Post History
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 T...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2020-01-22T08:51:07Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46701 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T12:28:33Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46701 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
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._)
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-07-17T16:48:35Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 2