Still distracted by research.

But it’s so amazingly fascinating.  I don’t even think that’s proper English…  I’ve been reading up on criminals to make my bad characters more believable.  After being completely disturbed and revolted by Profilers:  Leading Investigators Take You Inside the Criminal Mind as edited by John H. Campbell and Don deNevi, I moved on.  Sheesh.  That book was worse than an episode of Criminal Minds.  And didn’t even have the funny bits with Garcia.  It also didn’t really give me a good idea of how people think/work as criminals–it just made me scared to ever go out of my house again. Apparently, people who stalk, rape, torture, and then chop people up into little bits cannot be stopped and are everywhere.  Great.  So not even The Mentalist can save me?

On the other hand, Inside the Criminal Mind by Stanton E. Samenow was amazing.  I read the updated 2004 edition.  Not sure I believe everything he says, but still…  I like the idea that it’s the way people think that controls their behavior, and that everything we do is a choice.  His argument says that criminal behavior has little to do with how you’re raised or your background, and has everything to do with how you think about the world and your place in it.  He seems to make allowances for the fact that clearly people who are raised around gangs and in threatening neighborhoods are more at risk for certain types of behaviors, and that the pattern of abused/abuser holds fairly true, but he also points out that there are plenty of people who were raised in at risk homes and emerged as successful members of society.  I love the emphasis on choice.  I’m all for a quirky turn of fate now and then and I could really go in for karma if that were true (because doing something bad is a choice, just like doing something good is, right?  So why not be punished/rewarded for those choices by Fate?  Makes total sense to me…)  But destiny and fate shouldn’t be able to just run amok all over me…  I’d like to have some say in how my life turns out.

The thing that really confused me, however, was that he claims that it’s not genetic–or, rather, that people aren’t born criminals either.  I’m a little confused on how he explains where this criminal method of thinking and behavior comes from, but that might be in another book.  My point is that he’s given me some excellent ideas for character traits.  Even so far as to point out what their world view is and how their issues can manifest themselves physically.  It’s brilliant.

Of course, on a side note, Samenow’s whole theory put me in mind of another book about thinking and behavior…  So a la 1984, wouldn’t his argument mean that if the criminals’ thinking was determining their behavior, then wouldn’t their language then control their thought…?  Because I’m a firm believer in that idea.  I realize that so much more goes into the brain rather than just words, but our thinking is based in language.  Does this mean that criminals have some sort of change to the language center of their brain?  It’s not just intelligence or education–Samenow’s data suggests that it doesn’t matter how smart or not the criminals are for them to think this way–so is there perhaps something inherently “wrong” with that part of the brain that controls language?  Would that support the genetic argument?  Hm.  Then exactly how does he, as a psychiatrist, go about changing that thinking?  He gives one example in the book of a success story by his mentor, Samuel Yochelson, but that’s only one.  And I would completely agree that wanting to change is another choice–the first choice, as Samenow points out–and is by far the most important.  He basically says that for some criminals, there is no hope, and we would do well to make them comfortable in jail, away from society, rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on rehabilitation and job training…  I’m telling you, it’s fascinating.  Where have I been all this time?  Why aren’t more people aware of this theory?  Does it just not work?  Has it been proven wrong too many times?  Sigh.  I’m telling you–research is just too distracting.

Colored coded edits seem to work.

I would highly recommend it.  I had so much to do as far as changing things around went, and I couldn’t wrap my head around them or focus on any one particular thing.  So I got out some fine point Sharpies. I would use brighter colored pens next time–these were all part of their “new” color line and had names like “cappuccino” and “olive”, but they still worked quite well.

Green (olive) was getting rid of that pesky character that I decided was superfluous (he died a rather natural death, as a matter of fact–I thought it would be more difficult to get rid of him, but when I read through the edited pages, I don’t miss him at all.  He was more like a prop–he came out when she needed him, but wasn’t necessary to the action itself.)

Red (maroon?  Maybe brick.) was the adjustment with one of the characters on how much he knew and when he knew it, because he goes all over the place.

Brown (cappuccino) was working on developing the distrust of her father more.  She has this image of him in her head and it all goes to hell the more and more she finds out about him.

Gray (slate?) was just plain old plot structure.  I wrote so many scenes and just plopped them down wherever I thought they should go and now some of them don’t make any sense.  So I’m working on combining and reorganizing.

So..to sum up?  Big fan of color coding my editing.  I doubt it would work for everyone, but it’s a smash hit with me.  I was feeling completely overwhelmed, and now I can just force myself to only look at that one aspect, really focus on it, and get something done.

Ah…Lucrezia Borgia. Misunderstood hottie or conniving bitch?

Trying another book about Lucrezia, but Rachel’s just as bad as Sarah is.  This one is Lucrezia Borgia:  A Biography by Rachel Erlanger.  Published in the 70’s, I think.  Yes.  Late 70’s–1978.  Apparently, this Lucrezia can do no wrong either.  In all fairness, I haven’t finished Sarah’s biography, so she may turn on our blond beauty yet, but it is interesting to see how Rachel just completely dismisses the very idea that Lucrezia had anything to do with sexual escapades and raunchy parties.  Lucrezia was a modest, intelligent, long-suffering young girl who was at the whim of her powerful father, just like every other woman in the Renaissance.  Really?  She was the daughter of a somewhat  pope, was brought up surrounded by mass amounts of money and power, and didn’t have a simpering clue on how to get what she wanted and manipulate situations?  I don’t know.  This Burchard guy–chancellor or secretary or something at the Vatican–has a daily diary where he writes down all the horrible things that the Borgias do, and he readily admits that he didn’t attend the parties and clearly has it out for them…  It seems to be the main source for all the accusations against the family, but really…  The stories had to come from somewhere.  She can’t be all that pure and innocent.  I just don’t believe it.  But it’s fascinating to see how staunchly Rachel defends her.  I’ll be interested to see how she deals with all the poisonings later.  I’m only to the marriage to Alfonso d’Este right now…

Maybe I’m just too cynical.  Perhaps someone brought up in those circumstances can avoid becoming just as corrupt as the others around her, but I seriously doubt it.  Nor do I seriously doubt that she was as wonderful as poets and the people of Ferrara say she was.  I’m sure she had her good moments.  Everyone does.  (Even Hitler had people who loved him, right?)  But everyone has their bad moments, too.  I guess that’s what frustrates me.  I’m willing to admit that certain things about Lucrezia may have been misinterpreted, but she was still human and made human judgments and human mistakes…  Perhaps this is a good lesson for me and my characters.  I need to remember that they’re human, too and make them good and bad.