Setup: Okay, I've got two characters who turn on eachother in the final act of my story; they're Main Characters. One does it to protect their home, and the other does it because their instincts take over when the other betrays them. Question: In your opinion, what are some of the situations where a betrayal just isn't believable? PS: While the setup may make it look like I'm asking for help, I'm really just curious about your opinions regarding the subject. Have fun.
That's a good question. There are a couple types of "bad betrayals" but it really boils down to just when author handles the betrayal like it's a sudden event, instead of a process. People don't just say "I'm going to betray my best friend today." So here's a couple betrayals that I see, and when they work and when they don't: 1. Disillusionment. This happens when one of the characters becomes disillusioned and turns against the main character. Say MC has Friend A and Friend B and they embark on a quest to fight bad guy. But oh no! Friend A dies tragically. MC decides to continue the fight, but Friend B has lost faith. So in a good story, Friend B is fighting himself. He's going through these phases of grief where there's the denial, anger, depression and acceptance, but he's not dealing with those phases very well. And eventually when he hits that anger, he tries to bury it. Unfortunately, it just gets worst. For awhile he'll fight against his feelings, because "he knows this is the right thing" but he's not feeling it anymore. There's a lot of back and forth with his attitude and his level of devotion. That's what people do when they're starting to become disillusioned. They start to over compensate, then retreat into that doubt, and then go back to trying again. Eventually they can't take it. They have to either deal with their feelings or abandon their beliefs. In a bad story, he reacts with a temper tantrum and immediately says "This is your fault! I'm going to join the bad guy now. Show you up! WAAAA!" Then by the next chapter he's suddenly in the ranks of the bad guy. Sure, he can blame MC, but usually real people go back and apologize or say "I was wrong" as part of that battle they're having inside, where they can't reconcile what they know intellectually and what they're feeling. 2. Innocence. This was well done in the story The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Edmund betrays his family over Turkish Delight. As silly as Turkish Delight might be to betray your family, there was still a process to it. It wasn't like he ate the White Witch's food and suddenly he's a jerk. He was a bit of a twerp in the beginning. But also read the moment where he meets the White Witch. First she plays on the fact he's cold and offers him a warm drink. Then she offers him Turkish Delight. Then she just plays off that innocence. Never once does she indicate that she's malicious. And he believes that throughout that she's not evil until she betrays him! Quite frankly, if I didn't know the story, I wouldn't have known who was good or bad either. In a bad story, the writer mistakes stupidity and ignorance as innocence. It takes work to convince an innocent person to do wrong. Just look at the story of Adam and Eve. It is a process. It doesn't take much to convince a stupid or ignorant person to do wrong. 3. Temptation. In a good story, the character that betrays indicates that he has a certain vice. It could be money. It could be sex. It could be a hundred different things. Again, a process. We all have vices. A good story could have a character with vices, and still be a good person. It's tricky, but it involves virtues outweighing their vices. Just like good people in real life. In a good story, they keep their vices in check, until they can't. In the story The Monk, main character Ambrosio vice is sex. He doesn't even know this is a vice for him at the beginning until he meets Matilda and he sleeps with her. Bad, but doesn't make him evil. It's just what creates the vice. At first he thinks he can handle it. He beats himself up. He covers it over, but keeps falling for it until it eventually leads to him betraying his friend Antonia and raping her. In a bad novel, there's no understanding of temptation. Temptation comes when you desire something. You're never going to be tempted by what you don't desire in some way. Bad story tellers don't get this. So you have this friend who out of the blue betrays MC because of money.... Where was there any indication that money would be a vice for him? Nowhere. Sometimes they don't even bring money anywhere in the book and just throws that in. The betrayal would be easy to believe if friend had debt. Or constantly gambling, but was still a good guy. Or had a lot of money and talking about ways to make more. But bad novels don't give any of that. 4. The surprise betrayal. This one is the most common. It's basically hero discovers best friend has been working for the bad guy all along. Mostly it works because the betrayal involves a small, insignificant character. But if you want the knife in the gut feel where it is someone close to the character, then it does need to be treated like any other twist ending. It has to fit in context of the story and there needs to be clues there, that are indicators but not obvious. The Dark Knight Rises while it was more Scooby Do then anything, it still worked as a legit betrayal. You still had to pay attention to see it. It followed the logic of the series. Clues were actually revealed as far back as the first movie, that could have later been used to deduce who the betrayer was by the third, if you took to noticing them. And when you rewatch the film, you could see where the betrayer's actions were helping forward this character's true cause. In bad stories, just like with all bad twist endings, it doesn't follow the established logic of the story. What happens is the author completely rewrites the character in a way that isn't believable. Nothing the character did before, would have helped him in his true mission. So it just comes off silly. It's like if you had Jar Jar suddenly being revealed as a Sith Lord. While yeah, it is a fun fan theory that's floating around the internet right now, logically speaking nothing he did in the film did anything to advance any of the Sith's plans to take over the Republic and turn it into a tyrannical dictatorship. So it would have been stupid, even if it does make for a funny meme.
