Forum: Author Hangout

I'm trying to 'flesh out' the character roster in a long story, well over 100K words for the first of hopefully 4 parts. I have a few characters for the school 'crowd'.
the two central characters
a pair of star crossed lovers
the 'new' girl
the guy who got held back but is fine with it now.
the 'creepy' one (he's just a perv)

I've done a few search for HS archetypes and don't think they're exactly what I'm after. Too US centric, the story is not a US story.

I figure I need a good maybe dozen background characters who hold the story together via exposition. There are other characters but they're not in the 'group' so all told I might have as many as 20 characters all told. The school group will need a minimum of 10 characters by, and I hate to use the term, archetype.

Where have other authors found bases for their vessels who hold the information needed to get their stories across to the readers?

I desperately hated HS and just kind of floated around the place waiting to age out as it were. I still got into university and all that. I just don't remember much about the cast of characters around me. Being 'very gifted' puts some sort of aura on some. I do what I like but am over qualified for the work I'm doing. So I've gone back to Uni again and will get a different qualification to hopefully move into a different job stream.

I want to have a few good characters but not the 'movie cookie cutter' crowd that I just don't identify with any of the people I went through school with. We had virtually no 'jocks' or other athletes, though one guy I went through school with did go on to play pro-sport at a national level. but he didn't look like an American jock. He was just lucky enough to get into a sport stream that he had a little talent for otherwise he'd of gone nowhere in life. So no athletes and as such no cheerleaders or anything like that. there were a few musos and other 'outsiders' but I really don't remember anyone as fitting a 'type' that is easily identified.

The school in question is just an average school with a reasonable mix SES wise. they also have the gamete of abilities and a simplified extra-curricular group activity mix, not 100 sub committees slicing the entire school into micro managed pointless 'clubs'.

So I do need archetypes but ones more interesting past jock/nerd/stoner/loner if you get what I mean. I want the characters to have a more three dimensional personality that allows them to interact with others and drive the story along. so far I'm at 90K words and I've really only used about six characters but I don't want to have to keep recycling them just to get a slightly different angle. I want each of the 'support' characters to get say 5-8k words a year through which we get to see more detail of the core two characters. See how they interact with different types of people and do more than simply pad out the story.'

Happy to take most suggestions as I'm a little frustrated right now.

I've done a few search for HS archetypes and don't think they're exactly what I'm after. Too US centric, the story is not a US story.

Anybody who might be able to help you is going to need to know more about the intended setting than "Not the US".

gamete

gamut?

yes, I was typing fast and just went for the first auto correct without reading it properly

SES is socio-economic status. more than just how much or little money you have but also the quality and stability of your home and family life.

As far as not US, I haven't got a specific setting in mind but I want it to be more 'universal' than generic US. Think a melting pot of most western countries as an amalgam. I've lived in a few countries but never the US which may or may not be a good thing. I don't want to put the story somewhere specific and then fluff up a few of the details about it either because my memory is off or my research is.

but thanks for those pointers.

Think a melting pot of most western countries as an amalgam.

Yeah, I have no idea how you could achieve that without it ending up feeling like the US, because that's actually kind of what the US is.

Yeah, I have no idea how you could achieve that without it ending up feeling like the US, because that's actually kind of what the US is.

I have to disagree there. while yes The US has a lot of international migration, there are other countries that are fare more diverse and populated. The main argument I make for this is that the US has, well for the last hundred or so years practiced cultural imperialism projecting US cultural values and norms around the world.

Yes this has also lead to many many people moving to the US to live at the source of this vision but it is somewhat false. many people who live in America get the combination title X-American. In most other countries they are just refereed to as the nationality they have moved to. As I write this that sounds backwards but what I mean is that the US does not integrate it's migrants to the same degree as other countries.

Many people who emigrate are at least in some way already American, but they are also not. America at least from the outside does not seem to be a country of migrants past using them as a way to provide cheap labor or attractive skills, or to combat falling fertility. these 'groups' move to America to be American, not to bring their own culture and add it to the country. They are stuck half way, neither in their home nation or full citizens. (I'm not talking legally). Please forgive this very poorly made argument, It's been a very long and pain filled day 12+ hrs at 7/10+ pain, and I'm very restricted on what pain killers I can take, so I'm far from my best. Scans and investigations are inbound but they don't help me much when they're just a piece of pretty paper saying yer, this bloke needs looking at. Just trying, most likely poorly to make a logical argument.

I do know it is not that simple. I have lived in a dozen+ countries, many of which have had their own identity suppressed by an American one. This is very common in Asia specifically. America seems to be a fisherman who chums the water catching what they can without regard to what the effect is on the water and those fish who are 'lucky' enough not to be caught.

