Quick question: the main character has a very high function in the army, which gives him a lot of responsibility. But he is also a bit waspish. That is, he has been known to draw his sword when his superior gives someone a punishment he doesn't deserve. Will this make for an interesting character or will it seem contradictive?
I don't think it will make him seem contradictive at all. What will make him seem contradictive is when he acts one way at one point in the story, but another way later on. It will also seem bad if he has a stereotypical personality. Make him as interesting as you want. Your character actually seems very familiar, as you see these types of guys in stories more often. Just remember to keep it realistic. A guy who has a high function in the army won't stay in that position for long if he disobeys his superiors frequently.
that term usually refers to a testy woman, so you may want to use a more 'male-friendly' one, unless he's on the feminine side...
Hmm. Curious. I came into this thread thinking of something completely different. I imagined martini tipping residents of Martha's Vineyard.
we call that 'having a short fuse' or 'having a hair trigger' among other things, such as: hotheaded volatile explosive touchy testy wired
I was about to say 'volatile' when I noticed this tread again, but Maia beat me to it. That kind of person is also referred to as a 'loose cannon.' His superior officers would probably call him 'insubordinate', along with 'irrational', others might call him 'impulsive'.
Actually, it sounds a step further than fellow simply disobeying. He's drawing weapons on his superior officers. From this: It reads like 'being known to' is that it's happened more than once. I agree with Evelyanin, that he wouldn't be around in his position for long. How does the military deal with personnel drawing weapons on their superiors when they disagree with orders or decisions? Do other personnel do the same? And if not, why not? And if so, how does discipline remain? Or is there a structure such that one can challenge the authority of a superior officer and thus, move up if successful in intimidation, or something. Yes, it's possible to have a character like described and even quite interesting, it'll just be tricky keeping it believable--but certainly not impossible depending on the world/society created. Just my two cents. Terry
I'm with Terry, personally. A military of any kind, at least the most effective, are born upon layers of tradition, respect, and discipline. As soon as you allow anyone with a superiority complex to undermine or outright insult a higher up you immediately put the balance of that institution in peril. It's easy to say that this sort of behavior is accepted in society, mostly because it is. Being confident and able to assert yourself in times of need is looked highly on, even if you're a bit volatile when doing so. However, its rare that those civilian situations are life and death, let alone the very security of an entire nation. That being said, there is certainly a long list of people, military or otherwise, that abuse their powers. At times the practice is authorized in hopes it will work when other methods have not. Nevertheless, it usually ends with the toppling of that abusers at the hands of his victims. With all of that set aside, if the story is good and the character charismatic, then I don't much care whether or not the story is believable. I just got done watching Law Abiding Citizen with Gerard Butler and LOVED the movie, even though realistically it is entirely implausible. Then again, I have a crush on Gerard Butler, so maybe I didn't watch for the actual story or acting.
In the British Army, even saluting without correct headwear on can be a court martionable offence. Drawing a weapon on a superior officer always leads to a court martial. Such behaviour would never be seen as an example of 'spirit', only lack of self-control and potentially very dangerous. I suggest you familiarise yourself with anecdotes about people who had a successful army career, like Field-Marshall Montgomery. He was considered 'difficult' and had a short temper, but was an absolute stickler for regulations and form. No one can rise to a position of influence in the army otherwise--including Winston Churchill, who was not very popular in the army, or as First Lord of the Admiralty, notwithstanding his obvious qualities of leadership. I would think the same goes for the US as well as the British and French armies.
