This is part 4 in a 4-part series. Read part 1 here.

So far we've talked about how immersive and powerful stories can be as well as how that immersive experience can effect our moral judgment. In this final post, I want to talk about where, specifically that power usually comes from: the characters.

The connection between an audience and the characters of a story is so strong that the characters become part of who we are. Having experienced a story through its characters, we naturally adopt some of the attributes of those characters into our own self-concept (Slater et al. 445). What is it that connects us so powerfully with the characters in the first place? We've talked about how stories expand our ability to act by giving us characters to act through, but where does that connection with the characters actually come from?

Marco Iacoboni, a neuroscientist wrote a book called "Mirroring People: The Science of Empathy and How We Connect with Others". Being a neuroscientist, Iacoboni's book deals with the biological makeup of the brain and how that makeup affects our ability to empathize with people -- real and fictional -- around us. In his book, he talks about mirror neurons, which are cells in the brain that promote empathy. They allow us to feel what others are feeling simply by observing their actions and expressions. These cells let us not only imagine what a person in emotional pain is going through, but make us experience that pain for ourselves. They're responsible for all the wadded up tissues on the floor of chick-flick night, the wincing when you see someone hurt, and all of the "I know how you feel"s that people express when you go through a difficult time. When talking about fictional characters specifically, Iacoboni states that we get emotional during heartbreaking scenes in film because we "literally experience the same feelings ourselves" (Iacoboni 4). Iacoboni's work also states that mirror neurons are activated when we observe someone performing an action, such as playing tennis or basketball (5). As we watch someone play basketball, our brain analyzes the player's actions and makes us feel as though we're playing the game ourselves (5). Why do the actions of characters in stories feel so much like our own? Because to our minds, there's no difference (Slater et al. 443).

The behavior of the characters in a story is the biggest factor in determining its influence over its audience. In the last post, we talked briefly about how the likability of a character determines to a large degree how righteous the audience interprets the character's actions to be. Heroes or likable characters behaving in a moral way promotes morality. Villains or unlikable characters behaving in an immoral way also promotes morality. One of the biggest trends in the media and entertainment industry at the moment is the antihero. Many of the most popular television shows of the past several years have centered around characters who seem to constantly be making decisions that most people would consider morally wrong (Shafer and Raney 1028). The book "Media and the Moral Mind" explains that the widespread appeal of "morally complex" characters in popular shows such as Dexter or Breaking Bad comes from the fact that those characters are often more complex than typical protagonists (Tamborini ). Human beings are infinitely complex, it seems, and characters who exhibit behavior that is purely moral or purely immoral can be hard to relate to. Antiheroes, on the other hand, are flawed by definition, which can make them more appealing to audiences looking for a character to identify with (Hoorn and Konijn 250-268). If characters are to be truly relatable, they should be flawed. Conflict is the fuel that drives stories forward, after all. But how far into moral ambiguity can a character be pushed before having a detrimental effect on the audience?

The danger in telling stories that center around morally-compromised protagonists is that the audience begins to justify the actions of those characters in their minds, especially if there are no apparent consequences to those actions. A study by Tamborini and a few of his colleagues found that behavior of more likable characters was seen as more righteous, and thus more justifiable than the exact same behavior in less likeable characters. Furthermore, whether the characters were rewarded or punished for their behavior had an effect on whether or not the outcomes of those behaviors were seen as right or wrong (Tamborini et al. 635). In other words, when a character that the audience likes does something immoral, the audience finds a way to excuse the character's behavior in order to continue enjoying the story (Tamborini 160). This makes sense if we think about how we experience the characters' actions as our own. If the immoral behavior goes unpunished or has no negative consequences, those feelings of justification are reinforced. If the effects on the audience's moral judgment are to be positive, the consequences for a character's actions should reflect whether those actions were right or wrong. If a protagonist is allowed to kill, steal, or commit adultery with impunity, it suggests to the audience that those acts are justifiable, at least in certain cases.