So I guess that's my argument. America puts out a much larger footprint into the world than in brings inside it's very much extended boundaries and those who do 'enter' are only half accepted. In many other western countries people emigrate and are naturalized to fully become part of that country, But their now combined identity is very much celebrated.

Like I said, pretty tired and the pain's been excruciating. Don't take any of this personally or as an insult, just the way it looks, from outside.

Perhaps you could look at it the other way around. Choose characters and write summaries of their relevance to the story. Then figure out what sort of characteristics they'd be likely to have to fulfill those roles.

I have a pretty much open slate character wise. I did some more searching and found a good cross section of types based more on psychology than American culture norms.

I thought I could look at what sort of character/interaction combinations I need and put together the identities I need to achieve from that list.

The present characters were sort of done this way but they don't belong to any specific archetype they just formed with what I needed them to have. When I make a character I think of two or three primary features of their personality then the same for their physical nature and create a portrait over a few interactions to get someone who matches my internal picture. Sometimes I do it in the reverse order when I know what I want them to look like first then create a personality that serves the story.

I don't think either method is right or wrong, it depends on what the purpose of the character is and what sort of word count they're likely to generate. I need some kernel around which to form a character. I need them to have a purpose first. I do agree that a description that is directed to a 'type' can work but I have to do too many people together to wait around for a plot point that needs filling and hope one of my animations can fill that whole. That being said what I may do is a shotgun approach and over create, the unused can either go into a different story or be held in reserve for an unforeseen plot twist or turn. When I'm rested I'll try painting some golems and see if they inspire me. other wise I may just make the lock fit the key.

I've got a couple of ideas to help your research, but not for characters themselves.

First, use search terms like "teen" or "secondary school," not high school. The term high school is only really used in the US and Canada, and Canada is inconsistent in usage.

Second, although this will take more time, find a couple of current -- within the past five years -- YA books and read them. That will give you a good idea of the characters that are common or popular today. Note that YA is a publishing category, not a genre, so you'll want to get books that are similar in genre to your story.

The "way it looks, from outside" is the single accurate statement in your screed.

Ignoring the cultural argument, have a look at Tom Frost's too much love. He created complicated characters, weeks out of high school in a depressed rural area. Giving them a back story and attitudes that subvert expectations makes the story an interesting read.
A few examples:
Shelbey (Sp?) Head cheerleader and social arbiter. Adopted daughter of a retired spook. Has a taste for high culture and BDSM.
Nick. MC and very flawed, suffers from depression, angsty teen working class commie in charge of a multi-billion dollar inheritance with royalty for extended family.
Simon Anderson. Genius maths nerd, face blind, very anti-social, willingly adopts the roll of speaker of unwelcome truths. Super villain in training. Full of hate directed at the banking class. Potential weakest link and he knows it.
Pilar. Supermodel / lingerie model and construction boss.
Lev. Jewish boy with the body of a pro-wrestler.
Max. Overweight D&D nerd who has a plan to get somewhere in life and actually sticks to it.
Arwen. Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope who is known to her friends as Manic Pixie Dream Girl With a Knife.
Emily. Australian blonde surfer chick trope who doesn't surf and comes from a desert town. Instead of being a loud mouthed larrakin she's a runaway from a doomsday cult.
Of course if you make the side characters too interesting then the secondary plots will get complicated and expand the story, perhaps more than you want to.
Keeping the story restricted to their sentence to night release prison will restrict the ability of the characters to grow, change and have new experiences. High school exists to ensure cultural conformity, not adulthood.

There are Chinese enclaves all throughout Asia, the USA, and elsewhere. For the most part those people remain distinct Chinese enclaves; even a thousand years later.

Chinatown in the US are almost completely filled with illegals. At least around NYC the suburbs have very significant Chinese origin population.
Interestingly, in my town, the Chinese origin population sued the board of education to prevent their kids being placed in bilingual classes that were mandated due to over x% of the kids speaking a Chinese language at home.

I'm wondering what people think of the various schools of philosophy on psychology and how they equate to regarding building a character. There's too many to try and throw a Costco sized blanket over.

I did a little psych in Uni and remember a little past the names. It's all easy enough to look up again thanks to the wonders of DARPA's wishlist project that became what we now call the internet in its consumerised compartmentalised pre-packaged form, nothing like the wild days of the 90's when it was only academics and anoraks who used it.

I'd be interested in some pointers towards relevant places around the joint. thanks in advance.

F.

