The fact that you're talking about it as a "transformation" makes it feel like you want it to happen very quickly: For years, he has urges that he personally doesn't have a problem with, but that he's resisted so as not to get himself in trouble (BTK did that for 20 years, could anything have turned him into a good person?). One day, one dramatic thing happens (in the middle of his active attempts to hurt somebody) that makes him realize "that would be evil" and his death is supposed to be seen as heroic instead of just and/or karmic. Are you going to write it as him fantasizing about something for years - specifically planning precautions like masks so that he could act on his urges without getting in trouble - but then not having the guts to do it when the first real-world opportunity presents itself? That still doesn't sound convincing to me: the Son of Sam tried stabbing women at first, but he felt so nauseous each time that he eventually stopped. He didn't magically become a good person, he just started shooting people instead so that he could keep killing them without upsetting his own delicate stomach. It doesn't sound like your protagonist is "struggling" against his urges in the parts of the story you've described so far.
Okay thanks. The thing is, is he is not a protagonist. He is only a minor character with a few scenes, and the first scene I was planning on having be right in the middle of the kidnapping crime. It's in this first scene that I was planning on having him change his feelings about it, and then for his next few scenes, he tries to stop the main villain but fails. So I don't really have a lot of time to develop him since their is the villain, the actual protagonist, and other characters that get bigger billing than him in the story. I didn't really have as much of a background for him as to why he changes. We just see that he does when the time comes which I was planning on being the opening sequence. Is their anything I can do instead?
That's true. There is a twist later that I do not want to give away to the audience too soon. However, if I go into his character background before his change occurs, then the reader will know what the twist is before I intend to reveal it. So is their a way I can write it so the reader believes a reason for the character change, without going into his background, and thus keeping the twist hidden? Basically at this point the reader does not know who the villain is. They know that there is a villain there with this character, but do not know who. So I would like to save his identity for later, but if I give away this character's backround as to how he became so troubled, why he went through with the kidnapping and got this way, I would have to give away who the villain is too soon.
Honestly Ryan, I think your character possesses an internal conflict inherently develop-able within human nature. Ultimately, you may never secure a particular emotion induced in all your readers. I certainly wouldn't amend the design of my characters unless it degraded the element of realism in that world. So, he struggles with temptations of rape or/and bears tolerance to the act and you want your readers to recognize his attempt at redemption. Carry that home! In terms of marketability, it will be the entirety of the themes and ideas being in coordination with the characters and events that will ultimately secure positive reception in my opinion. Some readers may take similar perspectives on your characters while others have perspectives that contrast those. If you feel like this character's particular struggle is integral to the structure of the story and contributes to the emotion/meaning you want to instill in your reader, then go with it. Just make sure you implement his backstory as efficiently as possible to strengthen that factor of compassion in the minimal time available. Ask yourself: With the data that can be inferred and that is directly provided, can the reader reasonably come to identify the virtuous principle this character seeks to express despite choices made prior to? EDIT: Try not to get so tied into a dualistic spectrum (ex. villain, hero).
What is this twist and this background? If it's the idea that you've mentioned before, that he's been rejected by women, that's really not enough of a reason.
Yes that was the same idea, however, other readers say they bought it but some say they don't. I mean I guess it depends on what a person believes. Some people believe that a man can resort to a brutal response by being rejected all his life, and others do not. Isn't it possible that being looked as, as an outcast by other people, cause you are different, could cause a person to snap after years of taking it? Is that not possible at all? The twist is, is who the villain is. I want the reader to find out who the villain is, through the point of view of the MC's investigation. This happens at about a little over halfway through. But if I give away who the villain is at the beginning to explain this guys background better, well then the reader is already way ahead on the investigation compared to the MC and there is no surprise for later.
I though that we were just talking about a man who doesn't have much luck with women. Now you're talking about an outcast from society. Those are not the same thing. What are we talking about? Details?
I feel as if we're dancing around a concept here, so I'll say it directly: No man is entitled to have sex with a woman. A man who thinks that he is entitled to it, who is "driven" to commit criminal acts by the fact that women are not giving him what he wants, is a man who was deeply and fundamentally broken long before he ever started pursuing women. Normal humans are able to cope with the fact that other humans don't give them what they want. A human who cannot cope with that is a broken human. They weren't broken by not getting what they wanted; they were broken before that. By brain damage, by child abuse, by something more fundamental than just not having their wishes granted. Now, there are men who think they're entitled to a woman's attention just because they want it. They exist. It would not be unrealistic for you to have one in your story. What would be unrealistic would be the idea that such a man was created merely through female rejection. That man was created, was deeply and fundamentally and quite possibly irrecoverably broken, by something else.