I'm not saying that a story needs to be devoid of conflict, nor am I suggesting that protagonists should all be perfectly righteous all of the time. I just think that all of us, as consumers of stories and storytellers alike, should be aware of the effect that stories have on us and the people around us. If you want to retain and uphold your belief that sex is a sacred thing, maybe avoid the stories that treat it as something casual. If you don't want your kids to think that violence is okay, maybe don't buy them video games that have them shooting other players with no apparent consequence.

Each of us uses moral intuition to make decisions every day. Those decisions, made one at a time, slowly shape who we are. For better or worse, stories affect which direction our moral compasses point. The shows I've watched, the books I've read, and the films I've seen have all shaped who I am. My favorite stories are a part of me that I cherish. I revisit them often, reading or watching them, again and again, to remind myself why I love them and to enjoy the sense of "expanded agency" that they give me (Slater et al. 443). On the other hand, I've occasionally found myself immersed in stories that have left me feeling ugly on the inside. Those stories I hope to forget and never come back to. As a whole, stories have enriched my life. A well-crafted, immersive story is a beautiful thing on its own, but coupling that with the potential it has to impact the world makes it an absolute marvel.

I stated earlier that the purpose of this post was not to weigh in on what is right or wrong, which is mostly true. But the main point I want to make is an argument over one moral issue: that no matter what factors into his or her moral belief system, a storyteller has a moral responsibility to promote truth in their stories. The power to alter an audience's moral judgment is big deal, and as uncle Ben famously stated: “With great power comes great responsibility”.

I’m sorry if this spiel reads too much like an academic paper, but I wanted to present it in a way that was well thought out and investigated. More than anything else in my professional career, I want to be a good storyteller, and knowing the impact that stories have had on my life makes me want to make sure that the way my stories impact the world is a positive one. The stories that I tell will communicate truths that I believe. As a father of four kids, I feel a responsibility to provide as much good for them to experience as I can. Thanks for sticking with me to the end of this thing and for letting me know your thoughts. This has been weighing on my mind for a long time and it's something I'm truly passionate about. The passion may have been lost to you in all the research, but it's there and it's burning hot. Story is something I love to talk about and this is just one small aspect of it. If you ever want to talk, just drop me a line. I get busy sometimes, but I always read everything that's sent to me.

All the best,

Randy

This is part 4 of a 4-part series. Read part 1 here.

Works Cited

Eden, Allison, et al. "Repeated Exposure to Narrative Entertainment and the Salience of Moral Intuitions." Journal of Communication 64.3 (2014): 501-20. Web.

Fanti, Kostas A., et al. "Desensitization to Media Violence Over a Short Period of Time." Aggressive Behavior 35.2 (2009): 179-87. Web. Jul 18, 2017.

Hoorn, Johan F., and Elly A. Konijn. "Perceiving and Experiencing Fictional Characters: An Integrative Account1." Japanese Psychological Research 45.4 (2003): 250-68. Web.

Rubenking, Bridget, and Annie Lang. "Captivated and Grossed Out: An Examination of Processing Core and Sociomoral Disgusts in Entertainment Media." Journal of Communication 64.3 (2014): 543-65. Web.

Shafer, Daniel M., and Arthur A. Raney. "Exploring how we Enjoy Antihero Narratives." Journal of Communication 62.6 (2012): 1028-46. Web.

Slater, Michael D., et al. "Temporarily Expanding the Boundaries of the Self: Motivations for Entering the Story World and Implications for Narrative Effects." Journal of Communication 64.3 (2014): 439-55. Web. Jun 5, 2017.

Tamborini, Ron. Media and the Moral Mind. 1. publ. ed. New York [u.a.]: Routledge, 2013. Web.

"YourMorals.Org." YourMorals.Org. Web. Jul 17, 2017 <http://>.

In parts 1 and 2 of this series of posts, I talked about how and why stories can be so immersive and effective in shaping who we are. What I want to talk about now is the effect that a story can have on moral judgment. We've already talked about how we experience things in a story as if we were part of it rather than simply observing it. What kind of effect does that experience have on our behavior?