In most European nations it is extremely difficult, if not impossible for a foreign born person to become a citizen. Perhaps it might be technically legal, but they are not accepted as actually French, or German, or Swedish, or Russian. Many Turks, though second or third generation born in Germany are still Turkish citizens, NOT German!

Everybody's a foreigner almost everywhere, and all it takes are some small minded and stupid people to make you feel it.

I don't know anything about obtaining the Swedish or Russian citizenship, but in order to obtain the French or German citizenship by other ways besides being born as, adopted by or married to a citizen, you have to live in the country for a certain time (5 years?), have the permission to stay in country, have a secured income, prove language skills, show an understanding of laws and customs and a willingness to abide by them. All in all reasonable and achievable requirements, I'd say. Also, much like becoming a US citizen, except that you don't have to win the green card lottery first ;-)

I guess we can agree that integration is a two way street, in that it takes a will to integrate oneself as well as a citizenry that will let you integrate.

For example, a friend of mine has Turkish parents that came to Germany in the 60ies because there was no economic perspective for them where the lived in Adana province.

Their daughters were born here, went to school here, studied here and even married here. My friend became a doctor and is well respected in her community. She's well off and has two children, who speak Turkish - with their grandparents. She still has her Turkish citizenship; mostly for ease of travel to Turkey. Of course she also has the German citizenship. I'm assuming it's the same for many other Turkish people who want to retain a tie with their fatherland. I'm also certain that for every successful integration story, there's the opposite story where people don't want to integrate or where people are only accepted as second class citizens. Case in point, I've got another friend who's an Austrian that emigrated to Germany in the 80ies; mainly because that meant he was exempt from compulsory military service in Austria as long as he lived abroad. So he moved from a tiny Austrian village about 20km as the crow flies across the border to a small village in the Allgäu region of Bavaria. Over the years, he's built a successful publishing business that employs many locals and yet he's always felt that he's being treated as "the newcomer" by the natives. Apparently, the reason for the bad blood between these particular tribes of Bavarians and Austrians is that way back when, the Bavarians, who had little, resented their even poorer neighbors coming over the border to pick up "their" walnuts during the autumn to supplement their income. It's been like the Hatfields vs. the McCoys ever since ;-)

I don't know anything about obtaining the Swedish or Russian citizenship, but in order to obtain the French or German citizenship by other ways besides being born as, adopted by or married to a citizen, you have to live in the country for a certain time (5 years?), have the permission to stay in country, have a secured income, prove language skills, show an understanding of laws and customs and a willingness to abide by them. All in all reasonable and achievable requirements, I'd say. Also, much like becoming a US citizen, except that you don't have to win the green card lottery first ;-)

Neither France, nor Germany has birthright citizenship for children of foreign nationals. The US has citizenship at birth for any child born here (except for diplomatic residence.) That is a major difference and keeps generations of people in France and Germany non-citizens.

The US isn't the only country with Birthright citizenship.

https://vividmaps.com/birthright-citizenship/

Currently, 35 nations in the world have unrestricted birthright citizenship (Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Child, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela).

Neither France, nor Germany has birthright citizenship for children of foreign nationals. The US has citizenship at birth for any child born here (except for diplomatic residence.) That is a major difference and keeps generations of people in France and Germany non-citizens.

Yes, France and Germany do not nationalize babies born to transient foreigners on their territory the same way the US does. However:

"Provisions for foreigners living in Germany

Since the year 2000, children of foreign parents who are born in Germany have acquired German citizenship if one parent has lived legally in Germany for at least eight years and has an unlimited right of residence."

You can find the original material here.

Be that as it may, I reject your conclusion that not having citizenship at birth prevents people from obtaining citizenship later on. That's just not true. I've outlined the requirements in my previous post. Is it more effort that receiving your citizenship at birth? Yes. Is it an insurmountable obstacle? Of course not.

I never said, or believed that the US was the only one.

Be that as it may, I reject your conclusion that not having citizenship at birth prevents people from obtaining citizenship later on. That's just not true. I've outlined the requirements in my previous post. Is it more effort that receiving your citizenship at birth? Yes. Is it an insurmountable obstacle? Of course not.

Where was that my "conclusion?"

If you want to argue, choose something I actually said to argue about.

I never said, or believed that the US was the only one.

No, but I thought others might wonder about it.

************************
Warning contains venting
************************

I'm going to assume you're like the bulk of the internet either a product, direct or indirect, of US culture. You don't however seem as 'nutty' as some of those people are. I've lived in over a half dozen countries, in places ranging from their capitals to places where the gene pool seems a little shall we say 'shallow'. I've noticed that 'teen' culture is much more varied than the US and places that have a strong proxy culture would suggest.

