Maintaining sympathy in the face of brutality?

I guess it was inevitable this issue would rear its head at some point. I mean, I am planning a story around a protagonist whose exploits culminate with the sack of Rome...

Actually, I'm not all that worried about the sack of Rome itself. By that point in the story, Alaric's motives should be clear, albeit heartbreaking. My concern comes earlier, during the multiple times the Goths ravage parts of the Roman Empire. Nevermind that they do it in large part out of necessity (food shortages were a persistent problem), we're still talking about pillaging, rape, murder, and selling innocent people into slavery. And Alaric undoubtedly took part in most aspects...though by the time he rises to the kingship it's likely more of a supervisory position.

My issue, then, is how to portray Alaric taking part in such brutality without losing the reader's sympathy and connection to him as a character? Pillaging out of necessity is one thing...hell...I can even get my head around his use of pillaging as a political tool...but taking part in rape and murder? I hesitate to make him disgusted by it - that smacks of modern sensibilities - and in all honesty this sort of stuff has happened in our recent past, too, and among disciplined armies, at that.

I'm still very early in the story treatment process, so I can't throw out any concrete examples, but any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Wow! There are some truly wonderful thoughts here! My thanks and gratitude to you all!

I very much like the idea of showing the cruelty and deprivation the Goths suffered at the hands of the Romans. In fact, that is sort of the overarching theme of the first chapter. Those who read my reversal challenge about "the Gate" from awhile back should have some idea what's in store. In many cases throughout the story, the instances of pillaging are the result of pent-up frustration boiling over.

The more I ponder this issue, though, the more facets seem to emerge. First there's the fact that the entire Gothic people were on the move, not just the warriors. I imagine the presence of wives and children would have restrained some of the worst excesses. Then there's the accounts of citizens of the lower class joining up with Alaric's people, which makes me think the terrorizing may have been (or at least grown) more pinpointed than first assumed.

On a macro story level, one of the things I want to get across is Alaric's grasp of both the usefulness and uselessness of pillaging, as over time he definitely comes to wield it as a weapon in the incessant political intrigues of the period. But the tricky part is going to be his first time participating in such pillaging. As a lot of you have said, it's going to take some serious work setting up the motivations and mindset.

Alaric's character is going to complicate things, too. I'm still working out some of the finer points, but I already know that he has a very complicated relationship with the Empire. He doesn't hate Rome the way some of the Visigoths do. Rather, he wants to integrate himself without necessarily becoming assimilated. Ultimately, he sees the Empire as useful to his purposes, so it's to his interest to keep it intact. Unfortunately, he also has a hell of a temper that can lead him to make rash decisions.

GirlWithPoisonPen said:

What is the attitude of the Goths towards Goths who aren't pure blood, e.g. babies conceived during periods of plunder? Do they look down on people born of such unions? Do they believe in spreading their "seed"?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's difficult to get a sense of this with the extant accounts. It's difficult to get a sense of a lot of things, actually, but there's some very good analysis out there on the Goths nonetheless.

While there's no definitive answer to your question, it's fairly established that Alaric's Visigoths were sort of a mongrel collection, with Greuthungi, Alans, Huns, and doubtless some Romans from the frontier provinces situated around a Tervingian core. So, at least during Alaric's kingship, I don't think the Goths were too preoccupied with pure blood, save at the aristocratic levels.

Actually, the Romans were much more concerned about intermingling, and one of the stipulations of one of the earlier peace treaties was that the Goths were not permitted to take Roman women as wives.

PastMidnight said:

If you want your audience to stay with Alaric and his men, don't let them hear the screams and see the tears from the women on the other side.

Ugh, and that sounds just terrible to write that. But with what you're trying to do here.

Click to expand...

I agree. It does sound terrible. But I'm trying to avoid the black and white treatment this period often receives, where the Goths are either a terrible barbarian scourge or a gentle pastoral people pushed too far (seriously, watch the History Channel documentary...). I think it's important to show that both sides did good, and terrible, things, and that who is "right" depends in large part on one's perspective.

I think you need to be careful to make your protagonist over-sensitive to horrible events, or it becomes oddly anachronistic. You are depicting violent times, and an era where there was an almost casual indifference to human suffering. It's only comparatively recent, in historical terms, for there to be a consent that doing X, Y or Z atrocity is not acceptable.

Click to expand...

Yes...and considering he's the one who orders the sack of Rome...I can't see him as the sensitive sort. I think any ultimate aversion to wanton slaughter, rape, etc would be more from the perspective that it's "bad for business", but that would once Alaric learns to wield pillaging as a weapon.

Finally, the rape thing? From a female point of view, I can never warm to a character who commits and relishes rape perhaps because I see it as an abuse of power. However, not every man in an invading army does that (and I'd be astonished if anyone in the upper echelons of command did - having more important things to do!). The more common thing would be to take female captives as slaves - which was a standard way a soldier of earlier ages made his fortune, and supplemented his pay.

Click to expand...

Agreed with this 100%. And I think once Alaric moves up the ranks he won't be dealing with this firsthand so much. It's more his first experiences...

Doogs, the treaty is really fascinating, because it speaks volumes about the Roman attitudes toward the Goths. Interesting there's no prohibition the other way. (My plotting brain is imagining a Goth taking a Roman wife to defy the treaty.)

Click to expand...

It won't be part of this novel, but Alaric's brother-in-law and successor ultimately marries the emperor's sister, who they captured in the sack of Rome in 410.