# What's more important, changing the characters or plot?



## ironpony (Jul 17, 2019)

I find my characters painting themselves into corners, but feel I shouldn't change the character around.  I should have the character stay true to themselves, but if that means they will paint themselves into a corner, should I change the plot around them to prevent that?

Or perhaps painting themselves into a corner is good, and even though it seems impossible for them to get out of, no corner is impossible, and there is always a way out somehow that I should look for?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 17, 2019)

All of the above. 

You can modify a character to fit the plot, or change the plot to fit the character, but you can't leave the character in the corner, twiddling his thumbs (and boring your reader). 

Generally, it's easier/better to have the character realize they're stuck in the corner and try to get out of the corner.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 17, 2019)

I think you "painted them into the corner". If you have to have them act inconsistently with their personality, that's not good. But writers do that. If you have to have something magical happen, that's even worse. Writers do that too. When you think of a way out, you can decide whether you should have painted them in that corner in the first place.

James Bond will be in a _seemingly _impossible situation, then save himself with an amazing new weapon he just happens to have. But we are told about that weapon at the start of the movie. You are allowed to rewrite the previous part of your book to make your "solution" better -- more plausible, more in character.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Jul 17, 2019)

If they paint themselves into a corner, you could just let them realize their error too late, and then end the book. It's a tragedy now.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 17, 2019)

Oh Okay, but the story needs to be longer to build toward a different ending though...  I guess my struggle is the trick to avoid a situation from becoming an impossible situation, whilst still have the character act consistent with no magic or deux ex machinas or anything like that.  How do writers avoid the situation from becoming impossible in the first place, if it's in the character to create the impossible situation?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 18, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh Okay, but the story needs to be longer to build toward a different ending though...  I guess my struggle is the trick to avoid a situation from becoming an impossible situation, whilst still have the character act consistent with no magic or deux ex machinas or anything like that.  How do writers avoid the situation from becoming impossible in the first place, if it's in the character to create the impossible situation?



No tricks, but if you're characters are incompatible with your plot or vice versa then that means you need to go back to the drawing board totally.

It's not as simple as jimmying with a character trait to get a result. If you designed your characters well, you can't change one aspect of them without affecting other things. 

Imagine Captain Hook without a hook for a hand. You could argue 'oh it's just a hook' but it isn't - it's also Captain Hook's entire raison d'etre, which is to kill Peter Pan because Peter Pan cut off his arm and fed it to a crocodile (I think that's how it went down)

I'd say 9/10 it's easier to change the plot than a character, because a plot is by definition malleable to the characters within it. You don't get a woman being stabbed to death in a shower without Norman Bates, however you could have Norman Bates in some slightly different storyline - no shower scene, maybe he invites her into the house. The character of Norman Bates is what makes the shower scene work and not the other way around. However that of course assumes you had Norman Bates to begin with. Not some two dimensional moron.

Just write the plot according to the character(s) reaction to the various key points that make up your story and you shouldn't have this problem.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 18, 2019)

Okay thanks.  Well if I go back to what I had before and have the character behave without changing the character at all, he traps himself into an impossible situation, but how does one stop the situation from becoming impossible then or are there any concepts to that to be aware of?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 18, 2019)

I'd say that you need an outline for this story. It seems (at least to me) that you have all of this stuck in your head. Take it form me the king of having all the thoughts stuck in there head, Don't do this! Trust me it will do you some much needed good to have a plan.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 18, 2019)

Oh okay thanks.  Well I have the outline all mapped, it's just the thing is, is that it's really difficult for me figure out the how.  I have the who, what, why when, just not the how.  The biggest part of it, is trying to set the story in modern times, and trying to have criminals get away with their crimes, cause crime solving technology is so advanced nowadays, that it's almost impossible to get away with a crime, and that is my biggest challenge is writing around that believably.


----------



## Sir-KP (Jul 18, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  Well I have the outline all mapped, it's just the thing is, is that it's really difficult for me figure out the how.  I have the who, what, why when, just not the how.  The biggest part of it, is trying to set the story in modern times, and trying to have criminals get away with their crimes, cause crime solving technology is so advanced nowadays, that it's almost impossible to get away with a crime, and that is my biggest challenge is writing around that believably.



My third worlder life experience says that technology does nothing so long you got money and contact.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 18, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  Well I have the outline all mapped, it's just the thing is, is that it's really difficult for me figure out the how.  I have the who, what, why when, just not the how.  The biggest part of it, is trying to set the story in modern times, and trying to have criminals get away with their crimes, cause crime solving technology is so advanced nowadays, that it's almost impossible to get away with a crime, and that is my biggest challenge is writing around that believably.



Why does it have to be modern? Period pieces are where it's at, man. Nostalgia's a big deal, so you might as well base this thing in the 80's or some other, easier era.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 19, 2019)

Well it's just I am writing a screenplay, that I and some other filmmakers, cast and crew, plan to make ourselves on small budget, so setting it in modern times will make it a lot less costly and easier.

Also, the script is about things that would have made history I think if it were to have happened, so it might seem strange setting a story in the past, with a historical event that never happened though, compared to now.


----------



## Soda_Fox (Jul 19, 2019)

My personal take is that I think it's more important for a character to change.  I do believe that it's easier to change the plot to suit the character but I think that ease comes at a cost - I think it cheapens the character, and thus, the story.  That said I tend to focus more on the overall story rather than the characters involved (so I think characters need to "step up" to their challenges) - not that characters aren't important, but I see characters as the vehicles that drive the story.  However, the drivers and the vehicle (story) still need to mesh.  Someone who has never driven even a pick-up truck in their life shouldn't drive a semi-truck cross-country with a career ending deadline, or, if they do, they need to be prepared to face a very steep learning curve.

I agree that, if your characters is getting stuck in a corner, you need to get back to basics.  You mentioned that you don't have the "how" of your story, and, while I think it's great that you have so many other elements nailed down, it's important for ALL the elements of your story to have a backbone.  The HOW is just as important as any other element.  Take Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood for example - the who, what, why, when are very clear (brothers/other alchemists, attempting to push the limits of alchemy, to resurrect mother/fight a war, in~1940s alternate reality which alchemy replaced chemistry) but the HOW was extremely important - Equivalent exchange.  The characters were only as powerful as what they were willing to give up (ex: Mustang's freedom for his unmatched fire abilities, Edward's arm and leg for his ability to perform limited alchemy at will and save his brother, Hughes' life [and loss from his connection to his beloved family] for hints of "the truth", etc) and those limitations, mixed with the general idea of the story, worked together to shape something great.

I think you should put more thought into a realistic HOW to go with the rest of your story.  I think most situations can be explained and overcome as long as a character has the realistic strengths to overcome the pitfalls they face.


----------



## JustRob (Jul 19, 2019)

Why are magic and dei ex machina bad things in a story? Magic is simply something that occurs without the explanation for it being revealed. A deus ex machina is simply a fortuitous coincidence. In real life some things do happen as though by magic and people do just get lucky. It may be acceptable to some to criticise stories that emulate reality in this way, but it seems to me that it is unreasonable also to accept that stories can deviate even further from reality by indulging in unlikely coincidences to create unreal conflicts. 

Real life is about making everything predictable, so therefore boring or at least to be taken for granted as we regularly do. Any event that creates an unusual conflict is rapidly analysed and measures are put in place by society to prevent it happening again. Therefore a fiction writer often has to resort to a diabolus ex machina in the form of the coincidence of several hazards any of which society could handle singly. For some reason this diabolus is considered more permissible in this fictional world than the compensating deus. In other words, the conventions on fiction writing demand that characters be put in a corner and denied any way out unless the writer hides his gods within his machine earlier in the story in a way that a critical reader will not detect them before time. 

The regular routine of James Bond being given a peculiar collection of devices that just happen to exactly fit his needs later on in a film is a blatant premeditated deus ex machina that fools nobody, but these films are just pure escapism anyway. He might just as well use magic as a wristwatch that defies all physical principles to get out of an impossible corner. A wristwatch that acts as a powerful circular saw and also projects a highly directional magnetic field over several yards is to all intents and purposes magical. I just wish that my Dremel was that  compact and effective at sawing. Offhand I don't recollect reading about such things in Ian Fleming's original books although I stand to be corrected on that. Fleming's books were simply about a relatively ordinary man facing more challenging conflicts than the average man.

Think where the niche is that you are attempting to fill with your writing and define its boundaries clearly in your mind. There is little point in trying to wedge yet another story into a conventional bucket of fiction that is already overflowing with the same old same old nonsense.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 19, 2019)

JustRob said:


> Why are magic and dei ex machina bad things in a story? Magic is simply something that occurs without the explanation for it being revealed. A deus ex machina is simply a fortuitous coincidence. In real life some things do happen as though by magic and people do just get lucky. It may be acceptable to some to criticise stories that emulate reality in this way, but it seems to me that it is unreasonable also to accept that stories can deviate even further from reality by indulging in unlikely coincidences to create unreal conflicts.



Totally wrong. 

Deus ex machina is not simply a fortuitous coincidence. 

Deus ex machina is a resolution to a story that comes from outside of the story's world. 

