Dear Jeannie: Complex Antagonists and Writing Yourself into a Corner

Dear Jeannie,
I'm having a hard time getting a handle on my antagonist, Arik. The story's told from my narrator's POV, who doesn't like him and writes him off as selfish, petty, cruel, and generally in hot pursuit of evil. I doubt he was 'born this way', but I can't get a bead on him. Arik grew up in a family that's feuding with my main character's family, and each side has a different take on the events that fueled the conflict (Arik's great-whatever-father tried to kill the narrator's great-whatever-father, but killed his wife, instead. From there, blame was spread and a body-count began.). Arik is first the heir-apparent, and then takes over his clan, and all of his interaction with the narrator involves games of one-upmanship, off-kilter treachery and betrayal, and one murder of a trusted ally. Only my narrator and one other already-biased person were witness to this death. How is Arik going to handle this accusation? Why is he such a...body part? He has a close relationship with one of the good guys, but he never does anything remotely redeemable. Is this too much?
Overloaded in Omaha


Dear Overloaded,

I'm sure you know this, but no one is all bad and no one is all good. Arik wasn't born in hot pursuit of evil, as you wrote. Circumstances shaped him into the person he is. Donald Maass makes a point in Writing the Breakout Novel that characters in fiction need to be as complex and multidimensional as people in real life. So I'd think about have your narrator show Arik saying, doing, or thinking something that the narrator would never assume that he was say, do or think. Have him wrestle with this opposing view of his enemy, and thereby let the reader wrestle with it. Depending on where you want to go with Arik (i.e., will they shake hands at the end, so separate ways, or will there be one man left standing?) you don't have to fully redeem him as some sort of anti-hero if you give him redeeming traits. That's up to you. Hope this helps!


Dear Jeannie,

Niko lives in a futuristic society where contact with the opposite sex is lethal. Scientists and politicians have worked ways around this, automating some things and segregating others. Although Niko is a decent person, he is still a product of his culture. Which would seem to include an adherence to the state (who raised him), an utter lack of concepts like family, and a certain detachment from pesky things like consequences. He's fighting that last one as he meets new people and fights for a cure that won't end in extinction, but the more I work on Niko's story, the less stability I find. What room does he have for faith? Or compassion? As an author, it's fun to consider how to throw people into situations, but it looks like I'm exchanging one unreality for another. I don't really see a way to tell this story without coping with a prevalence of homosexuality, so I almost wonder if I need to head back to the drawing board for this. Could a same-sex society survive more than a generation? If these men grow up from boys raised entirely by 'the state', will relationships (between colleagues, adversaries, mentors, etc.) be vastly different without those young ties to fathers, family, and females?

Twisted in Tulsa 


Dear Twisted,

Wow. What a predicament you've written yourself into. (Isn't that fascinating, how we authors do that? Why do we do this to ourselves? Gluttons for punishment, I guess.) Anyway, you're story world sounds intense. Thinking from this worldview, a society of males wouldn't survive more than a generation unless you have some major fantasy elements that you've not shared (perhaps in the automated parts of society you mentioned?). If young men were raised by the "state" and had no exposure to females, then this would be what they know. Their nurturing needs would be met by males, and not necessarily in a homosexual way (i.e., Yoda or Chef from South Park). I'm just curious about where the females are in your story. Are they sequestered away somewhere, on their own too? You might just need to leave me some comments below and explain this a bit better! Otherwise, feel free to utilize my assessment services if you want more individualized feedback.

Character Archetypes 101: The Hero

This week, we are analyzing The Hero, who had taken some time off from swashbuckling acts of courage and valor to somewhat cautiously perch on the edge of my couch.  The Hero is also known as the warrior, crusader, superhero, soldier, the winner, the rescuer, and the dragon slayer.

The "Good"

The Hero is goal-oriented, focused, and determined. He (or she!) fights to overcome adversities, to rise to the occasion, beat the odds, and take others with them as they do so. They have stamina, confidence, and courage in abundance, and all of this points to their ability to and likelihood of making a difference.

Typically, this archetype is strong, both physically and mentally. They are disciplined, driven, and competitive while at the same time being protective, helpful, and a team-player. They usually excel at sports or being athletic, and have loads of energy, skill and general toughness to achieve greatness in various arenas.

As noted above, a female can be The Hero archetype, because archetypes aren't stereotypes, but frameworks for characters. The female Hero often has the same qualities of the male counterpart, such as being independent, individualistic, assertive, and proactive. They often reject the "suitor" and the status quo in the story, such as in Mulan.

Both male and female Heroes are noble, tenacious, and relentless. They act with honor, stick up for the underdog, and usually view "rules" more like guidelines or suggestions, never something to buckle under.

