Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Summer Aix

discussion Writing Believable Characters Who You Disagree With

Recommended Posts

I'm sure most of us have written characters we would not agree with. I'm hoping we could share those experiences here and how you really get into the mind of someone who is very different from you. Anything would be good, I just want us to discuss writing characters with different beliefs from us in general.

However, if we were to go more in depth, then in particular, I feel it can be difficult to write that character when specifically those beliefs and opinions you disagree with are being challenged. From your own point of view, changing those views are very logical, but of course people are very staunch in their views and they do have reason to the opinions they hold.

One of the stories I'm playing around with in my mind has a person without real roots who ended up settling in a place with strong nationalistic sentiments. An empire with overwhelming might seeks to conquer this nation, and the main character does not have a lot of problems accepting this empire, but of course, the new friends he has made would not agree and would fight against great odds in part because of their patriotic pride. This is the part where the main character tries to challenge their intents for a futile gesture of pride. I, myself, believe that nationalism is an outdated concept, while I can sort of get the sentiments behind it, they evaporate before my general pragmatist beliefs. So there is some difficulty in creating believable conflict here that isn't either people giving in easily to the MC's arguments or exaggerated bullheadedness against the MC's arguments. I wonder if anyone else has written something in a similar vein.

Anyway, as I said earlier, even if you don't have input on my particular example, I would like to see people share their personal experiences writing any characters who have very different beliefs from the writer.

Edited by Aix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I've actually ever gotten around to really writing a character I fundamentally disagreed with. It's definitely something I'd like to challenge myself with in the future (hopefully soon). I think part of it is that I'm not sure I could convincingly write a character that is very different from me, especially when it comes to things like sexual orientation or stance on politics/religion. Do you have any advice for breaking past this barrier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... When I write a character thought like that, I usually have to tap into the mindset of someone that I know. I find it really difficult to be convincing in that way unless I've actually interacted with someone with a similar mindset. From there, I am usually able to adopt their voice and bring out what they say and how they feel about the topic on the page.

Maybe it's easier for me because I generally accept the idea of being wrong; I don't hold on tightly to many convictions. In any case, I think experiencing disagreements with a mindset of learning from them is crucial to writing believable characters you don't agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saiba Aisu said:

I'm not sure I've actually ever gotten around to really writing a character I fundamentally disagreed with. It's definitely something I'd like to challenge myself with in the future (hopefully soon). I think part of it is that I'm not sure I could convincingly write a character that is very different from me, especially when it comes to things like sexual orientation or stance on politics/religion. Do you have any advice for breaking past this barrier?

I think it helps to pretend the issue you disagree with is something you feel similarly about. In the case of say homophobic people, they feel a profound disgust the same way most people feel about say pedophiles. TBH in my opinion pedos are just sick and can't help feeling the way they do (and they're fine as long as they don't act on it on real children), but I get the disgust and can extrapolate that to a strong sense of moral outrage. It does take some imagining and open mind.

6 hours ago, Tinkerer said:

Hmm... When I write a character thought like that, I usually have to tap into the mindset of someone that I know. I find it really difficult to be convincing in that way unless I've actually interacted with someone with a similar mindset. From there, I am usually able to adopt their voice and bring out what they say and how they feel about the topic on the page.

Maybe it's easier for me because I generally accept the idea of being wrong; I don't hold on tightly to many convictions. In any case, I think experiencing disagreements with a mindset of learning from them is crucial to writing believable characters you don't agree with.

How well does this work when those views are being challenged though? I'm sure we've all imagined winning an argument with other people (or am I the only one??), especially those we know, but reality would not go anywhere the same way and most of us don't go challenging everyone to a moral debate.

Edited by Aix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, I give such a character a strong argument for their case on some matter of opinion, or morality, or philosophy, etc. Any field of contested opinions is good for this sort of thing. As long as that person has a fairly strong argument, or strong conviction on the matter, I find most readers are willing to believe in the character and disagree with them so long as there is some logic, however irrational or clouded by emotion, that comes with the disagreement.

For example, in a recent project of mine, there are two post-apocalyptic factions at odds: The first is a sorcerer-king who wants to bring the people of the world out of the ashes of the old world and foster a new age of prosperity and peace. He does this through an oligarchic, magocratic empire he builds, enforcing law and order on the city-states he brings into the fold, and uplifting magic-users, who were previously treated as outcasts, to be a part of the nobility of his society. His logic is simple: if humanity wallows in the ruins of the old age forever, lamenting what once was, they'll never rise again and be great. Bandits and degenerates roam as they please, and it's a bloody free-for-all that allows no-one to prosper but the cruel and the unjust. By creating a new age, he believes he can stamp out these wasteland vermin and leave them to squabble among the wreckage, while those who wish to move forward enter his fold and become part of something greater.