In Jules Verne's 'Around The World In Eighty Days' *a fortuitous coincidence* is Phileas Fogg realizing that due to traveling around the world rapidly he has arrived back at home in London believing he has lost his wager only to find that because he miscalculated the time changes he actually has five minutes left, therefore he is able to narrowly accomplish his mission and render a happy ending. It's a fortuitous coincidence (that he happened to realize this with five minutes to spare) but the factors involved come from within the story - time and racing against time and the concept of _gaining _time are persistent themes that are coherent.

A *deus ex machina* of the same story would be something like Phileas Fogg arriving back at home in London believing he has lost his wager only to discover a time machine has appeared in his living room that can magically transport him back in time so he accomplishes his mission. In other words, it would be something totally incongruous that resolves the plot in an entirely improbable (and therefore arguably unsatisfying way)

The extent to which deus ex machina is tolerable is up to the writer's execution of the device and reader preferences. Some good books use it. Lord Of The Flies is one that comes to mind. But there's a reason deus ex machina is generally frowned upon and to conflate a character 'getting lucky' or encountering 'fortuitous coincidence' with deus ex machina is simply inaccurate.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 19, 2019)

JustRob said:


> Why are magic and dei ex machina bad things in a story? Magic is simply something that occurs without the explanation for it being revealed. A deus ex machina is simply a fortuitous coincidence. In real life some things do happen as though by magic and people do just get lucky. It may be acceptable to some to criticise stories that emulate reality in this way, but it seems to me that it is unreasonable also to accept that stories can deviate even further from reality by indulging in unlikely coincidences to create unreal conflicts.
> 
> Real life is about making everything predictable, so therefore boring or at least to be taken for granted as we regularly do. Any event that creates an unusual conflict is rapidly analysed and measures are put in place by society to prevent it happening again. Therefore a fiction writer often has to resort to a diabolus ex machina in the form of the coincidence of several hazards any of which society could handle singly. For some reason this diabolus is considered more permissible in this fictional world than the compensating deus. In other words, the conventions on fiction writing demand that characters be put in a corner and denied any way out unless the writer hides his gods within his machine earlier in the story in a way that a critical reader will not detect them before time.
> 
> ...



Oh I thought it doesn't count as a deus ex machina in Bond because the gadgets are set up early on normally, where as deus ex machinas are not set up beforehand, are they?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 19, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh I thought it doesn't count as a deus ex machina in Bond because the gadgets are set up early on normally, where as deus ex machinas are not set up beforehand, are they?



If the item was mentioned or its existence otherwise alluded to, or if the gadget's appearance is coherent within the world of the story, it's not deus ex machina even if it is coincidental or lucky.

James Bond is well-known for gadgets. They literally are a staple of every Bond movie. Therefore a gadget that is in line with the type one might expect in Bond and that is properly coherent with context is not a deus ex machina in any real sense. A gadget being deus ex machina would be one that pops up in a text that is otherwise void of such things.

This is why the character of Q exists BTW: To add credence to the improbable inventions by showing that there is a source for them. In several Bond movies there's a scene near the beginning where Q is showing Bond the new gadget he has invented. That scene isn't there for no reason.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 19, 2019)

Yep for sure.  I think my problem with writing is that when I create a plot turn, too many consequences will come out of it and it's hard to control the number of consequences without either changing the plot or the characters, one or the other...


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 19, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Yep for sure.  I think my problem with writing is that when I create a plot turn, too many consequences will come out of it and it's hard to control the number of consequences without either changing the plot or the characters, one or the other...



Can you give an example of a 'plot turn' (not sure what that is) that led to 'too many consequences'?


----------



## ironpony (Jul 19, 2019)

Oh well can't think of anything specific at the moment, but sometimes when people give me their opinions they say that a lot more would happen as consequences than that, and they will list them, but I feel that is a problem then, is how do keep it from spiraling out of control, or how do you keep people from thinking, why isn't this spiraling more out of control...


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 19, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh well can't think of anything specific at the moment,* but sometimes when people give me their opinions *they say that a lot more would happen as consequences than that, and they will list them, but I feel that is a problem then, is how do keep it from spiraling out of control, or how do you keep people from thinking, why isn't this spiraling more out of control...



We've been down this road, haven't we?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 20, 2019)

ironpony said:


> I find my characters painting themselves into corners, but feel I shouldn't change the character around.  I should have the character stay true to themselves, but if that means they will paint themselves into a corner, should I change the plot around them to prevent that?
> 
> Or perhaps painting themselves into a corner is good, and even though it seems impossible for them to get out of, no corner is impossible, and there is always a way out somehow that I should look for?




If your characters are forcing you to change the story...it is a good thing.
It means that your characters are becoming real enough that you are finding inconsistencies with the plot.
Literally, they have come alive, and now you realize that they would never do those things. That's a very good thing.

So fix the plot holes and keep your characters consistent.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 20, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> If your characters are forcing you to change the story...it is a good thing.
> It means that your characters are becoming real enough that you are finding inconsistencies with the plot.
> Literally, they have come alive, and now you realize that they would never do those things. That's a very good thing.
> 
> So fix the plot holes and keep your characters consistent.



Oh okay that makes sense, but what if the characters are doing things that I feel will not drive the story in the best direction though, what does a writer do then?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay that makes sense, but what if the characters are doing things that I feel will not drive the story in the best direction though, what does a writer do then?



Sometimes you have to follow that rabbit down the hole and see where it goes. It could be fun.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 20, 2019)

I figure out a way that is consistent with the character.
The alternative is unwrapping all the character development up to that point, and that's a mess.
Otherwise you risk having characters do things for reasons that don;t make sense...like the entire first season of Walking Dead.
Holy crap, every episode was driven by people doing dumb-ass shit.

"Don't ride your horse down into town, there like a million zombies down there."
Rick rides down to the city.

The zombies are attracted to noise, so let's drive a car with its alarm blaring halfway back to camp.

Sure, I can let you into the CDC HQ, but I'm not gonna tell you that we're low on gas until after you are irrevocably locked inside.

Every single episode; something boneheaded.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 20, 2019)

Oh okay, I haven't seen the Walking dead accept for 2-3 episodes around.

Do you think that maybe the main character doing things you don't want them to do is not as entertaining though, in the sense, that it doesn't build toward the ending you want?  When you create the main character, what is the best approach?  Do you create the ending first and how you want the character to end up?  Or do you create the character, as if the rest of the plot hasn't happened yet, and whatever he does determines the ending, no matter how you feel about the ending?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, I haven't seen the Walking dead accept for 2-3 episodes around.
> 
> Do you think that maybe the main character doing things you don't want them to do is not as entertaining though, in the sense, that it doesn't build toward the ending you want?  When you create the main character, what is the best approach?  Do you create the ending first and how you want the character to end up?  Or do you create the character, as if the rest of the plot hasn't happened yet, and whatever he does determines the ending, no matter how you feel about the ending?


 
Foe me this heavily depends on the story. How much of this do you have planned out? If you have all of it planned out from beginning to end then see whats fits your characters personality. You know what even better idea send me what you have in P.M. I'll take a look at it after i get off work and I'll send you my feedback.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 20, 2019)

Oh okay thanks.  I'm out of town and not near the computer now, that it's on, plus I want to touch up a few sections, but I can send it later on maybe, if that's okay ?  I have almost all of it planned out accept just one section closer to the end, where I am just not sure how to get from here to there.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  I'm out of town and not near the computer now, that it's on, plus I want to touch up a few sections, but I can send it later on maybe, if that's okay ?  I have almost all of it planned out accept just one section closer to the end, where I am just not sure how to get from here to there.


 
That is A ok. Send it when you can and I'll give you my critique.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 21, 2019)

Oh okay thanks .  Another thing is, let's say the characters are behaving more believably and they tell you how they are going to behave and that's a good thing.  What if the theme gets lost because the characters are making decisions that do not drive the theme home?  Is it okay for a story to not have a theme in the end, cause the characters do not know they are in a story, and are suppose to drive a theme?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 21, 2019)

When I see characters doing inconsistent things, or the plot is entirely driven by stupidity, I consider it to be lazy writing.
They simply were too lazy to write it better.


But lots of people liked Walking Dead, and it was so successful that it even had its own spinoff.
So what do I know?


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 22, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Another thing is, let's say the characters are behaving more believably and they tell you how they are going to behave and that's a good thing.  What if the theme gets lost because the characters are making decisions that do not drive the theme home?  Is it okay for a story to not have a theme in the end, cause the characters do not know they are in a story, and are suppose to drive a theme?



My advice would be to let the characters lead you to a theme. If driving the point home requires the characters to act unbelievably, maybe it's a wrong point? Hehe I don't know. The other thing I would suggest is to not even worry about theme until later drafts. Make sure everything makes sense first and then you can see what little strands and images you can tug at to draw out the theme.

Also, yeah it's okay for a story not to have an obvious theme, but I think even stories written without intentional themes have accidental themes. A lot of books written purely to entertain have overarching themes inherent within them - good vs. evil, heroes come from ordinary places, love conquers all, etc.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 22, 2019)

Oh okay.  Well I was told that the main characters theme doesn't go with the rest of the story, especially if the theme changes as a result of the characters actions.  I feel that the more consistent I make the character, the less consistent the theme is, cause the character doesn't know they are suppose to be driving a theme obviously.  Perhaps an inconsistent them is okay, in the sense that it's more realistic though?

