Under what circumstances would terrorism be acceptable for the protagonist?

Your final question: Hell yes they would.

Whether they should is an entirely subjective matter though.

This coming from a girl with a novel series about teenage vigilantes. They fight "for good", but use whatever means necessary, often involving direct violence against political figures, large companies and anyone threatening "the little guy." Yes, there's a certain campy tropiness about it, but it works for the overall arc, which is not just about vigilantism.

Of course, mine are actually adult novels... despite the teen protagonists.

This'll be a fun thread with interesting discussion.

For answer, see "V".

Apparently so.

I think you need to understand what terrorism is - it's not fighting a tyranny with unpreventable innocent victims. It's targeting those innocent victims.

I can't speak for YA specifically, but if your characters are actually terrorists, then I can't see that working. If they are targeting legitimate "bad guys", it has and can.

It would be more then acceptable in the eyes of teens. When I was a teen, I know I would have liked to see some not so peaceful change happen in our society. I'm sure there are plenty of teens who feel the same exact way. Teens are not your issue, though...it's the publishers you should be more concerned about. If your going to use -actual public figures- in your story, you open a MASSIVE can of worms that both could be a benifit and deteriment to you as a writer. By using public figures, you make a bold, controversial statement and will likely get your book thrown on some of those "banned book lists" if the public figure happens to be somebody paticularly well known. Now, for teens, this will be great, as the controversy will likely want to make them read your work even more. However, for publishers, they may be weary of the -attention- such a story would bring their company, and as a result your story may become a near-impossible sell to traditional publishers. If your going to use public figures I highly suggest self-publishing, as using them would make traditional publishing much more difficult.

However...if your NOT using public figures, but instead working with fictional stand-ins/expies for real world 1%ers and politicians, then you can get away with a -lot- more while still getting the same themes across, and going traditional will be less difficult.

Either way, though, I say go for it! I had a similar story idea once, but abandon it because in addition to using public figures it also used a specific conspiracy as a basis and said conspiracy is not very popular/well-liked....so yeah.

what? said:

Is there a YA book with the title "V"? Could you give some more details, so I can find it? I only know the graphic novel, the movie, and the tv series, all of which are not YA.

Click to expand...

You framed the question in relation to movies. "V" appealed to the YA market. If you're going to split hairs, please try to be more selective about the hairs you present.

Shadowwalker's point about understanding what terrorism actually means is a good one. Context is all. By the end, Harry Potter was a terrorist, had the story been told from the Ministry's point of view.

I always see a lot of these threads crop up. The answer is always the same: write YOUR book. Not society's book. Not a publisher's book. Not an agent's book. Not even a teenagers' book. Yours.

There's some truth to the idea that the defining of a given act or set of acts as terrorism can depend on the point of view of the person looking at the act or acts.

Are factory workers innocent victims? What if the factory makes ball bearings almost exclusively used in the building of tanks? Is it an aspirin factory, or a maker of phosgene gas? Is it a day care clinic for the under-advantaged, or an indoctrination center?

It's good to know broad principles so that you can map the story as your work demands. But also understand that POV matters here. A whole heck of a lot.

Absolutely terrorism can be acceptable for a protagonist--that kind of dark psychology makes for intriguing characters. Take Gundam Wing as an example. Every one of the five protagonists is a terrorist. They are sent out on a mission by some weirdo scientists missing various limbs to fight with the most powerful weaponized suits of the day. Their job? To terrorize Earth and the military until they give the space colonies more freedom. They attack populated cities, kill politicians, shoot innocent civilians, and bomb an army barrack full of young, untrained recruits just to distract the base so they can get to the weapons (we get to see a young man who just wanted to learn to fly a mobile suit die in his sergeant's arms). Are the characters ever sorry for this? Nope. Well, except the angsty do-gooder, Quatre, who ALSO happens to be the one who hooks his brain up to an experimental mobile suit and becomes a CRAZY FREAKIN' LUNATIC KILLER because of his "Quatre knows best, so let him do as he pleases" mentality. The main protagonist, Heero, has no problem with murder and is obviously suicidal (he attempts to nobly self destruct so many times it becomes a bad joke). Seriously, he acts like a victim of molestation, and I don't mean that in a rude, glib way: It is obvious the kid has been brainwashed with psycho scientist's propaganda, and that there is something *seriously* wrong with him... His social skills are nonexistent, he will only wear Spandex shorts and a tank top, and every time a girl flirts with him he tries to kill her. (It made for great crack/humor/parody fanfic, though). So yes, I think you can have a terrorist as a protagonist, and I don't even think he has to solve his moral problem for a happy ending.

