Thus I am conducting a quick survey and asking the men for advice.

Here's my character: My male MC is noble-born, a pacifist and a scholar. He is book-smart, and real-life experience weak, thus he has the cocky self-assuredness of a young man fresh out of college who hasn't yet been tested in the real world.

Background: He is leading a small group across dangerous lands. He has employed a female healer, and a warrior to ride with them for protection. There are two other members of the party: a young girl and the healer's brother.

Scenario: The party has been attacked, the healer kidnapped, their horses all killed or stolen, the brother is gravely wounded. The warrior has recently been injured so was semi-incapacitated at the time of the attack; he has, however, acquited himself admirably. But the MC fumbled, unprepared, unable to muster an adequate defense and thus couldn't save the healer from being taken captive.

The MC feels overwhelming guilt that the kidnapping of the healer is his fault. He also feels guilt, not knowing if the brother will recover or not. In short, the entire quest has unraveled and he feels like it's his fault for endangering these people, for being inadequate and unable to protect them.

My dilema: So, immediately after the attackers leave, I'm trying to decide how he responds to all this. Is fighting back tears too "girlie"? (He doesn't normally cry. He's normally pretty stoic.) He's a pacifist, so he doesn't tend toward rage (punching things, etc) to deal with his frustration. Or, is there a male response I'm not thinking of that might be more likely?

I was reading on some joke page about when a Real Man can cry. Loss of one's body parts, death of a family member, and having one's team lose were the valid reasons. In your story, we've got a horrific situation, and a family member may be dead. In real life, tears are OK.

But this is fiction, and according to OSC, if you want your readers to feel something, don't let your MC blubber all over or punch holes in the walls; let him blink back those tears. I don't know if he's right, but it sort of makes sense. MC represses the feeling, so we get to feel it.

BTW your description here of the disaster was very moving: facts about what happened, and with some hint as to what MC is feeling, we can fill in the rest, I think.

Also too, how important is it to your MC to keep these social norm? Does he think them too strict, archaic, or flexible?

This is going to be an interesting dilemma for you to resolve, I look forward to seeing your conclusions in F & F.

quote:

---

Anger really isn’t an option?

---

Yes, he IS angry... angry at himself for putting everyone at danger. His choices led everyone to this moment, this place, and he's overwhelmed with anger and guilt and a feeling of utter failure.

Will, I would be interested in having you expound just a little on the advice OSC gives regarding this sort of thing? Am I understanding correctly? I am taking this to mean that the most effective way to convey the emotion is to understate it a little... let the reader know the MC is wresting with that emotion, but if you exaggerate the response overmuch, the reader won't feel it as strongly?

There is an obverse to the "cocky young man" coin, it is the one where he is fighting to understand his own identity. That side of the coin is full of duty and honour and 'doing the right thing' and family honour, The who am I side of the coin.

Both the 'cocky young man' and the 'honour bound and dutiful young man' are about how the MC sees himself. For him to dissolve in tears at this juncture says as much as how he sees himself as it does about how he wants to see himself.

Different tack: Right or wrong, I would hold-off on thinking about how I was feeling in order to do something — anything — about the problem. I would have to do something, now and absolutely, or I would spontaneously combust.

When I know I have stuffed something up in a huge way, and it's no one else's fault but my own, I can't rest until it is as fixed-up as possible. After I have got to the end — the real end, where all my options are exhausted and I have done all I could and it's still not fixed, my duty unfulfilled and my honour in question and my self-doubt confirmed— that's when I would hit the schnapps.

Anyways, the way I would act is simple. I'd sit there, beating myself up while growing in evermore guilt, hate and anger. I would take it upon myself to go out and rescue everyone, no matter the cost.

If I, in real life, fail at something and I beat myself up, I tend to think of all the negatives and everything that could have been different, while trying to think up scenario's about how I could have prevented it.

I would do that for a while and tend to be by myself until I finally decide to make it right.

Depending on the situation I would go at it again and get it done, regardless of the personal cost. Pain is a fickle thing while trying to do what you feel is right.

Anyways Elan, I hope this helps you out a little more. Take it from a young, cocky man who has yet to test himself, THAT's how I would act.

Edit: Added a few more words to make it sound more like sense.

Why would he cry?

I'd say Truhero is saying, the guy would DO something.

They do things. They don't usually talk over their feelings (even to themselves), they don't mope about while there's still something to be done, they don't agonize much about the proper solution. (Your intellectual might do a bit more of the last.) They're almost never paralyzed with emotion of any kind.

