Themes and Ideas I’m Drawn to as a Writer

Part of the fun of figuring out who you are as a writer is figuring out what inspires you to write. In the age of Kindle Unlimited and other e-book platforms, this is slightly more complicated. The internet has made us dependent on keywords and audience segmenting which doesn’t always address the true nature of any story. 

Writing your own, or writing about others’ stories, gives you a chance to examine your own personal preferences in a very different way than just picking up the book and reading. 

When I came up with my idea for Vindico (still a working title, by the way), I didn’t start with a genre. Or keywords. I started with themes and stories I loved and enjoyed. Some of which I discuss here on the blog. Others I haven’t even gotten to yet. It’s taken a while, but there are definitely things I return to over and over again, however much I may debate taking another path in my writing. 

I’ve only listed a small number here––3 to be exact. Any longer, and this would be a book in itself instead of a blog post! 

Avenging vs Revenging

There are two works which are the real inspiration for this idea: Hamlet and The Count of Monte Cristo. Most consider both revenge stories. In fact, they often teach Hamlet as the finest example of the “revenge play”––a common artistic art form in Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. We consider Monte Cristo the finest example of a revenge novel. 

But we’re wrong. Not because revenge isn’t a theme––it is. But because revenge isn’t necessarily what happens. Take Hamlet. Our titular character could have “taken revenge” on his uncle at will, at any moment in time. He doesn’t. He waits until his uncle has made a move against his life. Now, he pushes his uncle to that point, but two things make him take action: Claudius’ order to the King of England to kill Hamlet and Laertes’ confession that the king had a hand in the rigged fencing match. 

That’s when Hamlet openly moves against his uncle. Not before. He almost does at one point, but it’s “hire and salary” not “revenge.” Not only is it in cold blood, but it’s when Claudius is praying. We would still consider it revenge, because killing is killing. But Hamlet rightly (as in being just and true) sees taking his uncle’s life in that moment as just plain murder. 

True revenge, he says, would take his uncle’s life when he is doing something that is evil. That way, his fate and his murdered brother’s fate would at least be similar, if not the same. What ends up happening is that Hamlet’s delays to act only show Claudius for the villain he is, which means his death at the end is only partially revenge. It’s mostly justice executed. This is what it means to avenge, as opposed to revenge. 

The Count of Monte Cristo has an almost eerily similar plotline with very similar circumstances. There’s a fortress/prison, there’s a love story that’s thwarted, a father killed, a reputation sullied. And, like Hamlet, the culprits reveal their true nature and have their own evils fall on their heads. 

Again, revenging turns to avenging. 

Strong women need equally strong men. 

We all know the romantic trope of the woman who’s flighty, ditzy, etc and somehow still gets the man of her dreams when she realizes her power as an independent woman. That’s fine. Legally Blonde is a fine example of this trope and will always be one of my favorites. But what about the man? 

We glorify strong women, but cannot give them the support they need to stray both strong and happy. Modern books are full of women who call the shots, make the decisions, and make it all work with the man just being an arm accessory. And the trope of the strong dominating man making all the decisions for the woman has never been more prolific. 

Let’s get one thing clear: strong men do not equal asshole men. The man who comes home and has no care for his wife’s troubles during the day and won’t help her with the children, or claims he “owns” them all, isn’t a strong man. A man who wants a 50/50 relationship or defers EVERY decision to his partner isn’t a strong man either. 

I see the perfect male lead as an amalgamation of at least 3 characters: Prince Phillip from Sleeping Beauty, Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice, and to a lesser extent, Christian Grey from Fifty Shades. Shock you with that last one? Hear me out. 

Prince Phillip

Prince Phillip is gallant. He’s determined to marry Aurora, not knowing who her true identity. He defies his father, fights a dragon, and beats his way through a thicket just to get to her. Of course, the timeline of their romance is off, but this is a fairytale. He took a risk. Had he stayed put as his father had wanted him to do, he too would have been under the sleeping spell. Instead, he’s put in a prime position to do what he’s meant to do: end the curse, kill the monster. This allows Aurora to do what she’s meant to do. Live, love, sing, and be happy. 

Mr. Darcy

Mr. Darcy gets a lot of criticism because of how he initially treats Elizabeth. His critics are many and growing, but I will always argue his case because of what he does when Lidia brings disgrace to the Bennett family. He acts. Without expectation of reward, without even taking the credit. It’s Mrs. Gardiner, Elizabeth’s aunt, who reveals the true circumstances and that Lidia’s own family had nothing to do with getting the matter resolved. It’s Elizabeth who confronts Darcy with the truth. 

He doesn’t deny it, and when he finally renews his offer of marriage to her, he makes it very clear that it’s her final decision. Notice too he does this after he’s already resolved the family crisis. He doesn’t say to her “if you marry me, I will…” or “because I did this, you should marry me.” He leaves the final decision to her. 

And then, only after his aunt tried to intimidate her and then complain to him about her answers. 

But he gives her the final choice. And she, of course, chooses him. 

Christian Grey

Why this character out of all the main leading men in all of literary endeavor? Why Christian Grey? Megalomanic, deviant, traumatized, controlling, obsessive, etc. Why him? Well, if you look back at the introductory paragraph to this section, I said to a lesser extent. 