Even more than adults, teenagers connect with the idea of any means being okay as long as the end is good. Having good *intentions* is what matters to them, not necessarily thinking out the logic and morality of their actions. Dexter may be aimed to adults, but I have found teens are even more drawn to him (I am a teacher).

Now, if the terrorist action was 100% your protagonist's idea, you might have a bigger problem ("Hey, I have an idea--let's kill this politician's wife and kids, so he'll be afraid to pass that bill and we'll be saved!). But as long as he has been throughly brainwashed by propaganda to BELIEVE that this is truly the only way they will meet their noble goal, he will remain likable and relatable. Honestly, I think these type of books and movies are the most realistic. Most people don't become terrorists on their own: Someone else behind the scenes who is NOT willing to risk their lives is usually controlling them.

In the Hunger Games, Katniss is completely controlled by other people, forced to be a figure head, first for the Capital and then for the rebellion. It is beyond her control, even though she is the face. This makes her more relatable and likable, because she is not responsible for the terrible things people do, and in the end we can still care for her, despite how many people have died for her. Note that the book doesn't end so good for Gail. His character becomes a lot less likable--even despicable--at the end because it is his CHOICE to come up with clever ways to kill people.

However, I would NOT say that the world in the Hunger Games would have been better before the rebellion. NO ONE in America has to starve to DEATH. If worst comes to worst, you can eat out of a McDonald's dumpster. It may be disgusting, and you may not WANT to, but I guarantee you that ANY person living in District 12 would have been Dumpster diving in a second. They were literally dying of starvation and, like the French revolution, a rebellion was inevitable for this reason. You can push people pretty far, but when it becomes just as likely that they will die without a rebellion (from their oppressor's neglect) than with a rebellion, then there is no longer any reason not to rebel. But I *also* wouldn't call anything that happened in the Hunger Games "terrorism." The point of terrorism is to strike fear in the hearts of the people, not to actually put a direct attack on the government. I suppose the Hunger Games ITSELF is similar to terrorism, keeping the districts in place through fear, but since it's the government doing it, most people would not call it that.

I think Gundam Wing is a better example (though you could argue Gundam series are not necessarily for teens). But I do believe you can make a likable terrorist... You just have to tread carefully while doing it and make sure that, no matter HOW bad the things they do are, your character's actions can be justified at least a little.

Yeah. Personally, as stated, I'd love to see something like this. Oddly enough, I write from the -opposite- perspective you do in most of my stories. Instead of writing from the terrorist's perspective, I write from the perspective of the 1%ers a lot...or rather the perspective of their heirs, who I usually write as out and out villain protagonists who, while coming from a totally different strata of society and perspective, engage in similarly morally reprehensible actions. So, if you think your protagonists own morally questionable actions make them less then a hero then perhaps use that to your advantage! The protagonist need not be a traditional "hero" anti-heroes and even flat out villain protagonists are a thing, and they are EXTREMELY popular in mediums outside of YA.

As far as villain protagonists are concerned, anime has characters like Light Yagami and Lelouch vi Britannia, both of whom fall right in line with the idea of an extremist terrorist(Lelouch in particular lead an actual rebellion against the corrupt state of Britannia.) and both of whom came from widely popular series. In the TV world you have tons of them. Walter White, Tony Soprano, Frank Underwood; the list goes on and on! Even in the literary world we have a few examples, primarily in horror, mind you, but it has been done. Lolita, Dexter(It was a book, first!), numerous stories by Edgar Allen Poe, and Soon I will be Invincible are a few examples that I can think up off the top of my head, and that's only scratching the surface. I even recall hearing about a fantasy series that followed the dragon(TV tropes term, not a literal dragon) of a evil god on his villainous escapades manipulating events on a fantasy world for his master.

While none of these examples are "YA" in and of themselves, they show that villain protagonists can and have been done in other mediums, and thus if it's been done elsewhere, I see no reason it can't be done in YA! So yeah, I think some morally grey or heck, even outright evil terrorists protagonists would be interesting to see, so long as they where fully fleshed out characters!

EDIT: Ninja'ed by the epic post above me. Listen to that post, it has a lot of good information!

what? said:

I am somewhat offended by answers that imply that I am stupid or uneducated.

Social revolutionary terrorism, such as that by the Brigate Rosse in Italy or the Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany did not target the civil population, but only politicians.

Also, my question clearly limits the targets to political and corporate leaders.

Click to expand...

Your use of the word "terrorism" did not jibe with your descriptions. That's why I wanted to make sure you realized the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a terrorist.

And I don't believe it's a matter of POV either. If one is targeting innocent victims to create fear and force action by a government, one is a terrorist. If one is trying to overthrow the government by force, then, yeah, POV will either make them freedom fighters or traitors.

