Writing America as the bad guy - any suggestions?

So here's the story:

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/a-truly-unfortunate-encounter.164089/

Lately, I've been wondering if that was too on the nose. Now, we all know about the various crimes commited, and the various gray areas. 'Enhanced Interrogation techniques', or another word for torture, the NSA's spying of many people, etc....

So here's the thing. What's your suggestion for writing america, if not evil, then as the antagonist? Here, I have alien artifacts (humans from another dimension) crash land onto China, and the aliens collaborate with the chinese government to capture them (they are extremely unstable, and the aliens are short on hands).

The Americans, realizing that something really interesting and devastating was up, decided to interrogate one of the people walking through that have been sighted near the various black sites that they are trying to get in. They grab him while he's touring the grand canyon, and try to intimidate/ threaten him into spilling the beans.

Bad news. The person they're trying to grab? Comes from a civilization that views warlords ruling entire continents the way the American government views the drug dealing network in the poorer parts of an American city. An annoyance, but nothing that a few tanks can't solve. The two men in charge of the interrogation get manhandled, and they get teleported back to Washington DC without their wallets and have to explain to their superiors what happened.

So... question:

1. Am I too hard on Americans for this? Does it make sense for them to go to intimidation tactics like this?

2. If I"m going to continue writing America as the bad guy, how should I write it?

 

No. I don't think America's the greatest country in the world and I've lived here my whole life. We are bullies when we don't get our way, and it's not how I personally see the world. Not everyone is our enemy, even if the majority of the nation sees it that way.

Have you seen The Day the Earth Stood Still? Keanu Reeves plays an alien who comes to let the world earth know it's about to be destroyed because we're all awful to each other. Instead of listening, we go into full torture mode. So I'd say, you're probably doing it correctly in your story.

 

Yes, but you are, frankly, a damn sight better than anyone else. Each empire's slightly less horrible than the next.

Besides, the question of 'Is America evil or good' is so completely charged, that it's hard to get a definite answer.

Like, say, what happens if, say, alien artifacts crash land upon Uzbekistan or Iceland or Russia, and then the aliens land to pick them up, and by the way, begin talking to the Russian government, and appear to be getting too friendly?

Would America threaten nukes? Send in false flag operations to cause trouble? Would they send in corruption and bribes? What about putting in santions by the UN under the guise of 'sharing the alien contact with everybody'? Or do they just sit back, and watch?

Same with other things. Let's say a Solar Exalts within, say, Russia or Britain. If you don't quite understand, let me basically say that they start out 'above human' in their areas of specialty, and with minimum effort, can easily match someone who's been studying in their specialty for years. And in their area of specialty? Unmatched. One who specializes in melee combat can cut down mountains and deflect nuclear bombs. And one who specializes in medicine can easily grant immortality and eternal youth. Any state. Any kind of state, with access to a solar exalt on retainer is by default a major power. And it's not working for America. Do they try to pay her? Assasinate her? Kidnap her family? Blackmail? Bribe?

 

It depends on the political climate of the country at the time you're telling the story. Right now, if you say that the aliens are talking with Russia, there are some who'd believe that our president already did that, so it's nothing to get our bloomers in a bundle over.

But if this is set in a future time, where politics are set up differently, then that changes the story. It all depends on how the country is being run at the time of your story. Idealistically, it'd be cool if we'd agree to let other countries handle it, and we'd offer assistance in the true spirit of Benjamin Franklin's diplomacy.

Knowing how it'd probably go, though, we'd demand equal time, possibly threaten war -- not nuclear, because I feel like we'd be annihilated before that happened again (Hiroshima, Nagasaki)-- and call in our reinforcements if it didn't go the way we thought it should.

In terms of the Solar Exalt, America would probably try to kill her, or at least contain her to study her.

EDIT: I'm not sure if I'm helping, so I'm gonna bow out now.

 

I'm afraid that it's set now.

Hmm.... that sounds really dangerous. I can see you doing that, but how do you write it without them appearing stupid?

Sounds like a really bad plan.

And no no, you're fine. I just need some extra perspective.

 

One of the best examples I can think of when it comes to Americans believing they're worthy of knowing everything is a Torchwood limited series, Children of Earth. The 4-5-6 land in England, and once America finds out, they send over a military general, or some other high ranking officer, and they demand an audience with the 4-5-6. It turns out the aliens have already been there, in England, before and want nothing to do with the Americans. They do all of their communicating with the English.

