posted
I'm not actually sure that my hero counts as a tragic hero, technically. But I'm at a loss for what to call him.
Here's my question.
Is it possible for you (as a reader)to sympathize and genuinely enjoy being in the POV of a character who did really bad things but is trying to undo as much of it as he can. Say as the story begins it is after the fact, so now he's this branded villain--so to speak--and the actual story is about his struggle with guilt and coming to terms with why he did what he did, and trying to fix it.
So far so good, hopefully.
But now imagine the things he did were really, really, really bad. Like leading a coup that destroyed an entire city. Effectively killing a million innocent people.
Would you put down the book the minute you figured out our character's crime, or would you be interested in his desperate efforts to redeem himself as much as he can?
posted
Well, I don't know. I think sympathizing with one that bad might be hard. I know that I couldn't read Thomas Covenant because he was a rapist. Of course, that might be different since the rape took place in the course of the book (and was of a young girl).
I have no problem with the Main Character (a term I prefer to hero) having serious problems and even done--or doing-- bad things. But there is some line that I draw. I suspect the line differs for various people.
I suppose part of my reaction might be why he had done these things in the past. And I might need to get to know the character first. If you dump on me on the first page that he is in effect a mass murderer, I might put the book down. If I get to know him and know his motivations first, I might react differently.
It's a tough question. I'm not sure anyone can give you a clear cut answer without having read some of it.
posted
There are many redemption stories. I think as long as the remorse is clear and convincing up front, readers will hang with you.
There are limits. A repentant Pol Pot or Hitler in an alternate history would not be accepted. Readers have no vested hatred while reading the first page about a fictional character; not so with historical monsters.
I don't think Ender quite fits. He was the hero and later the Xenocide, but he was duped as a child. The reader understood this.
I don't think "coup" is the right word, if it is used in the story. Coups are "artfully" done, the less blood the better. A bloodless coup is best. The object of a coup is simply to seize power. You want control of the enemy armed forces and the people. So, you just disappear the top brass, plant some canons on town square, take control of the TV/radio towers, and declare victory, loudly.
[This message has been edited by WouldBe (edited September 08, 2007).]
posted
Yeah, I could buy that. Like My Name is Earl (though I can't watch that show, the constant redneck narrative annoys me), just worse. It really depends on how bad he was. Did he truly believe he was doing the right thing, but the results were bad? Or was he like Hitler, in that he tortured and murdered people merely because they were different or to perform medical experiments?
Posts: 657 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This type of story could be beautifully done and has been done. Many stories place an anti-hero type character in the front, or at least in a subplot. Even a mass murderer could have been blinded by is pride or his own flawed sense of justice.
I think if a reader can handle having a Hannibal Lector as a main character, then it wouldn't be too difficult for them to swallow a reformed villain, if the transition is played believably.
posted
George Lucas intended Darth Vader to be just that kind of character, and one of his justifications for the prequels was to make the tragedy of Vader more clear - although whether or not Lucas actually accomplished what he wanted to is up for debate. And WouldBe already brought up Ender.
I'm not so sure that a "Darth Vader"-type character can successfully achieve pathos with the audience, since that type of character is simply just so evil, which is why I doubt Lucas' success. I know that I don't have a lot of sympathy for Vader in the end.
I'm kind of in the same boat, even if to a lesser degree - my character does a lot of things that could be considered questionable. This is the way I'm handling it: my character was brought up in an environment where she didn't have a lot of exposure to ethical or moral guidelines, so she ends up doing a lot of things without thinking through the consequences. A lot of the story ends up being about her growing a conscious and realizing what's wrong in the galaxy and what she's done to make it that way, and what she does to help fix things.
General consensus was that some prior bad acts were "unforgivable." Rape was one that was mentioned often. Another concensus was that the payment had to be greater depending on the crime i.e. some could only be redeemed by death. I'll pull the link up in a bit.
quote:I think if a reader can handle having a Hannibal Lector as a main character, then it wouldn't be too difficult for them to swallow a reformed villain, if the transition is played believably.