Like most real life true crime stories, have no themes to them.  They are just real life themeless stories, but the characters are consistent and believable.  So it possible to have characters be consistent, and still have a strong theme?  Or is that having your cake and eat it too, hence why other strong themed stories, may have inconsistent character behavior?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  Well I was told that the main characters theme doesn't go with the rest of the story, especially if the theme changes as a result of the characters actions.  I feel that the more consistent I make the character, the less consistent the theme is, cause the character doesn't know they are suppose to be driving a theme obviously.  Perhaps an inconsistent them is okay, in the sense that it's more realistic though?
> 
> Like most real life true crime stories, have no themes to them.  They are just real life themeless stories, but the characters are consistent and believable.  So it possible to have characters be consistent, and still have a strong theme?  Or is that having your cake and eat it too, hence why other strong themed stories, may have inconsistent character behavior?



There are no themeless stories--you've just not found the right English major yet. A _real literary person_ can squeeze a theme out of a toothpaste tube. 

You see, the blue toothpaste represents the interminable sadness and hopelessness in American consumer culture. The person buys into the culture, and rubs it all through his mouth in the hopes that it will clean him, make him beautiful, make him healthier (because advertising, consumerism, medical/industrial complex says so). And even as he swishes and spits it out, some remains in his mouth, bestowing a fake, unnatural smell on his breath.But the odor and taste are fake--just like everything in the culture--they're paint on a rotten structure (like his rotting teeth). And even if he tries to wash himself of the toothpaste/culture, it still clings to him, it's inside him, part of him now. 

So you see, a _real literary person_ will do all the theme work--so you don't have to! All you gotta do is finish and publish! Leave the themes for weirdies!


----------



## ironpony (Jul 22, 2019)

Oh okay I kind of see what you mean.  I read the book The Anatomy of Story, and in it, it says to come up with the theme pretty much very early on, with the premise, and follow that theme throughout as you plan everything else.

It's just that if you find your characters making decisions that break the theme and lead to different ones, is that okay, or is that normal even?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay I kind of see what you mean.  I read the book The Anatomy of Story, and in it, it says to come up with the theme pretty much very early on, with the premise, and follow that theme throughout as you plan everything else.
> 
> It's just that if you find your characters making decisions that break the theme and lead to different ones, is that okay, or is that normal even?


Totally. 

You want to watch out for unintentional themes, but even these aren't deal-breakers, necessarily. If you don't feel like coming up with themes, no worries, because someone else will see themes where none were intended. Even unintended controversy can sell a book.  

Even the most basic plots have themes. Life goes on. Love conquers all. Justice prevails (or doesn't). Gender roles in society. X are people, too. Enjoy life while it lasts. Survival of the fittest. Good guys win (or not). Fear/embrace the unknown. Man up. Girl power. Give peace a chance. Can't outrun a theme. If you've got characters and anything happens, it's going to have a theme of some sort.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

Regarding unintentional themes.... trying to think of an example off the top of my head...

Okay, got one: Stephen King's It. A probably unintentional theme in that book ruined the book and most of his other books for me, even. Beverly. Everything about her was wrong. Her whole point is to be a sex puppet. Drives me crazy. Everyone else has some superpower, something they can add, but what's she do? Mystically saves the team through underage nooky in a sewer. Because. 

So what's King trying to say? Probably not what came through loud and clear to me. Through the whole book, everyone is perving on her. Nobody stops doing it. Her dad does it. There's this huge emphasis on her sexuality and virginity through the whole dang book. She's looked at as weird (and undoubtedly her virtue/virginity is in question because good girls don't hang out with bunches of boys alone). I had a lot in common with the character. She was like my avatar in that book. So all the boys have "specials" but Beverly has an underage, underdeveloped vagina that everyone has to talk about, fixate on. So, after all that build up, I wanted her to prove that she was useful for something else--that she as a person could thwart these disgusting desires and prove to the world and the group that she was--indeed--a useful person without her sex having anything to do with it. 

Alas, nope, when the boys get lost due to some 'lack of connection' and can't focus properly to get out of a sewer maze, King spends ten pages describing Beverly having sex with all of the other boys. 'Cause that's all girls are good for. Helping boys concentrate on important boy matters. Girls are too stupid to be useful as people. _Girls _aren't really people like _boys_ are people, because boys are special and girls are just warm, wet holes that exist to make boys happy. 

And perhaps worse yet, Beverly can't even keep a solid long-term relationship up--even as an adult. She's just a wandering sex toy. Shacks up with every last one of the male "friends". Even as an adult--who has been through all this crap--she can't catch a break and just be a person. She's constantly reduced to this gorgeous blowup doll who can only find meaning in male companionship. She's never her own darn person. And I'm supposed to be happy about it because screwing with several guys at a time to save the day... makes the boys bonafide feminists because at least they don't call her a hoebag afterward? They still tolerate her deflowered presence? They're okay passing her around interminably through adulthood, with everyone getting their fair turn with the pretty lady? WTF?

And despite all this, people still love It. The scenes, characters and themes don't fall like that on everybody. Other people can enjoy the book and movies. Gives me acid reflux just thinking about this book though--and I haven't read it since sixth grade.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 22, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Alas, nope, when the boys get lost due to some 'lack of connection' and can't focus properly to get out of a sewer maze, King spends ten pages describing Beverly having sex with all of the other boys. 'Cause that's all girls are good for. Helping boys concentrate on important boy matters. Girls are too stupid to be useful as people. _Girls _aren't really people like _boys_ are people, because boys are special and girls are just warm, wet holes that exist to make boys happy.



Huh, is that what happens? I gave up on that book halfway through (which is still something like 700 pages). Glad i did, sounds awful.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> Huh, is that what happens? I gave up on that book halfway through (which is still something like 700 pages). Glad i did, sounds awful.



 don't think King can write a woman who isn't used for sex. Somebody's got to perve on her if she's attractive at all. And even if not, the girl herself has to be thinking about it, obsessing about it. If she's not some good little domestic woman, she's a hideous villain, or somebody is obsessed with her love life. Even in Carrie, which is probably my favorite King novel, her mom's this total whacko who's obsessed with sex (even if she pretty much never ges any--it's some terrible sin--and used as some justification to abuse the daughter). Carrie finds meaning in getting romantic interest. There just has to be a boy involved. All of life for girls and women is concerned with attracting and pleasing men. Unless she's a villain (like in Misery), but then she's old and ugly and not fit to have sex with because only beautiful women are decent. Once she gets religion and fat and wrinkles, she's a villain and couldn't possibly be a useful, worthwhile woman. 


In any case, I'm hoping this aside adds something of value regarding themes. Themes are unavoidable. Building a story around a theme at least helps the reader see the intended theme (as opposed to something else you hadn't intended). Building around the theme can help give a lot of flesh to a story, put some meat on its bones and help it stand up on its own. Themes can elevate or detract from the story. They can get controversial--intentionally or otherwise--so if you're looking to make it one side or the other of controversy, get other people to look at a detailed plot synopsis. Oftentimes, we're unable to see these unintentional themes until somebody else points them out. 

Like I said, I don't think King meant to be offensive or controversial necessarily. He might've very well been surprised when people lobbed some criticism at him over those scenes.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 22, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Like most real life true crime stories, have no themes to them.  They are just real life themeless stories, but the characters are consistent and believable.  So it possible to have characters be consistent, and still have a strong theme?  Or is that having your cake and eat it too, hence why other strong themed stories, may have inconsistent character behavior?



I don't know about that. If you note the way that newspapers and books tell these true crime stories, they are almost always extracting themes. It's just that the theme is pulled from the events and not the other way around.


----------



## BornForBurning (Jul 22, 2019)

> Stephen King's It. A probably unintentional theme in that book ruined the book and most of his other books for me, even. Beverly. Everything about her was wrong. Her whole point is to be a sex puppet. Drives me crazy. Everyone else has some superpower, something they can add, but what's she do? Mystically saves the team through underage nooky in a sewer. Because.


So it wasn't just the movie. Beverly really annoyed me. I liked her character when she was a kid, but the fact that every single male character wants to fuck/abuse her made my skin crawl. Speaks more to the author than to his characters in my opinion. Then as an adult, she comes across as this insane, emotionally unstable whore. I mean that's probably what would happen if literally every guy you ever met just wanted to have sex with you but still it just made me hate her, and the author who wrote her. Her deciding to 'stand up for herself' didn't make it any better because I felt that even that was oddly sexual.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 22, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> don't think King can write a woman who isn't used for sex. Somebody's got to perve on her if she's attractive at all. And even if not, the girl herself has to be thinking about it, obsessing about it. If she's not some good little domestic woman, she's a hideous villain, or somebody is obsessed with her love life. Even in Carrie, which is probably my favorite King novel, her mom's this total whacko who's obsessed with sex (even if she pretty much never ges any--it's some terrible sin--and used as some justification to abuse the daughter). Carrie finds meaning in getting romantic interest. There just has to be a boy involved. All of life for girls and women is concerned with attracting and pleasing men. Unless she's a villain (like in Misery), but then she's old and ugly and not fit to have sex with because only beautiful women are decent. Once she gets religion and fat and wrinkles, she's a villain and couldn't possibly be a useful, worthwhile woman.
> 
> 
> In any case, I'm hoping this aside adds something of value regarding themes. Themes are unavoidable. Building a story around a theme at least helps the reader see the intended theme (as opposed to something else you hadn't intended). Building around the theme can help give a lot of flesh to a story, put some meat on its bones and help it stand up on its own. Themes can elevate or detract from the story. They can get controversial--intentionally or otherwise--so if you're looking to make it one side or the other of controversy, get other people to look at a detailed plot synopsis. Oftentimes, we're unable to see these unintentional themes until somebody else points them out.
> ...



