Recently I asked the Discussing Published Hooks and Books forum for thoughts on the book Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel. and got this as part of a response from MCAMERON:

quote:

---

Now for gripes. It felt like a cheat to me when she stopped writing any chapters that focused on Jonathan Strange. He had become this mysterious creature to everyone else, and she never lets us into his head during the whole pillar of darkness part.

Perhaps I found this more annoying because I had recently read a book that did a similar trick even more egregiously: Unintended Consequences by John Ross. Both books were written in omniscient (although Unintended Consequences was poorly done) and both followed a main character for years, until that character began acting strangely. Then we're no longer allowed into the character's mind, and he becomes as much a mystery to us as to the rest of the characters.

It feels like cheating to me, because the authors want to have the closeness to the character that using his POV will bring, but still make him mysterious when he is doing unfathomable (by other characters) things.

At any rate, that was the biggest complaint I had about Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, and it is fairly mild. Otherwise I thought it was wonderful.

---

a) he's now doing bad things on purpose even though he knows they are bad
b) he's now doing bad things that he honestly believes are ok

I think with all the tears that George Lucas had Anakin cry, he was trying to convince us that Anakin knew that what he had done was wrong, but he was doing it anyway because of his own motivations. That would put him in category a.

Palpatine, however, was doing bad things that he, in his view of the cosmos, believed were 'right' and ok. He never at any point thinks, "I shouldn't do this, but I will anyway." That puts him in category b.

So, which is yours?

(Edited for clarity.)

quote:

---

Whatever you do, please, please, please, do a better job at the plot than Episode III. Make it credible. Make me believe it.

---

Yeah, I saw SW3. My post-film descriptoin of the Anakin Skywalker arc was:
"Oh, I'm conflicted. Oh, I'm conflicted. Oh, I'm conflicted. Oh, I've just massacred a bunch of kids. But, hey, I'm conflicted about it." It really, really, really failed to convince me that he could do something like that so soon after the momentous decision of helping Palpatine/Sidious instead of Mace Windu.

Might have helped if his "love" for Padme (the spur that was used to tip him to the Dark Side) was remotely convincing, as well.

But back to the main point; there's nothing necessarily wrong with mainting the POV of the good-guy-gone-bad, as long as you show how he's reached that point and why he's doing what he's doing. A character who is doing terrible things for a good reason can be really interesting. You probably will need to pull the trick of redeeming him at the end, mind you...