My memory is that, at least in the first book (and I didn't read the others), Lector was not the PoV character. Admittedly that was a while ago, so my memory could be wrong, but I thought she was the PoV character.
quote: But now imagine the things he did were really, really, really bad. Like leading a coup that destroyed an entire city. Effectively killing a million innocent people.
Personally, I'd find this intriguing. But a lot depends on the situation. Was it a failed coup, hence the blood-shed? What were his reasons for the coup, i.e., does he have a great deal of conviction that he's saving the city from another ruthless leader, etc.? That sort of thing.
And much of whether I'd read on have to do with his attitude. Maybe I'm more forgiving than other readers, but I like reading about different perspectives, whether the character was likable or not. And I have a pretty broad definition for what's likable. I.e. Hannibal Lector might be a cannibal/ psycho, but he's also cultured and sophisticated, and that makes him interesting. I'm intrigued by people who are drawn to beauty or to certain ideals.
quote: Suppose our character was proven to be "not in his right state" for example insane, but that isn't revealed until later.
Or suppose he doesn't remember he was a criminal until half-way into the book, and that's when the pang of guilt hits him.
Of course much would depend on how it was done, but my first instinct is to think both of these feel a little gimmicky. Oh, wait, he's not really evil, he's just mislead. Or oh wait, he's sort of an amnesiac-- a little too convenient.
I'd rather know he wasn't functioning with all cylinders before the start of the story, and have him deal with that as he becomes more sane--then there's the psychological twistedness of his wanting to become sane but being forced to come to terms with what he's done--what tension and drama lies there!
The long answer...it's always easier to sympathize with a basically good person or even someone who has been the victim and is now taking charge. However; people (and characters) are complex and depth is important, too.
posted
I'm going to try it. I think it will be one of those books that really-truly forces you to think deeply. Many people don't like that, possibly most, but I think a handful of us gobble it up, and our tastes are vastly underrepresented.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited September 10, 2007).]
Paul Atreides is a very sympathetic character that you root for in the first book. In Messiah he leads a jihad that kills billions. In Children he is a recluse trying to stop what he started. God Emperor follows his son, who goes from a sympathetic child to a tyrant that leads humanity down 2000 years of brutal dictatorship.
On a more individual basis, Jaime Lannister in the George RR Martin books is a good example. In the first novel he is despicable and you revile him. In the second you see the reasoning behind alot of the things he does and actually begin to root for him as you see the tragedy of the position he is in.
quote: Of course much would depend on how it was done, but my first instinct is to think both of these feel a little gimmicky. Oh, wait, he's not really evil, he's just mislead. Or oh wait, he's sort of an amnesiac-- a little too convenient.
I'd rather know he wasn't functioning with all cylinders before the start of the story, and have him deal with that as he becomes more sane--then there's the psychological twistedness of his wanting to become sane but being forced to come to terms with what he's done--what tension and drama lies there!
I agree, it's better to present stuff upfront. This is what I do, and I use it to build up the character, even.
posted
True this might be gimmicky, what I'm working on, however, I can think of no better way to tell the story.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, again, I think it depends on how its told. But if it fits the story, I say yeah, go for it. You can always change it later if it does, in fact, feel gimmicky.
Posts: 2185 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some markets, notably Baen's Universe, require a happy ending on every story. They rejected a story of mine that they actually liked because the ending was bittersweet.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's too bad, I find bittersweet endings to be the best of all. Because life is bittersweet.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In David Gemmell's White Wolf and The Swords of Night and Day the main character Skilgannon was a general who led an attack on a town where millions of women and children were slughtered. The books begin after all this and deal with how he carries on with his life. I found him to be a likeable character despite what he did.
If you're looking for research material a lot of Gemmell's books have character's who have done bad things in the past and sometimes in the course of the stories, Look at the Waylander series, The Sword in the Storm and the Damned books.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
