Anyways, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)

As an aspiring writer, this concept struck me as incredibly useful tool for writing well. I really like "big picture" type perspectives, and this was one of those "ah-hah" moments that taught me something I think I will always incorporate into my writing. As such, I figured I'd share it all with you and get the reactions of other writers. If nothing else, its another tool in your bag of tricks.

In an nutshell, the theory says that we process information according to "schemas" or mental representations of familiar events, places, things, people, etc... People who have these schemata in place (and according to the theory, that is everybody...) will sort new information into the existing schemata and adopt behavioral and perceptual roles that fit with that preconceived role. Sort of like an actor playing a part in a scene.

When you hear the phrase "Bob was hungry so he went to a restaurant," for example, you will expect and anticipate certain behaviors and events based on the restaurant schema already present in your brain. You will anticipate being shown a table, ordering off a menu from a waiter, paying, etc... This is how we process information.

To me as a writer, when I read about this I linked the concept of filling in holes immediately to that of description. Something I've tried to mercilessly expunge from my writing is too much description. I've also noticed its quite common in other amateur work sometimes. When you talk about Bob going to the restaurant, he may be placing a white napkin on his lap and reading the glossy menu, but (and this is the bit that opened my eyes) that info doesn't need to go into the writing. Its already there as part of the restaurant schema. Making contrasts with an accepted schema is a better way to make details stick than simply describing them...

But I'm getting ahead of myself. First of all, this concept can be used as a diagnostic tool to see if you are writing TOO MUCH or UNNECESSARY description. The information may already be supplied by your readers' familiarity (established schema) with what you have previously set up in your scene/setting/character.

It can also be used to add BETTER description by using things that contrast with established schemas, so that your reader is forced to grapple with them. For instance, a black napkin, or a filthy napkin, or whatever, adds a layer of meaning on top of what your reader is already supplying. To me, it is a way I could diagnose and use richer detail. By keeping in mind how my reader reacts to what I am writing on the subconscious level, I can make more judicious use of my words.

Some more examples, from Wikipedia:

"schemata can influence and hamper the uptake of new information (proactive interference), such as when existing stereotypes, giving rise to limited or biased discourses and expectations (prejudices), may lead an individual to "see" or "remember" something that has not happened because it is more believable in terms of his/her schema. For example, if a well-dressed businessman draws a knife on a vagrant, the schemata of onlookers may (and often do) lead them to "remember" the vagrant pulling the knife. Such distortion of memory has been demonstrated."

Here is the gem, again from Wikipedia:

"New information that falls within an individual's schema is easily remembered and incorporated into their worldview. However, when new information is perceived that does not fit a schema, many things can happen. The most common reaction is to simply ignore or quickly forget the new information. This can happen on a deep level—frequently an individual does not become conscious of or even perceive the new information. However, when the new information cannot be ignored, existing schemata must be changed.

Assimilation is the reuse of schemata to fit the new information. For example, when an unfamiliar dog is seen, a person will probably just assimilate it into their dog schema. However, if the dog behaves strangely, and in ways that don't seem dog-like, there will be "accommodation" as a new schema is formed for that particular dog."

I call this the gem because it immediately led me to consider how to use this concept in plotting. By consciously manipulating how people are likely to react/be influenced by a given part of the writing, I can set up a house of cards in their mind. They are primed for a plot twist/amazing revelation/whatever. But here is the kicker - I could subtly add in details that they will incorporate INCORRECTLY into their schema. But if they go back and re-read it, they will see the clues there all along. Its a way of leading your reader down the path you want them to go.

This may be making too much out of a very theoretical idea, but it still stuck with me. I plan to see how I can incorporate some of these ideas from now on in my writing.

What do you think?

*I know, cause I just added that information to the "Wikipedia" page of Wikipedia.

The place I find myself explaining schema most often is to my kids, in helping them learn the scripts, schemes, and routines of life.

In writing, it can be helpful to think about specializations of schemas, as most people have more than one restaurant schema. There's the sit at a table, waiter serves you style, there's the white tablecloth version of same (differentiated from, say, Applebees or Chillis), there's the convenient-serve kind, the drive-through kind, the cafeteria style, tapas, sushi bars, etc. etc.