Your example of Korea is flawed due to very distinct Americanisation of that culture. It is surprisingly hard to find a culture uncontaminated by the USA, but not impossible, even in places you would expect the contrary to be true. Lets say that the supposed 1:1 transference is not as smooth or simple as people suggest it is, well from people with their blinders on.

Most 'developed' countries at least attempt to limit US influence by requiring a minimum level of local culture be broadcast*. Though that's not the best word for what I want to say. What I want to try and say is that the ultra processed homogenised view of the world manifested in US centric media does not really exist, even IN America, let alone outside. Many, especially S.E. Asian countries will pan to that 'image' reinforcing poorly understood stereotypes.

I want to buck that trend towards something more 'universal'. Yes it will 'mimic' some US tropes because not all US tropes are as myopic as even I perceive them to be. Besides having a cast of pretty much universally European names, I want to have something that is as universal as possible. Yes the majority of this site is US users, though I think if you look at it in a more binary cast US/Non-US then the balance of the mix is closer.

I write, primarily from a Commonwealth perspective. UK spelling, though not keyboard (that causes all sorts of excitement' when typing special characters, and some not so special ones too. I've spent a majority of my life in 'Commonwealth' countries, I've never been to the US. But I see its fingers everywhere. When I typed High School Stereotypes, the first two pages were of stereotypes found in US centred media. I want to go past that, 4-6 'cliques'. Even in the smallest schools I went to there were at least a dozen cliques, many more in the larger ones. Also 'cliques' are not as 'exclusive' as portrayed.

After all that what am I not saying. I am not saying that just because of 'US Cultural Imperialism' which is not viewed as such from within, Just as is the case with all empires of the past is a problem of 'the west's' own making. It is as anything in an increasingly connected world a by product of those 'connections', or perhaps amplified by them. The US has been sticking its nose in everywhere since the first world war, escalating after the second (prior to this it was very isolationist). That this is a universally 'bad' thing, it is not. The default setting of English as the language of both business and the internet simplifies many things that otherwise would not be as simple nor as pervasive. Though I do wish they had not taken a cleaver to the language in the early 19th ish century. (I'd have to check when things changed so dramatically).

Another thing I am not saying is that there have been 'no' efforts to bifurcate cultures and run indigenous and US in tandem. They are simply co-adaptions of each other. The US does have a very simplified view of the world. Well under 50% have a passport significantly less have left 'North America'. I've managed to live in two of the eight 'divisions' of the globe.(how do you describe 8 hemispheres?), I wish it was more but that was not to be. In the future, funds allowing I will travel once again. Many countries welcome this, in some way or another, usually connected to industrialisation and other investments. But and it's a big 'but' that does not mean that the US and the world are as similar as is seen from inside the 50 states of 'freedom'.

I am also not saying that there were no similarities before US 'contamination', yes that's a strong word but many out side will see it that way. US 'culture' does in many ways subvert the native ones that predate it. UK culture likewise subverted the pre-existing cultures where they stuck there noses in over the last couple hundred years that its 'culture' was one of the dominant across the globe. So the US is not alone in this endevour, a long list of others include the Spanish and French.

OK, I've spurted out enough at the keyboard for now. It likely doesn't make as much sense as I hoped it does.

TLDR: The US is not the mirror to world that those within seem to think it is. and those outside are not as welcoming of the US may think they are.

The US does have a very simplified view of the world. Well under 50% have a passport significantly less have left 'North America'.

So, what percentage of Russians or Chinese have passports?

A surprising number. as a Raw value for the Chinese though percentage wise it is less than 3%.
Russia issues an average of around 3 Million External Passports a year in a country of less than 150 Million so from that I'd estimate about 30%.
Russia ranks 89th, China 112th and the USA 22nd on a freedom of travel index. To compare them is a straw-man argument of proportions only as epic as the typical American's waistline. No I don't hate the US but I have seen many of the pro's and con's of America's international reputation.
But these are universally recognised as Authoritarian Regimes that have a great deal of control over their populations.
The USA declares itself as the land of the free and it falls far short of the world average of passport ownership. Suffice to say Americans travel very little i compared to their freedom to travel.

