Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46701
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46701
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

There is a distinction between what the audience can logically deduce and what the audience is emotionally rooting for. The latter can make them blind to the former.

A recent example is (Game of Thrones, TV final season -- SPOILER!):

> Daenerys Targaryen. She has committed many brutal murders and is becoming more and more unhinged, fixated on the iron throne, and self-important when judging those who stand in her way. If we were to pause and think analytically, we might very well predict the sacking of King's Landing. However, we are _rooting_ for her to be a hero, and when she commits one of the foulest deeds of the story (even by GoT standards), it is a shock. _Surprising yet inevitable._

So, you can start giving weak logical hints that your character is the villain, while you give what appears to be stronger actual evidence that (s)he is a hero. But you are not hiding these two possibilities from your audience, rather, you try to make them _care_. If you are able to develop the character to the point where the audience is emotionally invested and _rooting for_ the character to be a hero, now they will be willing to ignore much stronger evidence to the contrary. (And so, when the reveal comes, it is _surprising yet inevitable._)

Original score: 2