The worst example for me is when the main character's closest colleague that was most loyal to their cause suddenly speaks fluent Russian and starts to sabotage everything. No spy is that good at making a cover without affecting their main goals. It is always a balance for double agents and getting into the inner circle is the time where they are supposed to lay low because they have access to all the information.
I think to make betrayal believable you just have to present your character with an offer too good to pass up, but to get the goods he's got to betray someone he cares about. It happens all the time in life so, of course, it's going to happen all the time in fiction. Give your characters motive and opportunity. I don't think betrayal is one of the unbelievable things that can happen in a story. And I don't think you need a big reason for one character to betray another.
When there is no retribution. It can come in many forms and must be there to make things believable for me.
A betrayal hits hard if the character who does the betraying is one whom the readers have grown to love or like. If it's somebody who hasn't had much of a role in the story at all, or who has already exhibited negative traits, I think the revelation is less jarring. There is also some difference if the betrayer turns out to have had that intention all along, or instead, changed course at the last minute because of temptation or a change of circumstances 0. These will have a different effect on the reader, I reckon. I still think one of the best, most morally ambiguous and charismatic characters in fiction is that of Steerforth, in David Copperfield. Steerforth is a real piece of work in many ways, yet it's easy to see why David is so fond of him and loyal to him. Even when the betrayal comes, David can't quite let go of his feelings for Steerforth, and neither can we (as readers.)
I think what makes it unbelievable is when it comes out of no where. I mean there has to some hint or foreshadowing something that readers will look back at and say "Yeah that was probably what did it."
Isn't all betrayal unbelievable to a certain extent? I mean, how often do hear someone say, "I can't believe they turned on me! He was my husband/brother/best friend!" Especially in books or movies. If you could see it coming, it wouldn't be a betrayal, no?
Well, of course you're correct here, but I think you mistook the question. What I mean by "unbelievable" is when someone says: "That actually doesn't make sense. Why did they betray the main character? I can't see a reason for this."
Over stupid petty shit that doesn't mean much. "How could you stab me in the back like this?" "I saw an opening and took it. I never forgave you for eating the last of the ice cream." "That was like 20 years ago, and your still pissed over it." "Damn skippy I am, and now you will suffer." "Lovely, sold out over the last bowl of ice cream." "Revenge is a dish best served cold, muwhahaha!"
The way I see it, the betrayer must seek something of greater value than the people they betray. For example as given by the description from your post, the character who betrays to protect his, or her, home must have a loyalty to that home and treasure it higher than the person he, or she, betrays. As such to make the betrayal seem believable is if the character that betrays to protect his, or her, home must have been established to love that home very much and love it more than he, or she, loves the other main character. Thus the kind of situation where I would feel confused or sceptical about the story is if the character that betrays for the home hasn't been shown to really value that home very highly or even value the other main character higher.
In order to partner with someone, you need faith. The betrayals are usually betrayal of faith, not the other person's faith, but the faith of the person done wrong. "We had done a number of jobs together, netting thousands of dollars a pop. I can't believe that after pulling a million dollar score he gut shot me and left me here to die." Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, they are easier to stab that way.
Well if you think of Brutus and Julius Caesar ... although Brutus was allegedly Caesar's best friend, Caesar pretty much treated him like shit, took command of 'his' legion then merged it with another without consultation, took credit for his military successes, seduced his mother, promised Julia's hand in marriage then married her to some else, gave the governorship of Rome to Mark Anthony and so on .... it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone when Brutus finally betrayed him. The only reason it came as surprise to Julius was that he was blinded by his own ego. Which is the point, it may be unbelievable to the betrayed person but not to the reader
I just wanted to say that this was a very well written little essay on the types of betrayal and how they can be used the right, and the wrong, ways.
Well I think foreshadowing is a hard line to walk. What you have to do is give tiny, minuscule hints that seems inconsequential. This is hard, because lots of readers are constantly looking for foreshadowing. What I would do is hide it as comic relief.
Truth is so much more satisfying than our fiction. It is completely unbelievable how this man might be a traitor responsible for the deaths of hundreds of agents until he absconds to the USSR 3 days later. A man under immense psychological pressure who will be hanged. [he wasn't] The HOW TO LIE clip as reputedly used by security services for the espionage trainees...
I laughed so hard even at the second sentence of this post. I was nearly crying by the end. You are such a genius, and I love you!