However, a organization of rebels rises against him because they want to be free and unbound by the laws of the rising empire. They believe that a society of mages ruling over the ordinary folk will be oppressive and that simply because mages have been mistreated doesn't mean they get to be on top. They want to tear down the sorcerer-king, and allow the city-states to run their societies freely and individually. Their logic is that they'd rather fight for themselves and be free than rely on a tyrant for security. If the surrender themselves to a totalitarian ruler, it will only breed weakness and invite another collapse of society.

A reader could agree with either side of the story here: freedom or security, but the end result is finding one logic more valid than another, even if both are sound.

Again, this is my method, but I find it works well enough.

Edited by ChampionZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aix said:

How well does this work when those views are being challenged though? I'm sure we've all imagined winning an argument with other people (or am I the only one??), especially those we know, but reality would not go anywhere the same way and most of us don't go challenging everyone to a moral debate.

Ah, ok.  I was kinda speaking on a general front about the character and the character's beliefs.  You are speaking specifically about 1 character who shares your beliefs arguing someone who doesn't, right?  I guess that is trickier... I'll have to get back to ya on that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tinkerer said:

Ah, ok.  I was kinda speaking on a general front about the character and the character's beliefs.  You are speaking specifically about 1 character who shares your beliefs arguing someone who doesn't, right?  I guess that is trickier... I'll have to get back to ya on that.

Doesn't have to necessarily be this situation, but any situation where their beliefs are challenged. I'm glad you shared your experience though, it was what I was asking for in the OP.

4 hours ago, ChampionZero said:

Generally, I give such a character a strong argument for their case on some matter of opinion, or morality, or philosophy, etc. Any field of contested opinions is good for this sort of thing. As long as that person has a fairly strong argument, or strong conviction on the matter, I find most readers are willing to believe in the character and disagree with them so long as there is some logic, however irrational or clouded by emotion, that comes with the disagreement.

For example, in a recent project of mine, there are two post-apocalyptic factions at odds: The first is a sorcerer-king who wants to bring the people of the world out of the ashes of the old world and foster a new age of prosperity and peace. He does this through an oligarchic, magocratic empire he builds, enforcing law and order on the city-states he brings into the fold, and uplifting magic-users, who were previously treated as outcasts, to be a part of the nobility of his society. His logic is simple: if humanity wallows in the ruins of the old age forever, lamenting what once was, they'll never rise again and be great. Bandits and degenerates roam as they please, and it's a bloody free-for-all that allows no-one to prosper but the cruel and the unjust. By creating a new age, he believes he can stamp out these wasteland vermin and leave them to squabble among the wreckage, while those who wish to move forward enter his fold and become part of something greater.

However, a organization of rebels rises against him because they want to be free and unbound by the laws of the rising empire. They believe that a society of mages ruling over the ordinary folk will be oppressive and that simply because mages have been mistreated doesn't mean they get to be on top. They want to tear down the sorcerer-king, and allow the city-states to run their societies freely and individually. Their logic is that they'd rather fight for themselves and be free than rely on a tyrant for security. If the surrender themselves to a totalitarian ruler, it will only breed weakness and invite another collapse of society.

A reader could agree with either side of the story here: freedom or security, but the end result is finding one logic more valid than another, even if both are sound.

Again, this is my method, but I find it works well enough.

Mhm, but not everyone has a very well-thought out philosophy and political stance, in fact most people do not and are very far from rational, they have a mishmash of moral values, opinions from others they trust, potentially unfounded prejudices, a status quo they grew up with, etc.

Edited by Aix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aix said:

Mhm, but not everyone has a very well-thought out philosophy and political stance, in fact most people do not and are very far from rational, they have a mishmash of moral values, opinions from others they trust, potentially unfounded prejudices, a status quo they grew up with, etc.

Yeah, I was about to say that. We humans are, as a general rule, very emotional creatures with an unfortunate tendency to make flawed illogical decisions.

I didn't really understand the example of the sorcerer-king and rebels. Sorry! I understand that people can have opposing ideologies. What I'm referring to specifically (and what I'd like to improve) is my ability to convincingly write characters whose worldview is different than my own. So, for example, as a gay person, I feel like I would struggle to write a convincing heterosexual romance. That sort of thing. I guess in the end, there's nothing for it but practice! And perhaps trying to broaden the stuff I read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aix said:

Mhm, but not everyone has a very well-thought out philosophy and political stance, in fact most people do not and are very far from rational, they have a mishmash of moral values, opinions from others they trust, potentially unfounded prejudices, a status quo they grew up with, etc.