So you could possibly write it like that, where the country mainly involved is the group that gets the communication and then sends it out to the world and America just has to accept it and go on. Again, though, the directive to blow it all up would probably be heavily considered.

 

Items that powerful in the wrong hands are going to be viewed as an existential threat for the country and need to be destroyed. America would try to kill, capture, or remove the solar exalts first, maybe even before negotiating for access, covertly. If that fails, they will threaten war and back themselves by the UN and other nations against whatever nation has them there. When the threat is existential for nations and tips the balance, the world will united pretty fast. America has no problems swinging allies in first with minimal support to take an objective, just as long as they get the final prize. If you want to portray America as the bad guys, just remember the first rule of making an antagonist: they must fully believe what they're doing is correct.

 

Ah. So you know about exalted. But here's the thing. From our perspective, as readers, know that solars are literally one of the most dangerous beings to exist. We know that this is a story. And this is a tipping point. Grabbing her, will decide whether or not someone like Russia will get to take over the world. Or worlds.

But they don't know that. They don't have the core book. From their perspective, it's just someone who glows. Or someone who can, say, heal cancer or smash apart a krokodil addiction and is really good at painting. They don't know about how solars can master everything in the world, and excel beyond all limits.

Will they even be able to know what's about to happen before its too late? I mean, solars aren't superman. They don't have laser beams or superspeed or strength. They're just exceedingly good at whatever they turn their mind to.

 

No America as a whole. But that never happens, does it? Even north Korea has kind nice citizens. Even China has common people just like us.

But here's the thing. Let's all assume that we've seen everything. From guantamano Bay, to the lack of wmds, to the dictators installed and... You know what.

At what point does it go so that it goes from 'American intelligence did bad shit' to 'yeah, America did this'?

 

You lost me at this one. It's not like people like me or Joe Schmo down the street vote on what our country does across the sea. Most Americans aren't even aware of what their country is doing in their own backyard. Heck, most Americans aren't aware of what their government is doing even when/if the government is up front about what they're doing because they just don't pay attention.

Saying that 'America did this' instead of 'American intelligence did bad shit' is really just a crapshoot. It depends on who you ask. People in other countries may not like Americans because of what the American government is doing in their country without considering the fact that some of those Americans are also protesting what their government is doing in those countries.

And you have Americans who have that same mentality of lumping in the common people with the sins of their government. So what exactly is your end goal here? Are you trying to write the entirety of the American government as being corrupt and evil? Like the world's biggest conspiracy theory, a 200 year-long Illuminati? Or are you trying to say that the entirety of the country is evil and every citizen from the CEO of Starbucks to meth-head Jethro in the trailer park is an evil douche in compliance with every decision of their government?

Also, you mentioned evil but then said if not then as the antagonist. Well I believe there is a fine line between true evil and being an antagonist. Not every bad guy has to believe that their course of action is the correct one. From a Christian perspective, true evil is a real thing (Satan or the Devil or however you want personify it) and there is no redemption for true evil because they were born evil, they'll live evil, and they'll die evil.

But let's take the word 'evil' off of the table because evil is always the antagonist but antagonists don't always have to be evil. Maybe the United States is the aggressor. That wouldn't be a new position for us, I'm sure (I'm no history expert, not even of my own country). I think a lot of it comes down to perspective. Is there a good reason for one country to have military presence in another country? I'm not smart enough to offer an opinion on that but for the sake of my example, let's say there is. No matter how good of a reason there is for a foreign military presence to be walking the streets of your hometown, somebody in your hometown, maybe yourself, views them as an aggressor who you want gone. And then you take into account how each individual in that military behaves and treats those around them which can influence and shape how those around them view the entirety of the military presence.

Anyways, I hope this wasn't all too convoluted. I don't have a good answer for you. But the way you phrased the question is almost as if you believe the United States have never been the "bad guy" which is difficult for me to believe. Pearl Harbor was an awful thing that happened to us that very much made Japan look like the "bad guy" and I would even agree with this. But I would also agree that America's reaction to this was over-the-top and far more "evil" than what happened at Pearl Harbor because innocents were lost on both sides but I still think our reaction was the equivalent of, "You punched me in the face so now I'm going to rip your fucking life apart."

I suppose my best suggestion is that I wouldn't try to make anybody (person, country/government, etc.) look like the "bad guy" and instead just have them act and react in a way that I think would be natural/normal for them to do so and then just tell my story from there.

