gifted. They don’t hire “off the street,” and Barry told me it takes an average of two years to train an employee to where they begin contributing to the bottom line. Who they hire is extremely important to them. He said that because of that, they used to use all the best personality tests and profiling and all the best sophisticated tools available to make sure they hired the right people. Even with the best scientific tools there were, his retention rate for employees was less than 60%. He was talked into hiring handwriting analysis on his hires and was skeptical. But, he swears by it now. His retention rate today is almost 99%. In fact, he said at the beginning they were going to hire a woman who was at the top of all their scientific charts as to personality, prediction of success, etc., and it was between her and another woman who didn’t test nearly as high, but seemed qualified. The second woman exhibited a much higher score than the first one and Barry said he almost didn’t hire her, but he did and he said she’s turned out to be the single best employee he’s ever had. She was promoted to senior v.p. and still is. The other woman went to a competitor and did great for a year and then the negative traits the handwriting analysis had predicted surfaced and the competitor was not only forced to fire her, but pressed charges against her for intellectual theft. Today, Barry says he wouldn’t hire a janitor without a handwriting analysis. It’s so much more accurate than anything else.

Here are some traits that stand out. Keep in mind that some handwriting is occupation-determined. For instance, most folks think doctors have terrible handwriting, barely legible. Well, it is, many times. It’s occupation-related. They write so many prescriptions that their handwriting deteriorates. Engineers, many times print everything (doesn’t matter for analysis if it’s printed or cursive or even what cursive method they learned). That’s because they write lots of memos and they have to be clear. That’s job related. Although, there’s another factor at work with engineers. Many of their personalities tend to be “things-oriented” rather than “people-oriented.” That makes a person who is or has learned to be wary of other people Therefore, many of them print in their casual life as well, and that’s considered a negative trait. People instinctively realize that their handwriting reveals their personalities and when a person prints, you have to make sure it’s not just a job-related habit. It may also indicate a person who doesn’t want others to know the “real” him. A person who not only prints, but always prints in all capitals, is really a person who doesn’t want others to know the real person he is. Doesn’t mean he’s a psychopath or anything; just means this is a person who will probably not reveal his inside self to others until after a long time when he finally feels he can trust them.

Most people hide their real selves. The thing is, they can hide it from others, even close relatives like a wife or husband, but they can’t hide it in their handwriting.

There are several extremely negative traits. One that always stands out is the “felon’s hook.” I can’t reproduce it here, but it’s a writer who doesn’t write the descenders on letters like y or j, for instance. Instead of a loop, like most of us use, it’s more like an upside-down U in the descender. Studies show that over 87% of those incarcerated will exhibit a felon’s hook in their writing while they’re incarcerated. My wife has one that appears in her handwriting when she’s fibbing or lying about something. (She won’t handwrite anything for me any longer, but she doesn’t realize I can tell just as much from her printing. Hope she doesn’t read this!). A few years ago, we had to spring for a new vacuum cleaner which we really couldn’t afford but had to have. She bought one and then spent the first week cussing at it as it didn’t perform like she thought it should. “Take it back,” I suggested, but she said she couldn’t. She got in a no-return clearance sale. “Well, I guess we’re stuck with it then,” I said, and she reluctantly agreed. But, it was clear she hated it. Well, the next Monday which was both of our day off, I went to get coffee and when I got back, Mary was gone. She left a note saying she was just running out to the mall for a little bit. That was all it said. Very innocuous. When she got back, I said, “What kind of vacuum cleaner did you buy?” She was absolutely shocked. That’s exactly what she’d done. She was going to tell me… when she figured out a way to do so without having me have a cow. “How’d you know?” she asked. I showed her her note… and the felon’s hook she’d used for the g in running. That told me instantly she was fibbing about something and since that was the logical thing—the thing we’d been discussing intensely, I knew that’s what she’d done.

In my classes, when I talk about handwriting analysis, I tell my students to write a chatty letter to their best friend and to put in a small lie and I’ll see if I can find it. Just about every time, my batting average is 100% Not 90%. 100%. Ask Sarah F. who’s on here if she’s reading his. We’ve taught together and she’s seen me do this. I won’t reveal how it’s done… gotta keep some secrets. I don’t even read what they’ve written. Don’t have to.

The worst trait in handwriting analysis probably isn’t what you think. The most negative trait is handwriting that looks almost perfect. It looks almost exactly like the cursive writing we saw back in third grade in the books that taught us cursive writing. Now, this can be job-related—if the writer is an elementary school teacher and feels it important to provide a good model for her students’ handwriting, then that’s job-related and normal. What makes it a negative trait is if the writer doesn’t normally write that perfectly and then you observe their writing getting more and more perfect. If you see that happening in a friend or loved one, I’d suggest talking to them. They may well be suicidal. It’s important that you realize that if this is the person’s normal handwriting, it doesn’t mean much. It’s only when it begins to change toward perfect writing. What’s happening is that a person who starts to have thoughts of suicide is a person who perceives their world is out of their control. They feel they can no longer control their world… but they can control their handwriting. And they begin to do so. I told a class I taught this at the University of Toledo a few years ago and a very shy girl I’ll just call K, came up to me and said I was exactly right. (I already knew I was…) She said she’d attempted suicide eight times and had always kept a diary and she knew without looking that every time she got close to an attempt, her handwriting grew smaller and smaller and more than that, it began to get more and more perfect. She brought in her diary to class the next day and shared her story and showed us the places where she’d made suicide attempts and sure enough. In the days leading up to each attempt, the handwriting noticeably got more and more perfect, until the days she tried to take her life (and she really tried—none of them were that “cry for help”) and on that day her handwriting looked like it was traced out of a third-grade handwriting copy book. It was classic. Just passing this on so that if someone you know and love begins writing like this, at least sit down and have a talk with them. You may find you’ll be glad you did.

I can write more on this subject if you guys want me to. If several post interest in learning more, I’d be happy to provide more. It takes about three years of intensive study under an accredited graphologist (there are two nationally-recognized organization, and I was fortunate to be able to study under the national secretary of the most prominent one.). One more story. I taught one time with a woman who was a lawyer and introduced her to it and she was fascinated. The upshot was, she studied the science, became accredited and within three years became a millionaire. How? She formed a company that picked juries for lawyers by their handwriting. She’s more accurate than any other method and she can’t handle all the business. Today, she has three other full-time people working for her and is ready to go national. She’s already well-known in the region she lives in and has more business than she can handle.