While you're right on this point, making characters with illogical behaviors is not always believable. Again, that's my method: if you think too hard about it, you can make anything unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before they are people with ideals and opinions, they are just people. the ideals and thoughts we all have, we currently keep them because they keep us comfortable in some way, and which ones we choose to keep depend on each of our circumstances. if our ideals are challenged, we hold on to them when the alternative doesnt offer us comfort, and we abandon them for new ones when holding on to them doesnt feel good anymore, again keeping in mind each of our circumstances. regardless of how different our ideals may be, that fundamental comfort, for the lack of a better word, is what keeps our thoughts the way they are.

going to your nationalist example, ultimately they'd only appear as being bullheaded to people like you and i who either dislike nationalism or find no sense of belonging in such a thing. for those other characters though, those feelings are very real and comfortable and although not logical, they're supported by their past experiences and that's not something you can ever deny with just logic. if your story is focused on trying to logically dismantle the characters' sense of nationalism through dialogue and convincing that just isnt going to work imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mitcher Green said:

before they are people with ideals and opinions, they are just people. the ideals and thoughts we all have, we currently keep them because they keep us comfortable in some way, and which ones we choose to keep depend on each of our circumstances. if our ideals are challenged, we hold on to them when the alternative doesnt offer us comfort, and we abandon them for new ones when holding on to them doesnt feel good anymore, again keeping in mind each of our circumstances. regardless of how different our ideals may be, that fundamental comfort, for the lack of a better word, is what keeps our thoughts the way they are.

going to your nationalist example, ultimately they'd only appear as being bullheaded to people like you and i who either dislike nationalism or find no sense of belonging in such a thing. for those other characters though, those feelings are very real and comfortable and although not logical, they're supported by their past experiences and that's not something you can ever deny with just logic. if your story is focused on trying to logically dismantle the characters' sense of nationalism through dialogue and convincing that just isnt going to work imo

The way you put it is pretty helpful. I guess then it becomes a matter of how willing a character is to step outside of their comfort zone to be able to even consider outside ideals. A trusted person fervently disagreeing with you, I think, also would make you uncomfortable.

As for my story idea, yes, when the threat of the opposing empire is still on the horizon, he's not going to be convincing anyone. But as reality strikes closer, some would be a bit uncomfortable as you say with the risk to their lives. The idea of the story was that he is a powerful mage, so he decides that he's going to follow the others when they go to war to keep them safe, partly at the behest of the loved ones staying behind. Eventually, to him, it's going to become apparent that surrender is the only path to survival, but the others will have a harder time seeing this, especially with the military zeal aroused by their commanders. Some very well believe that fighting to the death is glorious and to the very end will not agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iarimakousei said:

In my very limited experience of writing different characters for stories, I have found simplicity and empathy to be my best friends. It is tough to step into the shoes of a character who you don't agree with, who you feel you are not as a person or you wouldn't wanna be as a person but at the same time, it is not supposed to be invalidating. The most basic example of this for me was writing an extroverted person with habits completely different from me, who is a really shy introvert. They may be more socializing, more outgoing and fun loving. Going a bit deeper into this, the introvert may enjoy their own company, often lost in thought and meditation. They are secretive, intuitive and cautious people who exhibit traits exclusive to introversion. This is all I had when writing an extrovert who was really different from how I am and it did not help that I often felt uncomfortable and clueless as to how I should make that person likable and give them a sense of purpose. It became a question of  "What does this person want and who are they?" instead of just ""How should i make this character likable/believable?" 

So how did you end up writing the extrovert? It's not like extroverts are wired completely different from introverts, as everyone has aspects of both, but there are definite differences in how they feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Aix said:

The way you put it is pretty helpful. I guess then it becomes a matter of how willing a character is to step outside of their comfort zone to be able to even consider outside ideals. A trusted person fervently disagreeing with you, I think, also would make you uncomfortable.

As for my story idea, yes, when the threat of the opposing empire is still on the horizon, he's not going to be convincing anyone. But as reality strikes closer, some would be a bit uncomfortable as you say with the risk to their lives. The idea of the story was that he is a powerful mage, so he decides that he's going to follow the others when they go to war to keep them safe, partly at the behest of the loved ones staying behind. Eventually, to him, it's going to become apparent that surrender is the only path to survival, but the others will have a harder time seeing this, especially with the military zeal aroused by their commanders. Some very well believe that fighting to the death is glorious and to the very end will not agree.

