May 24, 2025 • 26 mins
Author Lauren Stientsra discusses the nuances of moral dilemmas, why they're not always black and white, and how they can elevate your story
▬
Visit Lauren's website:
https://www.laurenstienstra.com/
Grab a copy of her book:
https://www.laurenstienstra.com/novels
Follow Lauren on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/laurenstienstrawrites/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jennia (00:00):
Hello, I'm Jennia D'Lima.
Welcome to Writing and Editing,the author-focused podcast that
takes a whole-person approachto everything related to both
writing and editing.
Fictional moral dilemmas canchallenge both the characters
and the readers, but how can wewrite about them in a way that
isn't patronizing or seems to bepushing the reader into
believing one thing overanother?
(00:21):
And how can we make them anintegral and compelling piece of
the story that doesn'tovershadow the characters and
their character arcs?
Lauren Stienstra includes manysuch dilemmas in her new
release, The Beauty of the End,and she's here to share her
insights into this topic.
Thank you so much for beinghere today, Lauren.
Lauren (00:39):
Of course.
Thank you so much, Jennia, forhaving me.
Jennia (00:43):
So The Beauty of the End, it contains more than the
moral dilemma that's made prettyobvious just from reading the
summary.
But did you always includethese overlapping conflicts or
is that something that developedas you were writing and
revising?
I
Lauren (00:56):
would say that I definitely set off to write a
book that would encourage peopleto think.
And so there's definitely onekind of central conflict, but I
also wanted to layer on somesubplots and minor elements that
would explore thedimensionality of that.
(01:16):
I've written about this alittle bit in some of Wow.
Wow.
Using some of the parallels forthat, it's not just solving one
(01:42):
big thing.
There are so many littleelements from science to the
policy to the individual impactsthat I drew from as
inspiration.
Jennia (01:53):
Yeah, that is so true because you have those other
issues that pop up as a resultof this bigger issue.
And you can go ahead and saywhat the main one is and anyone
who goes to click on the booklink will see what it is anyway.
Yeah.
Lauren (02:06):
Yeah, so we're dealing with a challenge around human
extinction, which will be thekind of the centerpiece of the
book.
But there's lots of individualchallenges around what it means
to have individual freedom whenthe species is at risk, the
existence of the species.
There's lots of thinking aroundreproductive ethics and also
(02:26):
duty to the future, which is,you know, what do we ourselves
need to do in this moment?
And what do we owe to ourchildren and those that are
going to come after us?
Jennia (02:36):
Yeah, you have a duty to family in there really, too.
And so there's that level ofconflict.
So it's not just societal levelor world is going to come to a
crashing end sort of level, butalso that little microcosm of
your four to five to threeperson family and what it means
to go against what they mightwant you to do or to go ahead
(02:59):
and do what they're asking youto do, even though you don't
agree.
So I'd like to have you talk alittle bit about that too.
Lauren (03:03):
Right.
I set the story up with a pairof twins because I did want two
different characters to explorethis in two different ways from
two very differentpersonalities.
And they come into conflictwith each other, but also with
their parents and their friendsand what their community expects
of them.
And so using that element ofduality allowed me to look at
(03:27):
things from two differentperspectives and set up that
tension.
And I think to what you weresaying earlier, While we observe
the news on such a societalscale and whatnot, we read the
headlines and they're big andthey're flashy.
The way we experience thesethings is very much more on the
local news level, where we getthe stories that add color about
(03:48):
the person who's experiencingit from a different way and how
it's affecting their individualexperience of things.
And when I think about how myfamily weathered COVID and how
we've dealt with other things.
I came of age in the financialcrisis and things like that.
You experienced those from yourperspective with your family
(04:09):
and friends.
you have that frame of thesocietal scope, but how it hits
you personally is very much atan individual level.
Jennia (04:18):
Yeah, exactly.
Because we all have ourdifferent truths that we believe
in and we have our differentpersonality traits and things we
want for our own future andwhat drives us.
And so, yeah, being able totake it down to that personal
level and dissect it, I thinkthat's really where it becomes
something that you feel ratherthan just something you observe
on a surface level.
(04:38):
So talking about the differentcharacters, what roles do the
characters play in exploringthese different dilemmas?
And how do you think that thiswould have maybe not worked
quite as well if you relied ononly one character to do this?
Lauren (04:53):
As I mentioned, our main character, Charlie, and her
sister, Maggie, are twins, butthey are very different people.
And I would say that I myselfam a little bit more akin to
Maggie and I relate to herapproach in certain ways.
And I tend to be more ambitiousand more excited and more
wanting to jump in.
(05:14):
And there are so many storiesabout heroes like that.
People who have that attitude.
You know, we see that in Marvelmovies all the time.
But I wanted to pivot and tellthe story from Charlie's
perspective because many fewernarratives like that in the
ecosystem of writing.
And so that was important to meto represent that because I
(05:36):
think a lot of people feel likethat.
They are more like Charlie.
They're more reluctant.
They're more hesitant.
They're not sure what theirright answer is.
And I think there's somehesitance to think that yes I
can do something about thisbecause the problems are so big
and so telling the story fromCharlie's perspective allows
(05:57):
people to kind of relate to howpeople grow into things they may
not be ready to jump into it atthe start but things change
over time and they change overtime and we don't all have to be
superheroes we can be minorheroes we can be doing the small
things that really add up overtime and again developing that
courage takes time and Andthat's one of the things I like
(06:18):
about her character arc is theway that she prepares herself
and becomes accepting of thefact that this is something she
wants and needs to do.