I always tell my young students I can give them a way to become a millionaire within three years and I can. So far, no one’s taken me up on it. Takes a lot of work and study. Handwriting analysis is the single most accurate gauge of personality that exists. If that’s so… and it is… then a person who learns the science enough to be certified, could hang out her shingle and cater to one group only and she’ll be swamped with business. An average analysis by a certified graphologist will run from $100 to $500. It takes half an hour to an hour to provide a thorough analysis. What do you think a certified person would make if she opened a business just for women to see what their proposed fiancée was really like? See what his true personality is. See if he’s a liar or honest? All of those things and more are revealed by graphology. Especially women who had been married before and maybe has a child or two and has already been burned? Men, as well, but this is a business I think will attract more women than men. Do the math. How many people do you know would pay to find out the true personality of the guy or woman she or he was considering marrying?

Just going back over your questions, Kari, to make sure I didn’t neglect any of them. You cannot tell a person’s age by handwriting—any age can have wavy handwriting and every age does. You can’t tell sex. Women don’t write a bit differently than men. We think they do when we see writing that perhaps looks bold. Well, just as many women have a bold hand than men. No difference in that population whatsoever. We just think there is, but there isn’t any difference. And, you absolutely cannot tell if the writer is left- or right-handed. We see lefties who learned to write on those desks built for right-handers and we mistakenly think because of the angle they hold their hands that their handwriting is slanted differently. Not in the least. The way the writing slants says nothing at all about which hand they used. If it leans predominantly left, that’s a trait that says this person plays life close to the vest—he doesn’t reveal himself readily or easily to others. Usually somewhat reserved. Writing that leans to the right indicates a person who’s a “hale, well-met” kind of guy. A born salesman. The minute he meets you, he’s your best friend. He’s the social guy. One whose writing is straight up? A person between the other two. Not as standoffish and nonrevealing as the left-slanter and not as forward and as much of a party animal as the right-slanted writer. He’ll become your close friend quicker than the left-slanted one, but not as quickly as the right-slanted one. However, you can’t determine personality by a single trait, but that’s one of the things slant reveals.

Let me know if y’all would like more on this,okay? Those interested in looking at this closer, get Andrea’s book. You can get it cheap on www.abebooks.com. Thanks for posing the questions, Kari. Hope I've covered them okay. I love talking about this stuff!

HoswoawH

HOW ACTIONS INFORM CHARACTER AND CHARACTER ARC

Hi folks,

The stuff that follows is an excerpt from a new book on writing I’m currently writing, working title, A FICTION WRITER’S WORKSHOP AT THE BIJOU. In this material, I show how actions both define character and show character arc, among other things.

I’m shopping the proposal for this book around. Any feedback you can give me would be appreciated.

(Audience filing in for my presentation of Thelma & Louise at Microburst, at Phoenix College)

The writer who can master the art and craft of defining their characters by their actions is going to be the author whose work gets read. By lots and lots of folks… Enough, hopefully, that you’ll never again have to say to someone about the novel you’ve written that it’s “only available in my room.”

Movie people do this better than almost anyone. We can learn a lot from these Hollywood folks!

            Most of us as fiction writers flesh out our characters with the use of description, via dialogue, by the interior thoughts of characters and by similar methods. All of these are good techniques and work well in the short story and novel. However, if the author ignores the use of using physical actions to help create their characters and to also show how they’ve evolved due to the events that happen along the way in the story (that character arc us writing teachers are always talking about), they’re missing what can be the most powerful tool of all. This is an area we can really make our novels come alive and impact the reader on a much deeper level.

The use of description is perhaps the weakest of the novelist’s tools in terms of character description. What of the following makes more of an impact in the reader’s mind? To read: “Elizabeth was an arthritic old woman.” Or, to read: Elizabeth labored up the stairs, a painful step at a time. She paused at each step, grasped the handrail with both hands and forced her ancient legs up yet another step. The second example wins, hands-down. Why? Because we “see” an action the character takes and because we see it happening it has an emotional impact on us. In the first example, we’re “told” what the character is (arthritic). Doesn’t make much of an impression at all. Not even close to the impression we get when we see her inching painfully up the stairs.

This is important enough that I’ll say it again: Characters are defined best and on a deeper level by their actions. As are their character arcs. You know, that deal where the character emerges at the end of the story a different person than when the story began as a result of all they’d gone through during the course of the tale. Why? Because they experience what the character does and what the character experiences at the same time the character does. They’re not being “told” this character has undergone a sea change and asked to take it on faith—they “see” it with their own eyes, and are therefore convinced to a degree not remotely possible with the author “telling” them there’s been a change via their thoughts or any of the other aforementioned techniques.

            A movie that illustrates brilliantly how all this can be accomplished through the character’s actions is screenwriter Callie Khouri’s Thelma & Louise. We’ll be looking closely at this film in this chapter and others, as it’s one of those rare movies that provide many, many teaching moments that can be valuable to fiction writers.

            The basic plot of Thelma & Louise, is that two friends plan to go on a weekend getaway fishing in the mountains. On the way there, they stop at a roadhouse for a quick drink or two and Thelma gets sexually attacked by Harlan in the parking lot. Louise saves her friend by putting a gun to Harlan’s head just as he’s trying to penetrate Thelma. Situation defused, Harlan just has to say one last insult and Louise shoots and kills him. The women flee the scene and the rest of the movie is basically a chase scene, ending with the women opting for suicide rather than to go prison.

            The plot is fairly simple on the surface, but the characterizations Khouri has created of these people make this an extremely complex film. What is magnificent about their characterizations is that they are each revealed chiefly through their actions. Virtually every single line in the script and every moment on the screen can be studied to your gain. I’ve watched this movie more than a hundred times and each time learned something new, both from the script Khouri has created and from the brilliant work these talented actors and the director Ridley Scott bring to the project.

First, let’s look at the physical actions Khouri has given to character Thelma (as played by Geena Davis) which define her character and brilliantly carry the viewer through as she transforms into a “new” person at the end. Louise is also given actions to define her character and arc, but we’ll mostly be looking at Thelma’s. Once you’ve read this, then the script, and then watched the movie, take an extra step and go back and see how Louise’s actions inform her character as well.

*                                                          *                                                          *

The setup

*                                                          *                                                          *

            We’ll begin with the “setup.” The structure of movies is that roughly the first ten minutes serve as the “setup.” This is where the principle characters are introduced and we learn who they are and what their situation is and the inciting incident and story problem are dramatized.

            In the beginning of the setup of Thelma & Louise, there are a series of intercuts between the dual protagonists. We see Louise (played by Susan Sarandon) at her work—slinging hash in a Denny’s-type restaurant. We see Thelma at home with her emotionally-abusive and immature husband Darryl (played by Stephen Tobolowsky), a guy who’s transcended the role of male chauvinist pig to that of male chauvinist hog.