Several points to make here,

1: If you want to have an established theme for the story make a list of theme's that fit the story. Make it small so as to not overwhelm yourself. (even if it is a small list of themes some others will sneak in there if your not careful.)

2: I really hope i don't fall into that pit of unintentionally making my character's just a two dimensional blow up doll. I mean One of my themes is the folly of sin so one of the character's will be a prostitute who bugs the various characters around her for sex but that is just her character. That's her sin to bare and deal with so I feel like it's a bit different and she's just one of many female character's my story.

3: Make the character's believable and the themes that they uphold to will follow them throughout the story.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> So it wasn't just the movie. Beverly really annoyed me. I liked her character when she was a kid, but the fact that every single male character wants to fuck/abuse her made my skin crawl. Speaks more to the author than to his characters in my opinion. Then as an adult, she comes across as this insane, emotionally unstable whore. I mean that's probably what would happen if literally every guy you ever met just wanted to have sex with you but still it just made me hate her, and the author who wrote her. Her deciding to 'stand up for herself' didn't make it any better because I felt that even that was oddly sexual.


See, I could like her and feel for her, but I hated the author passionately for doing this to her. It's not her fault that people look at her like that, but that she succumbs to this over-sexualization, the worldview and roles others force on her--_that's_ horrible. 

I've written a ton of stories involving abuse, and my visceral reaction to King's portrayal of Beverly is one of the many things that keeps me from finishing and publishing some of them. I know I'm trying to treat a horrible topic with respect, but it's a lasting fear that someone's going to read something I've written and think something totally different. The last thing I want is for someone to pick up such a story and think I did to a character what King did to Beverly; I don't want anyone thinking I'm throwing something in for pulp value, that I'm insensitive or sexist. Well, I suppose the only thing worse would be to turn abuse into fap material, but that's another worry and still concerns the unintentional themes. 

Fiction is a Rorschach test for both author and reader. If a reader is determined to see something, they're going to see it. Sexuality and offense are probably the two biggest things to be wary of for authors. Readers can find sex and something offensive in anything, if they're weird and/or determined enough. 

While I can understand King perhaps wanting to shed light on incest in small towns, which tend to sweep weird crap under the rug (not that big cities don't--there you have the cloak of anonymity, nobody knows anybody), I think he pulled it off sooooo badly. The Dad wasn't some bad guy who got those just desserts and went to prison or anything. He was creepy, but not treated as the big bad threat. And her embracing her sexuality and womanhood---WTF? The only reason she has issues with becoming a woman is because everyone's perving on her all the time. Hence, womanhood isn't viewed as anything good--it's just an abuse magnet. The answer isn't to have the character overcome her reluctance to embrace womanhood by screwing every likable-ish male character. That's not the point of womanhood. 

Ugh. I'm really not wanting to derail this thread with King and abuse in fiction, but I'm open to continuing discussion elsewhere (or here if ironpony don't care). I do have a similar thread in the Red Light Room called "Struggling to write erotica". I started a pulp erotica novel a decade ago with the intention of making some quick cash writing genre fiction I hated... and it morphed into a really complex exploration of abuse (especially sex abuse).


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Several points to make here,
> 
> 1: If you want to have an established theme for the story make a list of theme's that fit the story. Make it small so as to not overwhelm yourself. (even if it is a small list of themes some others will sneak in there if your not careful.)
> 
> ...



Have you met many real life prostitutes? Might not hurt to get to know some for research purposes. 

Consider that said character might have some underlying issues which compel her to seek sex. Prostitution is an economic thing--not a sex thing, necessarily. It's similar to pornography. Women get into it because they need money, don't have valuable working skills, are under-educated in a competitive market, or because they don't know a world without sex abuse. It's not uncommon for sex abuse victims to try turning the tables and making sex a weapon (especially if it's the only thing they think they're good for or good at). That's not saying you can't have a nymphomaniac or a woman who simply must be having sex to feel pretty, useful, worthwhile. Some people internalize the desires of their abusers and try to do everything right, and they wind up finding their whole life's purpose in sex. This might be something that causes said lady to compulsively seek sex. Alternatively, you could make a neat take on a succubus.

Best succubus ever was Sakie Sato in Interviews with Monster Girls. (just sayin'). One of my favorite characters in all of anime, actually. She's just the sweetest, cutest lady, and I felt so much for her. If you can watch it, I totally recommend it because it might help you with worldbuilding some demihumans (there's an ice lady, a vampire, a dullahan, and a succubus).


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 22, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Have you met many real life prostitutes? Might not hurt to get to know some for research purposes.
> 
> Consider that said character might have some underlying issues which compel her to seek sex. Prostitution is an economic thing--not a sex thing, necessarily. It's similar to pornography. Women get into it because they need money, don't have valuable working skills, are under-educated in a competitive market, or because they don't know a world without sex abuse. It's not uncommon for sex abuse victims to try turning the tables and making sex a weapon (especially if it's the only thing they think they're good for or good at). That's not saying you can't have a nymphomaniac or a woman who simply must be having sex to feel pretty, useful, worthwhile. Some people internalize the desires of their abusers and try to do everything right, and they wind up finding their whole life's purpose in sex. This might be something that causes said lady to compulsively seek sex. Alternatively, you could make a neat take on a succubus.
> 
> Best succubus ever was Sakie Sato in Interviews with Monster Girls. (just sayin'). One of my favorite characters in all of anime, actually. She's just the sweetest, cutest lady, and I felt so much for her. If you can watch it, I totally recommend it because it might help you with worldbuilding some demihumans (there's an ice lady, a vampire, a dullahan, and a succubus).



i was planning on making her a succubus but again i sort of figured that was cliche to do but i just feel so compelled to tell the story from the perspective of other demihumans that i just can't help myself. I'll have to look up interview with monster girls to see just how it is with it's character's and characterization. I want the succubus character to be sympathetic but at the same time she want's to be bold, flirtatious, and mischievous and all around demonic and evil. When your own character's want to go there own way and do there own thing then you have some great moments for story telling.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> i was planning on making her a succubus but again i sort of figured that was cliche to do but i just feel so compelled to tell the story from the perspective of other demihumans that i just can't help myself. I'll have to look up interview with monster girls to see just how it is with it's character's and characterization. I want the succubus character to be sympathetic but at the same time she want's to be bold, flirtatious, and mischievous and all around demonic and evil. When your own character's want to go there own way and do there own thing then you have some great moments for story telling.



Here's a nice bit on the succubus/incubus trope. It's got some history and a nice listing of all the great sex fiends in literature, anime, and other media. 

Pinocchio is actually very close in many respects to the more classical, nasty, evil incubus--except he's not actually a demon. He's a sex-eating, controlling, deeply jealous, distrustful, spiteful, vengeful, manipulative, selfish, nasty--but the big twist there is that he wasn't born that way at all. There's nothing about what he develops into that makes him innately destined for evil. People made him that way. Due to a life of constant abuse and manipulation, he has extreme difficulty forming mutually beneficial, loving, empathetic relationships. It's easy for him to eat people by a certain point in the story because he no longer has any desire to be loved or fit in. Life is kill or be killed, abuse or be abused, eat it or starve. Also like classical incubi, he's not necessarily some super hot guy but he makes people see him as attractive and compels people to want him. And all of ties into that stuff I wrote earlier about the prostitutes (and Beverly to an extent) because he was forced into prostitution. Most dangerous animal is an unloved child.

Interviews with Monster Girls subverts a lot of expectations with monster girls. Sakie Sato is a very sympathetic character who has to try really, really hard not to seduce people. It's not an intentional thing at all for her--people are just super attracted to her, so she can't bare any skin at all and has to wear really unflattering tracksuits everywhere. She also causes people to have sex dreams if she falls asleep around other people.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 22, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Several points to make here,
> 
> 1: If you want to have an established theme for the story make a list of theme's that fit the story. Make it small so as to not overwhelm yourself. (even if it is a small list of themes some others will sneak in there if your not careful.)
> 
> ...



Oh okay.  Well I listed the themes I wanted while coming up with the premise of my story, but I was told the character behavior was illogical or inconsistent.  So I rewrote it with a new approach and the characters stay consistent and logical no matter what.  However, this caused the themes to be abandoned and go in new directions, possibly with unintentional ones arising now.  So that's my problem.

One story I can think of with an unintended theme is King Kong (1933).  The original movie, because it was about a group of men bringing a giant ape back to American in chains, audiences thought it was about themes of slavery and racism, as a result.  The writer and producer went on record back then and said that such a theme was not intended at all, and it was misinterpreted.  

So how do you avoid misinterpreted themes, especially if the characters are making the decisions for you to stay consistent, and thus new, unintended themes may arise?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 22, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  Well I listed the themes I wanted while coming up with the premise of my story, but I was told the character behavior was illogical or inconsistent.  So I rewrote it with a new approach and the characters stay consistent and logical no matter what.  However, this caused the themes to be abandoned and go in new directions, possibly with unintentional ones arising now.  So that's my problem.



