Too Nice? 2 - Too Pure?

Heeee... ChickenFreak doesn't know that type of person. This is a person who would intervene and take the burden upon others to lessen the misery of the world. There are those who believe misery begets misery and tries to turn the course of the great river of suffering. They do not offer salvation or claim superiority... it is just "do as you must".

Such people irritate me a little, but they also do not live in the world as normal people do. They certainly exist. Wynn... these people fear taking lives far more than others, but never seem to actually confront the notion at all. Even when you ask them outright... it is something unthinkable and they brush it off as a moral dilemma which they will never experience.

 

First to everyone. I find it funny that te guy of the two nice thread was well liked, even though I thought he would be misunderstood as creepy. Yet the too pure girl, whom I expected would be lamented for not having a happy endng is being shot down. lol.

Okay. Moving on. I find it funny in thought. The fact her life seems easy to take in tha activist role. But she isn't. She is an entertainer by trade. She spent most of her time perfecting her craft. She is no stranger to help when avilable but doesn't seem to make any dire effort to help the world at large.

And while I could see soemone like her not liking the moral debate of killing. I don't think she could avoid it. Her homeland ties the military into the the court system, and they are quite well known for there love of the death penalty.

I think in regards to the world at large her thought might be more like.

"I am no savior. I am an entertainer. I do hope the world is a bit nicer when I leave it than when I left it, but I can't take that burden. I can't change the world. I don't think any one person can. I just try to make the place around me, a ittle nicer than it was before. I hope in its own way that might be enough. I suppose it may be selfish to thin that way, but it is honest."

 

I get where you are coming from with this character. In some ways it is an ideal I try and aspire to myself. But then I try and acknowledge that while that may be the ideal, I am after all a human. I may be annoyed because I am hungry, or late for work, or it is that time of the month, and that is ok, I am human, and by stripping ourselves of the human experience we are taking pretty much all the meaning out of life.

So is she going to be a PoV character? If so I think you may struggle. I wouldn't relate to her as a reader, and if I don't relate the I will not get drawn into your story.

If she isn't a PoV character then how do others react to her? My gut feeling is that if I were her daughter, I'd be bloody angry with her. Never mind forgiving and understanding, I am your daughter and I want you to fight for me, I want you to be angry and vengeful, otherwise do I not mean anything to you?

 

Oh no, she isn't the POV character. In many ways, she is not in the story at all. She died. She was badly injured and left for dead. She was found, but died later during the process of birth. She died giving birth the MC. So, she was never really established before. Through the process of the book, the girl discovers this is her mother. The need for development came from an idea. Where the daughter, who did not know her mothers name until her early 20s. She found a book her mother wrote. Which is meant to be a sappy moment near the end.

Though, she would have always defended you(if you were her daughter.) She wouldn't let the bad man hurt you!!!

I tried to make a point of saying. While she is this role model. She is also a confident and assertive woman. If nothing else did, I bet the bad man trying to hurt her daughter would be what could inspire her to kill. Using her flower-style speech. I see her saying it like this.

"I would be sad, if I had to kill. I don't want too. I would rather give a dying flower new life, rather than kill it, but well. I am no fool. I eat meat. I live in a place that supports execution. I am no master of these concepts. If I had to, I think I would. Espescailly for my childen. See I may be a nice woman, or I try to be. I am not a nice mother. I don't think mothers come in nice. If a poisionous rose tries to stick my girl I will not only kill it but drag the entire root out. If I had too. Again, I as a nice woman would rather heal it and fix it. But if I needed to become a mother-monster. I think I could."

 

"But I'm you're daughter, surely that comes above what you *want* to do? You might *want* to be a nice person, but didn't you see what that man did to us? What he is doing to us? Didn't that make you want to tear out the rose, root and all, and stamp it into the dirt, not because you needed to, but because you wanted to? Love shouldn't be analytical, it should be felt in the gut, if you don't feel that, don't you love us? Aren't you actually a person?"

 

I think it is notable to mention context. In the sense, that inside her universe. She is very strong. It is highly unlikely anyone would be able to harm her. At least, not a common street thug. I say that because I think the context of her never being at the weak end of the stick explains her reaction. Well, except that time she actually did die. lol

"But that logic works both ways. That man is someone elses son. To hurt him out of passion is wrong. Just as it would be wrong to destroy a lake or a ocean, or a bear out of passion. i can understand doing it out of needing too, but doing it for its own sake is wrong. And I do love you!"

The irony! Of her original goal being she didn't want to be viewed as arrogant or be arrogant. I mean even her lack of emotion towards events dials back to her sort of thinking. "Who am I to expect the universe to bend in my favor?"

Though reminds me of a friend. Who pointed out he believed, that a truely talented person denying there talent is arrogant in the sense they are saying the world at large sucks. Sort of a "I am not master. You just all suck." (Not her voice.)

Funny enough, as I said, she is not really a character. Since she is only referenced. And as this pure person to whom her daughters walks inside the shadow of. I think she may ork, but I plan to think about her more.

The flower anology comes from something she said in another story. The story is actually on here. In the work shop. lol. See, the story took place in the after life. And she is dead, so I decided to use her. She uses it then as anology to say sort of like. "There is no reason to morn a wilting flowers death. Sorrow should be reserved for those that haven't yet bloomed."

 

Perhaps she's supposed to be the kind of person who always aspires to take the higher ground, like it's her principle? But like any human, she's bound to fail and give in to more negative feelings when horrible stuff happens, like senseless violence or suffering (especially when the target is her husband or her daughters left to fend for themselves while she's unable to help them -- I mean, the impotent rage she must be fighting every day!). I think her failures (in the afterlife or in the past) yet her aspiring to be good will still keep her compelling. I think as readers it's easier to relate to failures than constant successes, but that doesn't mean the character wouldn't, in her core, always adhere to the principle of "turning the other cheek."

Then again, she could have something like a blind faith to some god or gods that enables her to accept whatever happens to her and not hold grudge towards those who, from the reader's perspective at least, have wronged her.

Or maybe she's like Voltaire's Candide? "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."

 

What is Voltaire's Candide?

So what your saying, is even if she keeps up this thought process most of the time. Even if she really believes it. Like all of us, you expect her to break away from it even for a moment. (Like her entering an inconsoulable rage at the prospect of this man that intends to kill her kids.) Even if it is only a moment that she falters. You want to see that moment?

 

Yeah, pretty much. If she appeared in the book, and depending on the size of her role, I would expect her to either develop or at least have some highs and lows in her life. I'm currently writing a character who's a painkiller addict, and the addiction sometimes causes her to lash out, be impatient, and hurt others, but in the core, she's a more positive, forgiving person than I am, and I do want to tell that story, at the risk of her appearing "saintly" at times. So I'm kind of seeing parallels between her and the character you've described here, which is why I'm all for writing someone who believes in the goodness of mankind or wants to heal the world with love instead of hate or fight war with peace -- despite everything.

But I think a character with highs and lows, and a development arch, is better than someone who's sort of predictable and just takes her lumps without gagging. I don't think anyone can be like that all the time, and I believe it's fallible humanity in your character that will resonate with your readers more than infallible superwomanhood, if that makes sense?

Candide, ou l'Optimisme is about this guy called Candide who's just super, super positive. Basically everything that happens to him is for the best. Like everything. Except, of course, it's not, and it's really a story about disillusionment instead of virtues of optimism.

 

Yep. You make good points. That even well minded people can crash, even if only for a moment. And that if she has few low points, they are likely more harsh, by the contrast and the fact that so few get to her the ones that do were probably pretty big.