Your rant is just a compilation of all the anti-American trash that floats around the internet.
Just a few things:
- " I've noticed that 'teen' culture is much more varied than the US and places that have a strong proxy culture would suggest." How would you, who gladly proclaim that you have never lived in the US, and apparently have limited travel experience, have any idea what "teen culture" is in the US? You wouldn't and you don't.
-There is no US Cultural Imperialism.' It is people from other nations who choose to view media produced in the US. The US is not imposing this - they are seeking it.
- "The US does have a very simplified view of the world."
Again, how would you know that? And, to the extent that it exists, how is this "simple view" any less "simple" that your rant, produced with no knowledge of the US.
- "Well under 50% have a passport significantly less have left 'North America'." So? A very high percentage of Brits have passports so they can travel to Europe: largely to sandy beaches in Spain and Italy, where they are surrounded with other Brits on vacation. They are not traveling to absorb the different culture other countries may provide. They are going to get out of the cold. If I want to go to a warm beautiful beach I don't have to leave the US. It should be noted that the passport figures for the US are inline with those of most European countries.

So, what percentage of Russians or Chinese have passports?

Russians, and USSR before then have two tiers of passports. One is the basic domestic primary ID document with is literally illegal NOT to possess. So everyone over 16 is obliged to have a valid one and virtually everyone does. Because you can't do anything without a passport. Any interaction with any government or financial institutions will require to present one, as the only valid means to prove identity. If you don't have a (domestic) passport, you don't exist, as far the government is concerned (not necessarily always a bad thing, sure, but extremely inconvenient). Then, that internal document is called a Passport, and looks very much like one, but isn't valid for international travel. If one wants to go anywhere a visa is required, they have to get another "international" passport, and that's a state guarded privilege that isn't trivial to obtain and retain.

Where I live, in an ex-USSR European Union country, it's also... I don't know actually, and "illegal" may be too strong a word, but to not have a valid passport is unthinkable. Just weird to the extreme, and likely a political statement. You can't vote without a passport. And there's only one tier of a passport, even the non-citizen ones are valid travel documents (although their visa regimen is different in many places, and they can't vote of course).

Back in school, the big thing about turning sixteen was getting the passport. The age of majority, legal sex and alchohol and driver licenses is eighteen, but passports are issued by sixteen. It's the first step of personal independence. And we had a drinking game derived from passport numbers, so each one getting their passport was calling a party.

The USA declares itself as the land of the free and it falls far short of the world average of passport ownership.

Not because of anything the government does, but because most in the US have no desire to travel internationally, nor is it convenient for us to do so even without including the hassles of obtaining and maintaining a passport.

For me, where I am in the US, the nearest boarder crossing into Canada is more than 560km away, and the Mexican boarder is more than 1600km away.

"the USA 22nd on a freedom of travel index.

Where do you get this stat from? The only thing I see coming up on a google search for "freedom of travel index." is the Henley Index ranking the number of countries that you can travel to without a visa. There it's ranked #7, not #22 in current rankings.
Americans likely travel more than people in other countries - at least greater distances. Hell, the flight time between London and Ibiza is about the same as between NYC and Chicago.

Yes it was the Henley index(2023), The US ties for 22nd with Australia. Though it is in the 7th bracket if you work through a standard compounding count that places it at 22nd. In Australia which also ranks 22nd it costs more to fly from Sydney to Perth than from Sydney to Auckland in New Zealand another country!!. US (lower 48) and AUS are roughly the same size but Australians where 57% of the population holds a Passport and over 75% have traveled overseas

Hell, the flight time between London and Ibiza is about the same as between NYC and Chicago.

Yep, most Europeans simply don't comprehend the geographic scale of the US. When I was getting my bachelors degree at Milwaukee School of Engineering there were a couple of European exchange students in one of my classes.
At one point, the class was having a discussion and weekend plans came up.

The two ladies from Europe wanted to drive to New York for the weekend. Every one else laughed. Not possible. Milwaukee to New York is a solid 18 hours of driving not counting stops for food, gas, and bathroom breaks. And that's one way. 36 hours of driving for the round trip, again not counting stops for food, gas, and bathroom breaks.
Sure, it could be done, but they wouldn't have more than a few hours in NYC before they had to head back.

most in the US have no desire to travel internationally

This is mostly inline with my point. Americans CHOOSE not to travel outside of their own country but expect other countries to adopt US centric culture

The USA declares itself as the land of the free

It is ironic that the country with the highest number of prison inmates per capita declares itself the home of the free. As with percentage of passports issued, it is irrelevant.

In January of this year the US hit its debt ceiling. If tomorrow every American citizen of any age currently alive were to give the US government $93,000 it would not be enough to clear the National Debt.

Worrying about the effect the US has on the rest of the world pales into insignificance compared to the clusterfuck approaching rapidly as a result of years of government fiscal mismanagement.

The current squabbling over gender, firearms etc makes rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic look like genius.