Agree with LieForALiving - who is making the decisions will influence how the protagonists are viewed. Brainwashed characters who commit terrorist acts are not necessarily going to be seen as terrorists.

what? said:

Would adolescent readers of a YA novel accept a protagonist killing contemporary Western political or corporate leaders and that book having a happy ending?

* * *

Some additions to clarify misunderstandings:

1. genre: Young Adult
2. readers: adolescents
3. social revolutionary terrorism: no civilian victims, targets only political or corporate leaders

Click to expand...

With this addition, the answer is absolutely yes. You're giving teenagers too much credit if you think killing a political or corporate leader would give them any kind of moral pause. Teens think pretty black and white most of the time, and since both politicians and corporate leaders are generally villianized in Western society, I can't imagine this being a problem. Most kids in my classes don't know who Nelson Mandala IS, but they know all about Ponzi schemes and think of politicians as "liars." Unless you make a MAJOR effort to warm your YA readers' hearts toward a certain politician (say, showing him playing with his intellectually disabled son and working in a soup kitchen during his lunch break), they will have no problem with a protagonist offing them. Unfortunately for politicians and CEOs, they are not really viewed in a warm, fuzzy light--even if they are GREAT people..

What?, ignoring all the references to moral imperatives or moral relativism, and the assumptions and generalizations you are making about "teens," you asked:

Would adolescent readers of a YA novel accept a protagonist killing contemporary Western political or corporate leaders and that book having a happy ending?

Click to expand...

The answer to that question is sure, if you write it well, with compelling characters and effective execution.

Forget about what "society" likes/doesn't like. Write a compelling, internally consistent and well supported, story.

~suki

I suspect that the answer to this:

The question is not if the deeds of a terrorist can be justified, but how the readers perceive it.

Click to expand...

lies in here:

Chazemataz said:

I always see a lot of these threads crop up. The answer is always the same: write YOUR book. Yours.

Click to expand...

The only part of how a reader perceives it, that we can control, is the what and how well, we write.

The rest is shaping air. We can shape all the air we want. It won't do anything until we have a plane.


Please, go write it. There are folks here who have already said they want to see it. A writer who has readers asking for their words? Take advantage of it.

what? said:

I am convinced that Middle American drug lords are loving fathers. The problem with (some of) our politicians and (some of) our corporate leaders is not that they are not "great people" privately, but that they use a faulty system to their and their families' advantage and to the disadvantage of the majority instead of rectifying the faults or at least abstaining from abusing them.

But we are getting off topic here. The question is not if the deeds of a terrorist can be justified, but how the readers perceive it.

It seems to me that some of the appeal of characters like Katniss is not that they are doing the right thing, and that it does not even matter if what they do is the (morally) right thing, but that they get up and fight for what they want in life.

Teenagers want so much from life: a boy friend; acceptance of their peers; that their parents support them even though they want to do things their parents don't agree with; writing that novel ;-) All of these things require that you overcome your fear of failing, your fear of how others will judge you, your fear of disappointing those who "love" you, your fear of change -- and act.

Most teenagers are mortally afraid of taking that step and would rather cower in their cozy "dystopia" instead of overthrowing the tyrannical rule of their fears and living their lives as the person that they are meant to be. It seems to me that the stories of characters like Katniss symbolize this struggle to realize yourself, and that their appeal lies in the fact that Katniss has no fear of failure, or rather that being who she is is more important to her than the danger of failure.

She'd rather die as herself, than live as who Snow wants her to be.

Click to expand...

So much awesome in this post. I thank you for posting it. You have just given me some very good ideas on how to make some of my own protagonists more sympathetic, so I thank you for that...you have also assured me that the complex parent-child relationships I have going on in some of stories actually have a place in YA world of absent parents, so I thank you for that too!

But back on topic. Yeah, a story like this should be fine and I say go ahead and write it. The only thing I'd be worried about is that it may be -too- typical! With all the dystopia stories out there, the tale of the teenage rebel defying the corrupt government and sparking rebellion tends to be quite -common- now a days. That's not to say it can't work, it certainly -still can- and the popularity of the dystopian genra despite the fact people thought it would "die down" is a testament to that. However, due to all the dystopia/rebellion narratives out there, to make one work you'd really have to give it some element that separates it from the rest of them.

I think that your approach is well on it's way to doing that seeing as most of these "teen freedom fighter" stories happen in a sci-fi setting. I mention this because from what I gather you seem to be putting your story present day earth using actual real world CEOs/politicians/public figures as the enemies? If so, that is enough to set your narrative apart from the slew of similar stories out there, at least to me. Heck, even if your using fictional CEOs/politicians the modern-day, non-SF setting is enough to make it fresh and "new" despite the plethora of teen freedom fighter stories out there! So I say keep up the good work! You have a good concept and I'd love to read it someday!

what? said:

It seems to me that some of the appeal of characters like Katniss is not that they are doing the right thing, and that it does not even matter if what they do is the (morally) right thing, but that they get up and fight for what they want in life.
...