Best of luck to you and keep writing.

 

*scratches head*

Well, that's really confusing.

But there's some things...

Nah, I disagree. I'm Singaporean. Frankly, its a good thing America beat down the Japanese. Who knows what they would have done to us if they had been allowed to rampage unchecked....

The country, as a whole, is considered to be the antagonist. Not evil. They're just looking out for number 1 (themselves).

So let's say for this scenario: Alien artifacts land within, say, a country. The country picks it up, and begins researching. Maybe they come into contact with aliens, and the aliens, being busy, start talking to them and discussing how to uplift them out of this planet.

United Nations and NATO and America try to talk to them. The nation says they don't wish to hand over the artifacts. They claim that the aliens aren't interested in talking to the others, and have refused to do so. They claim that no, American observers aren't allowed. Maybe its Russia. Maybe its China.

Sanctions are put in. They are endured. Special forces and saboteurs are sent in, and they are repulsed. Claims and accusations of the country seeking to take over the world using the alien artifacts are made, and claims that they must protect the free world, and so an all out assault is made.

America's the antagonist in this scenario. Self-serving. Paranoid. But not exactly doing this for the lols.

 

I have a question for you: would you be worried about this if it was any other country besides America? For instance Great Britain, France, or Germany? Or would it just be taken for granted that this was how they would act?

I think any country has the potential to act in a manner like this. Especially those groups that are trained to act decisively towards their countries enemies.

One book I read (Wildside by Steven Gould) had a conversation between the MC(had stumbled on a gate to an alternate earth) and antagonist(head of a military unit sent to gain control of it) that pretty well summed it up

MC: You don't even know what we have here, how do you know it is a threat?
Ant: How do I know it is not?

It isn't that they are evil, it's just they are extremely focus on the potential of a threat to their country so tend to view the unknown as a threat. If there is the potential that something that could seriously harm their country or it's interest would fall into the hands of a country that they do not have the best relationship with (for America, Russia, China or North Korea quality) then yes, I can see them taking fairly drastic action. Though they may not take it directly, they may manipulate local groups or allies or even their enemies to take action for them.

As to how to portray it. I would make it balanced- show snippets of the meetings where the course of action is debated and have some objectors. When it goes sideways have one of the commanders commenting that they knew this wasn't a good idea. If you show everyone as bloodthirsty and immoral it cheapens the characters. Give the 'bad guys' a nuisanced view.

 

I think you're going to need a better reason for the entire United States to be the antagonist than the fact that some government intelligence agency arrested a guy on the credible suspicion of a threat and interrogated him. You see that in basically every cop show.

Paranoid, yes, but honestly, if Russia or China had exclusive contact with a powerful alien race I would be very concerned. There are potential situations where war might be justified. You'd have to write it so that the alien race is obviously not a huge threat to humans.

 

I haven't had the chance to read your story, but the thread sounds similar to what happened in the newest Godzilla movie (Shin Gojira in Japanese). Godzilla came out of the ocean, as he does, and started romping around Tokyo. The US military attaches gave the Japanese government a deadline to deal with the monster, and if they couldn't, the US was going to use nukes since the Big Guy was seen as a planetary threat.

Plausible? Maybe, a bit of a stretch, but it played fairly well in Japan.

 

Writing the government as the bad guy is really common. I don't think you'll get into much trouble for this -- of course the villains are misguided government officials, not random citizens. This is the important distinction to make (even if some of your characters may not make it).

The feds probably would be willing to use enhanced interrogation techniques, though either A. they would need to jump through a few special hoops first (get high level authorization) or B. would do it without telling their superiors. In either case they would likely try more conventional techniques first, because why not? Unless it was like a "five minutes till the nuke goes off" Jack Bauer scenario. Then I think they would just do it, and let their bosses try to find a jury that would convict them for saving a city.

Source: am American and read a decent number of spy thrillers

 

And this threat is exactly why I create fictional Nations when I need an antagonist for Earth.

I Don't Make Any Nation bad guys or antagonist, in fact I have a story where Nations come together to fight the Antichrist.

 

I hardly think two atomic bombs is a reasonable response to a few hundred planes. They killed a couple of thousand of Americans (and it was absolutely their attack on us that caused us to retaliate and not their attacks against any of our allies). We killed hundreds of thousands and did it in a way that affected the land for years. Hell, the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima literally changed Japanese culture. America didn't just retaliate to the situation, they escalated it.