I see what you mean. However, you said one of the reasons was child abuse. If he is not accepted by women then it's likely he was not accepted by people in general right? If he is bullied by other kids as a kid, and just treated different by everyone else, from say age 5 to up, wouldn't that be considered child abuse? Not child abuse by a parent of course, but by other kids and other people?
No. The child abuse that was in the background of the characters we've discussed was persistent, intense physical and psychological abuse that essentially eliminated any opportunity to develop normally.
Okay thanks. But why is a person only able to commit a vicious crime against someone if it's from that type of child abuse? I mean I asked a psychologist while researching the character, and asked if it was possible for a person to resort to this type of crime based on being treated badly by others his life, going back to when he was a kid. The psychologist told me that yes, it was possible. I can ask more psychologists to see if they disagree. I don't mean to come off as close minded when it comes to developing the character, but it seems that the reason to commit kidnapping and rape, should be same for everyone, when it seems that some reasons may be good enough for some where as others need different reasons. I think just everyone is different. I don't think I need to change the characters reason, I just have to sell the current reason better to the audience. If I change the reason for why he commits his crime then I change the theme of the story for him and the villain, and changing the theme might cause the rest of the story to not gel as well.
I think you should to some research on the topic. It might help incorporate that realistic backdrop you're looking for. Out've my own curiosity, as it is an interesting topic, I did a quick google search on your behalf. I hope these help http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196 - Statistics on personality traits / habits https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=72986 - Stats on sexual trauma in rapists http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18511118 - Developmental exp stats on rapists.
I didn't say that it has to be from child abuse. I said that it isn't likely to stem from something as relatively benign as "Women don't like me! Waaaaaah!" in the case of a person who is otherwise normal and otherwise had a relatively normal life. Frustration in that area might be a trigger, but I just can't see it as a root cause. Right; some people may be triggered, while most are not. There's a reason why some people may be triggered. And that reason, the thing that makes the person likely to respond in that way to that trigger, the thing that is broken in them, is the real core cause of the behavior. It is possible that the theme simply does not gel. You may need a different theme. A theme based on the idea that an ordinary, healthy person with an ordinary, healthy life so far will snap and engage in serious, sadistic, criminal behavior based on an ordinary frustration, is one that simply would never sell to me as a reader. If you just present the criminal, and present his self-pitying explanation for his crime has he sees it, that's probably realistic. But actually accepting that self-pitying explanation just strains the boundaries of belief for me.
Okay thanks. I read the articles provided by Lux. C. It says in one of them that 70% of the sexual offenders suffered from emotional abuse, as the root cause. Wouldn't being treated differently by others your whole life, and bullied a lot by kids while growing up be considered enough emotional abuse? And if goes on enough, then wouldn't be considered as consistent enough? I recall a true news story where a kid in high school killed himself, and the root cause was being bullied since he was a kid, by other schoolmates. If it's possible to be driven to kill yourself out of being abused, is not possible to be caused to hurt someone else out of retaliation after enough years of it?
Did it really say "as THE root cause"? That's a conclusion about causality. Studies rarely make conclusions about causality.
