McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
balance of sympathies
belial.1980:
It's a daunting and challenging--but intriguing--idea. I recommend reading Tim Lebbon's Fallen if you haven't already. It's quite a good read that primarily uses two alternating VP.
(click to show/hide)The main characters are two very close friends that have a bitter, bitter falling out in the first few chapters and find themselves divided. They end up racing to reach the end of the known world.
In all fairness I think one character's POV is a little more sympathetic but they both screwed each other over badly. But neither of them is exactly the kind of person you want to stand up and root for. I'm not sure if that's sort of what you're going after, or if you'd prefer two perspectives that the reader **will** stand up and cheer for.
Either way I think it'd be worth your while to check it out to see what Lebbon did with the two main characters' VPs and see if it inspires any ideas for your own project. Good look!
LizW65:
OK, here's my take on this: frequently, but not always, we as readers tend to sympathize with the POV character, as we are allowed into his/her thought processes and understand what makes him/her tick. Dividing up the POV between characters on both sides of the hypothetical conflict and allowing the reader glimpses into both mindsets could aid in creating equal sympathy. Conversely, showing only the characters' actions and dialogue without any insight into what they're thinking can do the same; I've been reading a series recently in which a relatively minor character takes focus and becomes interesting precisely because no-one, including the reader, has any idea what he's thinking.
Shecky:
"Bad guys" are doing something that's pretty much reprehensible, but out of a very carefully-researched, intelligently-analyzed sense of "for the greater good" - i.e., some people are going to suffer, but it will improve the life of a much larger section of the population. "Good guys" are opposing the "bad guys" on general principle.
In short:
1) Bad guys are doing the ends-justify-the-means thing but with a great potential benefit. Very cold and calculating, but NOT self-centered - i.e., not to benefit themselves, either as a primary goal or a happy side effect.
2) Good guys are standing on the Right Principles but will cause more widespread suffering. Great empathy for humanity, but zero forward vision.
Maybe in the end the bad guys see a way to sacrifice themselves to bring about the great potential benefit, instead of "having" to cause suffering. Good guys step in and want to do it in the place of the bad guys. Final conflict will essentially be over who gets to off themselves. :D
Aakaakaak:
Like The Watchmen?
Shecky:
--- Quote from: aakaakaak on June 05, 2010, 04:21:11 PM ---Like The Watchmen?
--- End quote ---
Watchmen did a fine job with its particular spin on just that concept.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version