Reflection comes afterward, when the job's done, when there's absolutely nothing left to do. If there are multiple jobs, it can happen between. But while there's something to do, it's mostly bloody-minded determination to finish, fix, and make right.

This all goes for young men in particular.

I think it works in your favor. From a dramatic standpoint, creeping self-doubt and helplessness are much better than a truckload all at once that the hero gets over with a good sob. And as others have said, you can also use your man's natural stoicness to cause the reader to take a lot of it upon himself.

If you want to throw a real curveball, you can make this action-orientedness cause more harm. Tease your hero with the apparently opposite goals of doing right and doing now until he strikes a good balance or realizes that sometimes there isn't one.

That being said, this character wouldn't be sympathetic to me as a reader if he broke down and cried over this. He could be blinking back tears or whatever, but in my mind, it should lead to a resolve to undo the damage he has caused, and give him the fortitude to do so.

My $0.02.

There is also the matter of fear. Fear, particularly shameful fear that is not ameliorated by any memory of heroic action, will give way to hate. Maybe Yoda says this, but it's still true. Christ goes so far as to make fear, rather than hate, the opposite of love. A fearful man is particularly prone to hatreds. Women have some weird mechanism that lets them subsume fear into their sexual impulse under many circumstances, but that's much less plausible for men.

Ultimately, the result depends on why he's a pacifist. If he's a pacifist because he's personally killed/injured too many people to ever willingly fight again, then it is unlikely that he will give in to these feelings of rage. If he honestly believes that the attackers are strongly moral, and thus will understand the injustice of what they have done and repair it, then there is some potential for an intellectual defense of his pacifism. In almost any other case, it would be very unlikely that he would be able to remain pacifistic in outlook.

For myself, pacifism can only be rooted in the belief that violence against a specific individual would be unwarrented and counterproductive. Note that's a strong "and", I'm not a pacifist when violence is only unwarrented or only counterproductive Most humans are not so logical, and your character doesn't have anything in his background that would seem likely to make him fundamentally averse to feelings of rage once they were applied to his personal enemies.

As for whether it makes him want to cry...men do sometimes want to cry and find themselves incapable of this mode of expression. But usually a man wants to cry as an expression of mourning. In other words, if he wants to cry, it's because he is giving up and saying that nothing can be done. The actual impulse to cry can come from any strong emotion, such as relief or laughter. But the desire to shed tears is mostly connected to expressing grief.

Don't do that.

Write a sequel that is interesting. Fascinate us with the MC's reaction. Shock us with a revelation about a minor character or your world or the villain. Make the hero scream or cry or curse the gods.

Or make him ponderous and quiet. Maybe in a Clint Eastwoodesque way. As long as it is interesting your readers will be happy.

That is, until a more mature friend gave me a sound verbal lashing, followed by an almost tender session of both admonishment, advice, and the usual motivational BS that most men spout effortlessly (myself included, nowadays). Needless to say, it worked...because everything my friend said was true and I knew it. Also, because everything he said made sense (and this would be particularly true for a deductive reasoning-model character type), I was able to throw myself into the advised course of action.

I took his advice and turned my anger into some useful motivation. It didn't save me from making the mistake, or really prevent the ramifications of said error, but it did help me understand that as a fallible human I'll always make mistakes, regardless of how experienced I am, and that the best possible thing I can do is "suck it up" and do my best to "not screw the pooch the same way again" (yes, those are direct quotes; no, they didn't sound that silly when he said them). In other words, how you react to a serious mistake is more important than endlessly rehashing how you could have done it differently.

And that's how I reacted. It may not be a perfect example, since everyone's different and you probably don't (for your own safety) want to use me as a template, but it is the truth. When discussing emotions from a purely logical standpoint, honesty is the best policy. In a social setting, lie all you want.

That doesn't mean I don't cry, though. I bawled like a babe after I tanked a math course in my freshman year of college. I hate math...but that's beside the point. My advice would be to utilize one of your other characters (perhaps the warrior, since he sounds like a more experienced, 'worldly' individual from your basic description) to both chastize and bolster your MC. That tends to work with young, arrogant, self-realized intellectuals quite nicely, I assure you.

Hope something from this anti-succinct discourse helps.

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous

Heck, the pants wetting thing...it makes perfect sense. When you're about to engage in fight or flight behavior with your life on the line, you cannot afford the extra energy needed for sphincter control. If you get killed, those muscles will relax anyway. But it's still widely regarded as a terrible failing. It happens, it would be very likely to happen to a young pacifist in his first real battle, but maybe you don't have your guy wetting himself.

