How can I have my characters do bad things, without sending the wrong message?
I am writing a novel in which characters do bad things to one another. For example, I have recently been struggling over a scene of domestic violence.
Essentially, a husband hits his wife, after the wife had provoked him, and intentionally tried to make him angry. I feel very strongly that verbal provocation NEVER justifies domestic violence (or any sort of violence, for that matter), and I have been worried that this scene could appear to either make an argument to justify abuse or that I believe that provocation justifies abuse.
I tried to resolve the potentially poor messaging by having a character act as an Author Avatar, and give a long speech about misconceptions about abuse, and strong moral guidance, but this didn't really seem to fit.
I write a lot of characters who do a lot of bad things, in a narrative that can seem morally ambiguous. How can writers ensure that their characters' bad actions, or their structuring of events that lead to bad actions, do not read as endorsements or arguments for bad behavior?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/16231. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
I've had quarrels with some of my friends where they say that some book or movie is bad because it depicts people doing evil things. And I say, But look HOW it depicts them! It clearly depicts them as evil and destructive! There is a huge difference between a story in which a character does evil and it is portrayed as perfectly all right and having no harmful consequences for himself or others, and a story in which a character does evil and we see the awful consequences.
Those consequences certainly don't have to come immediately. A story in which every evil dead is instantly punished would probably be boring as there would be no suspense.
I'd be very careful about having someone give a speech about how evil it is. That could be good if done well, but I think it would be very tricky. It would more likely sound trite and moralistic. A good one-liner might work well, though. Like, I recall reading once -- and sorry, I remember nothing else about the story, just this one exchange -- a character is pondering whether he will do some bad action, and he says, "Decision making can be very complicated." And then another character replies "Yes. Especially when you have no morals."
You could also have the evil character give a speech justifying his actions that is obviously strained.
This reminds me of an article I once read about Milton's Paradise Lost, where the commentator said that Milton's Satan is interesting because he has both good and bad qualities, while Milton's God is boring because he is pure good. I recall at the time thinking that I disagreed. Milton's God is boring because he is continually justifying himself. Everything he does, he gives a speech about why this is a good and right thing to do. When I do something good, I rarely find it necessary to explain why it was good. Good people around me know it was good and evil people don't care. It's when I do something wrong that I need to justify myself.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/16243. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Reality is complicated. Usually, in the case of domestic violence, many factors lead to it. For example, both partners have specific fears, both show certain behavior, and all this slowly builds up to the moment when one partner hits the other.
Literature is not law. In law, one party needs to be found guilty. In literature, you can show the complexity of reality, and that there is not clear distinction between good and evil.
You could show, in your writing, how the culture, personality, and the history of the relationship of the couple in question lead to the "bad thing". You could show, how the perpetrator feels before, while and after he does it. You could show how the victim feels prior to, during and after the event.
In reality, no two of these events will be the same. In some cases, the woman will have provoked the man to the point where he lost control. In other cases, the man will have had no reason for violence other than his own wish to dominate the woman or his fear of her independence. And there are many other cases (images of masculinity, childhood abuse of the perpetrator or victim, sadistic impulses, etc.).
I don't know your characters and what kind of story you want to tell, but there really is no need that you interpret your story for your readers. If you are not writing a propaganda piece for feminism or antifeminism, you can simply show things as they are (or would be, if they were real). Literature, if it is good, should lead people to question their prejudices, and both the belief that men must be able to control their aggression no matter what a woman throws at them as well as the belief that women "ask for it" are both stereotypes that your story could expose as simplistic.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/16233. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Consequences.
A strikes B. Even if B provoked A, A still gets arrested, processed, tried, convicted, and serves time. A gets grief from family and friends. A feels mixed anger, resentment, and guilt. Et cetera.
The way the reader knows the author approves is if nothing bad happens to the person who does the bad thing, and/or if the bad actor is rewarded.
Allow consequences to unfold, and you'll make it pretty clear what you as the author consider "good things" and "bad things" to be.
If this seems too easy, read a book by someone you don't agree with, and see how that author punishes characters who commit actions which the author doesn't agree with but you think are okay.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads