Bios and Characters

I don't feel up to covering life tonight. So I'll cover two "problems" that are at a little more of remove.

One has to do with writing fiction. For once I find myself with a real conflict between world building and character building. Normally my stories tend to start with concept and people. The characters aren't all that hard--their names, yes, even the details of their backgrounds. But who they are, how they'll react in a given situation, that comes whole cloth as often as not.

But now I find myself with world building reasons to have certain characters conform to medieval humors. Specifically, I have two characters who should be more phlegmatic. Actually, one of them is decently phlegmatic to begin with (thank goodness). But our hero? A phlegmatic hero. Goodness. And it doesn't help that while sources seem pretty consistent about definitions for, say, choleric, they are all over the map for phlegmatic. Do I believe that they are "loyal, easygoing, quiet, witty, and a good listener. But they are also indecisive, not goal oriented, sarcastic, teasing and resist change." Or do I believe "Sluggish, pallid, cowardly" or perhaps "calm, unemotional."

I mean, it could be funny to try to have a hero who is "sluggish, pallid, and cowardly" but I just don't think that is this story. Ok, maybe pallid.

Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, claims, "Phlegmatics tend to be self-content and kind. They can be very accepting and affectionate. They may be very receptive and shy and often prefer stability to uncertainty and change. They are very consistent, relaxed, rational, curious, and observant, making them good administrators and diplomats. Unlike the Sanguine personality, they may be more dependable."

So are they loyal, kind and affectionate or unemotional and cowardly? Are they sluggish--one site even said lazy--and not goal oriented or are they curious and dependable?

And whatever they are, do I really want to change my hero to be that? Or do I want to rewrite my world some more instead?

The other problem on my mind this evening seems simple by comparison: how to write a biographical blurb about myself. It has to be a serious academic one, thus ruling out the lighthearted fiction author style ones I know best which enumerate the number of cats the author has and throw in a witty joke or two. But it's hard to write a serious academic bio when most would cover things like where I teach now (er, independent tutoring? not quite what they had in mind) or where I'm studying for my PhD (um, nope, not doing that either) or the cool internationally renowned awards I've gotten (uh un, none of those either. I have yet to undergo the painful nowning process, let alone become re-nowned, nor do I have any re-nowned awards).

So, I think to myself, I can talk about my "research interests." That's always a good one to go on about for a while. But my research interests are...disconcertingly diverse. I mean, I just spent a day doing research at Stanford. In fact, I was so excited and absorbed that I missed lunch. But was I researching a new article on Shakespeare? No. I was researching Pictish women. Pictish women. That's what? Only 7+ centuries earlier and the other end of the island. And the classes I taught? Science Fiction as Social Commentary. Changing Climate.

You have to admit that Renaissance literature (English with a splash of Scottish), medieval literature (especially Irish and Welsh), medieval material culture, Pictish history and material culture, science fiction and fantasy, mythology, writing on topics in environmental science, religion, and ancient Christianity are pretty darn diverse. But that's what I work on. Mostly.