 

rather than whether they'd consider challenging their ideals by stepping outside their comfort zone, for something like nationalism (and a lot of beliefs and ideals in general) it often wont occur to you that its a way of thought has yet to be contested at all, it just seems so natural to feel that way. even just recognizing that you're in your comfort zone and that you can step outside of it is tremendously difficult. its close to being unconscious rlly.

and thats what makes nationalism in particular a really difficult thing to grasp. having war as a threat to peoples' lives will definitely make some of them willing to surrender, but a threat to your life by itself doesnt necessarily mean its ideologically challenging you. for many, rather than considering whether they should abandon the nation they've been a part of to save themselves and possibly their loved ones, instead just accept that they're part of that nation and consider what might happen if that nation loses its autonomy, effectively that's the death of their nation. and for many, whether they're patriotic or not (also quite important, patriotism and nationalism are not synonyms, would be good to make that distinction in your story), the death of the nation they've lived in up to that point becomes the metaphorical death of who they are up to that point. if they dont see a viable future beyond that, then it'd feel like there's no real choice but to die, so they may as well go out in a blaze of glory. that would be another way to interpret the whole 'fighting to the death is glorious' spiel, in a way that's not reasonable but it's very humane i think.

yes, a lot of public speeches and discourses make/manipulate people to feel that way for their country rather than that sort of feeling being something organic, but that rhetoric only works because it evokes within people unconscious feelings of nationalism that's already there in some form. the feeling itself is embedded and innate even if it's not natural. nationalism is not logical (at least imo), so you can't use logic to convince someone to believe or not believe in it.

 

 

going back to the more general question of how to write people you dont agree with, all i can say is to learn about the subject as much as possible. i can only say this much because, going back to your example, i've taken a nationalism class recently and read some texts about it so even if i reject nationalism (both the one i'm born to and the general idea of nations), i understand a lot better why it exists. i dont understand nationalism completely but i do understand it rather than just knowing about it as i did previously. to make that more general that applies to most things i think. not to be rude but if you're struggling to write the other side convincingly, especially writing the other side trying not to be convinced convincingly then its possibly a sign there's not enough understanding on your side yet. at the very least i myself wouldnt try to write a nationalist character and try to tackle their beliefs myself, i'm not interested and i dont know enough to be able to tackle him convincingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mitcher Green said:

rather than whether they'd consider challenging their ideals by stepping outside their comfort zone, for something like nationalism (and a lot of beliefs and ideals in general) it often wont occur to you that its a way of thought has yet to be contested at all, it just seems so natural to feel that way. even just recognizing that you're in your comfort zone and that you can step outside of it is tremendously difficult. its close to being unconscious rlly.

and thats what makes nationalism in particular a really difficult thing to grasp. having war as a threat to peoples' lives will definitely make some of them willing to surrender, but a threat to your life by itself doesnt necessarily mean its ideologically challenging you. for many, rather than considering whether they should abandon the nation they've been a part of to save themselves and possibly their loved ones, instead just accept that they're part of that nation and consider what might happen if that nation loses its autonomy, effectively that's the death of their nation. and for many, whether they're patriotic or not (also quite important, patriotism and nationalism are not synonyms, would be good to make that distinction in your story), the death of the nation they've lived in up to that point becomes the metaphorical death of who they are up to that point. if they dont see a viable future beyond that, then it'd feel like there's no real choice but to die, so they may as well go out in a blaze of glory. that would be another way to interpret the whole 'fighting to the death is glorious' spiel, in a way that's not reasonable but it's very humane i think.

yes, a lot of public speeches and discourses make/manipulate people to feel that way for their country rather than that sort of feeling being something organic, but that rhetoric only works because it evokes within people unconscious feelings of nationalism that's already there in some form. the feeling itself is embedded and innate even if it's not natural. nationalism is not logical (at least imo), so you can't use logic to convince someone to believe or not believe in it.

 

 

going back to the more general question of how to write people you dont agree with, all i can say is to learn about the subject as much as possible. i can only say this much because, going back to your example, i've taken a nationalism class recently and read some texts about it so even if i reject nationalism (both the one i'm born to and the general idea of nations), i understand a lot better why it exists. i dont understand nationalism completely but i do understand it rather than just knowing about it as i did previously. to make that more general that applies to most things i think. not to be rude but if you're struggling to write the other side convincingly, especially writing the other side trying not to be convinced convincingly then its possibly a sign there's not enough understanding on your side yet. at the very least i myself wouldnt try to write a nationalist character and try to tackle their beliefs myself, i'm not interested and i dont know enough to be able to tackle him convincingly.