            What actions does she perform that define her character? The very first one is her dialogue with Louise. The movie opens with Louise at a pay phone at the restaurant calling Thelma, asking her if she’s ready to leave on her trip. Here’s the way it looks in the script:

*                                                          *                                                          *

Louise

(at pay phone)

I hope you’re packed, little sister, ‘cause we are outta

here tonight.

(By the way, when Louise calls her “little sister,” this also defines their relationship. As you’ll see, Louise begins in an almost “mother” role and Thelma as the child and in the very first line of dialogue in the movie, Khouri has already begun to define that relationship. An interesting aside to this is that this was virtually the only thing that director Ridley Scott changed from Khouri’s script. Instead of—as she had written—the words “little sister”—he changed it to “little housewife.” Reason? He thought the audience would think that they were literally sisters. Didn’t trust their intelligence…)

*                                                          *                                                          *

            Thelma responds with her first dialogue, which likewise immediately begins to define her character.

*                                                          *                                                          *

INT. THELMA’S KITCHEN—MORNING

Thelma

(whispering guiltily)

                        Well, wait now. I still have to ask Darryl if I can go.

*                                                          *                                                          *

            Right off the bat, we can tell from what she says to Louise that she’s one of those “dutiful little wives.” We don’t know at this point if Darryl is her boyfriend or husband, but we do know from what she says that she feels she has to get permission from him, and that bespeaks volumes about their relationship, whichever it is.

            But, as Louise answers her offscreen on the phone, and we hear Louise’s voice, Khouri gives Thelma a great piece of “actor’s business” (action) that really shows her character and where she’s at in her relationship with Darryl. Here’s Khouri’s action for her character (italics mine):

*                                                          *                                                          *

Thelma has the phone tucked under her chin as she cuts out coupons from the newspaper and pins them on a bulletin board already covered with them. We see various recipes torn out from women’s magazines along the lines of “101 Ways to Cook Pork.”

*                                                          *                                                          *

            If that action doesn’t show us who Thelma is and what kind of person she is, nothing ever will! In less than fifteen seconds on the screen, Khouri has given us both a bit of dialogue and a specific action that deliver us a three-dimensional character and speaks volumes about who she is.

            Then, after she hangs up from her conversation with Louise, Thelma goes to the bottom of the stairs, leans on the banister, and yells up, “Darryl! Honey, you’d better hurry up!”

            Again, with dialogue, she’s shown she’s the dutiful little wife, pandering to her husband almost as if he was a little child and she the mom urging him to get up. You can just tell that this is a daily routine and that she has to be the “mom” to her husband… and we get all this before we even see Darryl. By her dialogue and by her actions. All in about thirty seconds.

            Darryl makes his appearance and Khouri defines his character also by his actions. First, by the way he’s dressed and the way he acts. Khouri gives him this appearance: Darryl comes trotting down the stairs. Polyester was made for this man and he’s dripping in “men’s” jewelry.

            She further defines his character by his response to Thelma’s urging him to “hurry up.” He says, “Dammit, Thelma, don’t holler like that! Haven’t I told you I can’t stand it when you holler in the morning.”

            Less than a minute has gone by in the story and we’ve already got a crystal-clear view of these two people and of their relationship. Thelma then replies (sweetly and coyly), “I’m sorry, doll, I just didn’t want you to be late.”

            Next, Khouri provides the character of Darryl with a very revealing bit of action, when she writes: Darryl is checking himself out in the hall mirror and it’s obvious he likes what he sees. He exudes overconfidence for reasons that never become apparent…He is making imperceptible adjustments to his overmoussed hair. (Then, another action by Thelma that further defines her character. Italics mine.) Thelma watches approvingly.

            In the briefest span of time, we see these two people for exactly who and what they are. All delivered via their actions (mostly) and a bit of dialogue.

            Louise's character is defined even before Thelma's, in the very first scene. She's waiting tables and one of her "tops" has a group of teenaged girls, whom she admonishes for smoking, citing the well-worn chestnut that "smoking will stunt your growth." This action informs us of her character and role in the movie—that of the mother. Immediately after she's chastised the girls, she goes into the kitchen for a break and has a cigarette herself. Not only does it define her mothering character, it shows us that she's an unreliable character. She preaches one thing but does another. Pretty much what a normal parent might do!

            There are countless other examples of how Callie Khouri defines each and every character by their action—virtually everything the people in her story does defines their characters. There isn’t any “actor’s business for the sake of actor’s business” anywhere in the script. These aren’t things they just “do” while delivering their lines. They do serious plot and story work.

            Let’s move on.

*                                                          *                                                          *

Guns to create character arch

*                                                          *                                                          *

            Tools and how characters use them are very effective ways to create a character's growth. In Thelma and Louise, one of the most important actions Khouri uses to deliver Thelma’s character arc in the story is when the two women meet at Thelma’s house to begin their trip. Thelma has elected to bring along a revolver and it’s the way she physically handles it that is a particularly brilliant piece of writing by Khouri. Thelma picks up the gun gingerly by the thumb and two fingers, obviously terrified of the weapon when she takes it out of the drawer to pack. That action is reinforced when, minutes later, she reveals to Louise she's brought the weapon and she again holds it as if she's afraid it will go off and shoot her when she follows Louise's order and puts it in the older woman's purse. By the end of the story, she’s whipping the gun around like Doc Holliday’s been mentoring her out behind the O.K. Corral. This one simple action and the way it evolves during the story by itself beautifully shows the viewer how far Thelma’s come and how she’s emerged as a much different person as a result of what she’s undergone.

*                                                          *                                                          *

Smoking to show character arc

*                                                          *                                                          *

            However, Khouri doesn’t use just this one action to create a character arc for Thelma. Smoking is another one. We've already talked about Louise toking on a cigarette after she's admonished the teenagers for smoking. At the beginning of the trip, Thelma pantomimes smoking a cigarette, imitating the older and more world-weary Louise. The action is of a child, imitating an adult. As events progress, she eventually becomes a true pro, chain-smoking to beat the band and looking like she’s been at it since she was twelve and a half. At the beginning, while Louise smokes a cigarette during their phone conversation (adult action), Thelma munches on a candy bar, the act of a child.