It seems to me that the stories of characters like Katniss symbolize this struggle to realize yourself, and that their appeal lies in the fact that Katniss has no fear of failure, or rather that being who she is is more important to her than the danger of failure.

She'd rather die as herself, than live as who Snow wants her to be.

Click to expand...

It's funny, I agree that the appeal of Katniss is that fights for what she wants, but I don't see Katniss as relating to this idea of freedom fighters/terrorists/whatever at all. What I love about Katniss is that it's NOT about some macro view of saving the world, and it's NOT about fighting the evil. For the majority of the series, she couldn't care less about saving society; she is simply trying to save the people she loves. She will gladly sacrifice herself for the people she loves, or even for sad, dying people she can see face to face, but she will not sacrifice herself simply for an ideal if it means putting the people she truly cares about at risk. She would rather say 'screw it' and give into the evil force, because she cares more about the people she loves than humankind in general. Her self-sacrifice almost has a selfish tinge to it at times: She would rather die than live without the people she loves. I don't think she CARES what Snow wants her to be: That's why she agreed to try and "trick" the rebelling districts into believing she was no rebel and just loved Peeta a lot. I just think she would do next to anything to save the people she loves.

This is what makes her such a bad actress. When she tries to make a propo giving her support to the rebels, she can't pull it off, because it's not the general cause she's incensed about: It's the people she cares about. It's the micro of it all. She cares about the PEOPLE, and there are many times in the books when she buckles under the Capitol to help the people she loves, or encourages others to buckle so they won't get themselves or people they love hurt. I think Gale is more like the grand freedom fighter figure you are talking about than Katniss.... I DON'T think Katniss would go in and strategically kill politicians if someone she loved were under any direct threat. She only started this when she was sure her family was safe. She would not risk losing them, otherwise, which is not all that freedom fighterish. But I think Katniss is one of the most realistic characters in modern YA fiction. Katniss responds to things like a real girl, not some great hero. She's out to help the ones she loves, not some vast general idea of society, and that's very REAL, especially for a survivor. It is EASIER to sacrifice oneself than to sacrifice loved ones.

Honestly, I liked Snow. Unlike almost every other character, Snow was always honest with Katniss--and she knew that in the end. Nearly everyone else manipulated her in some way to get what they wanted: Using her face, tricking her, promising one thing and delivering another... But Snow never lied. And that is why, in the end, Katniss realized the truth. Because the one and only person she could fully trust was the evil b****** who had never lied to her. I think Katniss was an awesome heroine, but she was a reluctant freedom fighter at best. She didn't even want to be involved in the rebellion until half way through the last book.

But now we are really off the point, and I've already given my opinion on the main point: Yeah, there's no moral dilemma to killing a politician in a YA novel.

what? said:

Okay, here's a bone:

I'm wondering now, if I should

1. leave the question unanswered, which will make for an intriguing but unsatisfying end
2. have them kill the persons, which will make for a satisfying but morally debateable end
3. have them decide to not kill them, which will make for a morally superior but probably unsatisfying end

Click to expand...

Copied this from the other thread that doesn't mention the dystopia stuff:

Well, I know that I would SCREAM and pull all my hair out if you left it without ANY decision being made. (I hate books that leave me totally hanging, without at least a hint of what decision will be made). As for the other two endings, I usually prefer whichever is more gritty and realistic. It doesn't have to be nice, but it has to be real. But then I am a realism fanatic: There is nothing I hate more than a dark story that, in the end, everyone comes out happy and totally unscarred. But it shouldn't feel like a forced BAD, either. I dunno if you've read Divergent, so I won't spoil it much, but the sad ending felt forced to me, like the author decided at the last moment: Hey, I'm gonna make this end sad! Harry Potter, on the other hand, felt like it was forced happy. "I'm gonna make everyone nice and happy and totally awesome, no matter how much it hurts!" I felt like Hunger Games had a nice balance: Katniss was permanently scarred, but she was able to move on and have a life.

what? said:

How will they decide?

I'm wondering now, if I should

1. leave the question unanswered, which will make for an intriguing but unsatisfying end
2. have them kill the persons, which will make for a satisfying but morally debateable end
3. have them decide to not kill them, which will make for a morally superior but probably unsatisfying end

Click to expand...

What does the story demand? I mean, you know these characters better than we do. You know, I think, what the characters would say and do.

IMO, stop thinking of this as a way to mold the story. Don't tell the characters what to do. Let them tell you. Be true to them. Be their voice. If you try to stick a round plot peg into a square hole in your work, it's going to show up as a hot mess.

So my response is: What are your characters telling you?