Jennia (06:28):
I love that too.
And it reminds me even offantasy, how we're seeing
authors and readers move awayfrom that chosen one trope.
We're kind of tired of theperson who can do it all
effortlessly and already hasevery single skill and ability
just innate to them so that theycan succeed.
Right.
Because most of us don't reallyfall into, well, duh, because
(06:49):
chosen one, not chosen many.
But yeah, we don't have thosesame traits or inclinations or
again, we might be one of thosepeople that sort of waffling or
we don't really know andespecially when you're younger
that's so common anyway becausewe don't know that much about
the world we're still figuringthings out maybe don't even have
the information we need to makea choice and so we just don't
(07:12):
make one but yeah moving back tothe book so you set up Charlie
and Maggie's characters reallyearly on the very first chapter
and we see them when they'reyounger and we get a good idea
of who they are and how they'redifferent from one another so
could you say why it was soimportant to show the reader
from the very beginning whatthey're each like and why?
Lauren (07:33):
Of course.
I'm going to dig into myscience background here a little
bit.
I am fascinated by thescientific concept of duality.
And you may remember from yourscience education that light is
both a particle and a wave.
But traditionally, those shouldbe mutually exclusive.
But somehow, again, lightexists.
(07:54):
And you'll notice throughoutthe book, there's a couple of
places where we have thisduality of things that have a
juxtaposition to them, have anoppositional force.
The tension is required forboth to exist.
And so, again, I set thesecharacters up with that in mind,
that they are oppositional innature.
They're going to fight againsteach other.
(08:15):
But And yet they're twinsisters who are adopted at a
very young age and they are veryattached to one another.
And so they, even from a youngage, have sibling tension.
And I think anybody who has asibling is probably knowing
exactly what I'm talking abouthere.
But that doesn't undercut someof the greater themes around
(08:40):
love and attachment and what itmeans to be family and again,
very much in this found familytrope, but that overrides any
kind of tit-for-tat sisterlybickering.
And so it kind of ties back tothe title a little bit about how
these greater things endure.
(09:00):
And in this case, it's, again,what it means to be sisters and
what it means to be family, evenin the face of these upsetting,
destructive events.
Jennia (09:12):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I was just thinking abouthow this might not have worked
as well if they had been bestfriends or cousins because you
can have that sort of spat withyour sibling and you know that
for the most part you're goingto get over it, but it's almost
even just an expected part ofthe sibling relationship.
You are going to butt heads.
You are going to disagree andfight.
But yeah, then it goes back to,okay, but it's still my sibling
(09:34):
and I love them and we can getover this.
But yeah, with a best friendsituation, you might have seen
that drive them apart.
And then where would the storyhave gone?
Lauren (09:45):
Lots of loose ends.
Jennia (09:46):
Yes, that would have made too many difficulties to
overcome.
But I also want to talk abouthow these opposing perspectives
help add balance to thenarrative and the ideas that
it's presenting.
Lauren (09:58):
By using characters who have opposing perspectives,
naturally you kind of get thingson both sides of the equation.
And so it allows us to explorethe pros and the cons, for lack
of a better term, with some kindof equity and equality.
These are characters that wantto understand each other.
(10:19):
They are sisters and they havethis enduring love.
So they're not immediatelyrejecting what the other's
thinking.
They want to reach a place ofunderstanding.
And so to that end, again, weget both perspectives.
We get them arguing about whichis the right approach, which is
the right path.
How should we do this?
(10:40):
But the underlying drive toachieve some kind of consensus,
I keep coming back to the wordunderstanding, acceptance is
key.
a strong driving factor.
And so this is where I hopealso the book does a good job
(11:00):
about introducing this kind ofapproach into the national
dialogue, where we're having somuch discord about opinions.
But if there's that underlyingdrive to understand we might be
able to reach a better balancein some of the discourse that
we're having about reallyimportant issues.
Jennia (11:17):
Yeah.
And I will say their parentsare also very diplomatic in how
they go about trying to bringthem into some sort of
reconciliation with theiropposing viewpoints because
their own viewpoints don'talways match them either, which
again, that is so very true tolife of any family dynamic.
But I was just thinking too,how might this have been
different if the parents hadsided with one's Yes.
(11:39):
I have
Lauren (11:42):
to say the parents I wrote are the parents that I've
tried to be in my life, but theymight be a little idealistic.
As you mentioned, they're veryeven handed.
And I think this comes from afunction of having two children
myself, which is you love yourchildren the same, but in
different ways.
And you have to meet their ownneeds.
There's not a favorite child.
(12:02):
You love them equally, butdifferently.
And that's where, again, Ithink it's important to be able
to I think that remains true.
And I do think I agree with youthat if the parents had
naturally or ideologically sidedwith one or the other sisters
that would have become more of astory about alienation and
(12:24):
would have introduced acompletely different dynamic
into the book.
Again, I do think that keepingthe parents in a position where
they're trying to meet eachchild's needs, even though those
needs are different, helps tokeep the perspectives of each
(12:46):
character on the level, which isthey're maintained in parity.
It's not one is better than theother.
They're just different.
Jennia (12:52):
Yeah, I think too, it might have seemed like you were
trying to persuade the readerinto accepting one opinion as
better than the other, if theparents had been playing
favorites or playing sides.
Lauren (13:04):
Definitely.
And that's one thing I wantedto be very careful with in this
book, because a lot of thetopics could be automatic
turnoffs.
If the reader perceived that Ihad a preaching approach or a
professorial approach or a endgoal.