Normally being stoic, does the MC then pull himself together and try to resolve the situation, or does the story go on to deal with him being depressed and unable to deal with the situation? Two very different tales. If you're reluctant to make him cry, are you sure he should?

Does he give up? Does he wait for someone else to act? Does he think rationally? Does he lash out at those around him? Does he accept blame, or lay it on someone else? Does he plan, or act on impulse? Does he accept the emotions he's feeling, try to deny them, maybe even act contrary to them?

I've run into the same problem in a few of my stories, and every time I do, it's because I haven't gotten to know the character enough yet, and I'm not sure where the story is going.

quote:

---

A woman would just cry at this point.

---

quote:

---

Elan, my sporty little British friend

---

How intriguing. I'm American, but I'll assume this is a compliment? I'm not sure why...

Am I getting anything out of this discussion? You betcha. When I ask for male opinions, I like to sit back and let the comments roll in without interjecting too much of my own (female) opinion.

I've learned some important things about men by doing this. (Handy for life in general, as well as writing.)

For instance, what I've interpreted from this discussion is that men channel their strong emotions into action. Once they've acted, and the dust settles, THEN they can deal with their emotions.

Women, on the other hand, usually FIRST release their emotions through crying. This, I think, clears them out of our way enough that we can then move into action unimpeded.

Both ways to deal with upsetting events, both effective in their own way.

Understanding how and why a MAN would respond a certain way helps me, not only with my current story scene, but as I write my way deeper into the book. I want to make my male character seem real enough that a man, reading this story, wouldn't be jarred out of the story by thinking, "This is unrealistic; this has to have been written by a woman." I've run into several stories written by men where I think to myself: "A woman would NEVER react or behave in this way."

In my specific scene as mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I needed to figure out where the threshold exists to bring a man to tears. I will make some slight adjustments to my story based on the comments I've received here. I planned to have him blink back tears (while not actually crying), but I'll put stronger emphasis on moving into action as a way for him to cope.

Thanks so much for your input, everyone!!!
*blows a kiss*

In the situation you described emotions are high, testosterone and adrenaline are flowing, and you’ve left your MC only one choice – do or do not, there is no cry.

If the MC chooses to do something, emotions may wash over him as he carries on through unvoiced tears, or he can choose to delay the strong emotions and try to fix the situation. Delay of strong emotions increases the impact exponentially to the amount of time one delays those emotions. Hence, the copious amounts of alcohol consumed while trying not to be introspective when the time inevitably arrives, unless, of course, your introspective pacifist is also a non-drinker.

If the MC chooses not to do anything, your warrior will most certainly act, if he/she is still alive, allowing the MC no opportunity for introspection. Women warriors tend to behave as men and are generally (there’s that word again) far more ruthless than their male counter parts. The action taken by your warrior will depend on the condition of his/her health and personality. The warrior’s action could range from a verbal dressing down to a massive backhand plus a verbal dressing down calculated to inspire the MC into action. Failing that, or if the MC starts crying, the warrior may simply try to kill the boob. By the way, carrying on through unvoiced tears could trigger the warrior to act as well.

Killing the boob is currently called fragging. In war, to stay alive, you eliminate threats to your continued living by removing them permanently. Fragging eliminates weak leaders who fail to act in situations where action is required or eliminates leaders whose judgment endangers their troops. Fragging is an ugly and morally reprehensible practice that haunts all battlefields and is a very real part of armed combat. Your educated nobleman who is not interested in being a leader should know this and probably recognize this threat at the decision cusp. The MC will also know that being noble won’t save him if the warrior decides he is a threat to the warrior’s existence.

eeesh what a sticky, oozing underside there is to all this -- something profoundly darwinian about it all.

.

In other words, it's "do not...while I'm watching".

Usually it's just not worth the trouble of fragging an officer over such a minor inconvenience. Besides, there's also the issue of ROE and training. If the order that you not do something comes from on high, then it doesn't make much sense to frag your officer for reitererating that order. Killing him doesn't change anything. It may still make sense to kill him because he'll be a witness, but that's a different beast entirely from fragging. His position as an officer has nothing to do with why you're killing him.

It also depends on whether your warriors volunteered to serve under the command of the officer, at least in concept. Fragging is largely a relic of the past for our own army because we no longer criminalize refusal to serve in the military. This warrior probably volunteered at the outset to help this noble, even if there was some kind of honor thingy involved. So he might abandong the guy to his own devices, but there isn't any real reason for him to kill the guy. Of course, if there was an honor thingy involved, it might be his duty to the noble's family to ensure that the fellow returns carrying his shield or lying on it. But that also is fundamentally different from fragging, since in this case he would be following the prescribed codes of conduct.