            The physical action of smoking is used in many places in this movie to symbolize important points. For instance, after their money has been stolen by J.R. (played by Brad Pitt), Louise has completely given up. Rather than “tell” us she’s quit the good fight, via some awkward dialogue, Khouri uses the physical action of smoking to show us. Waiting in the car, while Thelma goes into a convenience store/gas station (which she’s going to hold up, unbeknownst to Louise), she lights up, takes a desultory half-drag and then tosses the cigarette away. More than any dialogue ever could, this simple action of resignation shows the audience exactly the level of despair Louise has sunk to. She’s given up the only pleasure she had left in life (smoking). A second or two later, she takes out a tube of lipstick and begins to apply it, almost as a lifelong habit in her role as a “woman,” (a woman as defined by men) only to toss that away as well. Hard on the heels of giving up smoking, she’s now given up any pretense of being what society deems a woman should be as well as her very life, symbolically. With these two simple actions, we are completely convinced of the complete despair Louise feels. She’s stripped bare of everything. Her old life and old person is gone. It's at this point that she begins to achieve true independence. Only by giving up her old life can she proclaim her right to freedom from the tyranny she's lived under all of her life... from men in particular and from society in general.

*                                                          *                                                          *

Packing

*                                                          *                                                          *

            In the setup, both women pack for their camping trip to the mountains. There is a vast contrast to their packing "styles" which serves to further define their characters by that action. Louise, the "mom" and adult, is in control. She wraps garments in individual plastic containers and arranges them neatly in her suitcase. Thelma, in contrast, throws handfuls of clothes into her suitcase and at one point, just dumps her drawers into her suitcase, as a child might. She's definitely not in control of her life, as evidenced by her chaotic packing method. It mirrors her existence, just as Louise's style does hers. If you knew nothing about either woman, as soon as you saw each of them pack, you'd make the firm conclusion that one was in complete charge of herself and the other was more than a little "scattered." You wouldn't have to hear either of them speak or do anything else to figure this out.

            Over and over, actions show us both women and how they evolve. In the beginning, Louise is not only a control freak, she's also obsessed with cleanliness. In fact, there's a scene when the antagonist Hal (played by Harvey Keitel) breaks into Louise's apartment runs his finger over a table surface, looking for dust and there isn't any.

            Another scene that reinforces her neatness and control jones, is when the women are waiting for drovers to get a herd of cattle around them. "Don't you scratch my car!" Louise screams at the men. Later, when they've achieved their freedom, her car is dirty, dusty and just downright filthy... and she doesn't even notice it. Evidence again that her character has evolved.

*                                                          *                                                          *

Hair

*                                                          *                                                          *

            Huh? you say. (I heard you.) How is hair a physical action?

            Let's take a look.

            Remember at the beginning, Khouri has established Louise as the "in-control" mother (adult) figure and Thelma as the scattered, undisciplined "child." Louise packs carefully; Thelma tosses her things willy-nilly into the suitcase. Louise smokes; Thelma chomps on a candy bar. Thelma is terrified of guns and Louise is an old hand at firearms. And so on.

            Now, look at their hair when the trip begins. Louise's is neat and pinned up. Under firm control. Thelma's hangs loose and free. Hair is important in this movie. Not only does it reflect the individual character at the moment, it also reveals the state of the relationship between the two women at a given point in the plot.

            As the story progresses, Louise's hair begins to come down at various plot points. As she inches closer and closer to her freedom from men, the hair comes down, little by little. I won't go into every single scene where hair plays a role, although it does in just about all of them—watch the movie and focus only on the hair and the times when it is up or down or in-between on each woman and you can quickly see how hair affects what's going on and the present state of their relationship with each other.

            There is a point, two-thirds through the film, when the two women reverse their roles. Thelma becomes the mother, the one in control, and Louise reverts to being a helpless child. Shortly after that, the two begin to move toward equality and their hair symbolically reflects that stage perfectly, in that both women are driving down the road and both have their hair partly "up" in the exact same "do." Not only that, but to further strengthen their new-found equality, they are both singing along in perfect harmony to a song on the radio. All actions.

*                                                          *                                                          *

Spitbath

*                                                          *                                                          *

            Let's imagine a hypothetical scene. A mother has just picked up her little girl at the playground and they have to be at the girl's best friend's house for her birthday party. The woman's daughter has grime on her face from the dusty playground. What does the mother do? Why, she gives her a spitbath, of course. That's just what moms do! I know from (painfully embarrassing) personal experience. Who among us hasn't been an actor in this familiar drama!

            Look at the scene immediately following the killing of Harlan. They're fleeing the scene and then Louise orders Thelma to pull over. Thelma's got gore on her cheeks from the bloody nose Harlan gave her when he hit her during his attempted rape. What does Louise do? (After she throws up of course, and re-enters the car, ordering Thelma back to the passenger side.) She gives her a spitbath, an action right out of Parenting 101! You can find it on page three.

            Again, right after the shooting, Louise enters the restaurant bathroom and spies a tiny drop of blood on her cheek and begins rubbing it furiously, showing by her action the emotion she feels at killing Harlan.

*                                                          *                                                          *

Sex

*                                                          *                                                          *

            I saw your eyes light up at this topic heading. Don't deny it. Just means you're normal.

            Sex is powerful, isn't it. We pay attention when we encounter sex on the screen or among the pages of a novel.

            Many writers write sizzling sex scenes that are definitely worth the price of admission. But... most of the time, those scenes don't do all that they could. Khouri gets Prius mileage out of her big sex scene, the one where Thelma and J.R. (Brad Pitt) make love. As Janet Burroway tells us in her wonderful book, Writing Fiction (the most widely-used writing textbook used in America), that character changes must always be occasioned by a physical event. Khouri uses this maxim brilliantly.

            Up until the point when J.R. steals their money, Louise is in charge—the parent—and Thelma is the child. When they run to the motel room and find out J.R.'s stolen all their money, a role reversal takes place. Louise gives up and reverts to being the child—all hope is gone in her eyes. It is then that a miracle happens. Thelma becomes the parent in charge. (Incidentally, this scene is foreshadowed by an earlier scene in a similar motel room, when Thelma collapses on the bed in tears, clearly the child, and Louise takes charge.) It's Thelma's coming-of-age moment.

            How can Thelma change this drastically? Remember, character change must be caused by something physical that happens to the character. Have you guessed what the physical action was that allowed Thelma to do a 180?

            Sex.

            That's right. But... not just any old sex. After all, she's been married four years and dated her husband Darryl for the four years of high school before that and has had lots of sex. But, what J.R. and she had was a different kind of sex for her. It was adult, mature sex. Not the version of teenager backseat dalliances she engaged in with her husband. No, this was grownup sex between two adults who approached each other and had sex as equals. And, it was because of this that she transformed into an adult and was able to take charge. Without this kind of sex, she would no doubt have stayed the child she was and would have most likely collapsed in surrender and defeat on the bed right along with Louise, as she'd already done in previous scenes in one way or another up to that moment.