To me, betrayal lacks impact when the characters involved aren't believably written to have established a strong bond in the first place.
I think you covered pretty much everything in your post! But just wanted to add for the disillusionment part that characters can also become disillusioned with each other and their cause. Someone who has been friends and loyal to their leader / friend for years might start to question their motives and turn on them gradually because they feel the group has lost its way and is now on the wrong side. Or they might watch their friend become increasingly jaded by events that have happened to them all and start to act more selfishly, which turns loyal friends against them to the point of betrayal. For (a light hearted) example, it's like in Mean Girls when Janice and Damien realise that Cady isn't hanging out with the plastics for revenge any more but because she enjoys the lifestyle, so they betray her by telling the whole school what she did. I also agree with @WaffleWhale that if there is no foreshadowing at all it'll feel like a let down, but if there's too much it can spoil a twist. Unless you're going for dramatic irony.
That's a great point. I think the main thing is that you have to treat betrayal as a process as opposed to a sudden, one time event. Just like with any plot twist, it has to follow the logic of the story.
I think a key point is people believe what they feel more than what they think. What I mean is you would need to make the reader care for and like the character of the betrayer, as well as be invested in the objective of the MC/ betrayed party. If I then feel that stab of hurt and crucially disappointment in the betrayor, I am a believer. The betrayal should mean this objective is irrecoverable as well. Don't cheat and just write around it. That's not a betrayal that's a mistake and easily forgiven. If it is simply turns out this character is after something other than the main character, then them acting out their interests lacks that stab. So (in my totally amateur opinion) if you for forshadow the betrayers own objectives too much, I no longer see it as a betrayal. Character A wants to open a doughnut shop. Character B wants to open a hotdog stand. They pool their money and character A insists Character B Comes back with a donut fryer ( I don't know how donuts work) Character B comes back with a hotdog cart. All I think is good for Character B marching to the beat of their own drum for once.
Honestly, the worst kind of betrayal is the one where the betrayer gets nothing useful out of the betrayal. "Oh look, I have a knife in my pocket, therefore I shall plunge it into your back because I'm evil!" If the betrayal doesn't help achieve a goal that is not otherwise reasonably achievable, then it's a terrible betrayal.
I think betrayal can happen when circumstances change. A character (the betrayer) is offered something in return for the betrayal. Something they want very badly or need very badly. They didn't intend to betray anything at first, but circumstances change. Suddenly betrayal seems like a good idea.
The best kind of betrayal - if I may adore my own plot for a moment - is when you can see every reason for the betrayal but it doesn't make it hurt any less. That's also the best kind of redemption, I think, when the betrayal was on the verge of happening and then doesn't. I'm thinking of the old film, a favourite, Meet Joe Black. Death takes the body of a man and comes to see why humans love this thing called "life" so much, and in the process falls in love with a woman. He intends to take her with him. He has the power to do it. The woman loves him dearly - so why shouldn't he? I frigging love love love the dialogue in that film. The woman's father was the one intended to die from the very beginning and Death, though knowing no one can stop him, reveals his intentions to the father. Ultimately, Death reveals himself to his love and then leaves her in peace, returning the "man from the coffee shop" to her (the man whose body Death took, who was also the man the woman met first). He would have betrayed the woman's love if he'd kept his identity hidden and taken her when she would not have known or understood what that meant. But should he have gone ahead with it, most can understand well why. It would have been wrong, and tragic, but we would understand. Because of this, that he does not do it, means all the more. A similar thing can be said of LOTR in that moment when Frodo offers Aragorn the ring and the king doesn't take it. The set up and principles behind it are the same. Another betrayal I can think of was in Hunger Games, in the third book. Though Katniss and Gale had made a promise to kill each other should one of them be captured, in order to prevent the person from being tortured, when the moment came, neither of them did it. Katniss watched Gale get pulled through a door by the enemy and does nothing. When Katniss is swarmed by her own people after shooting Coin (I think is the name?), she was being filmed and Gale could very well see where she was, and he does nothing. We can understand why in the moment why they might not have been able to let that arrow fly, but having had their characters established we can also understand being captured and held hostage was probably the grimmest fate available to them and thus not killing each other is seen as having let each other down. A betrayal. In fact, the whole ending to the Hunger Games centers on betrayal - what happened to Prim, the two incidents I've mentioned above, and the fact that Katniss shot her own rebel leader rather than Snow. At each step you can see why it happened, and you can also see why Katniss reacted the way she did. What I love most about betrayals is when there's not necessarily a right or wrong - there are only different perspectives. ETA: I think I might have discovered why I loved Hunger Games so much, and that these betrayal and near-betrayal examples have shaped my own writing a lot.