As I mentioned earlier, my hopewith this book is it gets
(13:24):
people to think and to talk.
But I wasn't trying to projectmy own opinions, beliefs,
impressions onto others.
Jennia (13:33):
Right, which seems like it'd be really difficult to do.
So how did you ensure that youdidn't allow your own personal
biases to creep through into thewriting, even in just very
subtle ways?
Lauren (13:44):
It's interesting that you bring this up.
A lot of the work that I dostems from working in a
nonpartisan or bipartisan space.
I work in D.C.
I work on policy issues, butI've worked for places like the
National Governors Association,which is not RGA.
It's not Republican governorsand it's not DGA either.
(14:05):
It's not Democratic governors.
It is the National GovernorsAssociation.
And so how do we work?
represent all opinions?
How do we talk about thingsthat can appeal to both sides in
both ways?
It's about finding and framingissues on a footing that is
appealing to both.
And so this ties back to,again, it's a national,
(14:27):
existential, species-wide,really global crisis.
And so it's bigger than any oneopinion or any one position.
Again, I work in the emergencymanagement space for a long
time.
It's been really kind ofapolitical because when bad
things happen to people,everyone wants to help.
And that's not a politicalopinion, whether it happens in
(14:49):
Florida or Alabama or Texas orCalifornia or Hawaii.
There's a strong belief thateveryone deserves a chance to
recover and everyone deserves agood emergency response, no
matter their opinions.
And so that's something I thinkI brought to the table in this
piece.
Jennia (15:07):
Yeah, that does seem like you really had a leg up on
some other authors who might gointo something because we might
see some of that language comingthrough where you can see that
there's some judgment applied toan opinion over another opinion
or the character who believesthis is seen in a more favorable
light than a character whobelieves the other thing.
And so naturally it makes youfeel as if the author is saying
(15:29):
this is the approved or betterdecision.
But yeah, you don't really seethat in here.
But again, I think the parentsreally do help support that too.
But like you said, right, whenyou do have two children, you're
trying to find that middleground for them.
You're not trying to say, ah,but your sister's actually
right.
So still sticking tocharacters, do you have any
suggestions on how to createcharacters that we connect with,
(15:52):
even if we don't agree withtheir thoughts or decisions?
So to create
Lauren (15:58):
those types of characters, I do think it's
really important, and I thinkthis is true for all characters,
is giving them humanity.
They are people.
They have relationships.
They have quirks.
They should exist as realpeople in your novel in the
sense that they make mistakes.
They have hopes and dreams.
They, like I said, do quirkythings or have details about
(16:23):
them.
They're not just a caricatureof whether it's a villain
perspective or a...
oversimplified platform.
They, again, have breakfast andthey put ketchup on waffles or
whatever, whatever their strangedietary preferences.
(16:45):
But they've got to have thosethings to make them have color
and enrichment and detail.
They need to be a full andholistic character rather than
just an opinion.
And so I think we all havepeople in our lives that we may
not agree with, but weappreciate who they are as a
person, whether it's somethingthey've done, whether it's
(17:07):
something they stand for,whether it's something that they
do to entertain children.
There's finding that redeemingfactor, even if it's small and
making sure that that's inthere.
Because I think we've all readbooks where the characters can
be flat or one dimensional, andit's a lot easier to dislike
something that is simple.
(17:28):
Whereas if you add dimension toyour character, someone will
latch on to like, again, theketchup on waffles because they
have, again, another strangebreakfast preference.
But the more hooks you givepeople to latch on to or
recognize, I think that createsmore opportunities for the
(17:49):
character to be likable or atleast approachable to someone
who might disagree.
Jennia (17:53):
Right, or even going back to the word understanding,
understandable, because we mightnot agree that you should put
ketchup on waffles, but we mightunderstand why you do it.
Right.
Going to plot now, how did youruse of this built-in urgency
push the characters to makedecisions they might not have
otherwise?
Lauren (18:14):
Right.
And so, as I mentioned earlier,what I liked about this device
is it forces...
the characters to think aboutwhat they need to do for
themselves in the short term.
But in the book, again, Charlieand Maggie are going to have
five generations.
This genetic crisis won'taffect them because they'll have
(18:36):
kids.
They'll have grandkids.
They'll have great grandkids.
And those kids will have kidsthat Charlie and Maggie may
never see.
So they may be spared from theinitial despair of having to
witness the end of their familylines.
That being said, this ishappening to others.
It's happening to the species.
It happens in this greatercontext.
So again, it sets up thedynamic of...
(18:58):
that duty to the futureconcept, which is like, it's not
going to affect me.
I'm good to go.
My family's all right.
But are we?
Are we just kicking the can ifwe take that attitude?
Are we just passing down thatresponsibility and perhaps
making it more urgent for thepeople who are closer to the end
of the line?
So that's what I liked aboutthe device.
(19:20):
And I think it was nice to alsohave The variant that some
people are already run out, haveno generations left, the nots.
Some people have far more, andthey're enjoying a certain
amount of privilege and luxury.
So it reshapes the socialdynamic in a certain way that I
think is a little unexpected, alittle novel, a little new.
(19:42):
But again, it does set up thisurgency around...
It may not feel like it'shappening fast, but in a
biological context, fivegenerations is nothing.
I think in the book, we talkabout how fruit flies reproduce
every 30, 40 days.
So within a year, they've gonethrough their five.
(20:04):
So when we think about it inthose terms, and that, again,
forces people to come into theirindividual decision-making
scope, but then also broaden thelens and see things from this
wider scope.