A group of professors conducted a study on a college campus in order to find out if they could measure the effects of narrative entertainment on an audience's moral judgment. The article, entitled, "Repeated Exposure to Narrative Content and the Salience of Moral Intuitions", illustrates how television, in particular, can alter the importance of certain moral concepts to an audience (Eden et al. 501-520) 8). The study involved two groups of volunteer college students -- a test group and a control group -- who participated for college credit. The study, they were told, was designed to examine the appeal of a certain soap opera (508). Soap opera was chosen as the preferred testing ground specifically because the characters in soaps often make morally questionable decisions (507). The students were all required to fill out the "Moral Foundations Questionnaire" ("yourmorals.org"), which measures how important five different factors are in an individual's moral decision-making process (Eden et al. 508-509):

Each of these five factors are weighed subconsciously in our minds as we make decisions over what is right or wrong. Some of these factors hold more weight with us than others, while some may not hold weight at all. The purpose of the study these college students underwent was to discover if the story in a soap opera could cause a shift in the importance of one or more of these factors.

After all the students filled out the questionnaire, the test group of students was required to watch a specific soap opera together after class once a week for eight weeks, taking in the entire first run of the show (508). Eight episodes spread out over eight weeks doesn't seem like it should have all that much of an effect, especially when it's a show the students were required to watch, rather than watch by choice. Still, a week after the last episode of the soap opera, both groups of students took the questionnaire again. The results showed that the students who watched the soap opera had shifted their moral opinions to align more with the culture of the show. Collectively, the students who watched the soap showed an increase in the importance of three specific morals. Those morals were consistently violated by the show's antagonist, making them more important in the culture of the show than others (511). That may not seem like a big deal, but the fact that a soap opera can collectively change the minds of dozens of people after only 8 episodes is crazy to me!

I realize that questionnaire results are by no means definitive evidence, but other studies have been made testing the effect of courtroom drama, sitcoms, and news media on moral judgment with similar results (Eden et al. 515). Studies like these shed a little bit of light on how much we are actually influenced by the stories we choose to dive into.

Although altering an audience's moral judgment may not have been the aim of this particular soap opera, the fact that it did so in such a specific way across the board is amazing. The morals that shifted in the audience were morals that were repeatedly violated by the antagonist of the show, which is interesting. If the bad guy in a story violates a moral, that moral becomes even more important in the audience's mind than it already was. If the good guy upholds a moral, that moral also becomes more important in the audience's mind. It was the association of certain morals with certain characters and whether or not those characters are liked by the audience that determine how an audience's morals shift. The next post will get more into character, but it's important to note that how the audience feels about a character determines to a large degree whether or not the actions of that character are perceived as right or wrong.

This is part 3 of 4. Read part 1 here,ready part 4here.

I recently read an excellent article entitled "Temporarily Expanding the Boundaries of the Self: Motivations for Entering the Story World and Implications for Narrative Effects" by Michael D. Slater, et al. The title is a bit of a mouthful, and the paper is highly intellectual, but it's a fantastic read. The article endeavors to explain why it is that we as human beings seem to universally enjoy and seek out stories. If I were to ask a room full of people why we love stories so much, the most frequently voiced answer would probably be that stories provide a method of escape. Stories allow us to check-out of our own realities for a time in favor of a different one. In order to understand why it is that we feel the need to escape, Slater and his colleagues conducted research in order to explore what they call "the concept of the self" (Slater et al. 440). Each of us has several versions of ourselves that we are constantly building and maintaining inside our heads (440). I, for example, am a father, a husband, an artist, a professional, a student, a friend, and several other things as well. I have goals associated with my abilities as an artist, goals for my financial future, goals for my relationships, and I'm striving to reach all of those goals simultaneously. Each version of who I am is different and has different requirements that I need to meet. Sometimes those needs overlap, but sometimes they conflict and even compete with each other. Trying to juggle the building and maintenance of all of those versions of who we are is difficult and downright exhausting. Unsurprisingly, the effort for some people is challenging enough to cause serious psychological side-effects (440). Knowing that just trying to be ourselves requires so much of us, is it any wonder that we feel the need to escape on occasion (441)? The article explains the need for relief this way:

No matter how much freedom one feels, one is never free to be other than oneself. A given personal and social identity is inherently confining even when it is relatively comfortable. The personal/social self may be tarnished or it may be gilded, but it remains something of a cage… temporary release from the constraint of personal identity is so widely desired and pursued that it may be considered a fundamental need or desire (442).

