Take a moment to think about what information sources you have access to. On a very basic level, you gather information from people or media created by people. Now, if we stop to think about where that media is coming from it’s usually from a group of people focused on a particular belief or a person who is regurgitating their interpretation of that belief. Beliefs that underlie information may (or may not) be transparent; try cross-referencing news sources sometime to see what I’m talking about.

Most people are shaped by the world around them, and there is no greater influence than what information they absorb. If someone only gets their insight into society from a select group of sources that has, at their core, the same set of beliefs, then really that person is only getting one view of the world. Great examples of this concept can often be found by researching the origin of superstitions, holidays, and modern myths: Did you know that frightening gargoyles were once created on the sides of buildings to scare away evil spirits and protect people from harm?

People are often creatures of habit and subject to time constraints, which makes it very difficult to get different perspectives on the world that spins around us. Writers, however, are usually different, especially when your intent is to write an entertaining story—not to prove the earth is flat. Either subconsciously or consciously, I’ve known many writers who do a lot of research to objectify their characters and get a different point-of-view; others don’t.

How you incorporate your intent and the world around you into your work is obviously up to you, but in my experience it is inexplicably necessary to infuse your mind with multiple points-of-view. This is especially necessary when you are trying to intentionally avoid a common trope or misrepresentation of a belief. Admittedly, this can be difficult for some because historical research often takes us outside of our comfort zone into new territory.

When a writer only has access to one point-of-view, one fundamental belief that shapes everything that they do, you can see that their work often becomes predictable and boring. Take exorcisms as an example: Have you ever read or watched a movie where person conducting the exorcism wasn’t a Catholic priest? I can name two: Constantine and Angel (from Buffy: the Vampire Slayer). In my mind, the “fresh” perspectives on a tired scene are the ones that stand out. However, the writers who worked on those stories had to remain objective in order to infuse characters that didn’t fit the stereotype of a Catholic priest into a scene where typically a “holy” man drives a demon from a human.

A more recent example is the movie Iron Man; many folk are considering this film to be the greatest superhero film of all time (and well deserved in my opinion). The question is why? Well, most superhero movies tend to follow the common stereotype of what a hero is: a character with an enormous amount of power, knowledge or wealth who feels deeply obligated to perform good deeds for society. Robert Downey Jr.’s version of Tony Stark somewhat fits the bill, but he’s also sarcastic, confident and darn good-looking. Stark takes very human risks: he experiments, he fails, he gets hurt, but he always gets back up again.

How many examples of this phenomenon can you name?

In my next post, I’m going to provide a writing exercise, an example of how I use research to infuse my work with fresh takes on tired tropes, common beliefs, and social myths.