And even those changes, thatconstant zoom in, zoom out, zoom
(20:25):
in, zoom out, you have to takethings in both contexts can
really force characters tobehave in certain ways because
there's this constant tensionbetween those as well.
Jennia (20:36):
Right.
No, I agree.
It's very different than ifthere had been, say, one
immediate decision that had tobe made and then that was really
what carried the story, notlike you're saying this series
of decisions where I may havesolved something for right now,
but I still have this longeroutlook that I need to deal with
or consider.
So then, too, how does that addto the story?
(20:57):
You know, we're not seeing justthat one rapid fire decision.
I'm thinking you see this a lotin thrillers where the person
has to decide, am I going to dothis or am I going to do this?
But yeah, this was justongoing.
Lauren (21:09):
And that's the vigilance aspect of that slow moving
disaster.
It would be a lot easier, Ithink, to write this novel from
a perspective of up.
extinction's happening withinthe generation.
It's going to happen within 20years.
We're just zeroing out thespecies.
We see a lot of books thatfocus on that, right?
Which is like we have 5, 10, 20years to solve this problem.
(21:31):
I wanted this intermediate termbecause I do think it creates
certain challenges that youdon't see elsewhere.
I also wanted to write the bookvery specifically from the
beginning of the crisis ratherthan the end.
Because I think how we approachthings that don't necessarily
have that catastrophic nature toit, but there's still
(21:53):
emergencies is very different.
And I think we're seeing itwith climate change, right?
Which is there may becatastrophic consequences in
some are happening now, but in5, 10, 50, 100 years could be
much, much worse.
And it requires a differentapproach approach that urgency
is not so in your face and youhave to keep it at the back of
(22:16):
your mind and not let it falloff the stove.
Jennia (22:18):
That's what I was just thinking about.
Even with the book where thisemergency at first, it doesn't
really feel like an emergency,especially since the characters
are younger.
So they're not really thinking,well, they're not even at that
age yet where they're thatforward thinking.
And so for them, it's just sortof like, well, it means my
friend might be moving or itmeans this, which are normal
childhood experiences.
problems or issues that comeup.
(22:39):
Not again, that global scalethat we see later and that they
develop a realization of and nowpersonally affects them.
But I think that also works so,so well with their character
arcs.
because we are seeing thosechanges in them and their way of
thinking and how they'reprocessing.
Whereas we would miss all ofthat if it had been like that in
(23:01):
media res, here we are, we'vegot the five years left or
they're already like say 18 or20 and now grappling with this.
Lauren (23:09):
I think it also helps to normalizing the circumstances,
which it's that boiling the frogthing.
It starts when they're young.
They acclimate to it.
This is the new world order.
A lot of the things that may bevery something that you and I
would react to and rejectimmediately like surrendering
your ovaries, adults in thiscurrent era would reject that
(23:30):
very quickly, have very strongemotional response.
But when you've grown up inthat climate for five, 10 years,
it becomes more acceptable.
And it becomes like, oh, yeah,no, we should actually consider
that.
And so just that normalizationand attenuation of that kind of
crisis mentality.
Jennia (23:48):
Yeah, so this goes into one of my last questions, which
was your characters do undergo afew shifts in their viewpoints
and how they view the varioussituations.
And if you'd like to elaborateon how you wove that in with
some of the philosophicalquestions that come up so they
support one another instead ofoverriding one another.
Lauren (24:09):
Right.
I think one thing I wanted toalways create space for is You
can never tell what is going tochange someone's mind.
And both characters set off inthe story with some very
strongly held personal viewsabout what they will and will
not do.
Right away.
Right away.
(24:29):
And what they do and do notwant to achieve with their
lives.
trying to like skim over thespoilers here, they end up in a
very different place.
But big things happen to themand your core beliefs sometimes
do shift over time and that'sokay.
And I think digging into whatcauses those changes and how
(24:50):
people are influenced by certainthings, react to certain
things, can be very surprising.
And it's important not to castpeople in certain characters or
certain roles or certainpersonalities Because those
things will change over timetoo.
And so I...
It goes to not remaining overlyconfident or overly sure or
(25:14):
believing in your own opinionabout someone rather than
letting them be themselves andletting them change and letting
them react to certain thingsrather than like, oh, they're
just this.
They're always going to bethat.
And closing that off to futureevolution, future development,
future change.
So let us not typecast people.
Let us remain open to thingsthat may...
(25:38):
influence them in a bad way ora good way over time.
Jennia (25:41):
Right, which is really just excellent advice in
general, not just for creatingcharacters.
Well, before we end, is thereany, you mentioned it a little
bit earlier, but is there onemain takeaway that you hope
readers really get by the timethey finish this book?
Lauren (25:57):
I think it's a lot of what I talked about here, which
is, again, I hope this bookchallenges people's thinking,
gets them There are book clubquestions at the back of the
book.
I hope people dig in.
It's not designed to serve youan opinion.
It's designed to be thoughtprovoking and let you sit with
some of the lasting themes.
And so I hope people are opento that and do take the time to
(26:19):
reflect a little bit on that.
It ties back just to what am Iwilling to do for my grandkids?
their grandkids, et cetera,that duty to the future piece.
That really, I think is animportant part of any
conversation that's going onright now.
Jennia (26:36):
Yeah, I completely agree.
Well, thank you so much.
This has been such a greatconversation.
Thank you so much, Jenny.
I
Lauren (26:41):
really enjoyed it.
Jennia (26:42):
I did too.
And thank you for listening andbe sure to check out the show
notes for additionalinformation, including all of
Warren's links and a link to herbook.