That is just the way some writing go's. When you scrap one idea and go with a new one then some new themes will arise as a result.



ironpony said:


> So how do you avoid misinterpreted themes, especially if the characters are making the decisions for you to stay consistent, and thus new, unintended themes may arise?


 
This will happen no matter what you do. My own story is a Fantasy/Western/Paranormal Romance Novel. It's themes include but is not limited to, Following Your Heart, Trust in God Not Man, Lead By example, Love yourself and one another. These themes ooz off of every page thanks to the character's themselves going through various ordeals and staying true to who they are. But these themes can also be misinterpreted as well. 

Socrates is a holy warrior who help's out everyone that he comes across even at his own expense. And yet he can be selfish self centered and egotistical like any other human being. Fenrir is a curious kind soul who has been shut off from the world around her. She's naive and unsure of herself or the world at large but she's willing to do what she feels is right to help out her pack. 

Point of all this is to keep your character's true to themselves and the themes will flow from there interactions with the world and one another as naturally as they do in the real world even if people get the themes wrong form time to time.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 23, 2019)

Oh okay, I didn't think I scrapped one whole idea, though, it's just slightly altering an execution can lead to a whole domino effect of consequences you don't want.  I keep trying to go back to the drawing board and find a way to have the characters be true to who they are, but also have the better themes that were intended, but wondering if that's possible.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 23, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, I didn't think I scrapped one whole idea, though, it's just slightly altering an execution can lead to a whole domino effect of consequences you don't want.  I keep trying to go back to the drawing board and find a way to have the characters be true to who they are, but also have the better themes that were intended, but wondering if that's possible.



Possibly. Try to get a detailed synopsis up, and people will weigh in on themes they might see in it.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 23, 2019)

Okay thanks.  I can work on a detailed synopsis.  The story is about the police investigating a series of kidnapping and rapes, being done by a gang, and trying to find who they are and catch them.  The gang is doing them because they suffer from involuntary celibacy and are wanting to strike back at their problem, as a mean of power.

The main character is a cop, investigating them who is also a victim of rape himself, and he vengefully wants to bring them down and what they stand for.  What kind of themes do you think you would see, or should see from that type premise though?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 23, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I can work on a detailed synopsis.  The story is about the police investigating a series of kidnapping and rapes, being done by a gang, and trying to find who they are and catch them.  The gang is doing them because they suffer from involuntary celibacy and are wanting to strike back at their problem, as a mean of power.
> 
> The main character is a cop, investigating them who is also a victim of rape himself, and he vengefully wants to bring them down and what they stand for.  What kind of themes do you think you would see, or should see from that type premise though?



Please, don't have the gang be priests. They sound like stereotypical rapey priests right now. Not sure who else takes vows of celibacy though (but that still isn't forced upon them). 

You're likely to get into some serious Machiavellian territory (ends justify the means). That's not necessarily a bad thing. There's likely to be some "Which is worse: rape or murder?"

Celibacy doesn't have to turn people into rape factories. The need to prove power over someone is a big part of rape, but this is often the case with persons in very demeaning jobs (or very grand positions of power). At the low end, he needs to get respect/power/sex he "_deserves_". 

You might try watching Mindhunter on Netflix. While it deals foremost with serial killers, there is a strong sexual nature to serial killing, and it might help you craft some neat villains and deeper understanding of said villains ('cause it's all about getting into the heads of villains and profiling them). 

Some methods of enforced celibacy make it impossible or nearly so to achieve an erection, so you may want to look into that, depending on how celibacy's imposed upon this gang. 

You may wind up with an unintended themes about sex drives in men, specifically. For instance, that men can't help but be rapey monsters if they're denied sex (and therefore, that women should put up, shut up, put out, and take all comers lest they cause these poor weak men to become total monsters). This theme you are going to have to shun with all your writerly might (or at least, I would if I were you). By making all the major characters men, you're entirely focused on the male sex drive--and making it out to be a total monster, something to be reckoned with but not enjoyed or embraced. There's plenty of other stories about enjoying sex, so that's not necessarily an issue--but you didn't write _those_; you're writing _this one_. That makes it easy to misunderstand your personal values, so just be aware of this tendency. 

I do applaud you for writing a raped man, however. There's much evidence to support that pedophilia doesn't have a preference between the sexes (or that they tend to even out in terms of victim sex). Thus, there are a lot of molested/raped boys, youths, men out there--and too often, their voices and anguish go unheard. The machismo culture tends to drown this. It's not manly to deal with such anguish--victims are doubly expected to keep silent because they can't admit to "losing their man card" or being seen as "sissy" or "gay". It's complex. The secret eats away at them and can cause all manner of psychological turmoil. While I do tend to write a lot of abused characters, I believe I've kept the victim sex roughly equal.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 23, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Regarding unintentional themes.... trying to think of an example off the top of my head...
> 
> Okay, got one: Stephen King's It. A probably unintentional theme in that book ruined the book and most of his other books for me, even. Beverly. Everything about her was wrong. Her whole point is to be a sex puppet. Drives me crazy. Everyone else has some superpower, something they can add, but what's she do? Mystically saves the team through underage nooky in a sewer. Because.
> 
> ...



If you haven't read _IT_ since you were in the 6th grade, you are remembering it wrong. Beverly Marsh isn't portrayed as a 'plaything' at any point, and she never has sex with any of the adult Losers. The whole point of the scene in the sewer is Beverly finally dealing with her father's twisted views of female sexuality, but that's a perspective few 6th graders would pick up on. King has a pretty good track-record when it comes to dealing with women's issues.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Please, don't have the gang be priests. They sound like stereotypical rapey priests right now. Not sure who else takes vows of celibacy though (but that still isn't forced upon them).
> 
> You're likely to get into some serious Machiavellian territory (ends justify the means). That's not necessarily a bad thing. There's likely to be some "Which is worse: rape or murder?"
> 
> ...



As a man who's had personal experience with this issue I can tell you it would be in your best interest to look into male rape victims as well as the psychology of a rape victims.

 Siegfried was definitely correct on all accounts but I will add in that for me my experience turned me off of and against gay's for quite some time. It even got into an unhealthy situation involving other outlets for some time. But I got better and as time went on I learned what was right and what was wrong. 

Point being tthat trauma of the event will never leave me. It never completely go's away but I as well as the main character of this story need to find ways to move on. Hope this helps never told this story to anyone before not even my own parents. Feels good to get that off my chest after so long...


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 23, 2019)

Terry D said:


> If you haven't read _IT_ since you were in the 6th grade, you are remembering it wrong. Beverly Marsh isn't portrayed as a 'plaything' at any point, and she never has sex with any of the adult Losers. The whole point of the scene in the sewer is Beverly finally dealing with her father's twisted views of female sexuality, but that's a perspective few 6th graders would pick up on. King has a pretty good track-record when it comes to dealing with women's issues.



BS. I'm calling rank, total BS. He has a _terrible_ track record with women, as I've already mentioned and outlined in detail. Mentioning female characters who (_GASP!_) have periods doesn't make King some excellent writer on women's issues. I've already outlined all kinds of reasons why *_that*_ scene isn't (and shouldn't) sit well on any sane person. 

As a sixth-grader, I had more in common with Beverly than you can possibly dream. I can tell you how the character and author came off to me in sixth grade. I can tell you how they come off to me now. I have even more in common with her now, and I'm no less horrified and offended with the direction King took that character. 


*Death of the Author

*​I don't care what King said or even what his cocaine-riddled intentions were, because wiser people have noted that the author is dead as soon as the work's published. The story is going to mean different things and be perceived differently by different readers. We don't have a pocket King to consult--and we shouldn't because the text needs to be able to stand on its own. There's no way to get only one version of a message across--in film or literature. 

Here's a nice video on the Death of the Author:
[video=youtube;MGn9x4-Y_7A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGn9x4-Y_7A[/video]


*Combating vs Embracing Stereotypes*​
While her father perved on her, he'd never had sex with her because he can still find out if she's a virgin (and he wouldn't do that if he'd been porking her the whole time). It's _after_ this point that she--instead of respecting herself and the autonomy of her own body, and refusing to be a harmful stereotype--decides screwing each and every one of her friends (despite the up-til-that-moment false assertion that she was a slut for hanging out with the boys). She could _combat_ the harmful, demeaning stereotype, but she doesn't--she "embraces" it. Here she's been falsely accused of being a slut (problem), and the "solution" is to totally go gung-hoebag into it. 

The "solution" to her problem with being constantly sexualized was to make the problem worse. Really think about it. Embracing her sexuality = being a slut in a sewer = becoming exactly what everyone wanted her to be all along = living _down_ to the expectations of the abusive father and society at large. Supposedly, this is to be some great women's lib moment where she _embraces her womanhood_ (as an underage girl), makes her sexuality her own--but it doesn't f***ing work at all because King over-sexualized her throughout the entire book and is constantly throwing her into abusive scenarios--and an adult and a child. 

