Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/30395
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Readers enjoy moral dilemmas they can identify with, because it helps them form their own moral intuitions. But a dilemma must seem balanced in order to be compelling. In this case, perhaps you've spent too little time establishing Mike's relationship with his mother, and too much establishing Mike's relationship with his team.

If it was my story, I'd spend some time prior to the inciting incident establishing Mike and his mother's close relationship, and how she would do anything for him. Then, in Mike's escape, highlight his cowardice in abandoning his mother to save himself --crank up the guilt. Next, the entire joining of the mission should be, _from the start and made explicit to the reader_, part of his plan to redeem himself by going back and saving his mother (even if, realistically, we all know she's already dead).

Once (and only once) the reader is emotionally committed to this goal, start building up the other side the dilemma, how his commander stresses the importance of following orders, how Mike, in spite of himself, grows fond of the team members that he's going to betray, how unlikely it is that his mother survived. Once you're in the moment, heighten the stakes on both sides (he glimpses what looks like his mother, he forms a romantic attachment with a teammate, he has a flashback to childhood, _etc_.) That way, whichever decision he makes, the reader will know why, and sympathize (even if he or she does NOT agree). Just remember, whichever way Mike chooses, there must be real --and by that, I mean emotionally real --consequences.

Original score: 7