Well, I'm Chinese born. China is a very patriotic nation, not sure about nationalistic. Growing up there was plenty of "remember your homeland" stuff from my parents and grandparents since I immigrated to North America, so I can feel and understand some patriotism, even though now I believe even patriotism is kind of pointless. I still glimpse at the contrasting narrative in the relations of US and China when I speak to family there and the Chinese narrative seems strong on patriotic pride. The other thing that contributes to Chinese patriotism I believe is the strong push to conform and to defer to seniority in Chinese culture which I have observed and experienced myself.

So I feel the concept of patriotism is not foreign, but hazy to me. In my mind, nationalism takes these feelings further into something pretty much religious. Religion on the other hand is something I do understand less of, but the thing I do sort of get is cognitive dissonance. I've become pretty aware of it in myself, aware of the irrationality it can instill in me, aware of the powerful desire to argue and deny things that threaten me, aware of myself making ad-hoc and post-hoc justifications even to myself, etc. But I'm not entirely clear on it all, which is why really I want to explore such subjects in writing.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Do you have any good readings on nationalism then? What made you start to be able to understand it?

Edited by Aix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 7:02 AM, Aix said:

Well, I'm Chinese born. China is a very patriotic nation, not sure about nationalistic. Growing up there was plenty of "remember your homeland" stuff from my parents and grandparents since I immigrated to North America, so I can feel and understand some patriotism, even though now I believe even patriotism is kind of pointless. I still glimpse at the contrasting narrative in the relations of US and China when I speak to family there and the Chinese narrative seems strong on patriotic pride. The other thing that contributes to Chinese patriotism I believe is the strong push to conform and to defer to seniority in Chinese culture which I have observed and experienced myself.

So I feel the concept of patriotism is not foreign, but hazy to me. In my mind, nationalism takes these feelings further into something pretty much religious. Religion on the other hand is something I do understand less of, but the thing I do sort of get is cognitive dissonance. I've become pretty aware of it in myself, aware of the irrationality it can instill in me, aware of the powerful desire to argue and deny things that threaten me, aware of myself making ad-hoc and post-hoc justifications even to myself, etc. But I'm not entirely clear on it all, which is why really I want to explore such subjects in writing.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Do you have any good readings on nationalism then? What made you start to be able to understand it?

this is by no means the only way to look at nationalism, but one way you could look at it is as a battle between two predominant schools: either nations are primordial (they exist before nationalism) or they are modern (they come after nationalism, which itself came after roughly the industrial revolution). within nationalists, they either argue that nations are inherent and primordial in humankind in some way, or that nations only become a necessity after societal transformations that came after the industrial revolution. they're two opposing schools but keep in mind they agree that nations really do exist. now:

i'd recommend starting with anthony d. smith's nationalism: theory, ideology, history . anthony d. smith is a primordialist but he gives a decent overview into both fields. i havent read the whole book but a lot of it is really interesting and honestly not that hard to read. the point of this is to get a working definition of what nationalism even is

then there's benedict anderson who's a modernist whose main idea was that nations are imagined communities. his book imagined communities is a pain to read cuz the language is complicated but skim through a chapter or two. i had to read him first actually and that main idea is the thing you need to sorta get an idea of. its sorta important cuz its not from d. smith's primordialist perspective.

from there there's a guy called ozrikimli who wrote a book called theories of nationalism that goes over a bunch of nationalists, both primordial and modernist and otherwise, and what their theories mean. go over that and then see which guy in that you're interested in. this will give you a better overview of how other people have tried to define and discuss nationalism, and give you some names you can start pursuing from there.

unfortumately a lot of this stuff is at least a bit eurocentric so it may not align with the reality you're familiar with in china but it should provide a foundation to start understanding not just what nationalism is but how people interpret it, which ideally helps you understand how to write that earlier scenario.

Edited by Mitcher Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story I'm working on doesn't have a traditional hero/MC trope. It sort of follows a timeline. But my favorite of the characters has more of a "campfire" mindset. Generally, he's a very easy going guy and prefers not to enter a conflict until it either becomes necessary or it becomes personal. But the thing I like about him is that he takes it upon himself to stand up against the government or god that it is oppressing people. While I generally agree with him on the oppressive government part, I find it somewhat disrespectful to challenge divinity. But I assume in an age/world where religion and heroes no longer exist and the government operates more like an organized crime syndicate, somebody has to do something to make whatever difference they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...