If it was at least as just the child, it might sit better because that "embracing her strength in womanhood" BS would have served the purpose of her stopping the cycle of abuse in its tracks. She'd be her own damn woman, doing what she wants with her body. But she doesn't. She leaves Derry and becomes embroiled in yet more abusive, horrible relationships. Her going into fashion also struck me as weird and out-of-character for someone who hadn't seemed so superficial before that point. So by the beginning of the adult arc, this miraculous coming of age, embracing her womanhood stuff was total crap. She's just as abused and miserable as she started out. Nothing changed. She's gone from being this compelling character to a shadow of her former self.  

Her sex is her whole reason to even be in the damn book. _That's_ her super power: she's a friggin' succubus who's inadvertently afflicting all of the men/boys around her with lust--through no fault of her own. The boys have quirks that help the group--all Bev gets to do is screw in the sewer to save the day (by getting a _boy_ to concentrate so _he_ can save _her_) and mark everyone's transition into "adulthood"... because adulthood = sex in King's universe, apparently. Not responsibilities, not deeper understanding of humanity and the world, not anything else, just sex... _because_.  

It doesn't have to come off as "slutty" but it does because of how it was written into the narrative. It didn't feel empowering; it felt demeaning, debasing--like she'd lost instead of won. For instance, if she'd been raped by her father (without being sexualized by everyone in the novel), she might well attempt to _reclaim_ her sexuality and make it her own in the sewer. I'd still find it objectionable and demeaning that sex is her superpower, but I'd understand why she did it and why she felt it was necessary to soothe anxieties (because she'd seen how relaxed her dad was after intercourse compared to his angry/anxious/disorganized mental state before raping her). Sex doth soothe the savage beast. 

But without that experience, her conclusion to have sex with them comes off as embracing the harmful stereotype instead of liberating her from harmful stereotypes, constraints, lustful desires she didn't want or deserve. At that point, sex would've been a source of wounding and anguish, so choosing to have it and being opened up to the pleasure one might get from mutually respectful, affectionate intercourse would then be _empowering_ and have a _healing_ effect on the character who has gone into the act as a selfless martyr. She wouldn't come off as a "slut" at all, but a brave, selfless, wounded girl who makes a decision to save the party in the best way she knows how (because unwanted sex has defined her _internally,_ and she's seen the effects of it on men). She wouldn't have _lost_ anything, but she would have _gained_ something by way of a deeper understanding. It's tragic still, and I'd still be unhappy with King for making her mystical vagina be what saves the day/defines her role in the party (if she at least had a quirk that rivaled those of the boys, this wouldn't be an issue for me, but she doesn't. She's got baggage and is cursed to be female in an overwhelmingly male-heavy cast).

Try to imagine another harmful stereotype being applied to, say, a black character. Is it a fulfilling narrative if the character decides to embrace the harmful stereotype, _become _the stereotype, instead of fighting it? Hell no. It's a tragedy at that point because the person has thrown their identity, agency and self-respect into the trash and lived _down_ to harmful expectations. There are stories out there like this for the African-American community. A character is smart, independent, educated, nerdy, sensitive, gay, whatever. They don't fit the stereotype, but are constantly being told from every angle that they should conform to this stereotype. If the stereotype wins, it's a tragedy. 

*How King treats Male vs Female Characters

*​Beverly doesn't necessarily get it on on the page with the adult Losers but she absolutely does get passed around. She's winds up married and pregnant by the end. There is a huge emphasis on sex (particularly sex with her) throughout _the entire book_. King cannot stop sexualizing this character. Each of the Losers has sex with her and they all think about it. There are some specific sections (one with the librarian character especially rings out for me) where the adult Losers expect her to transiently be in romantic entanglements with some of them. She can't stop existing in this strange realm of permanent sexual tension, attraction, abuse. Her whole point is to be fantasized about and abused--as though this is the only thing women are good for, the only things that might give their lives some meaning and purpose, the only thing they might be afraid of.  

It's dehumanizing--and he doesn't pull this crap with male characters. Their sex does not define their characters, their fears, their lives, their traumas. They're never raped and treated as objects of constant, omnipresent sexual fantasy the way that his female characters are. Rape only happens to _girls_ in King's world. Worse yet, it only happens to _pretty girls_ in his books, and only ugly ones are villains. A woman's character is pretty well determined by how young and beautiful she is. He doesn't strain that mold much.  

The closest I can recall to a man getting raped is Misery--where the author is kidnapped and made to feel powerless and humiliated (but at the same time _godlike_ via this constant attention from the obsessive villain who simply must have _him_ do something for _her._..  but this is again an instance of a woman who simply can't exist apart from her relationships with a male lead, and an example of the unattractive woman = villainous woman). 

His men can be relative interesting characters apart from sex (though, as others have mentioned, King's a size queen, but the wang mentions aren't as nonstop as the victimization and villainization of women). All kinds of male characters are intended to be interesting, heroic, quirky, whatever, and many of them aren't sexualized at all to the extent that his female characters are.


*King vs Transformers

*​Even Transformers got that a female character doesn't have to be defined by her mystical vagina. A lot of fans really liked Arcee and other female-gendered Transformers. 

I do sometimes feel that King treated Beverly with a similar male gaze to the treatment of Megan Fox. She's the most heroic human in the story, but is constantly viewed through this strange sex lens. Very similar to Beverly, she's beautiful and troubled, she grows as a character but is consistently objectified and demeaned.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> BS. I'm calling rank, total BS. He has a _terrible_ track record with women, as I've already mentioned and outlined in detail. Mentioning female characters who (_GASP!_) have periods doesn't make King some excellent writer on women's issues. I've already outlined all kinds of reasons why *_that*_ scene isn't (and shouldn't) sit well on any sane person.
> 
> As a sixth-grader, I had more in common with Beverly than you can possibly dream. I can tell you how the character and author came off to me in sixth grade. I can tell you how they come off to me now. I have even more in common with her now, and I'm no less horrified and offended with the direction King took that character.
> 
> ...



Honestly I hate the oversexulization of both male and female character's in fiction, especially if it serves zero purpose other than to just emphasize SEX!! For me if a character has mad sex appeal or is being objectified have it serve a purpose.

 For example if the character is a succubus that's fine i can see and even expect sex to be involved in the story. But don't just have them in the story just for the sake of sex appeal or objectification. Have the succubus use her sex appeal for something like distracting some guards while the rest of the group escapes from prison or something. 

And it's not even bad for me at least to have some objectification of her sex appeal just don't have every guy stop what there doing and start oggiling her. It does nothing but paint all men as desperate horn dogs and all women as second rate sex objects.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 23, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> BS. I'm calling rank, total BS. He has a _terrible_ track record with women, as I've already mentioned and outlined in detail. Mentioning female characters who (_GASP!_) have periods doesn't make King some excellent writer on women's issues. I've already outlined all kinds of reasons why *_that*_ scene isn't (and shouldn't) sit well on any sane person.



I think King is generally okay on “women’s issues”. We know this because if he wasn’t there would have been some epic Woke campaign by now to have his books (or at least that book)  thrown out. As it is, it’s still a popular King read - uncensored- and I know plenty of women who love King (Dolores Claiborne, Rose Madder and a couple others have very strong female characterization I am told) and nobody ever complains a whole lot about some kid orgy in a book that’s what, thirty years old?  It’s a book, after all. Its not like the scene is written as a piece of erotica. It ultimately has a point that serves the story, as Terry explained.

Either way, just because something doesn’t sit well with you personally doesn’t mean others can’t be okay with it, right? Unless you see yourself as some kind of moral gatekeeper for all humankind. Otherwise, if you don’t like King, don’t read King.

Regarding that scene....eh, I can see it both ways. I don’t care for the kid orgy scene myself (mostly because of how it triggers endless tedious hand wringing)  but I don’t think it makes King some kind of misogynist. Look when that book was written, when a lot of King’s books were written, women/girls weren’t given the same agency as men. Hence yes there are differences in how male characters are written to female ones. My god, its almost as though cultural norms aren’t fixed and change over time!

Didn’t Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption have a male-male rape scene? Or am I confusing it with something else?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 23, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Honestly I hate the oversexulization of both male and female character's in fiction, especially if it serves zero purpose other than to just emphasize SEX!! For me if a character has mad sex appeal or is being objectified have it serve a purpose.
> 
> For example if the character is a succubus that's fine i can see and even expect sex to be involved in the story. But don't just have them in the story just for the sake of sex appeal or objectification. Have the succubus use her sex appeal for something like distracting some guards while the rest of the group escapes from prison or something.
> 
> And it's not even bad for me at least to have some objectification of her sex appeal just don't have every guy stop what there doing and start oggiling her. It does nothing but paint all men as desperate horn dogs and all women as second rate sex objects.



As Terry argued, the oversexualization did serve a purpose with Beverly--it constantly inflicted the character with a fear of womanhood that she wouldn't have had if all the male characters weren't noticing/remarking on/perving out over her all the time. However, I think there were much, much better ways of going about this from a narrative standpoint. Beverly isn't a literal succubus--she's a troubled girl who is consistently painted in a frequently-disturbing sexual light.

Sakie Sato is a succubus, but her constant exuding of sex appeal is played down on purpose. She's trying to be a normal woman, hold a normal job, not inconvenience everyone else or afflict them with her presence. having everyone attracted to her all the time makes it pretty much impossible for her to find real love. She's always worried that men like her because of her always-up-to-11 sex appeal--and not her personality at all. She's also not drawn as this super sexy lady. Even in the one episode where she's wearing a swimsuit, she's still pretty modest and in a mostly single-sex environment. The only guy around has proven able to handle her rampant sex appeal through overwhelming self-control and a sincere desire to respect and understand her. This series plays it so straight--it's just beautiful. 