            This is the biggest turning point in the movie and the most dramatic moment and Khouri does it up right. First, she makes sure Thelma's defining moment isn't obscured by anything. Louise leaves their room first and it's clear she's going to be having sex herself with her boyfriend Jimmy (the Michael Madsen character). But... we never see even a glimpse of these two between the sheets doing the nasty. Why? Because Khouri wanted to make sure that the most important scene in the story wasn't obscured or overshadowed  in the least which it might have been if we'd been witness to both women and their lovemaking.

+                                                          *                                                          *

Booze

            Another action Khouri provides Thelma to establish her character and illustrate her character arc, is that at first Thelma buys liquor in “miniatures,” the same thing a young person might buy. Later, when she has adult sex with Brad Pitt, one of the symbolic things that happen during their lovemaking is when they sweep the empty miniature bottles onto the floor. Then, when she robs the convenience store, she takes the “adult” or regular size liquor bottle. Just another action to show how she’s progressed in her character arc.

            There are other actions in this fine film that the screenwriter Khouri employs, but these should give you a very good idea of not only how to use such actions to inform your character and his or her developmental arc, but how vital providing them is.

            Now. How might we use these techniques for our fiction? Good question! Here's some suggestions.

*                                                          *                                                          *

Proscription

*                                                          *                                                          *

            Since Thelma & Louise first hit the movie theaters in 1987, the country has undergone a universal negative change in its attitude toward smoking. That means that it's probably best not to adopt Khouri's ingenious use of cigarettes in your story in an anti-smoking climate. What's kind of interesting is that while smoking has mostly vanished from movies, when it does appear, mostly it signals that this is a "bad guy." Instead of wearing black, the villain these days is puffing on a Marlboro Red. What might you substitute? Well, there are any number of possibilities.

            Let's say you're writing a coming-of-age novel or at least a novel with coming-of-age elements and you want something like Khouri's symbol to show the passage of your character from childhood into adulthood. What are some artifacts or actions that we associate primarily with adults and not with children?

            One that comes to mind is drinking. If you watched the movie, you'll recall how Khouri has Thelma buying whiskey in those little "miniatures" when she was in her role as a child. That's how a kid might buy booze. When she "grew up" after experiencing "adult sex" with J.R., she switched to regular(adult)-sized bottles. To show your character as achieving adulthood you might show her switching from flavored vodkas to regular martinis, or you might set him up by having him order drinks mixed with colas—say a rum and Coke—to a Jack and water. (Although there seem to be plenty of adults who still enjoy pop in their adult beverages...) A better example might be having your character always running around in t-shirts with athletes' names on the back. To show he's achieved maturity, you could have him toss his Michael Jordan tees and begin wearing shirts without logos or jocks' names on the back. I heard a radio dj commenting on this one day and open it up for discussion among his listeners and the consensus reached was that after the age of thirty, a man just looks silly walking around with another guy's name on his shirt.

            The point is to be observant and see what actions kids make that adults don't. In one of my short stories, "Blue Skies," the protagonist experienced an epiphany when he noticed that his mentally-challenged daughter Celsi still ate her sandwiches that were cut diagonally by taking the first bite from the center. He knew she was never going to get better when he and his wife and Celsi were out for her sixteenth birthday and she still took her first bite out of the middle. His observation was that most adults he observed always bit the tip of the sandwich off first.

            There are plenty of examples around. Just be observant and you'll find them.

            And don't limit yourself to just coming-of-age actions. Use actions for every significant change in your character. For instance, you may want to write a story about a man who has terminal cancer and your story is about the stages such a person might go through in coming to terms with his fate.

            Let's say that right after "Charley" learns of his impending doom, he goes through a period of utter hopelessness. From that he segues into a kind of hysterical hedonism, where he does everything he's always wanted to do, but was too conservative to do while healthy. From that you may have him moving on to a period in which he takes huge risks with his life. Maybe you have him buy a motorcycle—something he's always wanted but didn't for a couple of reasons. One, he was simply afraid of motorcycles, and two, he didn't feel the family's budget could accommodate one. Now that he's only got months to live, he races out and plunks down a check for a new Harley Sportster. His wife is beside herself. He tears through town at breakneck speed, at little or no concern for his safety. She's really worried because he refuses to buy a helmet. She even goes out and buys him one for his birthday present, but he never puts it on.

            And then, something happens. He has an epiphany. (What the epiphany is and how he gets it is your job—you didn't think I was going to write the whole darned thing, did you?) Something happens that somehow gives him hope and makes him come back to earth and realize that even though he's terminal, he's still responsible for his family and that if he were to get in a wreck and survive, the hospital bills might just finish off what little savings they have left. He also gains a small ray of hope that the doctors may be wrong—that he may somehow beat the death sentence.

            To show his realization by a physical act, you can have him go to the garage where he's discarded his wife's present and strap on the helmet. He's really grown here, by this kind of action. He didn't revert to where he was before—he's still going to ride his cycle and he isn't overly afraid to do so—but he's going to do it responsibly now.

            See how this physical action stuff works? It's kind of cool, isn't it!

            Now. Go out and figure out your own actions to give your characters. Your stories will resonate as they never have before.

IN PHOENIX AT MY FRIEND TOM'S AND AT MICROBURST

Hi folks,
Just got in late last night from Phoenix and am decomposing from a wonderful trip! At the invitation of Dr. Martin (Marty! Etchart of Phoenix College for their annual writer's festival, Microburst, I gave a talk to the college's creative writing students and several teachers on Friday and then on Saturday gave a presentation on the film Thelma & Louise, illustrating writing techniques fiction writers can use from the movie.

I stayed with my long-time friend, Tom Rough and his lovely wife Lisa and their incredibly smart daughter Nicola, and they showed me an amazing time. I'm posting some of the photos of them and the film presentation. I forgot to bring my camera for the workshop.

This morning, I got a call from my friend here in town with whom I have a standing bet that I find an error in the local rag, the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette (which I refer to, fondly, as the Journal-Afterthought), and this time it took me less than a minute to find the first mistake. I'm beginning a new award, which I'll call the WHY NEWSPAPERS AREN'T DYING; THEY'RE DEAD, AND HERE'S WHY AWARD. I was a surprised as I'm sure you are that they've earned the first award.

Here's what I found in the sports section. I'll highlight the mistake.

From the Journal-Afterthought:

Would you like to serve as a student reporter for a TinCaps game?

Newspaper in Education and the Fort Wayne TinCaps are seeking student reporters for eight summer games. If you are you  interested in bringing your family to a game, interviewing a player, visiting the press box and then writing about the experience, please write a paragraph or more stating why you should be selected and send it to: (blah, blah, blah...)