Personally, I think one bomb would have been unnecessary but two was just malicious. But hey, you feel how you feel. Who am I to say whether you're right or wrong?

So I guess this begs the questions, why do the aliens specifically not want American observers? There's got to be some reasoning there as to why they are singling out a particular country. It seems to me like you have America as the aggressor before the potential alien threat is even a thing.

I don't feel like starting some flame war so I'll make this my last post in this thread but from everything I've read so far, you seem to be writing from some sort of bias and have your heart set on making a particular country the aggressor with no real reason or understanding of why they would be and there are certainly legitimate reasons why they (or any country) might be an aggressive antagonist in a situation like this. But you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the motives on either side, whether of the Americans or your aliens.

I don't really have anything else intelligent to offer. Best of luck to you, friend. Keep writing.

 

The aliens are anti-American without even knowing what America is, LOL. It's like they have the automatic biases of the author.

Like I said, I create fictional countries, if I need them to be the antagonist.

In fact, in one story, I have an alien race who's been observing Earth for centuries. They have zero biases towards any one country, even the fictional antagonist country

 

We have to be careful when drawing conclusions from what one country does in war without looking at the greater context.

Some facts that have to be considered alongside the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

• 100,000 people died in the US firebombing of Tokyo, which, while using conventional weapons, was still a comparable total to Hiroshima (120,000) and Nagasaki (40,000).
  
• At least 3,000,000 Chinese civilians were killed during Japanese campaigns in China.
  
• About 300,000 people died during the Nanjing Massacre, orchestrated by Japanese troops.
  
• The holocaust claimed more than 5,000,000 lives (estimates vary).
• The war in total claimed about 70,000,000 lives, when combining both civilian and military.
• US army staff estimated a death toll of 200,000+ US troops alone from a planned invasion of Japan, which was avoided by using the bombs.

World War II was a truly nasty war, with no side really looking clean after it. Even the aircrews that dropped these bombs generally suffered appallingly high casualties from anti-air defenses. Bringing things back to the thread topic, I think we have to realize that any country is capable of doing terrible things when it must to survive. Even democracies. High ideals only really last the first few days in a war, if that. When we look at the first world war, we see essentially napoleonic armies marching in at the beginning with horses and silly uniforms, and we see modern armies march out of the disease-infested hell holes at the end. Alien technology showing up would be one of the things that, I think, would cause countries to forget their ideals very quickly.

 

Because using nukes on Godzilla (who err, has a nuclear breath) is a good idea. The funniest thing about Shin Gojira was the "English" the female lead spoke.

 

Here's the thing. The actions of any country can be interpreted as "evil" depending on how you look at it.

The Allied fight against Nazi Germany? The bombing of Dresden, the ruthless targeting of German cities, the suffering of German civilians as Germany was on the run. If you ignore the atrocities the Germans had done and look at it from the point of view of poor Granny Shicklegruber, you could easily write the Allies as the bad guys. Forget the fact that the Nazis murdered six million Jews, Gypsies and communists, if Granny S. doesn't know that, to her, she doesn't understand why her son is dead and she's trying to bring up her granddaughter in a bombed out apartment in Berlin.

Churchill could have said, "Bomb them into the Stone Age." (or more accurately, Arhutr "Bomber" Harris probably did.

 

Agreed, besides from the atrocities that can be done. You Can't Blame a country for acting in its own interests, it's quite natural and expected

So America wouldn't be evil for merely acting in its own interests, Nor would China or Russia if they did same.

As you mentioned, by their point of view they're doing right by their own Nation and are the so-called good guys. Were as from the outwards they are seen as bad guys.

 

That one belongs to Curtis LeMay, who commanded the aforementioned bombings of Japan (both Nuclear and firebombing), and later wrote that quote during the cold war. Churchill's reaction to the bombings were quite interesting. Initially, he thought they were barbaric. But that was at the beginning of the war. Before long, he thought they were quite necessary to win.

We get into some pretty interesting territory here. Do the ends justify the means? Can the most terrible acts of evil be justified with the right results?

The only real answer is to pray that these questions remain hypothetical. I certainly think a book can take all sorts of different angles on this.

 

Indeed. I know Harris didn't say it, but he probably said something along those lines. He was a fan of bombing.

I reckon that's a topic for the Debate Room.