Even in the face of someone who is horrendously attractive, it's not like people get possessed by lust in real life. Oftentimes, such intense attraction actually renders people uncomfortable because people don't like being overwhelmed or not in control of their feelings, desires and drives. Sometimes, the attracting party will actually get the impression that they're disliked because others don't want to look at them or be around them. I don't think this dynamic of attraction gets played straight as often as it should though. Typically, it just serves to make a dweeb more relatable to the audience (that teenage awkwardness and insecurity about attraction/"she's outta yer league" moment).


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> As Terry argued, the oversexualization did serve a purpose with Beverly--it constantly inflicted the character with a fear of womanhood that she wouldn't have had if all the male characters weren't noticing/remarking on/perving out over her all the time. However, I think there were much, much better ways of going about this from a narrative standpoint. Beverly isn't a literal succubus--she's a troubled girl who is consistently painted in a frequently-disturbing sexual light.
> 
> Sakie Sato is a succubus, but her constant exuding of sex appeal is played down on purpose. She's trying to be a normal woman, hold a normal job, not inconvenience everyone else or afflict them with her presence. having everyone attracted to her all the time makes it pretty much impossible for her to find real love. She's always worried that men like her because of her always-up-to-11 sex appeal--and not her personality at all. She's also not drawn as this super sexy lady. Even in the one episode where she's wearing a swimsuit, she's still pretty modest and in a mostly single-sex environment. The only guy around has proven able to handle her rampant sex appeal through overwhelming self-control and a sincere desire to respect and understand her. This series plays it so straight--it's just beautiful.
> 
> ...



You see this is what i want to bring to the table with my writing. I really hope to one day aspire to be this good at writing that i can bring my character's to life in this way. I've got 10 chapters outlined so far and I really think i've nailed the slightly awkward culture clash between Fenrir and Socrates which is great but I really think i need to have a second opinion. I'll have to see if i can post up a snippet of that chapter up to see how it could play out.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 23, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> BS. I'm calling rank, total BS. He has a _terrible_ track record with women, as I've already mentioned and outlined in detail. Mentioning female characters who (_GASP!_) have periods doesn't make King some excellent writer on women's issues. I've already outlined all kinds of reasons why *_that*_ scene isn't (and shouldn't) sit well on any sane person.
> 
> As a sixth-grader, I had more in common with Beverly than you can possibly dream. I can tell you how the character and author came off to me in sixth grade. I can tell you how they come off to me now. I have even more in common with her now, and I'm no less horrified and offended with the direction King took that character.
> 
> ...



I don't know what "rank" you think you are pulling. You know nothing about me so "pulling rank" is all in your head. You've already shown that you don't know the book by saying Beverly had sex with the Losers Club as adults, she didn't. So, while I respect your right to have your opinion, I find the substance of it suspect. The amount of verbiage expended notwithstanding.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 23, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I don't know what "rank" you think you are pulling. You know nothing about me so "pulling rank" is all in your head. You've already shown that you don't know the book by saying Beverly had sex with the Losers Club as adults, she didn't. So, while I respect your right to have your opinion, I find the substance of it suspect. The amount of verbiage expended notwithstanding.



I think they mean “rank” as an adjective, in terms of rancid.

I’m just going to repeat what I already said which I know is about to get lost under a heap of pseudo- analysis. Arguing about the assumed motivations of a single scene in a thirty year old novel is probably not the biggest waste of time... But it’s close.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 23, 2019)

I have no idea what happened. I had a really nice, well-put, well-thought-out response (to some earlier posts--there's been more since)... and the forum just totally ate it while I was trying to get a link to a work of fiction I posted here last year. 

Yes, "rank" was a smell term. 

I'm not claiming some moral gatekeeping ability. *I was writing about unintended interpretations* of a work. That's the whole point. There are 7 billion people on the planet, and every last one of them is going to come to some slightly different conclusions on any given work of art. That's what makes it _art._ It's going to mean something different to everyone. Every viewpoint is valid--_even those of 6th-graders who've lived with a lifetime of sexual assault and can't stand the idea they're growing into womanhood-- whether they want to or not_. 

I've never claimed King was a misogynist or intentionally tried to input the themes I saw in the work. _That's the whole point_--he probably didn't intend me to see what I saw. _*It's an unintended mass of themes*_. I'm glad King tried to bring some "women's issues" to light, that he tried to give a voice to some of these neglected, abused characters (like Carrie and Beverly)--even if I think he could've handled them better, perhaps. I'm pretty sure he thought he was being some Grade A USDA certified progressive feminist with all the works and scenes I've mentioned. He's free to think that. I just disagree and don't see that in his work, but that doesn't mean I think he's a misogynist or that he beats off to kiddie porn because of writing *that* scene (or any other scene/book/story) because a work is separate from the writer. I'm a different person than he is; I'm going to see his body of work differently than he does, and I'm going to see it differently than anyone else does, too. There's nothing wrong with that.

Rape and child abuse are particularly squicky subjects that do sometimes need to be brought up in all media. They are exceptionally difficult to purge of unintended themes (as I was trying to illustrate with King). No matter what an author does with these subjects, the reader is likely to pick up on unintended (and often highly controversial) themes in the work. That doesn't mean these subjects shouldn't be written about--far from it. But they _are _difficult to handle, and an author should expect somebody out there to find something deeply offensive in the work. We as authors can't hold ourselves back on their account, however, or we would never get anything written. I am a deeply anti-censorship author and reader, and I don't care what who writes--but said author should always expect controversy, especially if writing about something that's particularly squicky, political, religious, etc. You can't rain controversial themes on a story and not expect somebody to get offended. 

Unintended themes cannot ever be eradicated. However, they can sometimes be avoided with greater likelihood. Anytime an author writes a controversial scene, it pays to keep an eye out for such possible interpretations of the work. This is important for any scene--we should always be aware of why we're including any scene, what we're trying to convey with every scene, what the point of the scene is. 

With squicky scenes, this is especially important. Sometimes, said scene isn't necessary (like the rape-as-filler chapters in certain long-winded fantasy series). Sometimes, it could use more nuance, sensitivity and respect to help avoid certain pitfalls of controversy. Does the scene convey what I need it to? How can I hone this and make it better, clearer, entirely relevant to the plot and character development? Is this level of detail entirely necessary? Is there another way I could write this that might make my intended theme shine a bit brighter? And these are good things to keep in mind for every scene anyway...


*Why I'm Terrified of Unintended Themes*​I've written scenes and whole stories which are more graphic and horrific than anything I've seen from King. I am very, _very_ aware of how paralyzing unintended themes can be. I finished Joanna's Big Secret last year--after _nine years_ of her being a thorn in my brain--and I still haven't subbed her anywhere because editors talk to each other, and I don't want people thinking I'm a pedophile. I am very aware that I could be totally ruined by the shitstorm that might happen should that story ever get published. 

Joanna's kind of a little sister work to Pinocchio, which I started several months later (and still haven't finished ten years in for similar reasons). Pinocchio's a magnum opus of sorts concerning the effects of sex abuse, but Joanna's less than 10K. Joanna deals with an AI that gets molested by a little girl and is otherwise abused by people. I felt that story needed to get told because, at some point, I can see such a thing realistically happening as progressively more advanced AI finds its way into things like toys (not such a huge jump from video games to children's action figures). It's a bit graphic because it's first-person present tense from the AI's POV. 

They're different kinds of cautionary tales though because the AI isn't as capable of fighting back as Pinocchio is, but in both cases, there's a huge emphasis on understanding the abused party, and the cycle of abuse (and even how to end it). And no matter how I try to treat the issues, someone's doomed to be horrified and offended (*much like I was when reading Beverly*).


----------



## ironpony (Jul 24, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Please, don't have the gang be priests. They sound like stereotypical rapey priests right now. Not sure who else takes vows of celibacy though (but that still isn't forced upon them).
> 
> You're likely to get into some serious Machiavellian territory (ends justify the means). That's not necessarily a bad thing. There's likely to be some "Which is worse: rape or murder?"
> 
> ...



Okay thanks for the input, and thanks to the other posts as well!  When it comes to the man being raped, and not reporting it cause he might be thought of as gay, or a sissy, it seems that the culture is much more open minded to male victims now, so would a guy really still be too worried about that in this day and age though?


----------



## Darren White (Jul 24, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks for the input, and thanks to the other posts as well!  When it comes to the man being raped, and not reporting it cause he might be thought of as gay, or a sissy, it seems that the culture is much more open minded to male victims now, so would a guy really still be too worried about that in this day and age though?


I can assure you, yes, to this day that is a reason for men not to report it. And I speak from personal experience.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 24, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks for the input, and thanks to the other posts as well!  When it comes to the man being raped, and not reporting it cause he might be thought of as gay, or a sissy, it seems that the culture is much more open minded to male victims now, so would a guy really still be too worried about that in this day and age though?




There are tons of reasons for any person of any sex or gender to not report a crime like that. There are different... how to put this... modes(?) of abuse.  