What's really cool about this, is this is part of their project "Newspaper in Education" where they use the paper to help "educate" schoolkids.  I think they've really earned this award! What I'd suggest to the kids who want to win this student reporter gig is that they turn off their spellcheckers and learn to insert superfluous words in their  text. Heck, they'll probably want to hire the winner as an editor!

Anyway, here are some photos from my trip and Microburst.

Early arrivals at the Thelma & Louise presentation, grabbing some of the munchies Phoenix College provided.

Dr. Martin (Marty) Etchart, director of Microburst and moi, just before we went into a full house to give my presentation. Dr. Etchart has asked me (and I accepted) an invitation to teach creative online classes for Phoenix College and I met several of the students who will be in my classes. Great people!

Some of the early audience filing in. When we began, the auditorium was full and a truly great crowd who contributed greatly to our conversation. The building was a Jewish temple the college had purchased and it was perfect for showing a film.

Some of the participants during the breaks buying my books, Hooked and Finding Your Voice which the college provided. The bookstore folks who ran it were terrific salespeople and sold a ton of books and I had a ball signing copies.

...As you can see...

 The front of my buddy Tom Rough's house. I wanna move in! Tom's the co-owner of Taglio Salon, one of the top salons in the U.S. They employ 50 people, including stylists, colorists, and support personnel. Interesting thing--Tom doesn't talk about his clients very much--a professional thing, but the day I gave the workshop, a woman asked me something about Twilight by Stephanie Meyer, and that night I was talking to Tom and it turns out she's a client in their salon. I didn't even know she lived in Phoenix, but it turns out she's building a home near Tom and Lisa's place. He told me a funny story about something that had just happened in the salon with Ms. Meyer, which I can't repeat. Not that it's bad--it's not--it would just violate professional ethics to disclose something about a client to others.

Tom and me on his back patio enjoying a 1984 bottle of something really good (Tom used to own a wine store next to the salon and is a collector and he broke out the good stuff!) and his homemade mac and cheese, followed by incredible steaks. Lisa's taking the shot.

Lisa, Tom's wife and incredible hostess! And, the gorgeous mountain that's their backyard view. I wanna move there!

Lisa, Nicola and Tom at the parking lot of a national park they took me to which, unfortunately, with my Halfzeimer's, I've forgotten the name of. It had a gorgeous lake, surrounded by mountains and was breathtaking. (Not the parking lot--the stuff all around the parking lot...)

Like this...

One of Tom's neighbor's houses that I really liked. He lives in Carefree, AZ.

 A hawk perched on one of the cactus in Tom's back yard.

The boulders at the entrance to Tom and Lisa's gated community, named, aptly, "The Boulders." The views and vistas they see every day just blew me away!

The boulders from a different view. They're just awesome!

A javelina in Tom's back yard. I also saw a coyote sneaking past their yard and didn't get my camera in time to get a shot. Jackrabbits everywhere, roadrunners (beep! beep!), bobcats, mule deer, and all kinds of critters!

And the view from their living room out into their back yard. Thanks for everything, Tom, Lisa and Nicola! You guys rock!

I just had the most wonderful time I think I've ever had, thanks to the Roughs and Marty and all the folks at Phoenix College!

IN PHOENIX/SCOTTSDALE

Hi Folks,

Arrived in Phoenix yesterday and have just hung out with my friends Tom Rough and his family. Thought I'd send some photos I took from their back yard. Last night, I saw a coyote, a wild pig, a bobcat, many jackrabbits, and other critters. The landscape here is breathtaking!

Looking out from their back porch...

More back porch vistas...

I meet with the Phoenix College English Department  Dean and director of Microburst, Martin Etchart in a few hours and we'll have lunch and then I conduct a workshop.

I'm lovin' it here!

BUSMAN'S HOLIDAY...

Hi folks,
I have to take a bit of a hiatus this week as I'll be at Phoenix College, appearing at their annual writer's festival, Microburst. I'm pretty pumped about this. On Friday, I'll give a talk centered around the film Thelma & Louise, giving writer's techniques based on this movie, and on Saturday, I'll conduct a writer's workshop on story beginnings. After I leave, I've been invited (and accepted) to teach writing classes for the college online. (BTW, this is Phoenix College, the "real" school; not that pretend school, the University of Phoenix...)

And... I get to stay with one of my best friends, Tom Rough. Tom and I worked a LONG time ago at Michael and Friends Hair Salon in South Bend and I left for New Orleans and the Snobs Salon where I was the artistic director. Tom went to Chicago to work for Sassoon's and became the manager there. He went from there to Scottsdale where he co-founded one of the top salons in the southwest, Taglio's. Here's their webpage in case anyone's in the area and wants the best haircut they'll ever get! (http://www.tagliosalon.com/)

Anyway, Tom's got an extensive wine collection which he promises we'll put a dent in. Plus, I get to hang with Phoenix writers and the director of Microburst, Martin Etchart, a super writer himself. If anybody here is near the Phoenix area, please try to come to the Thelma & Louise presentation--it's open to the public, while the workshop is composed of students at the college.

I'm so looking forward to this trip!

I've got my reading material... Linwood Barclay's No Time for Goodbye. I've read this before, but now I'm studying it for tension techniques. I'd highly recommend any of his work for seeing how a master creates tension on the page. In my opinion, he's the best at doing so. You can get it here. No Time for Goodbye

If I get a chance, I'll try to post stuff while I'm there, but I may (hope!) be too busy to do so.

Blue skies,
Les

At a Notre Dame game they won last year... (There weren't that many...)

P.S. When I go someplace that requires a plane to get there on, I can't help it--feelings of my own frail mortality arise... That's why I'm thankful to Francine P. for giving me this advice....

I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car…

MORONIC PLOT TWISTS AND INCORRECT FACTS IN BOOKS AND MOVIES

Hi folks,

I want to talk about some of the things that can destroy a writer’s manuscript and perhaps keep a potentially good book from getting published. Dumb plot twists and incorrect “facts” are killers when it comes to destroying the fictive dream for a reader.

A single error in a book or a film can destroy the entire credibility of the work. The second-worst thing a writer can experience is an editor finding such an error in a manuscript. The worst? Having a reader find such an error. That means the editor missed it and virtually nothing makes those folks angrier. Kind of embarrasses them.

Even though the rest of the book may be perfect, the reader will have doubts about the integrity of all of it if he or she finds a single error. I’m going to go over just a few of the ones I’ve seen (no room to list them all!) and it would be kind of cool if others would share the ones they’ve spotted and that bother them.

A couple of years ago, I was sitting on a panel at the annual Writer’s Festival of Literary Arts in Aurora, Illinois, next to one of my favorite writers. I won’t name him as it’s not my intent to cause anyone embarrassment, but if he reads this, he’ll know it’s him. This was an extremely well-known writer, whose every book lands at the top of the NY Times bestseller list.

