On Writing Horrible Human Beings
Feb. 19th, 2010 01:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arachnekallistiA question I've been considering for some time: how do you write flawed heroes, anti-heroes and villain protagonists without sounding as if you endorse them? In particular, how do you write characters who hold opinions and values that are utterly appalling by contemporary standards?*
It's fine line. You don't want to present their opinions too uncritically, and you don't want to make excuses for them, but at the same time you don't want to patronise your audience by making all the characters you don't agree with into puppy-kicking caricatures.
I guess part of the question I'm asking here would be: is there anything you can do to prevent/minimise the Misaimed Fandom problem?
Consider Rorschach. Alan Moore clearly meant him to be a deconstruction of a certain kind of quasi-objectivist superhero; he's highly principled, but quite willing to follow those principles off a cliff. He's intelligent and perceptive, but also a paranoid conspiracy theorist who's wrong as often as he's right. He's unfettered by society's restrictions, but to the point of being a horrible twitchy bigot who alienates everyone who tries to help him. He's what Bruce Wayne would be like without his money and his narrative protection. The point is clearly meant to be that there's a certain kind of superhero who you wouldn't actually want to know, but there's a disturbing number of people who think he's dead cool.
The movie version of Watchmen toned Rorschach's homophobia and misogyny down a bit, and I'm not sure if that made the Misaimed Fandom problem better or worse. On the one hand, letting Rorschach be even more of a horrible bigoted person might have made it abundantly clear that he was not meant to be a role model. On the other hand, you might have ended up with the fandom cheering on/making excuses for homophobia and misogyny as well.
Also, consider Gene Hunt. Now here, I think Life on Mars did end up playing into the Misaimed Fandom. In Series 1, Gene was quite clearly there as Mr Let's Not Sanitise The 70s - he's a bigoted thug who'll take backhanders and rough up prisoners. Now, he's a complex enough character that this isn't all there is to him, and there's also quite a lot of loyalty to his team and genuine desire for justice in him. There's also the fact that Philip Glenister was playing him with quite considerable charisma. This all ended up with a slide into minimising Gene Hunt's actual flaws, and kind of suggesting that his bigotry was on a par with the smoking, the drinking and the regrettable sideboards. Gene gets to be right a lot more in Series 2, and Sam calls him out a lot less often. That's part of the danger of trying to write flawed-but-sympathetic characters, that risk of ending up seeing them through their own eyes. They do not need the author on board with them.
Finally, consider the Dollhouse. All its employees are going through remarkable ethical contortions in order to sleep at night after working in a business that when you get right down to it, deals in slaves. They've all got their justifications, and they're all trying to pretty up the essentially horrible line of work they're in. The decor of the place says it all - it's done up like a rather nice spa, except there are no windows. I'm getting the distinct vibe that part of the idea of Dollhouse is to seduce you into almost-sympathising with various members of the Dollhouse staff, and then remind you just how horrible what they're doing really is. And that means, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
prochytes put it, that some Dollhouse episodes make you feel a bit dirty, and others make you feel like you'll never be clean again.
I don't think I have an answer here. There's an awful lot of tightropes to walk here, and an awful lot of ways of screwing this up. Rorschach acquired a Misaimed Fandom despite Alan Moore's best efforts, although Gene Hunt might not have kept his if the writers hadn't started playing up to it. In Dollhouse, Misaimed Fandom is being used as a deliberate narrative bait and switch, and I'm not sure I like it. It feels kind of exploitative. Actually, I'm absolutely sure I don't like it, and I think that's the point.
*sparked off partially by wanting to write WH40K fic, and partly by this discussion here on "ironic" racism - I didn't want to hijack that discussion, so I've taken these issues over here.
It's fine line. You don't want to present their opinions too uncritically, and you don't want to make excuses for them, but at the same time you don't want to patronise your audience by making all the characters you don't agree with into puppy-kicking caricatures.
I guess part of the question I'm asking here would be: is there anything you can do to prevent/minimise the Misaimed Fandom problem?
Consider Rorschach. Alan Moore clearly meant him to be a deconstruction of a certain kind of quasi-objectivist superhero; he's highly principled, but quite willing to follow those principles off a cliff. He's intelligent and perceptive, but also a paranoid conspiracy theorist who's wrong as often as he's right. He's unfettered by society's restrictions, but to the point of being a horrible twitchy bigot who alienates everyone who tries to help him. He's what Bruce Wayne would be like without his money and his narrative protection. The point is clearly meant to be that there's a certain kind of superhero who you wouldn't actually want to know, but there's a disturbing number of people who think he's dead cool.