The "Bad"

Heroes, as the ones creating most of the story or action on the page, might struggle with hubris. They accomplish a great deal under duress, and should be proud of this...but it can easily slip into

arrogance or trying to prove a point to others. 

They might pick battles unwisely or compulsively, even, with an obsessive need to win. The Hero might rush to action with adrenaline, rather than using their brain to think things through. They might even turn to the dark side (humming Darth Vader's theme here) and evil black magic to prove their strength and ability to overcome all obstacles in their way.

The shadow side of the Hero can veer toward manipulation and ruthlessness. Others might become enemies when they aren't. A Hero might also respond to stress by becoming a workaholic, and this unbalanced life wreaks havoc both internally and externally.

Above all, Heroes have mental dragons that need slaying, just as much as the story "dragons" do. They have to overcome their fears, and choosing a story plot that highlights their internal knot (to borrow author/editor Jeff Gerke's phrase) is the best way to showcase this battle.

Likely Goals

To prove worth through courage
To be strong and competent
To achieve mastery in order to improve the world
To succeed despite the odds
To infuse meaning in what they do

Likely Fears

To be weak
To be vulnerable
To be incompetent
To be seen as a "chicken"

Examples in the Media

I want to underscore the idea that Heroes are not necessarily men, so I'll break examples down by gender first, and then somewhat by genre.
 
Males:
Sylvester Stalone as Rocky
Anthony Edwards as Dr. Mark Greene in ER
Despereaux Tilling in The Tale of Despereaux (mouse)
Simba in The Lion King
Keanu Reeves as Neo in The Matrix
James Bond movies
Clint Eastwood/John Wayne movies

Females:
Lucy Lawless as Xena
Mulan
Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz
Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer
Jody Foster as Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs

Archetypes Who've Completed Therapy

The Innocent
The Orphan

Let's Analyze

Traditional names of archetypes carry with them stereotypical connotations, which also include gender. I ran across Ariel's name (from The Little Mermaid) in several research pages...what do you think about her fitting the bill?

On the Couch: Damon Salvatore

If you watch The Vampire Diaries--and even if you don't--you've likely heard about the famous, more-than-a-little-gorgeous Salvatore brothers. Since Damon is my personal favorite, he's up first on the couch (go Team Damon!).

FYI: I'll be utilizing the TV character to analyze, not the book character in the series by L.J. Smith.

Damon is the "bad" brother, for sure. He was born in Mystic Falls in 1840, 7 years before his brother Stephan. We've gotten glimpses of his human life from the show, and it's clear that he was impulsive, disrespectful of authority figures (in particular, his father), rebellious and careless. He craved the thrill of adventure and danger, and was often engaged in high risk-taking behavior like drinking, gambling (at boxing matches, etc), and womanizing.

As a vampire, all of those character traits are magnified. At the beginning of the show, he could only be described as sinister. He was ruthless and unsympathetic, had little regard for human life, and had no guilt or remorse with killing any of them. Very selfish, arrogant, proud, and manipulative. (Not a pretty picture on paper, but still in a pretty package. Am I right, or am I right, ladies? Look at that cutie smile!)

Now, as the show has just finished it's third season, Damon has shown more of a compassionate side and an ability to feel, especially where Elena (the show's heroine) is concerned. He still has a sadistic nature about him, and he's willing to go to any extreme to keep Elena safe. But he feels things for others besides his love interest, like his "friend" Alaric Salztman, whom he wanted to let "die in dignity," but who he had "killed" himself at least three times prior. Or glamoring Elena's brother Jeremy to forget the horrors he's experienced (again, for Elena, but he didn't have to do it). He also took a bite from Tyler instead of allowing Caroline to get bit.

But given the above considerations, Damon does fit the diagnosis for Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). Here's a breakdown (the criteria Damon meets are in red):

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following: 

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest (What's the death toll by Damon's hands up to now?)
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure (Gosh, where to start? The moonstone, the white oak stakes, glamouring his "girlfriends.")
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (I think Damon's quite the planner when he wants to be, as evidenced by all the plots each episode to kill Klaus or any original, etc, but he does act on a gut level, killing Rick Saltzman several times because he got mad is a prime example.)
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults (Fights every episode, I believe, and an unlimited amount of brooding.)
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others (Possibly one of the worse/best examples was how he led his anchor girlfriend to her death at the studio. He often puts himself in impossible situations to survive.)
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations (He clearly did this as a human, carousing instead of being honorable. He doesn't have a job in TVD and he never honors his word unless it's to Elena.)
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another (

B. The individual is at least age 18 years. (Damon is over 400 years old, but he was turned in his early twenties, so he's "frozen" there.)