While we were waiting for the audience to file in, we were talking and I mentioned I’d just read his latest mega-seller. I hesitated, but then decided to pass on what I’d read. He’d had a military man communicating with another military man via radio telephone, and he’d had the guy say, at the end of their transmission, “Over and out.”

“______,” I said. “You know there’s a glaring mistake in your book.” I pointed out the “over and out” dialog. “That’s impossible,” I said. “No military man would ever, in a million years, say that. ’Over’ means, ‘invitation to transmit,’ while ‘out’ means, ‘transmission over.’ You can’t issue an invitation to transmit and then say the transmission is over. I hate to say it, but I’ve only ever seen that in bad movies.” An amateur might have said something like that, but never a bona fide military man.

He was shocked. “You know,” he said. “I know that. And, I had a military man vet my book! He never caught it.” I didn’t say anything to the writer, but I can’t imagine a military man letting that get by. Must have been in the Reserves, I figured. A “real” military veteran would have caught it in a heartbeat. And, he couldn’t blame the proofreader entirely. After all, he was the one who’d written it.

The upshot was the writer thanked me, and said he’d have it corrected in future editions and that he’d never hire this guy to proof any of his material ever again. He was embarrassed and I would have been, too. He’s a literary star and so that one glitch won’t prevent him from selling future books, but if this had been his first novel, it very well could have harmed him greatly.

Recently, I read a novel by another suspense/thriller writer acquaintance—again, a top bestselling writer who even has a writing how-to book out there, and found several serious errors in this novel. First, he had a character looking at a piece of handwriting and saying that it looked “masculine.” That’s impossible. There are three things that handwriting can’t reveal. Age, sex or handedness (if the writer is left-or right-handed) cannot be revealed by handwriting. Laypeople, who haven’t studied handwriting analysis or graphology, subscribe to myths like this, but it just ain’t so. You absolutely cannot tell any of those three things from handwriting. Later on, he compounded the error by having the same character, looking again at the handwriting sample, and saying it “looked like an older man” had written it because it looked “waverly.” Again, not possible to tell a person’s age by their handwriting.

Two glaring errors, based on the same thing. The third error, however, was the most egregious. This same character finds the body of his deceased wife who had disappeared two years previously, and he’s upset because her hair was longer than he’d liked it before she was murdered. It was longer, the character says, because “hair grows after death.” The first two mistakes I could possibly understand—there are many misconceptions about handwriting among laypeople—although, it would have been fairly easy to research and correct this—but this last one is one of the hoariest of all old wives’ tales—that hair “grows” after death. That’s been disproved about… oh… maybe a couple of hundred years ago? That it sometimes “appears” to have grown after death is simply the result of body tissues shrinking in decomposition, sometimes giving it the illusion of having grown. Any eighth-grade biology student could have told my author friend that. Any funeral director or even the lowest of employees in a funeral home could have told him that. Well, for me, reading this guy is over. A single mistake can be excused, like the first author I mentioned. When I see three in one book, as much as I like this guy, there’s no way I’ll ever be able to believe his characters again. He’s simply too sloppy in his research. And he has a doctorate and even taught in a prestigious school. If he’d only asked a kid about some of his facts…

There’s a huge error in a popular movie that drives me crazy and because of this error, I’ve never seen the ending of the movie. I just couldn’t believe the rest of it once I’d seen this mistake. My level of believability was completely destroyed. The fictive dream had been utterly destroyed.

The movie? Dances With Wolves. In a scene about a third of the way through, Indian boys steal Kevin Costner’s horse and are fleeing with it and chattering elatedly among themselves. Convenient subtitles are provided as they’re speaking in their native tongues. One of the boys says, “They’ll write songs about us!” I emphasized the word because this was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen in dialog, book or movie. The thing is, Native Americans not only don’t have a word for “writing” in any of their languages; they don’t even have a concept of writing. If these boys had been raised, say, on a reservation and gone to a reservation school, yeah, perhaps they would have learned the concept of writing, but these were true aboriginals and had never been exposed to writing in any form. In fact, the only contact the entire tribe had ever had with a white person was with the love interest, whatever her name was—a now-adult woman who had been captured years ago when she was a child when the tribe killed her family.

If the Indian boy had only shouted out, “They’ll sing songs about us!” it would have worked and been believable. The instant he used the word “write” it was all over for me. I looked up the original script and the screenwriter had it right. He’d written that they’d sang songs, properly. Whoever rewrote the subtitle or had ordered it rewritten was the one who was the dummy. For this one, I’ll blame the director, the editor, and whoever rewrote the original screenwriter’s screenplay. But, from that moment on, I didn’t believe anything in the movie.

The other thing that will cause me to walk out of a movie or close a book, never to return, are “idiot plot twists.” There’s a truly awful movie that was released in theaters and then made it to TV re-run land that still shows up on the tube now and again. I saw it in the theater and actually walked out. It wasn’t until it turned up on television that I ever saw the end.

I can’t recall the title (it was so horrible I’ve sublimated that knowledge), but the premise is that, for some reason, this couple who are either man and wife or romantically entangled, find themselves in this new-fangled office building with a nifty new security system. The entire building shuts down on Friday evenings and doesn’t open up until Monday morning. No one can possibly get in or out during this time. Again, I can’t remember why, but this couple finds themselves trapped in the building and know they can’t get out until Monday morning. No big deal—they can survive on candy bars and sodas from the vending machines. Except… there’s a bad guy in the building with them and his mission is to render the pair room temperature. Again, I forget why this guy wants to dust them, but he does. It’s not important to the story why.

Anyway, the first third of the movie involves setting up the situation and the bad guy trying to catch and kill the  dude and his babe. So far, so good. There’s no doubt in the man and woman’s minds that this guy wants to ice them. He’s chased them all over the building—up and down elevator shafts, through various rooms and different levels, etc. He comes close a few times, but they always manage to escape in the nick of time. And then… The plucky couple race into a huge room that’s being remodeled, just ahead of the bad dude. There are piles of lumber and all kinds of tools lying around. The man grabs some big tool—a nail driver or something—and the dynamic duo hide behind a pile of lumber. The bad guy enters the room, and the two hold their breath, and eventually the bad guy comes around the corner of the lumber pile and… POW! The good guy lays him out with the power tool. Knocks him cold as a mackerel, to use a cliché I, for one, never get too tired of hearing.

Movie over, right?

Not quite.