The movie version of Watchmen toned Rorschach's homophobia and misogyny down a bit, and I'm not sure if that made the Misaimed Fandom problem better or worse. On the one hand, letting Rorschach be even more of a horrible bigoted person might have made it abundantly clear that he was not meant to be a role model. On the other hand, you might have ended up with the fandom cheering on/making excuses for homophobia and misogyny as well.
Also, consider Gene Hunt. Now here, I think Life on Mars did end up playing into the Misaimed Fandom. In Series 1, Gene was quite clearly there as Mr Let's Not Sanitise The 70s - he's a bigoted thug who'll take backhanders and rough up prisoners. Now, he's a complex enough character that this isn't all there is to him, and there's also quite a lot of loyalty to his team and genuine desire for justice in him. There's also the fact that Philip Glenister was playing him with quite considerable charisma. This all ended up with a slide into minimising Gene Hunt's actual flaws, and kind of suggesting that his bigotry was on a par with the smoking, the drinking and the regrettable sideboards. Gene gets to be right a lot more in Series 2, and Sam calls him out a lot less often. That's part of the danger of trying to write flawed-but-sympathetic characters, that risk of ending up seeing them through their own eyes. They do not need the author on board with them.
Finally, consider the Dollhouse. All its employees are going through remarkable ethical contortions in order to sleep at night after working in a business that when you get right down to it, deals in slaves. They've all got their justifications, and they're all trying to pretty up the essentially horrible line of work they're in. The decor of the place says it all - it's done up like a rather nice spa, except there are no windows. I'm getting the distinct vibe that part of the idea of Dollhouse is to seduce you into almost-sympathising with various members of the Dollhouse staff, and then remind you just how horrible what they're doing really is. And that means, as
prochytes put it, that some Dollhouse episodes make you feel a bit dirty, and others make you feel like you'll never be clean again. I don't think I have an answer here. There's an awful lot of tightropes to walk here, and an awful lot of ways of screwing this up. Rorschach acquired a Misaimed Fandom despite Alan Moore's best efforts, although Gene Hunt might not have kept his if the writers hadn't started playing up to it. In Dollhouse, Misaimed Fandom is being used as a deliberate narrative bait and switch, and I'm not sure I like it. It feels kind of exploitative. Actually, I'm absolutely sure I don't like it, and I think that's the point.
*sparked off partially by wanting to write WH40K fic, and partly by this discussion here on "ironic" racism - I didn't want to hijack that discussion, so I've taken these issues over here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Here via Metafandom
Date: 2010-02-21 04:39 pm (UTC)I think the Snape vs Molly example is an interesting one, because as characters, I agree with you entirely. However, if I met those people in my actual life, I am certain I would feel differently; I know perfectly well that I would loathe Snape intensely. But as a character -- what a character, while Molly is rather dull.
Because I think part of the problem with Misaimed Fandom (assuming a competent author) is that you don't want your villain to be one-note, and as soon as you open up complexities, the character is extremely interesting, and people are going to hook onto things in that character that they wouldn't if s/he were a real human being -- at least partially because with real human beings, you tend not to know the same things you can know about a character. (For example, if you had an awful unfair abusive chemistry teacher at school, you are extremely unlikely to find out that his father was a drunk and he had to wear cast-off women's clothing to school as a wee mite and that he was accidentally responsible for the death of a loved one. You would just think he's a bastard and wish weasels would devour his penis.)
My suggested solution to the Misaimed Fandom problem is 100% not guaranteed to work, but:
1. avoid working with some kind of child abuse/daddy issues explanation of the villainy. If your guy is an OC, or someone without a canon background, don't make his dad spank him/her; don't orphan him/her; etc.
2. if possible, when delving into the character's background, make it ordinary, boring, and pleasant. (as a bonus, this allows you to have them commit some youthful act of horrible villainy against a cheery backdrop).
3. if another character calls them out on their bullcrap, have them resort to ad hominem attacks.
4. Related to #3, supply a woobie for the bad character to attack on a regular basis. Characters where this works pretty well, albeit in a humorous fashion: Dr. Evil (Austin Powers) and Mr. Burns (The Simpsons). (Sometimes, entertainingly, you can make the woobie ANOTHER VILLAIN. See: Smallville.)
If all else fails, you can give character an unattractive wart, or perhaps objectionable BO.
Re: Here via Metafandom
Date: 2010-02-21 05:27 pm (UTC)Re: Here via Metafandom
Date: 2010-02-21 07:31 pm (UTC)I'm not inclined to try blaming all evil on past trauma when writing bad guys, but I am quite intrigued by indoctrinated, ideology-driven and self-justifying villains - the ones that are firmly convinced they have a point, such as Magneto and Light Yagami. I'm trying to work out how to let them defend themselves in the way that it's IC for them to do without it coming over like I, the author, am defending them.