Let's look at me. I was raised by moderately dysfunctional parents--not abusive, but both of them were extremely un-skilled at relationships, and our family socialized very little with others. My mother was, IMO, a benign narcissist and all but incapable of forming normal relationships. My father functioned, socially, at I'd say that level of an adolescent. I was, probably as a result, extremely un-skilled socially for my age when I went to school, and since I was smart, I went to kindergarten at four, exacerbating the problem. I had very few friends. I was ignored in school up to roughly age twelve, and then verbally bullied until I got to high school. For a few years, it was unusual for me to speak even one word during the school day. Then I was ignored again until college. Then I started to make friends, and now at nearly age fifty I function aaaaalmost normally, socially. I've never kidnapped or raped even one person. I haven't even stolen anything. Or committed any illegal or antisocial act that I can think of. Oh, once in a while I put plastic that has a Recyclable tag in the trash, but I feel bad about it. Social isolation (Edited to clarify: moderate social isolation. I'm not talking about growing up in a closet.) isn't enough to break a person to the point of major violent criminal behavior. Either the person was broken to begin with, or something much more serious is required to break them. It's not normal for a person to grow up with normal social interactions and normal empathy, then lose those things, then get them back in some sort of short-term epiphany. I mention "normal empathy." My understanding is that empathy is a skill that builds on various milestones of childhood development. It isn't innate. For example, a very small child doesn't realize that the thoughts and knowledge in his head are not duplicated in other people's heads. He doesn't even have a particularly concrete idea of the fact that there are "other people." A person who didn't go through the hard brain work of developing empathy as they were growing up is unlikely to have that part of their brain suddenly and correctly programmed as part of an adulthood epiphany. That would be a little bit like a person suddenly realizing that they should have learned French as a child because they desperately need it now, and as a result of that need, they can suddenly speak French; the knowledge of the language just appears in their brain. I can believe the criminal cop. People are broken by all sorts of things, all the time. I can't believe that a person can be perfectly normal, can then be "driven" to serious criminal behavior because he was disappointed by women, and can then can abruptly snap back to normal. There needs to be some mental architecture that supports that. Maybe his empathy developed only with regard to men, and he has always regarded women as little more than appliances. Maybe he never developed empathy but he has some sort of external, rule-based ethic ("James Bond novels are the Word from God. James Bond gets whatever woman he wants, so so should I.") and is persuaded that his behavior is against that ethic. ("Oh, wait, but in that novel...") I don't know. And I don't even care, except that you seem determined to make him a redeemed good guy. If you're going to just leave his actions there, un-commented on, then the reason for them can also be un-commented on. As soon as you need a reason and an excuse and a redemption, you are demanding something that I think that your premise so far absolutely does not support. Why do you need redemption? Why can't he change his mind because he realizes that he woman is a crime boss's sister and he can get in good with the crime boss by rescuing her? Because he expects her to be grateful and finally accept his sexual advances, and then she doesn't and he attacks her and she kills him? There are all sorts of reasons for him to back out of committing a crime that are more plausible than a "sexual rejection will drive a normal man insane" theme.
Sexual rejection complemented by things such as a habit of fantasizing sexual scenarios with individuals, an addiction to pornography, detachment to paternal relationships and being socially isolated all could be, in my opinion, plausible factors that could be implemented in your character's history to sustain that element of realism(also being victimized himself but I imagine that is an experience you don't want the character to possess). I wouldn't entirely reject the sexual rejection feature as a unreasonable basis. But I agree with Chicken that there should be more factors that played a role in developing that quality for the character who is a rapist. EDIT: Do some more research on studies so you can collect more data. I found those articles within 5 minutes.
Okay thanks. I guess the reason why I need redemption is so he can put forth a series of actions, that will lead to certain consequences, in order to get the climax. I have thought of cutting him out every which way, but either way, it still leads to plot holes if I do. Also I cannot have the victim be a crime bosses sister, because he has no motivation to get in with the crime boss, to begin with. If I give him one, it won't gel with the rest of the themes of the story. I mean it's odd how it's a serial rapist crime story, but yet there is a crime boss on the side, which doesn't really seem to have anything to do with those themes. That also means I would have to create the crime boss character even though I will not have a reason to use him at all. It would be just to give him motivation, but the actual character could not be used for the story I want, and readers would probably expect him to play some sort of part other than just his motivation. What if I made him autistic or something like that? This prevents him having a normal life further, so he is not able to function normally with women or friends, after childhood. He would still have to be smart enough to become a cop and pass the tests and all, but could be terrible in his social life, which could be a root cause perhaps?
No. No. No. No. For the love of God, NO. Autism is not another word for psychopathy. That idea is just deeply, utterly, I struggle to wrap my mind around it, offensive.
If the plot requires a character that is wildly implausible and deeply offensive all in one, then the plot is probably going to have to change.
Okay thanks. Do you think it would still come off as offensive if done right though? For example in the movie Extreme Measures, also based off a book, the villains are trying to find a cure to paralysis and do illegal, deadly experiments on people to find a cure. One of the villains herself, is paralyzed as well. However, audiences in general did not find the movie offensive to paraplegics, even though it was their condition that resulted in them committing deadly crimes. Are their any other conditions that will work? Mainly I cannot have it be a condition of parental abuse. Because going that route, will deviate from the themes too much. This character and the villain are striking back at society, for how society has treated them, so I do not want to make it a parental root cause, if that makes sense. It has to be socially related for the story to work.