And if you enjoyed today'sepisode, I'd appreciate it if
you could rate or review thepodcast on your favorite
listening platform.
Thanks again.
Hello, I'm Jennia D'Lima.
Welcome to Writing and Editing,the author-focused podcast that
takes a whole-person approachto everything related to both
writing and editing.
Fictional moral dilemmas canchallenge both the characters
and the readers, but how can wewrite about them in a way that
isn't patronizing or seems to bepushing the reader into
believing one thing overanother?
(00:21):
And how can we make them anintegral and compelling piece of
the story that doesn'tovershadow the characters and
their character arcs?
Lauren Stienstra includes manysuch dilemmas in her new
release, The Beauty of the End,and she's here to share her
insights into this topic.
Thank you so much for beinghere today, Lauren.
Lauren (00:39):
Of course.
Thank you so much, Jennia, forhaving me.
Jennia (00:43):
So The Beauty of the End, it contains more than the
moral dilemma that's made prettyobvious just from reading the
summary.
But did you always includethese overlapping conflicts or
is that something that developedas you were writing and
revising?
I
Lauren (00:56):
would say that I definitely set off to write a
book that would encourage peopleto think.
And so there's definitely onekind of central conflict, but I
also wanted to layer on somesubplots and minor elements that
would explore thedimensionality of that.
(01:16):
I've written about this alittle bit in some of Wow.
Wow.
Using some of the parallels forthat, it's not just solving one
(01:42):
big thing.
There are so many littleelements from science to the
policy to the individual impactsthat I drew from as
inspiration.
Jennia (01:53):
Yeah, that is so true because you have those other
issues that pop up as a resultof this bigger issue.
And you can go ahead and saywhat the main one is and anyone
who goes to click on the booklink will see what it is anyway.
Yeah.
Lauren (02:06):
Yeah, so we're dealing with a challenge around human
extinction, which will be thekind of the centerpiece of the
book.
But there's lots of individualchallenges around what it means
to have individual freedom whenthe species is at risk, the
existence of the species.
There's lots of thinking aroundreproductive ethics and also
(02:26):
duty to the future, which is,you know, what do we ourselves
need to do in this moment?
And what do we owe to ourchildren and those that are
going to come after us?
Jennia (02:36):
Yeah, you have a duty to family in there really, too.
And so there's that level ofconflict.
So it's not just societal levelor world is going to come to a
crashing end sort of level, butalso that little microcosm of
your four to five to threeperson family and what it means
to go against what they mightwant you to do or to go ahead
(02:59):
and do what they're asking youto do, even though you don't
agree.
So I'd like to have you talk alittle bit about that too.
Lauren (03:03):
Right.
I set the story up with a pairof twins because I did want two
different characters to explorethis in two different ways from
two very differentpersonalities.
And they come into conflictwith each other, but also with
their parents and their friendsand what their community expects
of them.
And so using that element ofduality allowed me to look at
(03:27):
things from two differentperspectives and set up that
tension.
And I think to what you weresaying earlier, While we observe
the news on such a societalscale and whatnot, we read the
headlines and they're big andthey're flashy.
The way we experience thesethings is very much more on the
local news level, where we getthe stories that add color about
(03:48):
the person who's experiencingit from a different way and how
it's affecting their individualexperience of things.
And when I think about how myfamily weathered COVID and how
we've dealt with other things.
I came of age in the financialcrisis and things like that.
You experienced those from yourperspective with your family
(04:09):
and friends.
you have that frame of thesocietal scope, but how it hits
you personally is very much atan individual level.
Jennia (04:18):
Yeah, exactly.
Because we all have ourdifferent truths that we believe
in and we have our differentpersonality traits and things we
want for our own future andwhat drives us.
And so, yeah, being able totake it down to that personal
level and dissect it, I thinkthat's really where it becomes
something that you feel ratherthan just something you observe
on a surface level.
(04:38):
So talking about the differentcharacters, what roles do the
characters play in exploringthese different dilemmas?
And how do you think that thiswould have maybe not worked
quite as well if you relied ononly one character to do this?
Lauren (04:53):
As I mentioned, our main character, Charlie, and her
sister, Maggie, are twins, butthey are very different people.
And I would say that I myselfam a little bit more akin to
Maggie and I relate to herapproach in certain ways.
And I tend to be more ambitiousand more excited and more
wanting to jump in.
(05:14):
And there are so many storiesabout heroes like that.
People who have that attitude.
You know, we see that in Marvelmovies all the time.
But I wanted to pivot and tellthe story from Charlie's
perspective because many fewernarratives like that in the
ecosystem of writing.
And so that was important to meto represent that because I
(05:36):
think a lot of people feel likethat.
They are more like Charlie.
They're more reluctant.
They're more hesitant.
They're not sure what theirright answer is.
And I think there's somehesitance to think that yes I
can do something about thisbecause the problems are so big
and so telling the story fromCharlie's perspective allows
(05:57):
people to kind of relate to howpeople grow into things they may
not be ready to jump into it atthe start but things change
over time and they change overtime and we don't all have to be
superheroes we can be minorheroes we can be doing the small
things that really add up overtime and again developing that
courage takes time and Andthat's one of the things I like
(06:18):
about her character arc is theway that she prepares herself
and becomes accepting of thefact that this is something she
wants and needs to do.
Jennia (06:28):
I love that too.
And it reminds me even offantasy, how we're seeing
authors and readers move awayfrom that chosen one trope.