C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years. (Yep, from his human history, this is likely.)

As you can see, you only need three traits to be considered APD, and Damon rocks out with all 7 criteria. I think it's important to note that Damon does not exhibit these traits all the time, which is why he wouldn't be considered a psychopath. He has taken responsibility for his behavior before, he has experienced remorse about past actions, and he can be very honest and reliable (when it suits him and it's about something or someone he cares a great deal about).

While this diagnosis isn't good news for my favorite character, you Stephan-lovers out there won't be all that thrilled with his diagnosis, either. Stay-tuned for that on Wednesday!

Let's Analyze: To contradict what I've just written, let's come up with some fantastic scenes to prove my point that Damon isn't all that "bad" of a guy. What scenes can you think of where Damon doesn't fit the criteria above?

Character Clinic: Italo Benetura and Anti-Heroism

Joyce's character is on the couch this week. He's a 32-year-old pirate who's got a fairly disturbed 34-year-old brother (Iachimo) who has been cutting himself for 10 years. Their father died in a raid 10 years prior, and his mother died one year later. Italo promised his father that he would take care of Iachimo and make sure his brother didn't successfully kill himself. His brother is also macabre, torturing and executing prisoners and getting perverse pleasure from it. Italo continues to work with him, though, as co-captains of their father's fleet. Italo believes that Iachimo might be anointing himself with his own blood like warrior-monks did during an initiation ceremony for worshipers of the war god Kirro. Why? Because Iachimo's fair blond hair is not red, and Italo thinks it's been dyed with blood.

Joyce wants to know: How realistic is Italo's reaction to Iachimo's clear mental problem? Am I missing something? Are there possibilities for Italo that I haven't explored? I do wish to keep him the "sane" one of the two, whatever that may be. These brothers originally started out as antagonists. Do you have any suggestions on how to keep Italo a "villain" and not have him become a redeemed bad guy by the end?

Family members of people who have a severe mental disorder are often put in this exact same position. Italo isn't doing anything out of the ordinary trying to protect his brother or keep him alive, especially given the request of his father. It's not even unusual that Italo is the younger brother, performing the "duties" of the older brother, such as protection and care taking.

It would be very realistic to have a few scenes with Italo seesawing back and forth about the decision to leave Iachimo and take half the fleet and crew with him when he does. I wouldn't say that Italo is enabling the cutting behavior....that's something that Iachimo is doing all his own. However, he is definitely enabling his brother's torturing and executing. At the very least he's condoning it by lack of action.

Since you're not wanting Italo to be redeemed by the end of the book, I'd at least consider having him work through this issue with Iachimo. Italo standing by and letting his co-captain do these things does reflect badly upon him and Iachimo, perhaps even more so, since Italo doesn't have the mental problems Iachimo does.

To keep him a villain...I've got a great scenario in my head. Let's say his brother's sadistic tendencies get worse, self-destructive to the nth degree. If Italo believed that it would be (or even not be) in Iachimo's best interests to go ahead and give up his life (either because Iachimo is so miserable or he's making Italo's life miserable), then if Italo were to sacrifice Iachimo for the greater good (or Italo's own greater good), this would be a bittersweet, anti-heroic measure.

Wow. That was a convoluted sentence. I just reread it, but it says exactly what was in my mind. I hope it translates!

Hope that this helps out. I welcome any further questions below.

Let's Analyze: What examples from fiction (movies or books) can you think of where a villain turns on someone close to him--maybe even someone he protected--to further his own agenda or to put the other person out of their misery?

Treatment Tuesday: Hero or Anti-Hero?

This week's assessment comes from Juliette, who is writing a fantasy about Adam*, a member of the declining and inbred noble caste called Grobal. Adam faces an age-old question of love or power. He falls in love with Katelyn,* who is from a servant caste he grew up thinking as inherently inferior to his own. To be with her, he'd fall from his upper caste. Worse, his older brother Nicholas*, who currently sits on the throne and has instructed Adam in methods of cruelty to gain political success, outs Adam's true heritage as the son of his mother's servant. 

To accept the accusation is to lose all power, so Adam reacts by demanding everyone prove the purity of their blood before casting him out. The irony is that Adam knows in his heart that he has experienced true love from both Katelyn and his real father. He wants to be happy with Katelyn, but he tries to distance himself from both of them because the part of him that wants to be a noble and cling to power hates the part of him that was born of the "inferior" group.

* Names have been changed to protect the fictional.

