‘Mirroring’ things that are not palatable

[Ihe]

I think everyone here knows a person or two with questionable opinions that aren't inherently bad. If the character's views stem naturally from their upbringing and skewed personal experiences, I don't have a problem with it as a reader, as it is a natural consequence. Input=output. But for this to have logical consistency, the writer HAS to justify some problematic views. And I know it seems counter-intuitive, but I feel that to avoid controversy, one must dig deeper and rationalize character's opinions and beliefs, instead of glossing over them in fear. That way, it is a character's opinion, not the writer's. If the imaginary path that led the character there is well-delineated, no rational reader can be offended.

I find that hated characters are usually senseless, while layers dilute both the good with the bad. Why did everyone hate Joffrey in Game of Thrones (the TV series--I didn't read the books)? Because there was no reason for him to be how he was. There was action without ideology behind it, without a logical path that led to his evil. Readers reject the unknown, even in character development. If the series had shown him being educated to be and think a certain way, maybe tormented to twist his thinking in some other way, he would've elicited a bit more sympathy.

Not everyone with a messed-up opinion has to be a villain. People compartmentalize in their daily lives (unless you make that one belief a cornerstone of their very personality, which usually falls under the "one-dimensional" tag). Most have reasons to think how they think. Hardcore racists can love their children, pay their taxes, and display selfless acts of love just like anybody else.

Showing the complexity of being human is within a writer's purview. I wouldn't think in terms of PC for this. At the end, the flawed character can learn the lesson or NOT learn the lesson, and that is a lesson for the reader in itself.

 

[The Big Peat]

I find that hated characters are usually senseless, while layers dilute both the good with the bad. Why did everyone hate Joffrey in Game of Thrones (the TV series--I didn't read the books)? Because there was no reason for him to be how he was. There was action without ideology behind it, without a logical path that led to his evil. Readers reject the unknown, even in character development. If the series had shown him being educated to be and think a certain way, maybe tormented to twist his thinking in some other way, he would've elicited a bit more sympathy.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but I thought it was pretty clear and fairly logical why Joffrey was such a gargantuan waste of skin.

 

[Ihe]

Maybe I'm using the wrong example here then. In the series at least, I didn't see how "Joffrey" was made into what he was. Overprotective mother and sense of entitlement aside, I didn't feel like I knew him, which is a fairly important requisite for the whole empathy thing, IMO. Then again, maybe I didn't read much into his scenes (because I HATED him, of course ).

 

[-K2-]

That was the most socially poignant episode on series television to that date.

To date? Actually (I believe), pressing the point of interracial relationships might have preceded it. Never the less, slapping racial norms was a common theme among many others on Star Trek.

That said, points of injustice can NEVER be pushed enough or taken for granted. As I searched for the images above, I encountered a headline to a blog that read: Star Trek promotes bestiality because Kirk sleeps with alien chicks, religious right says... I didn't waste my time reading it, so, it might have been against that title. Nevertheless, never shy away from confronting wrongs.

K2

 

[The Big Peat]

Maybe I'm using the wrong example here then. In the series at least, I didn't see how "Joffrey" was made into what he was. Overprotective mother and sense of entitlement aside, I didn't feel like I knew him, which is a fairly important requisite for the whole empathy thing, IMO. Then again, maybe I didn't read much into his scenes (because I HATED him, of course ).

Maybe you're not. I had a wee glance online to make sure I wasn't taking my vision of him as more definite than portrayed on TV and maybe I am being more definite. Even in the books its somewhat read between the lines - absentee father, violent role models, nobody telling him no, possible effects of incest* - but in the TV series its even less distinct.

 

[-K2-]

Regarding Joffrey (perhaps his name had him so upset ), I'm sure we have all known someone spoiled, felt entitled, and for all intents and purposes was simply psychologically a bad seed. Personally (and I can only speak regarding the film series), but I didn't need an explanation as to 'how/why' he was who he was. First day to the last he was a monster. Sadly, there are many like him and a backstory doesn't change the result. The lack of, however, states all too clearly his consequence to the big picture. Simply a minimal smudge on the historical record.

K2

 

[Ihe]

I was looking at Joffrey with the thread's subject in mind. He was a monster for sure, but if there'd been some visible, logical development explaining the why and the how, he might've been slightly more relatable. Then again, sometimes people are just psychos for no discernible reason, so it could've just been that, for that particular character--evil for evil's sake. But I wonder if those people truly exist. I want to believe there's always a reason.

 

[Toby Frost]

Just to go off-topic for a moment here. I think there’s an obsession with explaining villainy in novels that isn’t always required (I wonder if the comic-book fixation with origin stories is something to do with this). Sometimes, a story just needs an unredeemed villain whose motives aren’t explained and who isn’t at all sympathetic. As a character puts it in William Gibson’s Count Zero, “Evil exists”, and sometimes that’s all that a novel requires.

 

[-K2-]

Then again, sometimes people are just psychos for no discernible reason, so it could've just been that, for that particular character--evil for evil's sake. But I wonder if those people truly exist. I want to believe there's always a reason.

Be aware, I am not an expert so do not trust my answer... speak with an expert.

