I think everyone has redeeming qualities... don't they?
[camera slowly pans to Henry VIII]
Maybe not everyone.
I think everyone has redeeming qualities... don't they?
[camera slowly pans to Henry VIII]
Maybe not everyone.
Hitler revitalized the German economy... before he went off the rails.
I hate to break the news to you, but Adolf Hitler was long unacquainted with the rails before he ever became Chancellor of Germany. Have you heard of the book Mein Kampf? As for "reviving" the German economy, he did that by, among other things, plundering Jewish businesses and possessions, and ramping up the German war machine. About the only good quality he had was he was that he liked dogs.
caw
I think everyone has redeeming qualities... don't they?
[camera slowly pans to Henry VIII]
Maybe not everyone.
I'm sure there were some people that thought their kind was awesome! From what I understand, in his younger days with his first wife Katherine he was gentle and charming.
Heck, to some Charles Manson is someone to be admired - women write to him all the time (from what I've heard).
No matter how 'evil' a person is, in their mind they are doing the right thing... most of the time. Sometimes people hurt others just because they can, but that doesn't mean that their entire life is evil. Hitler revitalized the German economy... before he went off the rails. We all are a mixture of good and bad.
IMO Good and evil are malleable concepts that are based on perception of an observer.
I hate to break the news to you, but Adolf Hitler was long unacquainted with the rails before he ever became Chancellor of Germany. Have you heard of the book Mein Kampf? As for "reviving" the German economy, he did that by, among other things, plundering Jewish businesses and possessions, and ramping up the German war machine. About the only good quality he had was he was that he liked dogs.
caw
All I'm saying is that we all are a mixture of good and bad. Any character in your writing that is purely one or the other (Dudley Do-right vs Snide Nasty) comes across as a caricature.
This is an interesting conversation - and I really hope everyone is taking this discussion as a simple exchange of ideas, and not an actual argument. The best books provoke thought in my opinion. In other words, I'm hoping the mods won't smack me for arguing that people, that history has labeled as evil, had good qualities - or that there are some who see them as good.
How many evil deeds does an otherwise good person have to do in order to be labeled as evil? Maybe just my opinion, but it's not the number. It's where their heart's at currently.
Genghis Kahn's legacy was the death of millions of people. Suffering on a world scale. I heard that his conquests resulted in the death of about 10% of the world population. Pretty bad dude I think, and yet he is revered in Mongolia still today. Are his followers crazy or evil - I don't know. Misled is the word that comes to mind.
Adolf Hitler (who I hate) actually thought he was doing good. In current times we have ISIS and their ilk, all of whom believe they are liberating the world and serving god. The Roman's called early Christians 'the haters of all life', and look where they are today. Maybe, to be perceived by history as good, you have to win your war? I think there are some who "won" but are perceived as evil and not good, and some who "lost" but still are perceived as good. I don't personally go much by popular opinion as a determining factor.
In my published novel, my MC is an early teen boy. He's the son of drug dealers and when they are caught by the police he is thrown into Juvenile Hall, then into an abusive foster care family. He ends up on the street selling drugs to survive - and at one point he kills someone that murdered one of his friends. Is he evil, or just trapped in circumstance? Just my opinion, of course, but to me your MC is sympathetic. And I think the OP can make a sympathetic MC even out of one that killed his abusive family, as long as he's presented in a way that makes us understand and feel for him.
Maybe just my opinion, but it's not the number. It's where their heart's at currently.
So, can a person actually be evil, or is it only their actions that are perceived so? If I were to throw a stone through the house window of a child abuser, am I evil? Can justified evil be good?
Misled is the word that comes to mind.
Quite possibly true, but aren't we all misled to some extent?
I think there are some who "won" but are perceived as evil and not good, and some who "lost" but still are perceived as good. I don't personally go much by popular opinion as a determining factor.
As the saying goes, the victors write the history books. For example, Winston Churchill is widely considered to have been a good person, but if you talk to the Irish, you'll definitely get a different opinion. Some of his actions were good, but others were very evil. What determines our perception? Perhaps actions can be evil, but people are somewhat neutral? Charlie Manson is often used as an example of an evil man. Considering his childhood though, he was defective; as such should we say he was evil, or just his actions?
Just my opinion, of course, but to me your MC is sympathetic. And I think the OP can make a sympathetic MC even out of one that killed his abusive family, as long as he's presented in a way that makes us understand and feel for him.
In my reading (and hopefully in my writing) I enjoy characters of complexity and depth. It's too easy to fall into the trap of single dimension characters, which for me leads to stale reading.
I'm sure there were some people that thought their kind was awesome! From what I understand, in his younger days with his first wife Katherine he was gentle and charming.
Heck, to some Charles Manson is someone to be admired - women write to him all the time (from what I've heard).
No matter how 'evil' a person is, in their mind they are doing the right thing... most of the time. Sometimes people hurt others just because they can, but that doesn't mean that their entire life is evil. Hitler revitalized the German economy... before he went off the rails. We all are a mixture of good and bad.
IMO Good and evil are malleable concepts that are based on perception of an observer.
Make the character interesting and relatable, even in his assholeness, and hint that he can grow. Readers will follow an interesting MC, even if they're a jerk.
No they won't! This is just bad advice if you come at me with an asshole character I am putting the book down and not only that I will voice my disgust about the character loudly. I have a zero tolerance for douchebaggery in RL and in Fiction.
Please have mature characters who maybe don't have all their shit together but are at least likeable as well as genuinely nice! Also please not that likeable and nice don't mean good, take Royce form Riyria Revelations, not a good boy at all yet, nice and likeable.
But.... genuinely nice characters are BORING! And emotional drama is BORING! Isn't that what you were saying on the other thread?
What I am saying is that people don't write for plot anymore. They write for two things, 1. OTT drama which they think can replace a good plot or storyline and 2. Shock and Awe. Shock and Awe is where you have bad characters doing just horrid things to each other in the name of advancing the "story" but really there isn't a story. There is just gore and langue and bad behaviour that gives the written effect of the shaky cam. You don't actually know what the F**k is going on but you still somehow sit through two hours of blur in the hopes that maybe at some point it might make sense.
And unless you are writing horror you only write like that when you are covering up a bad plot or just don't know how to write one. And yes people are not going to like this but it still is a valid opinion if you really look at many modern books. Plots are playing second fiddle to these other elements and they just aren't enough to replace the plot.
At the end of the day if you have a good plot, if you have a good storyline you don't need to keep a reader interested by using overly dramatic emotional plots filled with soap opera esk behaviour or fill your pages with these large asshole characters that no-one likes in order to make them seem more interesting.
Wow. That's an impressive array of sweeping generalisations based on absolutely nothing.