Americans CHOOSE not to travel outside of their own country but expect other countries to adopt US centric culture

No, we don't. Our media corporations go to great efforts to export US media because they want the global market, but the average American? We don't care about your culture one way or the other.

How would you, who gladly proclaim that you have never lived in the US, and apparently have limited travel experience, have any idea what "teen culture" is in the US? You wouldn't and you don't.
-There is no US Cultural Imperialism.' It is people from other nations who choose to view media produced in the US. The US is not imposing this - they are seeking it.
- "The US does have a very simplified view of the world."
Again, how would you know that?

We "know", because the media platforms we choose to consume are flooded by content originating in US. Sure, what he talks about as "teen culture" is said media depiction of the same. It is a very particular, very homogeneous depiction with is consistent across large range of media and sources and lasting for nearly a human lifetime by now. Hollywood, TV shows, books, stories on this site, anytime between what's feel like sixties if not fifties and up to now, with very little meaningful updates. The standardized memes are extremely strong. And very many teenagers all around the world are comparing their experiences to that "standard" image created by US media many decades ago.

How faithful that depiction is to any reality is questionable of course, but sometime somewhere there should have been some kind of a prototype. It's also not illogical to believe that depiction, even if fully synthetic, would have reproduced itself in the source environment where there's unlikely are widespread alternatives. That how cultural programming works.

If there wasn't any "US Cultural Imperialism" I wouldn't be able to write here in English. It's that simple.

But how it works, it's not that simple. Yes, there's literally no concentrated effort to intentionally impose something on anyone. There's very little to no ideology, it's almost pure marketing, just an unfortunate byproduct of relentless drive to make money that's making it almost impossible to avoid your content. The same greed makes sure there's no effort to mitigate the problem.

Yes, as absurd as it may sound, we outsiders do complain you don't make expenses to avoid flooding us with your shit. Because we do have to incur expenses to try to mitigate and compete, often from very unfavorable positions.

Saying that your content wins because it's "better" is about like to say that Bigmac is better than a gourmet restaurant meal. I'm inclined to say it win because it is "worse" but it would only only expose us using radically different yardsticks. And that you don't care about my yardstick while I can't really ignore yours is literally the definition of cultural colonialism.

So, no, your isolationism and exceptionalism isn't an answer, now it's the problem. It became a problem because you were too successful and too open. And now it's unfair that "global culture" is dictated by a bunch of ignorant folks barely representing 4% of people. The ignorance then becomes an insult by default.

And that's why everyone anywhere suddenly feels like they should have a say in your domestic matters, especially when yours are as sorely fucked up as they are.

And again you prove my point. most seppos (possibly a harsh term) are primaily isolationist and don't want to know about the 'outside' world. It is important to have a world view if you want to have a 'balanced' view of things. Most country's populations want to see the world past their own borders. Americans tend not to want to do this.

I've know quite a few Americans, though they are vastly outnumbered by any other nation of origin you care to name. I would put a conservative to acquaintances to a country count of well over 20. And of all of them the Americans were the most closed minded and insensitive to local custom were the worst and by a great margin. It's been very easy to make friends with other people were as they Americans alienate others by loudly stating that their country is better than all the others, regardless of metric. Speaking of metric, the US is one of only three countries where the vast majority of the population still use the Imperial measurement system. The rest of the world made that transition many decades ago and the longer the US puts it off the harder the change will be to make. I'm not counting the UK, who have some bastardisation blend of the two depending on what exactly you're measuring.

Due to a happenstance of my life I can pretty seamlessly move back and forth between the two but that's primarily due to the people I've spent time with including WW2 engineers or engineers in general with an age less than those sent to Vietnam over the course of a disastrous decade after a previous decade(can't remember exactly remember how the independence drive went against the French). One of the main things I'm attempting to show you is that the world 'in general' has a negative view of the US even if they view other countries in a generally positive light.

America may be a military heavy weight/power house, but and it's a big but. It is mostly culturally bankrupt in comparison to the rest of the world. Yes they have one of the largest 'entertainment' industries on a per capita measure and over all it's quite frankly huge. However it does little to advance the public opinion ratings of most other countries towards the US. There may be a well put forward chant of USA, USA, USA!!!. And yes the vast majority of countries like to think they have a better place in the population of earth than they do. They can't all be 'right' and most are wrong on some level. As far as actual 'quality' the US entertainment industry has very little of narrative value outside the YA market. It's a little different in regards to the written word. But in Music, Cinema and TV, America produces little of substantive quality or quantity on the world stage. They quite happily rip of UK or other European IP and 'improve' it for their own audience. By comparison the UK via the beeb is strongly quality over quantity with a typical 'season' length between six and ten episodes.