We're kind of tired of theperson who can do it all
effortlessly and already hasevery single skill and ability
just innate to them so that theycan succeed.
Right.
Because most of us don't reallyfall into, well, duh, because
(06:49):
chosen one, not chosen many.
But yeah, we don't have thosesame traits or inclinations or
again, we might be one of thosepeople that sort of waffling or
we don't really know andespecially when you're younger
that's so common anyway becausewe don't know that much about
the world we're still figuringthings out maybe don't even have
the information we need to makea choice and so we just don't
(07:12):
make one but yeah moving back tothe book so you set up Charlie
and Maggie's characters reallyearly on the very first chapter
and we see them when they'reyounger and we get a good idea
of who they are and how they'redifferent from one another so
could you say why it was soimportant to show the reader
from the very beginning whatthey're each like and why?
Lauren (07:33):
Of course.
I'm going to dig into myscience background here a little
bit.
I am fascinated by thescientific concept of duality.
And you may remember from yourscience education that light is
both a particle and a wave.
But traditionally, those shouldbe mutually exclusive.
But somehow, again, lightexists.
(07:54):
And you'll notice throughoutthe book, there's a couple of
places where we have thisduality of things that have a
juxtaposition to them, have anoppositional force.
The tension is required forboth to exist.
And so, again, I set thesecharacters up with that in mind,
that they are oppositional innature.
They're going to fight againsteach other.
(08:15):
But And yet they're twinsisters who are adopted at a
very young age and they are veryattached to one another.
And so they, even from a youngage, have sibling tension.
And I think anybody who has asibling is probably knowing
exactly what I'm talking abouthere.
But that doesn't undercut someof the greater themes around
(08:40):
love and attachment and what itmeans to be family and again,
very much in this found familytrope, but that overrides any
kind of tit-for-tat sisterlybickering.
And so it kind of ties back tothe title a little bit about how
these greater things endure.
(09:00):
And in this case, it's, again,what it means to be sisters and
what it means to be family, evenin the face of these upsetting,
destructive events.
Jennia (09:12):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I was just thinking abouthow this might not have worked
as well if they had been bestfriends or cousins because you
can have that sort of spat withyour sibling and you know that
for the most part you're goingto get over it, but it's almost
even just an expected part ofthe sibling relationship.
You are going to butt heads.
You are going to disagree andfight.
But yeah, then it goes back to,okay, but it's still my sibling
(09:34):
and I love them and we can getover this.
But yeah, with a best friendsituation, you might have seen
that drive them apart.
And then where would the storyhave gone?
Lauren (09:45):
Lots of loose ends.
Jennia (09:46):
Yes, that would have made too many difficulties to
overcome.
But I also want to talk abouthow these opposing perspectives
help add balance to thenarrative and the ideas that
it's presenting.
Lauren (09:58):
By using characters who have opposing perspectives,
naturally you kind of get thingson both sides of the equation.
And so it allows us to explorethe pros and the cons, for lack
of a better term, with some kindof equity and equality.
These are characters that wantto understand each other.
(10:19):
They are sisters and they havethis enduring love.
So they're not immediatelyrejecting what the other's
thinking.
They want to reach a place ofunderstanding.
And so to that end, again, weget both perspectives.
We get them arguing about whichis the right approach, which is
the right path.
How should we do this?
(10:40):
But the underlying drive toachieve some kind of consensus,
I keep coming back to the wordunderstanding, acceptance is
key.
a strong driving factor.
And so this is where I hopealso the book does a good job
(11:00):
about introducing this kind ofapproach into the national
dialogue, where we're having somuch discord about opinions.
But if there's that underlyingdrive to understand we might be
able to reach a better balancein some of the discourse that
we're having about reallyimportant issues.
Jennia (11:17):
Yeah.
And I will say their parentsare also very diplomatic in how
they go about trying to bringthem into some sort of
reconciliation with theiropposing viewpoints because
their own viewpoints don'talways match them either, which
again, that is so very true tolife of any family dynamic.
But I was just thinking too,how might this have been
different if the parents hadsided with one's Yes.
(11:39):
I have
Lauren (11:42):
to say the parents I wrote are the parents that I've
tried to be in my life, but theymight be a little idealistic.
As you mentioned, they're veryeven handed.
And I think this comes from afunction of having two children
myself, which is you love yourchildren the same, but in
different ways.
And you have to meet their ownneeds.
There's not a favorite child.
(12:02):
You love them equally, butdifferently.
And that's where, again, Ithink it's important to be able
to I think that remains true.
And I do think I agree with youthat if the parents had
naturally or ideologically sidedwith one or the other sisters
that would have become more of astory about alienation and
(12:24):
would have introduced acompletely different dynamic
into the book.
Again, I do think that keepingthe parents in a position where
they're trying to meet eachchild's needs, even though those
needs are different, helps tokeep the perspectives of each
(12:46):
character on the level, which isthey're maintained in parity.
It's not one is better than theother.
They're just different.
Jennia (12:52):
Yeah, I think too, it might have seemed like you were
trying to persuade the readerinto accepting one opinion as
better than the other, if theparents had been playing
favorites or playing sides.
Lauren (13:04):
Definitely.
And that's one thing I wantedto be very careful with in this
book, because a lot of thetopics could be automatic
turnoffs.
If the reader perceived that Ihad a preaching approach or a
professorial approach or a endgoal.
As I mentioned earlier, my hopewith this book is it gets
(13:24):
people to think and to talk.
But I wasn't trying to projectmy own opinions, beliefs,
impressions onto others.