No matter which side of the fence you fall on in the argument over content, stories play an important role in providing a much-needed escape for people who need a break from their reality.

Slater and his colleagues further argue that stories provide something beyond escape: an opportunity for "expanded agency" (443), which I thought was incredibly interesting. They explain that the nature of the relationship a person builds with the characters of a story can be so immersive and intimate that the "sense of self" of the person experiencing the story is expanded to include the characters in the narrative. In other words, we're able to break out of the cage of our identity and experience things in the story as if we were someone else. This means that the characters' behaviors, opinions, choices, and experiences become our own for a time. Not only do we feel what the characters feel, but the choices made by the characters in the story are made by us as well: we’re able to do things in the story that we would be unable to do in reality. Our ability to act --our agency-- is expanded to include the actions of the characters in the story (Slater et al. 439-455) 43). When we see Macbeth, we feel the horror of king Duncan's murder as if we had committed the crime ourselves. Stories hold power over us because they give us experiences that are impossible to have on our own.

As I was read through Slater et al's article, I began thinking about all of the discussions I’ve had with people about my favorite stories. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I feel a sense of protective ownership over a story after I read it. I feel like even though everyone else may have read Harry Potter, my relationship with Harry is special. I find myself defending the actions of characters in stories, whether or not those actions were morally right, as if the actions were mine. Harry is a part of me. A story isn't just an escape, it's an out-of-self experience that has the power to change who we are.

This is part 2 of 4. Read part 1 here. Part 3 here.

I'm not a psychologist, and thusly, can't pretend to understand the inner-workings of anyone else's brain, but I've spent thirty-plus years inside my own head, and I like to think that I now have a rudimentary grasp on what goes on in there. I've always had an overactive imagination. I spent most of my time growing up in what my mother affectionately called "Randyland", never even acknowledging the real world for longer than was absolutely necessary. Every aspect of my life was associated in my head with an ongoing narrative that I made up as I went along. It was a source of constant frustration for my parents, and a constant source of adventure and escape for me. I was obsessed with cartoons and would often pretend that I was the characters from my favorite shows. I adopted their personalities, their temperaments, and even their favorite foods. I spent countless hours drawing characters in different situations, obsessing over every detail. My world was based almost entirely on fantasy, and as a result, I've actually discovered over the years that many of the memories I have of my childhood are at least partially fictional. When I began growing out of childhood into adolescence, coming to terms with reality was actually painful for me. I remember coming to the realization -- at an age older than I'd care to admit -- that I would never be able to acquire super powers. It sounds silly, but it was devastating to me. As I grew older and I allowed reality to penetrate my thoughts a bit more, I still took advantage of every opportunity to engage in narratives. Books, movies, and television allow me to escape into different worlds, experiencing adventures that I would never have dreamed up on my own, and feeling emotions more powerfully than I often do in the real world. Stories have played a huge role in shaping who I am, and I'm incredibly grateful for that. I believe stories carry power; the power to mold minds and shape wills. What I want to talk about specifically, is their power to affect moral judgment.

Morality is a philosophical issue that has been pondered on and argued for thousands of years. The purpose of this post is not to weigh in on what I believe to be right or wrong, but to discuss how narrative entertainment can reaffirm or alter one's moral beliefs. I believe there are two separate issues to discuss when it comes to the effect of stories on audiences: content and narrative. Content refers to all the stuff that a story contains. A common complaint about stories is that they contain too much disturbing content such as violence, sex, drugs, racism, language, etc. The narrative provides context for the content. For example, there's a distinct difference between a story's villain being depicted as racist and the hero being depicted as racist. On one hand, the story associates racism with wrong, while on the other it's associated with right. That's the big difference between content and narrative.