Rape between adults is quite often a one-off thing. A single perp may still rape multiple persons, but each victim isn't generally raped over a long period (like, years). Most are raped using drugs, alcohol or physical force. It's usually a one-time or one-event kinda thing (multiple times during a single event--such as a kidnapping or a party). Unless the victim is in an abusive relationship with the perp or has suffered other relationships like that in the past, he/she is unlikely to stay with the perp. More violent it is, the more likely it's going to get reported. Even so, particularly in cases where the victim knows the perp and the perp has leverage on the victim, the crime is very unlikely to go reported. The victim may fear their job is in danger, for instance. Victim may fear some kind of social ostracism and judgment ("sissy", "gay", somehow less manly, "weak", a "slut", a "whore", "just saying that for attention/because they're jealous of the perp's accomplishments, etc.). There's always the war of "My word vs your word, and who's going to believe you?". Happens all the time. Most victims decide the mudslinging and war of reputations simply isn't worth it, have very little faith in the justice system, don't believe the evidence would be convincing/convicting enough. They've already suffered this much, and they really, really don't want to suffer any more. Victim may or may not know the perp. Violent perps are less likely to know the victim (or to be abusive spouses/boyfriends), to my understanding, but this makes sense because a victim who knows the perp can totally press charges (and therefore has to be convinced not to). 

Child molestation/rape is often different than the rape seen in adults. Drugs, alcohol and violence aren't as often used compared to seduction and threats (***not that they're never used---far from it, _far from it_). Often, the child knows the perpetrator and has known this person for a long time. It's a trusted person--a relative, a parent, a boyfriend of the mother's or a stepdad, parents or older siblings of the child's friends, a babysitter, a friend of the family, someone the parents/child respect, a "pillar of the community", a teacher, a bus driver, a neighbor, a deacon/priest/member of a local church (yes, I know it's become cliche, but I've actually met people who were raped as children during "special prayer times" at church _while church was in session_).  The more the parents respect the perpetrator, the more likely the perp is to be trusted alone with the child. 

Because the child loves this person, they are more likely to endure (or even enjoy some aspects of) the attention/abuse. Abuse doesn't always have to be physically painful, and abuse which isn't physically painful is less likely to be discovered. Kids can sit through a lot of agony, however, and still not tell anyone. They're conditioned to believe a lot of things by the perp: that this is what love looks like, that no one will believe them, that everyone will hate them and abandon them, that their loved ones might be harmed if they tell, that they will be punished if they tell, that they will be punished/ostracized/hated if anybody finds out ever, that this is "our little secret" and secrets shouldn't be broken, that this is normal (I've known people who really thought this. Of course, stepdads rape the kids, it's like, _part of the job description_). Sometimes there is no explicit threat and the perp relies on love/loyalty/friendship or overwhelming shame and fear to keep the victim in check. In either case, the victim has no reason to betray the perp because 1) they feel "loved" and enjoy the attention (many abused children come from neglectful or emotionally/physically abusive homes and can thus be seduced because they're desperate for "love"/affection/attention and are willing to do anything to get/keep it), 2) They're terrified of the perp and/or someone finding out. 

I suffered enough as girl, and I'm still pretty darn sure that the pressures keeping boys shut up in macho cultures are worse. People in America seem to be more sympathetic to girls and women, I think, than they are for boys and men. The rape of a man can be played for laughs even (like in the end of Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls), and that doesn't happen much for girls and women. Now, in cultures where the molestation of boys/girls is treated in a totally different light, the situation is often reversed. For instance, in some cultures a woman or girl might get an "honor killing" or be forced to marry the perp. There are cultures where the molestation of boys is considered... normal, or even a rite of passage into manhood, and in such cultures, there wouldn't be the same stigmas associated with the victimization.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 25, 2019)

Oh okay, well I was told that the main character would report it, and they didn't buy into that he wouldn't as they felt it was not in his character not to.  So if I have to stay true to the character then, should I have him report it?  I just feel if the police know about his report, and they will know that it's him who is going out and getting the revenge much more likely so that makes things more complicated though.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 25, 2019)

The character is who you make him. 

It doesn't have to be the MC who reports. I never would have reported on my own, but I did understand both the desire to and not to report. My mother was always the one who found out and clamored for justice. Quite often it's a bystander or loved one who reports instead. Children especially aren't going to report--they don't even know how a lot of the time (due to not knowing how to call the police, how they should go about reporting, how to work a phone, that a crime was committed, the right words to use, etc). Come to think of it, I've never met a victim who reported on their own. If something gets reported at all, it's a person close to them who called it in or cajoled them into calling--or a total bystander. Bystanders are especially likely if the crime or part of it was witnessed/heard or physical evidence was left somewhere (such as a janitor discovering drug packaging and/or bloody underpants in a facilities trash). 

So your boy wouldn't have to call it in, regardless of how old he might've been at the time. There might be a witness or heroic bystander, a concerned parent or teacher who suspects something traumatic has happened because of a marked change in the child's behavior, a cop who's called in or happens to pursue the evidence (for that crime or even a totally unrelated one) and discovers evidence of this crime. Perp's computer, office or home might be searched on unrelated counts which leads to the discovery of the crime (maybe he was fired, and another employee is tasked with cleaning the office). It's not necessarily uncommon for habitual rapists and child molesters to keep detailed notes or photographs to remember these crimes in later years, so if said evidence is discovered, there might be hundreds or even thousands of crimes documented. Your guy might not have reported, but he might be IDed via such evidence and even called to take the stand or make a statement.  

I've met a lot of people who were raped as children or adults (more as children by far), and I'm still the only one who even made a statement (and both times it was because my mother made me). If I could've gotten away with not making the statement, I would've quietly kept my shame to myself. I've never met a man or boy who reported. My mom and I are pretty sure my dad was molested as a child, but he won't admit it at all--and it's been like fifty+ years. Men of those macho generations have such an enormous pressure on them to not be weak. Boys don't cry. Boys solve their own problems. All the rest. I'm still not sure how my in-laws figured out that an uncle was molesting all three of their boys for four years under their roof. Because the boys weren't going to say diddly squat about it.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 26, 2019)

Oh, my condolences to anyone who has been raped.  That's a terrible thing.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 26, 2019)

One of the the things that makes my main character is complicated is that as a cop, he plants and manipulates evidence to bring the villains down.  However, I don't see the character lying under oath to corroborate the evidence.  Lying under oath seems like a bigger step up, compared to planting and manipulating physical evidence.  And that's what makes the climax difficult to build into because it's hard to make a case, with evidence that cannot be corroborated.  But I was told by a couple of readers, that lying under oath is pretty much just as bad as planting and that he is really splitting hairs by being selectively moral about it.  Is he though, and it's an easy splitting hair change, or the two, very different things morally?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

ironpony said:


> One of the the things that makes my main character is complicated is that as a cop, he plants and manipulates evidence to bring the villains down.  However, I don't see the character lying under oath to corroborate the evidence.  Lying under oath seems like a bigger step up, compared to planting and manipulating physical evidence.  And that's what makes the climax difficult to build into because it's hard to make a case, with evidence that cannot be corroborated.  But I was told by a couple of readers, that lying under oath is pretty much just as bad as planting and that he is really splitting hairs by being selectively moral about it.  Is he though, and it's an easy splitting hair change, or the two, very different things morally?


Perjury ain't nothing next to manslaughter and murder, and all of the dozens of other charges he would've committed in killing a cop, framing the baddies for it, and lying about it to everyone while not under oath (but nevertheless on oficial paperwork). That's a lot of felonies there.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 27, 2019)

Oh okay, when it comes to him shooting the other cop, he does it by accident in the shoot out, so it's not like he planned on it compared to planning on lying under oath.  After the accident, since he realizes the damage is done, he might as well make some use out of this so the cops death will not be in vain, if that makes sense.

He doesn't lie in his report though.  Lying in his report means he would have to corroborate under oath later, so I feel his character would just manufacture evidence, and frame the villains for it, but not actually make a report of it, he would have to testify to.

Unless he is just splitting hairs though?  Or maybe he is the type of character to split hairs, and its' natural for him?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 27, 2019)

People often get trapped into a lie.
If he blamed the killing on a bad guy once, then he is stuck, and the lie grows, and he will be forced to double-down on it.
Think of a lie like a cartoon where Elmer Fudd rolls down a snowy hill, and grows into a huge snow ball.
The biggest of lies usually start out quite small.

Remember that in law enforcement, *Departure From The Truth* is the kiss of death. It is a fancy term for lying, and it will end a career.
In many cases, departure from the truth can even be a crime.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 27, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> People often get trapped into a lie.
> If he blamed the killing on a bad guy once, then he is stuck, and the lie grows, and he will be forced to double-down on it.
> Think of a lie like a cartoon where Elmer Fudd rolls down a snowy hill, and grows into a huge snow ball.
> The biggest of lies usually start out quite small.
> ...



Oh okay, I thought that if the main character lies, then he has to keep backing it up, especially if the villains defense pokes any holes in the story.  Where if he just manipulated the evidence physically, but doesn't call in any report and make any report, then he is in the clear, of having to do any doubling down then, if that makes sense.  So I thought the main character would see that as a better option, but at the same time, it's hard to manufacture a case, if you are not willing to testify to corroborate any of the evidence, and that's what makes the plot more difficult.  The less risk the main character takes, and the more he stays logical and safe, the harder it is for him to achieve the goal.


----------