Jennia (13:33):
Right, which seems like it'd be really difficult to do.
So how did you ensure that youdidn't allow your own personal
biases to creep through into thewriting, even in just very
subtle ways?
Lauren (13:44):
It's interesting that you bring this up.
A lot of the work that I dostems from working in a
nonpartisan or bipartisan space.
I work in D.C.
I work on policy issues, butI've worked for places like the
National Governors Association,which is not RGA.
It's not Republican governorsand it's not DGA either.
(14:05):
It's not Democratic governors.
It is the National GovernorsAssociation.
And so how do we work?
represent all opinions?
How do we talk about thingsthat can appeal to both sides in
both ways?
It's about finding and framingissues on a footing that is
appealing to both.
And so this ties back to,again, it's a national,
(14:27):
existential, species-wide,really global crisis.
And so it's bigger than any oneopinion or any one position.
Again, I work in the emergencymanagement space for a long
time.
It's been really kind ofapolitical because when bad
things happen to people,everyone wants to help.
And that's not a politicalopinion, whether it happens in
(14:49):
Florida or Alabama or Texas orCalifornia or Hawaii.
There's a strong belief thateveryone deserves a chance to
recover and everyone deserves agood emergency response, no
matter their opinions.
And so that's something I thinkI brought to the table in this
piece.
Jennia (15:07):
Yeah, that does seem like you really had a leg up on
some other authors who might gointo something because we might
see some of that language comingthrough where you can see that
there's some judgment applied toan opinion over another opinion
or the character who believesthis is seen in a more favorable
light than a character whobelieves the other thing.
And so naturally it makes youfeel as if the author is saying
(15:29):
this is the approved or betterdecision.
But yeah, you don't really seethat in here.
But again, I think the parentsreally do help support that too.
But like you said, right, whenyou do have two children, you're
trying to find that middleground for them.
You're not trying to say, ah,but your sister's actually
right.
So still sticking tocharacters, do you have any
suggestions on how to createcharacters that we connect with,
(15:52):
even if we don't agree withtheir thoughts or decisions?
So to create
Lauren (15:58):
those types of characters, I do think it's
really important, and I thinkthis is true for all characters,
is giving them humanity.
They are people.
They have relationships.
They have quirks.
They should exist as realpeople in your novel in the
sense that they make mistakes.
They have hopes and dreams.
They, like I said, do quirkythings or have details about
(16:23):
them.
They're not just a caricatureof whether it's a villain
perspective or a...
oversimplified platform.
They, again, have breakfast andthey put ketchup on waffles or
whatever, whatever their strangedietary preferences.
(16:45):
But they've got to have thosethings to make them have color
and enrichment and detail.
They need to be a full andholistic character rather than
just an opinion.
And so I think we all havepeople in our lives that we may
not agree with, but weappreciate who they are as a
person, whether it's somethingthey've done, whether it's
(17:07):
something they stand for,whether it's something that they
do to entertain children.
There's finding that redeemingfactor, even if it's small and
making sure that that's inthere.
Because I think we've all readbooks where the characters can
be flat or one dimensional, andit's a lot easier to dislike
something that is simple.
(17:28):
Whereas if you add dimension toyour character, someone will
latch on to like, again, theketchup on waffles because they
have, again, another strangebreakfast preference.
But the more hooks you givepeople to latch on to or
recognize, I think that createsmore opportunities for the
(17:49):
character to be likable or atleast approachable to someone
who might disagree.
Jennia (17:53):
Right, or even going back to the word understanding,
understandable, because we mightnot agree that you should put
ketchup on waffles, but we mightunderstand why you do it.
Right.
Going to plot now, how did youruse of this built-in urgency
push the characters to makedecisions they might not have
otherwise?
Lauren (18:14):
Right.
And so, as I mentioned earlier,what I liked about this device
is it forces...
the characters to think aboutwhat they need to do for
themselves in the short term.
But in the book, again, Charlieand Maggie are going to have
five generations.
This genetic crisis won'taffect them because they'll have
(18:36):
kids.
They'll have grandkids.
They'll have great grandkids.
And those kids will have kidsthat Charlie and Maggie may
never see.
So they may be spared from theinitial despair of having to
witness the end of their familylines.
That being said, this ishappening to others.
It's happening to the species.
It happens in this greatercontext.
So again, it sets up thedynamic of...
(18:58):
that duty to the futureconcept, which is like, it's not
going to affect me.
I'm good to go.
My family's all right.
But are we?
Are we just kicking the can ifwe take that attitude?
Are we just passing down thatresponsibility and perhaps
making it more urgent for thepeople who are closer to the end
of the line?
So that's what I liked aboutthe device.
(19:20):
And I think it was nice to alsohave The variant that some
people are already run out, haveno generations left, the nots.
Some people have far more, andthey're enjoying a certain
amount of privilege and luxury.
So it reshapes the socialdynamic in a certain way that I
think is a little unexpected, alittle novel, a little new.
(19:42):
But again, it does set up thisurgency around...
It may not feel like it'shappening fast, but in a
biological context, fivegenerations is nothing.
I think in the book, we talkabout how fruit flies reproduce
every 30, 40 days.
So within a year, they've gonethrough their five.
(20:04):
So when we think about it inthose terms, and that, again,
forces people to come into theirindividual decision-making
scope, but then also broaden thelens and see things from this
wider scope.
And even those changes, thatconstant zoom in, zoom out, zoom
(20:25):
in, zoom out, you have to takethings in both contexts can
really force characters tobehave in certain ways because
there's this constant tensionbetween those as well.