The debate over disturbing content in the media has been raging for decades. Video games, books, movies, and music have all been scrutinized for containing graphic or disturbing content. Research into the negative effects of such content has been almost exhaustive. Studies confirm that content certainly can have a negative impact on morally acceptable behavior in audiences (Vossen, Piotrowski, and Valkenburg 175-193). At the same time, it's been widely studied and accepted by others, that disturbing content can be a useful device to use in storytelling (Rubenking and Lang 543-565). The world is, after all, often a crazy, violent, and disturbing place to live in. Should we avoid creating stories that reflect the darker side of reality? Kathryn Bigelow, an academy award-winning filmmaker has been asked several times particularly about the use of violence in her films. An interviewer asked her about the effect her films might have on her viewers in this way: "What about the stories of people who get pumped up on watching violent films and then go on a shooting spree?" Bigelow responded to the question with her belief that the individuals mentioned were the exception rather than the rule, and that "one should make moral judgments for oneself" (10 Famous Directors on Movie Violence). Certainly, a violent film isn't going to turn every member of the audience into a crazed killer, but to say that they're all unaffected by it would be irresponsible. At the very least, repeated exposure to graphic content has been confirmed to have a desensitizing effect on audiences (Fanti et al. 179-187). The question of content is one most people are familiar with and have likely weighed in on to one degree or another. While I believe that content plays a big part in altering what audiences see as morally acceptable, I want to focus on what lies beyond blood and guts; sex and drugs. The real power of a story lies in the narrative.

Part 1 of 4. Read part 2 here.

Hi everyone!

First of all, I want to thank all of you who have supported "Monomyth" so far. Despite the unsuccessful campaign last year, I've been working hard to bring this project to life. Unfortunately, animation is expensive, a risky investment, and intangible, which makes it a hard thing to rally support for.

After considering all the options available for telling this story, I feel that a graphic novel is the best way to move forward from here. I was hesitant to go this route at first because I don't enjoy the process of drawing comics very much, and I could see myself becoming dispassionate for the story. Fortunately, there are plenty of talented artists out there who are willing and able to work in the comic book industry. I've been doing some recruiting and I have a great team of artists lined up to work on "Monomyth", the graphic novel!

I'm thrilled to announce that on September 26th I'll be launching a new Kickstarter campaign to fund volume one of the "Monomyth" epic. This will be a unique book featuring the work of over a dozen artists from around the world. In addition to the first part of the story, this book will feature concept art that has been done by myself and other artists, variant covers, and other surprises that I'm sure you'll love.

I absolutely love art books. I have a collection of them that takes up a good portion of the book shelf in my office, and I turn to them when I need inspiration. I wanted the "Monomyth" graphic novel to serve a similar purpose, so I've recruited artists whom I admire to contribute artwork to the story. Not only will you be able to finally get your hands on the story, but you'll be able to get it through the various unique, beautiful styles of some of my favorite artists from around the world.

Each week I'm going to be highlighting the work of one of the artists contributing to the book all the way up until just before the campaign begins. Today, I'm featuring the work of Olivia Margraf-Posta. Olivia is a talented character designer and concept artist who lives in Ohio, USA. As you'll see, she has a definite talent for character design, and she makes use of flowing, curving shapes and lines to beautiful results.

^ Olivia's initial sketches for Nibicus, one of the main characters in "Monomyth" ^

You can see more of Olivia's work on her website: https://oliviamargrafposta.carbonmade.com/projects/5306743

Thank you all for your support of "Monomyth"! It's been amazing to see the positive response to this project so far and I hope that you'll continue to be just as supportive from this moment on.

All the best,

Randy Bishop

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Review

By now most of you should have seen the newest addition to the Star Wars franchise. For those of you who haven't, I'm going to be getting into some spoilery bits in this amateur review of mine so be warned.

The Force Awakens was a disappointment. That said, I did enjoy a lot about this movie; but mostly from an artistic standpoint, not a storytelling one. The most emotional parts of the movie for me were when the title came up before the crawling prologue and when the Millennium Falcon appears for the first time. Other than that, there wasn't much about the movie that pulled at me. In fact, the one part of the movie that was supposed to be a gut-punch to the heartstrings fell entirely flat for me. That's the way I feel about the movie as a whole. The plot, Harrison Ford's performance, and the musical score all felt half-hearted to me.