I'm not arguing that the US is 'poor' but it has particular deficiencies outside of it's own boarders. Last I looked, the US has a population in the vicinity of 330 Million. If you compare it's standing on a global stage measured per capita, the US is in a special needs school, I know a bit about these being involved with both self-contained or those adjacent to a bog standard public system school. The US has many strengths, outward facing cultural awareness certainly isn't one of them and while Americans as you said, refuse to travel overseas that situation will not change in the near future. The vast majority of over seas travel by Americans is by those in the military.

What would you say if I didn't say 'America' but some 'nameless country' despite being a rich and fully developed economy but was voluntarily isolationist and was generally only interested in foreign countries 'culture' if it was originally infiltrated by said country, in nation after nation. I know a lot of other countries will do as much as possible to put its 'values' into the makeup of other countries, but this is not about them. It is about how for the last 70+ years America has spent the blood sweat and tears of it's citizens on making other places much like their own country. You said that it is difficult to travel to Canada or the even worse comparison of Mexico, these are land boarders. Try not being able to go to even a 'close' country except via international air travel, which I promise you it much more complicated and dearer than jumping in a car and making a day trip of it across the boarder. Unless I'm wrong all you need to travel to the previously countries is a passport, no visa etc is required. Trust me getting those can be pretty hard. You have much lower barrier to entry, or is that exit than other nations.

I'd love to hear an argument as to why America should not have spent the last 50+ years putting its troops on the ground in countries around the world especially when you look at the poor understanding of local customs those troops have about said country. There are quite a few examples of other countries I can mention that if bureaucracies had been more forward looking, the internet could have been a Russian invention more than a decade before DARPA started laying the ground work for such a system. In this case managers sabotaged the development of this system as it was starting to get of the ground for fear it would reduce either their own jobs and thus power or it could not present a return on the investment so it should absolutely not be adopted even though it would have reduced a lot of the waste and duplication of a command economy.

View all this as 'US bashing' if you wish and seem intent on doing, I'm primarily attempting to illustrate a world wide dissonance that is most strongly evident with the US population as opposed to the rest of the world. As I've mentioned I've lived in north of six countries. I'd love to at least visit many more though the US is not amongst them but Canada is. It is something of a world wide meme that if you run into a rude foreigner that chances were that they were American, drunk but friendly Australian. Very reserved British. And the list goes on but I can't remember them. The important one is that Americans are pretty much universally regarded as rude, in opposition to the French who if I'm right the Americans think of as rude (this may be a false memory even if the French are frequently considered rude, though only to those who don't actually speak french).

View all this as 'US bashing' if you wish and seem intent on doing

I don't. I view it as hypocrisy. You feel perfectly free to criticize US Culture (go ahead, we don't care what you think) but you get pissed if anyone from the US criticizes your culture.

Not just the land of the free but also the home of the brave. Not just male native Americans (aka Indians). I spent a year in Wurtzburg, Germany. I didn't notice many germs. For Germ many.

I do not consider myself 'well traveled' in world terms, just compared to the typical American. I have lived over seas, from my country of birth for 4 of my first eighteen years. My adult travels are significantly less, just not having the funds to travel has been the primary barrier. The fact that you consider this 'standard' anti-American shows that you are aware of these, and I hate to use the word but 'tropes' against the US. They hold true in every country I have either lived in or visited.

It is imperialism, how many countries outside of the US have you lived in (specifically developing countries) and for how long? Most of my reference is from countries where the US has sent engineers and other college graduates to lift their countries from a subsistence economy . These people brought with them a desire to have access to American media, food and other 'niceties' and transferred this taste to the locals. Yes I agree with you that some have sought US media but it is sent out with the expectation that everyone will 'consume' it. But as I said just because sectors of the population 'seek' this culture does not mean it isn't imperialism. If you lived in one such country and found the US broadcasting its version of the world into your own country without regard to if/how it affected the local culture. And that is what makes it imperialism.

I find that Americans are woefully unaware of how 'unpopular' they are on the world stage. Foreign films, at least from an external view looking in are widely derided in the US for a wide variety of reasons including it being overly intellectual. My basis for 'understanding' American culture is that which is loudly and quantitatively shouted out from every available parapet out into the ether. There are two primary 'groups' of people who travel. Those that want an authentic experience and those who want an (Insert nation of origin here) version of that culture. Many of my close friends and especially my sister and brother-in-law are very well traveled visiting at least one different external country a year. I speak with them about their experiences frequently and at length.