Anyway, it all just goes to show what a fundamentally stupid idea the draft was in the first place. First off, people who wouldn't volunteer for combat anyway make lousy soldiers. They may not share your military's goals, or they may be terrified of danger, or they may not be any good at taking orders. Whatever the reason, they'll just eat up more of your logistical resources without adding anything to your combat power. Secondly, they'll be in constant conflict with the officers you set over them. You'll be fighting them as much as the enemy, and sometimes it does come to "fragging" or field executions. And thirdly, it is extremely demotivating for your real soldiers, the ones that want to fight for your cause, both because they have to put up with the conscripts (which will inevitably form the bulk of your force if you're using the draft in a serious way, usually about 80-90%), and because the officers often will lump them in together.

quote:

---

you’ve left your MC only one choice – do or do not, there is no cry.

---

In my experience men don't cry until there is nothing, and I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing they can do to distract themselves from the need to cry.

One of the best moments I can remember in a story was at the end of 24, season 3. The crisis is over, everything's back to semi-normal, and good 'ol Jack Bauer heads out to his car and has no crisis, no demand for his time, no plan . . . he has nothing to distract him. Just a dead wife, a heroin habit, and nine types of guilty conscience. That absolutely unwavering rock we're used to seeing just bawls his eyes out . . . for about 30 seconds.

And then he gets a call and blinks the rest of the tears back, takes a deep breath, answers it, and drives off.

I've seen the same thing in my own life. About a year ago, I got fired . . . out of the blue. No misconduct, no budgetary constraints, I just didn't go boozing with the right people, and had a life outside of work. Despite the fact that I had made many personal sacrifices for the company, I got tossed out on my ass at about the worst time possible.

My immediate reaction was anger. I packed up, turned in my final timecard, said my goodbyes, behaved like a pro the whole time, and left. I immediately started calling people looking for work, making plans, figuring out the budget for the next month or two. When I got home, I called my relatives and ranted and raved and griped and reveled in their sympathy.

It wasn't until I was in bed that night making plans with my wife that it really hit me how deeply I had been betrayed. And when was no TV, or relatives or recruiters to distract me, that's when *I* lost it.

So . . . here's my thought. Can your hero distract himself? Is this turn of events so devestating there's NO apparent plan of action, there's no happy thought, there's no distraction he can find for himself? Then yes, I could see him inventing a reason to go "explore" the nearby woods and indulge in a blubberfest. But if there's a fresh trail he can follow, or a prisoner to interrogate, he'll distract himself with that first. Even if there's an annoying teammate or acquaintance, he'll lash out at them as a way of 'distracting' himself. Once there's nothing left, though, he'll cry.

The important part is that when it's all over, every man, and I mean EVERY post-adolescent male on the planet (boys don't count) has to do something to distract themselves again. (and a lot of the time, they accomplish a LOT in an effort to feel useful again) And once he's succeeded in distracting himself again, it's done. The same thing will never provoke him to tears again. It may eat at him, and cause him to make unwise decisions, or he'll shrug it off and start acting like an idiot, or he'll remember it and become wiser for it, or whatever you want your character's reaction to be. The one thing that he won't do is cry about the same thing again.

There's my $.02.

-Falken224 (Posing as Corin)

quote:

---

Elan, my sporty little British friend

How intriguing. I'm American, but I'll assume this is a compliment? I'm not sure why...

---

Intriguing and complimentary perhaps, but not terribly mysterious. Every time I see your name I can think of only one thing. Certainly enough to bring this man to tears!

May I now assume this is not what you had in mind when you chose your name? Just goes to show that we men have one track minds.

We now return to your regularly scheduled psychoanalytical gender debate.

I had no idea the name "Elan" was a car. Seriously, the only way I can tell cars apart is color:

Man: "Look at that car!"
Me: "Which one?"
Man: "That awesome... (insert technical lingo here, usually involving the term "HP" and features like "vroomability")"
Me: "That doesn't tell me anything. What COLOR is it?"

No, sadly I expressed a lack of creativity and chose to use the first name of one of my MCs in my novel. A desire to make the rough draft of this novel into a publishable draft was what prompted me to seek out advise on writing, which is how I stumbled into Hatrack. If you MUST know where I originally came up with the name "Elan", it was a variation of a character name I originally heard on Star Trek (the classic version).