I'm afraid you'll think that I absolutely hated this movie. I didn't. I was disappointed, but not enough to curse JJ's name and swear to never again trust him as a director. I like JJ. I absolutely love what he did with Star Trek. I was hoping that he would treat Star Wars in the same way: with a fresh perspective. I'm not sure what the factors are that contributed to it, but this movie was anything but fresh to me. I understand the need to pay homage to what's been done in the past and the desire to bring back old characters for cameos, but there's nothing in this movie that felt original to me.

Beyond that, the story itself is crap. Sorry to put it so indelicately, but I really think it is. What is the point of this movie? The only character who goes through any significant change is Finn, who decides to try to rescue his friend instead of running away. And that transformation occurs instantly, without any apparent internal conflict. We're supposed to believe that Kylo Ren is struggling with his conversion to the dark side, but he never once demonstrates a proclivity for choosing the light. Beyond that, there's nothing about Kylo Ren's character in the film to suggest that he's even remotely threatening. We only ever see him give a couple of characters headaches and then get a lucky shot at the end against a stormtrooper. He just spends his time whining about things not going his way and has a weird conversation with a melted helmet that might have some leftover bits of his granddad inside. And then he gets sabered into pieces by someone who has no apparent training and hasn't used a lightsaber ever before in her life.

Somehow we're supposed to believe that Han Solo is torn up inside about his son being the "big bad" in the film, but Harrison Ford's performance is so half-hearted, and the script devotes such little time to the issue that I felt absolutely nothing when Han Solo is stabbed through the chest by his own son with a light saber. I was relieved to see him go rather than have to watch him limp his way through another performance in the next movie.

I've also had enough of the surprise parentage reveals in Star Wars. Yes, when Vader told Luke that they were family it was a surprise. And that moment has gone on to become one of the most famous moments in movie history. But it's been done so many times since then that it's become cliche. It's a tired device that nobody's ever surprised at anymore. I know it isn't very likely, but I want nothing more from the next film than to find out that Rey's lineage is completely ordinary.

There are a number of other problems with the movie in my opinion, but let me talk about some of the things I liked about it before I lose all my friends. I absolutely love the two new heroes. Finn and Rey are a breath of fresh air to the Star Wars franchise and I'm excited to see what happens with them in the future. Finn is the man. He probably had my favorite lines of the entire film. He and Rey felt genuine to me mostly because of the stellar performances of John Boyega and Daisy Ridley. The chemistry and relationship between those two characters are what I'm most anxious to see play out in the rest of the trilogy. BB-8 was adorable. That pretty much sums up how I feel about that character.

The blend of practical and visual effects in this movie is amazing. I absolutely loved seeing so many physically sculpted characters and hand made costumes in a movie again. It was refreshing to see CG used as a tool rather than a crutch and I hope they continue to do that with the future films.

I'm glad that the movie is doing so well. I love the idea of Star Wars and I really am looking forward to what they have in store. I just wish this first movie was taken a little more seriously as a standalone film rather than an homage to what's been done and a prelude for what's to come.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Feel free to ignore them or disagree with them. I just wanted to spill my guts to the internet because the internet always listens.

Last year was my first year as an exhibitor at CTNx. One of the things I learned is that I really wanted something better for my table this year. Last year I had a plethora of prints and it was a little overwhelming for people to look through and didn't prove to be very fruitful. I had a blast, but this year I would like to make a little money on top of all the good times.

I've been crazy busy getting ready for my kickstarter launch of "Monomyth" which is only a week away! Once things slowed down enough for me to breath, I realized I didn't have anything to take to CTN with me. Whoops! So I decided to put a book together. I figured that since drawing faces is my very favorite thing to do, a book made entirely of them wasn't an altogether terrible idea.

There are over eighty pages in this sucker and I'm hoping people really like it. It was a lot of fun to put together. I don't often dig through my stuff and it was fun to find illustrations or characters that I had forgotten about.

I was recently asked by a client to do a set of Star Wars caricatures. I don't usually do likenesses because they're not my strongest area, but I've never really done any Star Wars fan art and figured that with the impending "Force Awakens" release I was overdue. So, here are some preliminary sketches for the first three characters on the list.