When I have been overseas, due to the fact that I have a very 'neutral' accent, and thus have been misidentified as coming from some other country, though I have never been mistaken as an American. If you read such trash as the monthly magazine 'Time' you will likely have a view of the world misaligned with how things are outside America. I realised the opposition or dissonance between these 'views' first in my teen years where I saw in my first hand view that what Time was putting out did not match what was happening on the ground. The reasons what I have been saying are standard anti-American is because they are very universal outside of the US. Americans seem particularly unwilling to accept external criticism of their world view.

Where have you lived/visited? The more places the more authentically I will consider your response. I live in a country that overseas travel is considered a standard rite of passage for young adults. Your comment on Brits is accurate but simplifies the reality. It is actually very easy to travel between the UK and mainland Europe even after Brexit because of infrastructure and policies. Other countries do not share these advantages but there is still a LOT of international travel.

I'll leave this here as you've likely not read this far, but if you have I'd be keen to read a considered response that is based on the real world and not one from withing the US's borders.

For character strengths endorsed by almost every culture, see viacharacter.org.

The current squabbling over gender, firearms

It is precisely things like the national debt that makes politicians focus on these things. It distracts some enough to make them think it must be important. Many of the rest are so turned off, they quit playing attention. Either way is a win for a career Congressperson. What isn't a win is having to say something substantive about a serious problem like the national debt or the rapidly approaching bankruptcy of our old age pension program, Social Security.

I got curious and looked this up: more Americans travel internationally every year than the population of any European country except Russia. Over 70% of American adults have traveled internationally.

What truly amazes me is that you believe tv/movies/news represent the real world

nope. I welcome all considered criticism. We have a LOT of problems that are well documented. I feel that acknowledging those issues in one of our strengths.

Even if we have 'problems' they do not seem to be of the same 'order' that Americans seem to 'suffer'.

One of our biggest issues is media concentration so it is very hard to get a variety of points of view on any given topic. If you needed to buy a used car but the only car lots are all owned by the same family you might be screwed.

Another problem is level of governance. We have way too many 'leaders' typically with an election 3 out of 4 years on average if you count all levels of government.

Still another is that many governments have neglected they systems that are preventative and as such are now faced with having to spend more on them as well as on reactionary systems that should have been prevented with the programs that were 'cut'.

Many of our laws are almost draconian in nature and there seems to be little will to change them as the balance of power is so precarious that no party is willing to change them, on one side because doing so goes against their long term mandates and the other would get crucified by the concentrated media and lose power at the start of the next cycle.

there's a couple. if you want to have a frank discussion on this I would prefer to do this in mail, partly because this has completely derailed the thread I created to find a way of building a cast that was not American because I know I can't write that as I've never been there, don't want to write that as it's a saturated segment and I feel it over simplifies the world in which we all live.

If you want to explain the inconsistencies between projected culture and boots on the ground culture I'm happy to talk about that. My complaints about the US are based primarily from seeing how it has had a detrimental effect on many countries and their 'identity'. The world is not a 'neat' homogeneous sculpture. there are many rough edges and no one seemed to look in the mirror when they got out of bed so it's ugly too.

It's easy to pick fault with the US because they put so much out there and expect the world to think this is how 'normal' looks and everywhere should be the same. That is simply not factual. I used to regularly consume local media but grew tired of its every increasing mimicking of US culture despite laws that are meant to prevent that from happening. This 'stealth' adoption is just one of the reasons I don't like American culture in general. It is almost insidious the way it worms its way into everything outside of the US where there are meant to be barriers to that very thing. Only about 15% of our media is actually 'ours'. the rest is almost exclusively US, but as a commonwealth nation there is a lot of British influence too. I'm similarly angry/antagonistic about that too. I do 'enjoy' 'some' American culture, some British too. but I'd rather our media reflect us much more accurately and as a higher percentage of it build in our own space.

Americans should be comparing the state of their empire with the latter stages of the Roman Empire and getting seriously worried :-(

I often hear this, or something similar. I can never figure out what comparison we are supposed to make. I see nothing similar.

Where I live, in an ex-USSR European Union country, it's also... I don't know actually, and "illegal" may be too strong a word, but to not have a valid passport is unthinkable.

So, I looked it up, and apparently not having a valid ID document is liable to an administrative fine of up to €35. "Valid ID document" stands for passport OR an ID card. The last is relatively new addition, but is slated to overcome the passport as the required document. It isn't quite yet, and until very recently it wasn't universally accepted as official ID.

what comparison we are supposed to make.

Our Emperors are getting less and less effective.