While the vast majority of the crowd were fun loving and harmless, there were a couple of people who were aroused by the attention. These two or three people are the reason why we need indecent exposure laws in place. One guy even did jumping jacks to show himself off. There were children in the crowd. It was completely inappropriate. Bodies are a natural thing and if parents don't want to shield their kids from a bunch of naked bikers, that's their choice. When someone decides to be lewd, it completely changes the dynamic.

That went out the window when I heard the scrape of a stool and the light thunk that accompanied her sitting in the seat. The noise of the swinging rope continued, with no evidence of a rope hanging from the beams overhead.

What I have described was not the first incident or the last. After twenty-five years of silence, I finally turned to one of my grandparents at a family function and asked, "Have either of you noticed anything strange in the basement?"

The question elicited an ensemble of awkward smiles. My cousins admitted that they hadn't felt comfortable in the basement for over twenty years, only running down to use the bathroom in a pinch or retrieve something for my grandmother. My grandparents had been sleeping in the downstairs bedroom and admitted that sometimes objects would turn up in a different place than they were set down, and a shadow would stir at the edge of their vision. My brother and I are logical and argued that the breakers could be grounded improperly or some such science that would lead to high electromagnetic fields (known as EMF by the pros we watched on Ghost Hunters). This could explain feelings of discomfort and perhaps hallucinations, but not objects moving.

Since we aired the creepy stories surrounding the basement, we jokingly refer to it as "Fred." We adopted the Protestant based belief that giving it too much attention might lend it power, so best to not talk about Fred, especially in the house. In accordance with our unspoken understanding, when something strange happened, it was allowed a watery smile and a mention at a restaurant after a drink or two.

We all lived in a strange accordance, but my five-year-old nephew has shaken things up. He was sitting at breakfast recently with my mom and told her he didn't like the basement. My mom asked, "Why?"

"There's a little girl who lives there. She was buried in a box there," he points to the back of the house, "by the bad men."

All adults in the room dropped their forks and stared, horrified. Creeped out. There is something profoundly disturbing about a small child speaking about gruesome things. My mom and I gave the familiar nervous laugh and we surmised (hoped?) that he had seen something bad on television - snuck a peek at something he wasn't meant to see. We also reflected on the fact that he was the first to think it was a she.

A few days later, my brother interrupted my mom while she was sitting on the couch with her feet up, working on her laptop.

"Did you walk into the room and then walk back out?"

"No." Mom points to her raised feet.

"Are you sure?"

"Yes."

My brother squinted an eye and grimaced. "Huh."

We haven't called in the ghost busters because "Fred" is inconsistent in its appearances, which is fine by us. Children and adolescents have grown up in the house without stirring up additional activity. Maybe if we continue to turn our heads and refuse to speak out loud, we will be left alone a little longer. 

My favorite characters tend to be damaged, especially the male love interest. This pull isn't an unexpressed need to fix a broken man. I simply get very irritated when characters are too perfect. It was my one complaint about a few books written by the great Louis L'Amour, particularly The Walking Drum. My grandfather loves the book and encouraged me to read it. I struggled through it even though it was beautifully written and quite interesting. Why? The protagonist was good at everything. He was the best horseman, could beat anyone with any weapon - he could even do acrobatics like a boss. I remember yelling at the book about a third of the way through: "Aren't you bad at anything???"

I believe the need for a flawed hero is common and not overly complicated. The main driver doesn't stem from a "White Knight" syndrome - a need to be the savior in a relationship. It is easier to relate to a character with flaws than a character who is perfect for the simple reason that we are not perfect. There are very few people who grace the planet who have never experienced insecurity, especially during their teenage years. The formative years of our life are spent comparing ourselves to the people around us and wondering if we fit in - if we are normal. This (hopefully) becomes less important as we age and begin to identify as individuals rather than a peer collective. As we grow older, we recognize our differences. I hope other people celebrate them as much as I do. It's what makes us interesting, and that rings true for characters in a book.

There are several ways to make characters multi-dimensional, but few are as effective as exposing a history of trauma. Let's start with some obvious examples. Susie from The Lovely Bones, a young girl who is raped and murdered. It would take a cold individual not to feel some emotional turmoil - especially since the author does such a fantastic job of giving Susie a voice that is both little sister and tormented victim. A second example: One of my favorite paranormal romance novelists, J.R. Ward, brings us Zsadist in her Black Dagger Brotherhood series - a severely abused man turned vicious warrior. Without the complex history she brings to his story, he would just come off as a crazy a**hole. The knowledge that he was kept as a chained sex slave for nearly a hundred years makes the reader much more sympathetic.

We don't love these characters just because they are damaged. The damage is what makes it possible to relate and sympathize with them. We love them because of the character arc - the development - they show throughout the story. Susie learns what must happen for her to move on and Zsadist learns to love. Without development and growth, the reader would likely grow uncomfortable with the character and start to give up hope. Sometimes this is what the author intended and it is still successful.

One of my favorite examples of the damaged hero is Jack Torrance from The Shining. Stephen King does a phenomenal job of taking someone who could have easily been written off as an abusive father and brings enough insight into what drives Jack to make us feel sympathy. I wouldn't have thought it possible to actually hope that someone as angry and abusive as Jack could turn it around, but King give us such a clear window into how hard his character is trying to be a better man that I started hoping he would be. I knew it couldn't happen, but it didn't stop me from hoping. Hope died when he went completely insane, but I still love the novel.

Before I close out this post, I would like to point out that character flaws do not need to be as radical as the examples I have provided to draw in a reader. Clary from Cassandra Clare's City of Bones, Katniss from Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games, and Reuben from Leif Enger's Peace Like a River are all examples of protagonists that have less noticeable flaws. Their short comings, although far more subtle than my previous examples, are exactly what pull us in and makes us hope they can still prevail.

Who are your favorite heroes? Why do you love them? Do you have a favorite perfect hero that contradicts this theory?

I have heard that once movies are being made about a trendy genre, it is on a downward spiral in the book world. Use the word 'vampire' at a writing conference or in front of some authors and you may see wincing and an eye roll or two. The Young Adult market is flooded, dystopian is overdone, and vampires are so eight years ago. Right now it's about edgy women's contemporary literature and witches. Which may or may not change at any given time. Without notice.

I am not an expert on publishing, but I know the vampire books I enjoy have been published over the years - not just in a five year frenzy period. It seems to me that during a popular upswing, more books are accepted by publishers because the genre is making money. When a genre starts to calm down, novels aren't completely locked out of the market because they contain the subject matter, but it becomes more difficult to publish a story. It's simple economics. When demand is lower than supply, the amount of product in the supply chain has to drop. Production doesn't stop, but there is a shift in quality as consumers realize they have more to choose from and can be picky. In order to succeed in a flooded market, authors need to put in more effort and produce a quality piece. Maybe that isn't a bad thing.

It is easy to find reasons to be discouraged and stop writing. There are more books on the market every day and the chances of success are daunting. The stories drive me to keep going. The words flow when I let the story take me where it will, and the story hasn't led me to a cozy little cafe on a scenic hillside. My mother would love me to write a romance in Provence, but it just doesn't work on paper. I will welcome critique and work to improve my craft, but I won't apologize if a vampire happens to appear. I know that if the concept is strong enough, there is still a chance. If you have a killer concept and great character development, you should write that dystopian story!

Have you considered changing major elements or setting aside a novel due to popular opinion?