Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/36404
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/36404
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Evil-happenings-in-childhood and similar "extenuating circumstances" are a trope referred to as a [Freudian Excuse](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreudianExcuse) (TV Tropes link). The main problem with this trope is what it implies: because character suffered _whatever_. it is now OK for them to do Bad Thing. Ergo, it is OK for _anyone_ who suffered _whatever_ to do Bad Thing. Ergo, anyone who suffered _whatever_ can be _expected_ to do Bad Thing, and cannot be blamed for it. Accepting the validity of the Freudian Excuse deprives the person who suffered _whatever_ of free will, de-facto dehumanising them, making them "heroes" just for not doing Bad Thing and acting like normal people instead. It also lowers the morality bar, making Bad Thing acceptable if one can offer a Freudian Excuse for it.  
This is extremely offensive to those who have suffered either _whatever_ or Bad Thing in real life. Also, it is a fallacy: everyone has had some sort of negative experience. Anything can be used as a Freudian Excuse. Which would make the acceptability of any crime a matter of rhetoric - can the criminal (or someone on his behalf) tell a sob story to offer a Freudian Excuse? THIS IS BAD.

Despicable people exist. There is nothing redeemable about a serial rapist, a mass murderer, a child molester, a terrorist. They might love their mothers, or their little daughters, or they might save a drowning puppy - those are [Pet the Dog](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PetTheDog) (TV Tropes link) moments. They do not redeem a character. If played right, they make a character more monstrous. Compare minion-killing, randomly-sadistic, manic-laughter bad-movie Dark Lord to real-life Doctor Mengele:

> He was capable of being so kind to the children, to have them become fond of him, to bring them sugar, to think of small details in their daily lives, and to do things we would genuinely admire ... And then, next to that, ... the crematoria smoke, and these children, tomorrow or in a half-hour, he is going to send them there. ([Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele#Human_experimentation))

Which one of them gives you the chills? And which one is a caricature?

The thing is, real-life monsters don't spend 24/7 being randomly Evil. If they were, it would have been easy. But instead, they still love their mothers, they still look and act like humans most of the time, so you look and wonder how this charming kind doctor could be doing these things. It's almost incomprehensible. And yet, there it is.

So when is it OK to write someone who is completely irredeemable? When the crime is irredeemable, when you know it to be the act of a monster, you face it with honesty and integrity as a writer: you do not shy away from passing judgement. You do not pretend there are excuses and extenuating circumstances. You make any "Pet the Dog" moments, any "positive" traits, your tools in revealing the face of a monster rather than means to make the monster appear human. Anything less, and you belittle the monstrosity of the act, you hide away from what you have written and cheapen it.

**tl;dr** : When you write a monstrous act (such as mass murder, serial rape and worse), do it the decency of looking at the monster and calling him a monster.

Original score: 33