At this point, the question the writer of this opus needs to ask him- or herself, what would a logical person do now? This is the standard all writers need to ask themselves throughout the writing of their stories. Their protagonist should act the way a person of at least average intelligence would act. I use this movie for an example in many of my classes and ask the students what they would do if they were this man and woman. The situation is: The good guys have knocked out and disabled the bad guy. It’s just Saturday and they have to remain in the building until Monday to escape.

Here’s the typical answers college students give:

1. Kill the bad guy.

2. Tie him up. (Remember, this is a building site with all kinds of materials at hand.)

3. Take turns guarding him while the other sleeps and when he wakes up, knock him out again.

Other variations of the same thing. Makes sense, right? If you have a moral thing about killing somebody, just tie him up or keep knocking him out. If you have no compunctions about killing someone that was trying to kill you, just bash his brains in.

Okay. What did these two geniuses do? Sit down—you’re not going to believe this.

They drop the nail gun and run away to hide somewhere else.

I’m not making this up. I wish I was.

This is an idiot plot twist—just written to keep the chase and the movie going. I actually walked out of the theater at this point and demanded my money back. And got it.

These two people deserve to die at this point. It’s obvious they’re from the low end of the gene pool and the danger is they may have offspring and there’s that genetics thing. Their kiddies may well grow up to be as stupid or stupider than they are and the bad thing is… they’ll be out there in society with us! Driving cars… If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will.

This is a moron plot, akin to those “John Wayne cavalry finishes,” of yesteryear’s godawful movies. Where the wagon train is surrounded by murderous redskins who are about to lift their scalps and… at the last possible second, over the ridge comes John Wayne with the cavalry!

Actually, this is an even worse plot than that. This is unparalleled stupidity of the nth order.

When I finally watched the end of this turkey on TV, it turned out pretty much the way I figured. Their “escapes” from the bad guy came closer and closer and they were everywhere in this building, up and down elevator shafts, out on ledges thirty stories above the street, all that kind of melodramatic crap as you’d expect from this kind of Hollyweird baloney. I don’t remember the exact ending—I’m sure they escaped at the end through some kind of miracle move and with a lot of FX and expertly-applied makeup to show their wounds. Doesn’t matter. You begin rooting for the bad guy as soon as they leave him and run away to hide. At least he’s got some smarts. At least if he catches and kills them, it’ll prevent them from breeding and that would be a major blessing to mankind in general. Do you really want idiots like this driving cars on your block or handling power tools like chainsaws in your immediate vicinity?

This kind of plot is why I don’t watch teenage horror movies. I don’t see most of them as horror, but more as broad comedies.

Look at some of these things. There’s a bad guy who stands about 6’8” and is always dripping with blood and wears a hockey mask. The police force in the burg he always lives in can’t catch this guy. Even Barney Fife would catch a guy this obvious, I think. Does he just look like most of the other citizens? Doesn’t he ever have to go to the local 7-11 for a loaf of bread occasionally? I mean, he never looks a bit different in all 13 movies…

And then, this group of college kids arrives at the Dismal Swamp Resort. When all the other kids in America go to Florida, this group of geniuses opts for a weedy lake, crawling with leeches and  in the middle of nowhere. There’s a clue right there that these aren’t Rhodes scholars…

And then, five minutes into the movie, one of the comely coeds in short-shorts, goes to take a leak and finds a head floating in the toilet. She lets out a shriek and they all come running, but about five minutes later, everything’s pretty much back to normal. How, exactly, does she think that head got there? The guy was barfing and the lid fell on him? But, they all go back to normal except they’re “kind of” worried about things. At this point, and every point thereafter, all this brainy band need to do is to pile into their Land Rover and drive away, maybe call the state troopers. But then… the movie would be over. Can’t let that happen!

Moron plot twists…

One by one, the evil guy knocks the merry band of anal retentives over until there’s only one left. The blondest blonde with the shortest shorts… natch. He’s saving the best morsel for last… Again, long ago we began rooting for the bad guy. He’s the only one with at least a double-digit I.Q. These “leaders of tomorrow” for sure don’t have brainpower even close to his.

This is when it really gets funny. The bad guy—remember, he’s about 6’8” and can’t run for shit—he kind of looks like Lurch, stumbling along—is outrunning the frisky little filly of a coed who is flat-out flying…and he catches her! A miracle! How on earth did he ever do it? She must be running in circles like rabbits do. Come to think of it, there are an awful lot of movies where the victim runs as fast or even much faster than the bad guy, but somehow the bad guy manages to catch them… Kind of a Hollywood tradition…

Like I said, most horror movies are comedies.

Does this sound a bit anal? Am I a bit harsh in my judgment? Perhaps so, but I don’t apologize. The main tools we have as writers are words and stories that make sense and if writers are sloppy in their usage, then I’m not going to purchase their products any more. This attitude drives my wife Mary nuts, sometimes. I’ll quit eating at a restaurant if they misspell words on their marquee. I figure if they’re this sloppy about the language, what goes on in the kitchen? I don’t want to take the chance.

This kind of stuff goes on everywhere and it seems to me as if it’s increasing. Take newspapers, these days.

We have two newspapers in town. The morning paper, The (Ft. Wayne, IN) Journal-Gazette is a joke. I’ve had a standing bet with a friend for years that he can call me on any day of the year and within five minutes I can find an error in the paper—spelling, usage, punctuation, syntax, whatever. He’s phoned me over the past ten years perhaps thirty times and I’ve never lost the bet. He could have called me every single day for the past ten (or longer) years and I wouldn’t have lost the bet. I won’t place the same wager for our evening newspaper, The News-Sentinel. I’ve never once seen a mistake in it. Not a single time. I’m not saying they don’t make errors, just that I’ve been unable to find one. Which paper do you think I trust for the news? What’s a tragedy is that the Journal-Gazette (which I fondly refer to as the “Journal-Afterthought, as I’ve read all of their news at least a day before online and is why newspapers aren’t dying; they’re already dead) participates in a thing called “Newspapers in Education.” They promote their rag as an instrument in the public schools. (The private schools have more sense. They want their students to actually succeed in college…)

The thing is, if a book has a glaring error, it’s pretty good evidence that the reader can’t trust the writer. I’d give that writer one chance. If it happens again, there are plenty of other writers I’ll support with my dollars instead who do take the time and expend the energy to get things right. It’s the only way I can vote on the subject. And, even though it seems people think we have more knowledge these days readily available on the Internet, it also seems to me that more books have incorrect facts like this than they did years ago. And movies… well, that’s Hollywood, where Harvard MBA’s run the show. I wouldn’t expect them to be accurate… I’ve seen too many Oliver Stone and James Cameron movies to think otherwise…

How about you folks? Have you experienced something like my examples that turned you off to a writer or a film? Or maybe you’re not as anal as I am and you don’t care? I’d like to hear from both sides.