Juliette wants to know: Does Adam feel ambivalent about his day-to-day decisions - like when Nicholas tells him to do things, does he wonder if they're the right thing to do? What aspects of his fundamental identity crisis would impinge on his thoughts before he learns the truth? Would he be likely to have suspicions about his origins, or would denial make that impossible? Would he come across just as conflicted in his behaviors, or as a good guy or bad guy? How far might he go in his backlash reaction against servants after he learns the truth? Would he be likely to verbally abuse Katelyn at this point? Would he be able to recover in a supportive environment, or would he need therapy? How can he be psychologically redeemed?

This spells great conflict, Juliette! Really deep questions, so hopefully I'll have some nuggets for you to work with.

From reading your narratives (thanks for expounding via email), I am having a hard time determining if Adam is a hero or an anti-hero. You mention many things that sound heroic, but because I don't know his ultimate motivation, they may, in fact, not be. 

How great is Adam's motivation to keep power, and is it greater than his desire to be happy and in love? Everything hinges on that answer. I get that his motivation is BIG to keep power. But why? Is it a selfish reason, like that's what he grew up believing to be his heritage, his rightful place, his entitlement (which would make him an anti-hero)? Or is his reason for wanting power more altruistic so he can he make big, positive changes when in control? (which is more heroic). This is a great article on heroes and anti-heroes that might be helpful.

I think that Adam is going to be feel extremely ambivalent and confused about his brother Nicholas's orders. This part of your narrative seems to make Adam more of an anti-hero, because he's had such a dark mentor in Nicholas, which is typical of anti-heroes. (Maybe you have written his real father in as a positive, good mentor?) However, if he is a hero, he'll be very eager to take over Nicholas' reign because he believes Nicholas has been treating people too cruelly. As a hero, Adam would want to change the people's outcome.

As to his suspicions about his origin, unless you've written in some nuances that would make him think his mother was unfaithful to her husband with her servant, or that the servant was taking on more of a fatherly role than was his place, then no, children don't inherently doubt things like who their parents are. They pretty much believe what you tell them, and they'll die defending it, too. (Don't talk about my mama!) I don't think denial will play a big part...it's just not in a child's nature to be suspicious like that...unless it's been planted somehow.

You've got two aspects of Adam: the Adam before he knows the truth about her paternity and the Adam afterward. Before, he still connected with this servant, knowing that she's inferior. He loves her, and surely he must have known going into the relationship that it would be a problem when he was older/on the throne/etc. Did he simply follow the model set before him of his mother and how she got along with her servant? Was the nobility known for indiscretions or improper relationships? Did people turn a blind eye, like Regency England lords keeping mistresses on the side?

After he learns the truth, I'd hate to be around someone like him. Depending on the motivation question earlier, he'd definitely have a backlash toward servants. After all, they represent a part of him that is most decidedly inconvenient to acknowledge. Being rude, emotionally abusive, and hateful toward them will be Adam's way of slaying that inner part of him as well. This makes him sound like an anti-hero, really knocked off kilter because he can't dominate others.

But if the ultimate goal is to keep power (and thereby distance himself from the servants to do so) for some altruistic reason, such as to help servants be on more equal footing in the future, then his backlash will be all an act. In this scenario, if he pushes her away, it is to inflict a little pain in the present to prevent a greater pain later. If there is anyway to bring this aspect into the story, then you'll have absolutely no problem "redeeming" Adam in the reader's eyes, no matter how he might lash out at Katelyn or other servants.

But he also just discovered that the things he knew from birth are just wrong. His mother lied to him, built his life around an important untruth that will cost Adam dearly--the throne. This is a major identity crisis, and people act out, lash out, withdraw, and do all sorts of out-of-character and crazy things when their worlds have been turned upside down. I imagine he would verbally abuse Katelyn, push her away. He'd probably be extraordinarily angry at his mother and his brother, who has the "pure" blood and also outed him.

Since you said neither Adam or Nicholas come to have power in the book, I would hope that Adam's desire for happiness wins out in the end. As one born of a servant, he's in the servant's class and can eventually seize a life with Katelyn once he comes to terms with himself and loss of nobility. What does being noble really mean to him? Can he come to an inner character arc of redemption by understanding that the caste system is mere semantics? That his real father and Katelyn are more stoic, more dependable, more noble than the true nobility because they never gave up on him and were always faithful? That nobility is really a misnomer?

These are just some of my initial thoughts. You've got so much conflict to work with, which is awesome. My biggest suggestion is to make sure the reader knows Adam's fundamental role as either hero or anti-hero. My assessment was more difficult because I wasn't sure. If you have additional questions or clarifications, please feel free to make them below. I'll do my best to answer, and I really welcome dialogue! Sometimes the best stuff comes out in the comments for some people who write in.

Thanks for giving it a shot. I hope it helps!