Here’s the point. He provides the environment for Anastasia to grow into her true self. He keeps her from becoming another notch on the bedpost for her erstwhile boss. He provides the environment and the trappings for her to step into a different world than the one she grew up in so she can be the wife, mother, career woman, everything and more. It’s on a ridiculously grand scale, but that’s again part of the fictional world. 

Think about it for a moment. We actually get a glimpse of what Anastasia’s life without Christian would have looked like. It wasn’t all sunshine and roses. It wasn’t even a successful career. It was blackmail, assault, and all that those two things entailed. Is the Anastasia we meet at the beginning ready to handle all that? 

No. The Anastasia we meet would have caved immediately and lived in fear. It’s partially because Christian is strong and has his life together (mostly) that Anastasia is able to grow as much as she does. Yes, it’s also because Christian has a very weak toxic side to him that gives her trial by fire. Yes, it’s also because he is a billionaire. 

We tell ourselves the fairytale princess is a lie. The “swoop and save” billionaire boyfriend is just a fantasy. I would argue that the alternative we glorify is also a lie. We like to glorify the “do it all” woman. The 50/50 woman. The “single mom who works too hard,” the career woman who “needs no man” or the “working mom.” 

How many women can make that work and not have a meltdown? If a partner is involved, then the partner has to be equally strong and proactive. He cannot be a drone. He cannot be a financial drain. He cannot be another child for her to care for and cater to. What would have happened if Prince Phillip had been a man-child? Sleeping Beauty really would have slept on. 

Or wished she had. Sorry guys, but being a woman isn’t cheap, and it’s not a 50/50 situation. Some of us really are at the mercy of our own biology despite modern medicine.

I’m all for strong women–it’s part of being a feminist. But for feminism to reach its full potential, we need equally strong men and we need to let them be strong. Women are not invincible. And we’re not machines even if we’re treated like them. 

Let’s return to Elle and Emmett for a moment. Would you say Emmett is stronger than Warner, Elle’s initial love interest? Would Emmett have dumped Elle for the same reasons Warner did? Let’s consider that most of the men in the movie are weak. Her father doesn’t believe in her, although he supports her. Warner dumps her because she doesn’t provide the optics he and his family want.. Other men objectify her or write her off. 

Watch the movie again sometime and you’ll see what I mean. Emmett defends her honor on the one hand while encouraging her to reach for her full potential on the other. Yes, other women play a part too, and that is what the movie focuses on, but Emmett’s role is quietly powerful. He doesn’t detract from her other relationships, but he definitely makes the result possible. 

A note here, yes, I have based this entire section off of a traditional relationship. Those of you out there who don’t hold to tradition are, I’m sure, smart enough to figure out that any relationship needs similar polarity. You can fill in the blanks for yourselves and possibly much more accurately than I can. Some of you may even end up agreeing with me. 

No bitter endings 

I don’t know about you, but I am so sick and tired of gratuitous bad endings in stories, whether that’s TV, movies, books, etc. Why couldn’t Hemingway have come up with a happily ever after once in a while? Why do all of Steinbeck’s novels end with the characters disillusioned and even more miserable than before? 

We’ve become obsessed with what we consider “realistic” ends. This is a fancy way of saying no one is happy. Everything is ultimately pointless and a continual struggle. As if we didn’t already know that just from living life. 

Even Grecian tragedies have a point to them. Everyone dies, but there is a point to their deaths. It’s not gratuitous. Compare that to Game of Thrones and how George R. R. Martin just kills characters off for the sake of killing them. Makes them miserable for the sake of misery. 

Realistic? If you’re a nihilistic depressive, then yes, it is real. 

We don’t need to read a story to get the message that life is hard or a struggle. I can’t imagine a single generation that does unless they have delusions of grandeur that they think makes them all look intelligent. In reality, it makes them look like the hag with the poisoned apple in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Please note that I am a millennial and I did notthrow the Boomers under the bus here. I really could have, but we have our own sins in this area to atone for.

No, Twilight is not one of them. Happy ending, remember? It’s a weird happy ending, but a happy ending. Try again. 

Instinctively, we know this too. Otherwise why is the “morally grey” character who gets the girl such a popular trope? Because, on some level, it is good winning out over evil. Still. And we get the satisfaction of a strong male character (see the previous section) that isn’t going to wimp out. 

There is a time and a place for unhappy endings. Tragedies are one place where it makes sense, but only if there is redemption or the promise of it at the end as well. Hamlet has redemption at the end. It’s only promised, but the evils that set the play in motion have been defeated. 

Unhappiness has to have a point in order for it to have any real meaning. Needless suffering is pointless. Needless death is pointless. But there’s some literature out there that’s all for gratuitous violence, unfulfilling sex, and death. 

The thought should be sobering. 

What to expect in Vindico

I hope I’ve given you a little of what to expect when I finally finish Vindico. And possibly give it a proper title. I’m not aiming for great literary achievement necessarily, but I am aiming for something I’d be proud of putting out there. 

This is a struggle between taking revenge and avenging someone who’s been wronged. It’s also a relationship between a man and a woman where the woman actually enjoys and welcomes his interference and the man takes action without being asked when he sees its necessary. And yes, there is a happily ever after. Eventually.