Jennia (20:36):
Right.
No, I agree.
It's very different than ifthere had been, say, one
immediate decision that had tobe made and then that was really
what carried the story, notlike you're saying this series
of decisions where I may havesolved something for right now,
but I still have this longeroutlook that I need to deal with
or consider.
So then, too, how does that addto the story?
(20:57):
You know, we're not seeing justthat one rapid fire decision.
I'm thinking you see this a lotin thrillers where the person
has to decide, am I going to dothis or am I going to do this?
But yeah, this was justongoing.
Lauren (21:09):
And that's the vigilance aspect of that slow moving
disaster.
It would be a lot easier, Ithink, to write this novel from
a perspective of up.
extinction's happening withinthe generation.
It's going to happen within 20years.
We're just zeroing out thespecies.
We see a lot of books thatfocus on that, right?
Which is like we have 5, 10, 20years to solve this problem.
(21:31):
I wanted this intermediate termbecause I do think it creates
certain challenges that youdon't see elsewhere.
I also wanted to write the bookvery specifically from the
beginning of the crisis ratherthan the end.
Because I think how we approachthings that don't necessarily
have that catastrophic nature toit, but there's still
(21:53):
emergencies is very different.
And I think we're seeing itwith climate change, right?
Which is there may becatastrophic consequences in
some are happening now, but in5, 10, 50, 100 years could be
much, much worse.
And it requires a differentapproach approach that urgency
is not so in your face and youhave to keep it at the back of
(22:16):
your mind and not let it falloff the stove.
Jennia (22:18):
That's what I was just thinking about.
Even with the book where thisemergency at first, it doesn't
really feel like an emergency,especially since the characters
are younger.
So they're not really thinking,well, they're not even at that
age yet where they're thatforward thinking.
And so for them, it's just sortof like, well, it means my
friend might be moving or itmeans this, which are normal
childhood experiences.
problems or issues that comeup.
(22:39):
Not again, that global scalethat we see later and that they
develop a realization of and nowpersonally affects them.
But I think that also works so,so well with their character
arcs.
because we are seeing thosechanges in them and their way of
thinking and how they'reprocessing.
Whereas we would miss all ofthat if it had been like that in
(23:01):
media res, here we are, we'vegot the five years left or
they're already like say 18 or20 and now grappling with this.
Lauren (23:09):
I think it also helps to normalizing the circumstances,
which it's that boiling the frogthing.
It starts when they're young.
They acclimate to it.
This is the new world order.
A lot of the things that may bevery something that you and I
would react to and rejectimmediately like surrendering
your ovaries, adults in thiscurrent era would reject that
(23:30):
very quickly, have very strongemotional response.
But when you've grown up inthat climate for five, 10 years,
it becomes more acceptable.
And it becomes like, oh, yeah,no, we should actually consider
that.
And so just that normalizationand attenuation of that kind of
crisis mentality.
Jennia (23:48):
Yeah, so this goes into one of my last questions, which
was your characters do undergo afew shifts in their viewpoints
and how they view the varioussituations.
And if you'd like to elaborateon how you wove that in with
some of the philosophicalquestions that come up so they
support one another instead ofoverriding one another.
Lauren (24:09):
Right.
I think one thing I wanted toalways create space for is You
can never tell what is going tochange someone's mind.
And both characters set off inthe story with some very
strongly held personal viewsabout what they will and will
not do.
Right away.
Right away.
(24:29):
And what they do and do notwant to achieve with their
lives.
trying to like skim over thespoilers here, they end up in a
very different place.
But big things happen to themand your core beliefs sometimes
do shift over time and that'sokay.
And I think digging into whatcauses those changes and how
(24:50):
people are influenced by certainthings, react to certain
things, can be very surprising.
And it's important not to castpeople in certain characters or
certain roles or certainpersonalities Because those
things will change over timetoo.
And so I...
It goes to not remaining overlyconfident or overly sure or
(25:14):
believing in your own opinionabout someone rather than
letting them be themselves andletting them change and letting
them react to certain thingsrather than like, oh, they're
just this.
They're always going to bethat.
And closing that off to futureevolution, future development,
future change.
So let us not typecast people.
Let us remain open to thingsthat may...
(25:38):
influence them in a bad way ora good way over time.
Jennia (25:41):
Right, which is really just excellent advice in
general, not just for creatingcharacters.
Well, before we end, is thereany, you mentioned it a little
bit earlier, but is there onemain takeaway that you hope
readers really get by the timethey finish this book?
Lauren (25:57):
I think it's a lot of what I talked about here, which
is, again, I hope this bookchallenges people's thinking,
gets them There are book clubquestions at the back of the
book.
I hope people dig in.
It's not designed to serve youan opinion.
It's designed to be thoughtprovoking and let you sit with
some of the lasting themes.
And so I hope people are opento that and do take the time to
(26:19):
reflect a little bit on that.
It ties back just to what am Iwilling to do for my grandkids?
their grandkids, et cetera,that duty to the future piece.
That really, I think is animportant part of any
conversation that's going onright now.
Jennia (26:36):
Yeah, I completely agree.
Well, thank you so much.
This has been such a greatconversation.
Thank you so much, Jenny.
I
Lauren (26:41):
really enjoyed it.
Jennia (26:42):
I did too.
And thank you for listening andbe sure to check out the show
notes for additionalinformation, including all of
Warren's links and a link to herbook.
And if you enjoyed today'sepisode, I'd appreciate it if
you could rate or review thepodcast on your favorite
listening platform.
Thanks again.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com