The short answer (sorry for the brief derail) is yes. As you can imagine, it is very confusing and difficult for parents, family, and ultimately those they interact with outside of that circle, AND as you might suspect, the person themself. Throughout their life, the person will encounter constant problems often unable to make corrective changes. Everyone likes portraying such people as ultra-intelligent, yet more often the case it leans slightly the opposite way adding to the frustration and often unacceptable methods to cope. That said, using Joffrey as an ex., imagine if those same inappropriate actions are pandered to or even praised reinforcing their choices. Instead of a life of frustration blocked at every turn, the person's incorrect or negative thoughts/actions flourish.

If you go out into the world, be assured you have met people that are very troubled (but over brief encounters, even casual acquaintances/friendships you would be hard pressed to know). But, family and society around them contains that growth or in the worst cases, deals with it in other forms. However, give that personality a chance to grow and evolve unchecked or even supported, and that's what most people imagine the outcome for all afflicted is... Do some research into antisocial personality disorders, specifically investigating the difference between the outdated terms of 'sociopath and psychopath.' Crudely stated, socio=nurture (taught/learned) - psycho=nature (physical/chemical).

K2

 

[Dan Jones]

I've missed this, but in answer to the OP, I think that we ought not to shy away of representing questionable (and downright deplorable) views in fictional characters. The important thing about fiction is that to do it right characters often have to be portrayed as never fully black or fully white (no pun intended in a thread that mentions race and migration); everybody exists in the grey "realm of manners" in between. Yes, occasionally you can have an out-and-out bad guy (I see Joffrey was mentioned before, although even then he was pitiful in his own way, and he was only one of a cast of thousands, so having one out-and-out monster is acceptable, because he's the outlier, not the norm).

A good recent example is Sam Rockwell's character in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Rockwell plays a racist cop whose character nevertheless is subjected to a redemptive arc, and we're invited to feel for him, to sympathise with him. I remember this caused all sorts of uproar at the time because it wasn't the done thing to portray a racist character with that level of humanity. Easier to portray them all as brutish knuckleheads like Kiefer Sutherland's character in Mississippi Burning. And yeah, obviously it's tricky to pull this off, but it's a lot more powerful (and convincing, I suppose) if you create a character who holds reprehensible views but which are - not offset, necessarily, because you can't erase that aspect of their character - but complemented by other aspects of their personality, then we may understand them a little better. To carry on the Game of Thrones theme once more, it's a bit like Cersei being a callous, scheming sadist, but it's offset by the almost visceral love she has for her children - and so there's something very primal there that resonates, even when she's acting like an evil bitch queen! Or Raskolnikov in Crime And Punishement. What he committed was an unspeakable horror, and yet the sympathy we feel for him towards the end is deep and profound, yet tempered by the knowledge of the act. He's complex, and life is complex, and full of contradictions, which is as it should be. There are loads of reprehensible characters throughout fiction, and if you can't acknowledge a reprehensible character in fiction, where can you? So I would say go for it, and be confident.

By the way, in the end Three Billboards... won a clutch of awards and critical praise, and Rockwell won an Oscar to boot. Which isn't glorifying anything, it just indicates that the story in that instance was well told.

 

[Cathbad]

've missed this, but in answer to the OP, I think that we ought not to shy away of representing questionable (and downright deplorable) views in fictional characters. The important thing about fiction is that to do it right characters often have to be portrayed as never fully black or fully white (no pun intended in a thread that mentions race and migration); everybody exists in the grey "realm of manners" in between. Yes, occasionally you can have an out-and-out bad guy (I see Joffrey was mentioned before, although even then he was pitiful in his own way, and he was only one of a cast of thousands, so having one out-and-out monster is acceptable, because he's the outlier, not the norm).

Exactly.

Isn't writing considered the mirror of civilization? Without taking a good look at ourselves, how will we ever be able to change for the better?

If someone finds a character in a novel reprehensible, might he not support such a person in real? Nohing should be taboo to write about in fiction. Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

 

[CTRandall]

I think the starting point here is character. If you write convincing characters full of human emotion, failings and contradictions, you will almost certainly touch on difficult topics. With migration being a central theme in your novel, it is also easy to set up characters who have good reasons for having contrasting views, e.g. protecting scarce resources, defending against potential threats and maintaining systems that have worked reliably for years vs. basic human compassion, gaining new skills and ideas from others and increasing the number of able bodies and hands in the community.

It is easy to paint one side as racist and the other as fantasists detached from every day reality (how many real-world examples can you think of in 10 seconds?). What makes for more interesting characters--and stories--is acknowledging the valid arguments on both sides. It's fine if your story ends up favouring one side over the other but the drama will be much more compelling if we understand why characters on both sides believes they are right. And why each believes the other side's view presents a huge danger to the community as a whole.

Ursula K. Le Guin dealt with controversial issues of gender superbly well in The Left Hand of Darkness--decades before current trends and attitudes made it even remotely marketable. Rather than setting up a good vs. bad set of arguments and characters, she highlighted the issues by building a world in which gender was absent, thus giving readers a different way of looking at the world around them.