Tag Archives: psychology

Four Types of Playful Writers

Writers are, in general, playful people. As explained in a study by Dr. Rene Proyer “Playful people are able to reinterpret situations in their lives so that they experience them as entertaining or are able to reduce stress levels.” In my writing, I often rework real life situations with a better (or worse) ending and a more empowered character – a SuperMe – capable of witty remarks and amazing feats of skill, knowledge or cunning. Although it seems hard to find anything entertaining about pain or loss, the expression of an unpleasant experience in a creative way can be cathartic. For an example, recall Life of Pi by Yann Martel; young Pi survives on a boat with what seems to be a tiger, baboon and hyena.

The study categorizes playful people in four ways. I imagine writers can check one or all these categories. I will test each categories with myself and with the four Russian writers on my reading list for the year – Tolstoy, Chekov, Bulgakov and Nabokov.

1) “Other-directed playful” includes socializing with friends and other writers.   For me – a member of several writing groups, an “E” for extrovert on Myers-Briggs tests and working in a profession that involves people – this category is a hit. For the Russians writers, socializing with each other is well documented. Tolstoy reportedly took partying (1800’s style) at college to the extreme and never graduated. Lucky for him, it did not deter his writing career and success.

2) The “light-heartedly playful” consider life a game. And in games, it’s how the game is played. During the years I cared for my parents, we continued to play games. I had a performance baseline for each of them and measured each day against the previous. During play, the filters and pretensions dropped. Strategy choices revealed character, health and mental faculty. Humor was also part of the game. Chekhov began his writing career by publishing humorous anecdotes and stories to pay for his medical school studies. After that, his writing took a turn for the dark and serious.

3) The “intellectually playful” like to play with thoughts and ideas. Occasionally, the less tired and more clever me does re-orchestrate events to tell a playful story. I once threw away a microwave because my son said smoke came out of it. When I learned this might not have been true, I wrote a short story, “Trial of the Microwave.” On a more serious topic, Bulgakov wrote a satire about Stalinist Russia, Master and Margarita, which casts a wall-eyed loon and a talking cat as the devil’s attendants. I needed the talking cat in the microwave situation.

4) The “whimsically playful” enjoy “strange and unusual things and are amused by small day-to-day observations.” Details – accents, tone of voice, body language – convey information to the observant. The crystallized conflict photographed above caught my attention the other day. I took several photographs to determine if the ice was melting or the water was freezing. Before I could decide, my fingers numbed, and I almost dropped my phone in the water. Nabokov’s narrator in Lolita can dial up the description to create a complete image and feeling. Read through this jewel by Nabokov. He writes “. . . on the trim turf of the lawn-slope, an old gentleman with a white mustache, well-dressed – double-breasted gray suit, polka dotted bow-tie – lay supine, his long legs together, like a death-size wax figure.”

One last point about playfulness, Dr. Proyer notes that play enhances the ability to solve complex problems. A playful person can shift perspectives. In writer-speak, this shift is changing point of view. A writer imagines the thoughts and motivations of each character and determines the best narrator for a story. Solving (complex) plotting problems may mean jumping into another character’s thoughts and point of view. Or the story might need the intimacy of first person. Sometimes, I get it wrong. I’m quite proficient at switching from third person to first or vice versa. And being playful, I find it fun to edit and try it again in a different way.

For Better or For Worse – Fates and Furies (Part 3/3)

Lauren Groff’s Fates and Furies falls into my newly created genre of relationship, or quite simply, “apres romance.” This novel begins at the most extreme height of passion, usually where most romance plots end. Yet does this relationship feel real? With the help of Professor Mark Leary at Duke University, I apply Understanding the Mysteries of Human Behavior to separate fact from fiction.

Love is A Drugunderstanding-the-mysteries

FACT – Lotto’s love at first sight is actually a psychological term called “excitation transfer.” After his stage performance, he sees Mathilde, relabels his excitement to her and falls in love. BOOM! Groff captures the passionate love of newlyweds.  Apparently, the brain in love is a brain on drugs.  Pumped full of dopamine and phenylethylamine (PEA), the brain is excited and exhilarated in the early phase of a relationship. Then, as the neurotransmitters chill, the relationship shifts to more compassionate love and douses the brain with oxytocin, leaving a warm fuzzy connected – all is right with the world – feeling.  Groff succeeds here in portraying the shift to career, financial and family concerns.

Opposites Attract

FICTION – Relationships run into problems based on personalities and character traits. In general, happy people tend to have better relationships. According to Leary, people who are disagreeable, hostile, suspicious and selfish will have less satisfying relationships. In Fates and Furies, Lotto narrates the first half of the book. His personality and basic nature attract followers and fans, and Mathilde may be the only one to deal with his alcoholism and bi-polar tendencies. She keeps Lotto hinged and producing plays. Mathilde, who seems opposite of Lotto, may succeed because of her stealth-like dominance in running their lives. As Lotto describes, she runs on the passive-aggressive side.

Marriage is Hard

FACT – Expectations are higher in modern relationships according to Leary. Our previous experiences make our comparison levels higher. There’s even a theory for this – Interdependence Theory. The criteria for rating current relationships is based on previous relationships. For the same amount of effort or “costs,” what are the rewards with someone else? Lotto and Mathilde’s relationship exceeds previous relationship experiences which make them satisfied. Since other alternative relationships do not compare, the couple stays committed.

Until Death Do We Part

FICTION – As a relationship ages, the perceived costs increase. Successful relationships manage to incorporate increasing rewards to adjust for the current costs. Lotto accepts the cost – his childless marriage. Mathilde increases Lotto’s rewards by using her leverage to make him successful and lets him naively believe his talent triumphed. Responsiveness is also a key to marriage success. Mathilde’s anger at Lotto’s speech about her role in their relationship made her pull back. Lotto came to her in apology, and they reunited. Had he harbored a grudge about being abandoned after his speech, the rift between them would have grown. Unsuccessful marriages foster an environment where each partner alternately disengages further and further.

Overall, Groff represents the ongoing challenges of a long-term relationship. If anything, the Lotto and Mathilde relationship is so three-dimensional that the other relationships in the story are flat.

This concludes my three-part series based on the novel Fates and Furies. When a novel succeeds on so many levels, I want to know why. How did the author accomplish so much? What was unique about this story? If there is any doubt, I confess a writer’s respect and a reader’s admiration for Lauren Groff’s creativity in structure “Give It To Me Straight“, mastery of style “It’s Greek to Me” and realistic depiction of a relationship over the span of two life times “For Better or For Worse.”