Hey, I haven't posted here in a while. Been busy with college and work but I've still been working on my writing. In my book, the five characters are talking in a field in summer. Two of the characters were dating for three years, but there was a party and one of them was...how do you say?...pounced on by a girl. The other character saw and got the wrong end of the stick and broke up with his boyfriend. Now both of them aren't speaking but they both desperately want the other back. Now, in this field, they end up in an argument about what happened. I just don't know how the other can prove that he didn't cheat. Does anybody have any ideas? I'll be really grateful.
Proof? Maybe he msimply denies it, and she has to try to take him at his word despite what she feels. Or even tries to forgive him, and eventually he tells her what really happened. Without proof, you maintain more tension.
Hmm... I also don't know what to do with the other three characters, because I can't just simply leave them there not doing anything. Yet they didn't even know the characters were dating so that's come as a shock to them.
Get into your characters mind and figured it out! Therer not cardboard, but figments of immagination. Create a mindset and work off that. Not easy, but who said it was.
it's next to impossible to prove a negative! especially one like that... you'll have to give up on the proof angle and focus on some other aspect of the problem...
I've always liked the old, "Please-- just trust me." If he looks her dead in the eyes and says so, then either he's a BRILLIANT liar, or he's telling the truth. If she trusts him SO little (I mean, if she's wrong about what happened, then she has NO reason to NOT trust him) then why does she like him in the first place? I've always thought characters that overreacted like that were just-- silly, for lack of a nicer word. A little jealous? Sure. To blow up and then stop speaking to each other? Really? Just my two cents.
Ok, I think I need to elaborate a little for you. I never mentioned the fact that both these characters are male which is kind of important. Atari - Edward (the one who thinks he's been cheated on) is gay, likes only men and that's it. Charlie (the one who hasn't cheated) is bisexual and likes both men and women. This makes Edward very insecure, as well as the fact that he finds it very hard to trust people after his past. People he thought cared about him had betrayed him, including his own parents, so he finds it difficult to think people can be good. So when he sees Charlie being kissed by a girl, he thinks that everything he ever thought about people was true. Also, he has scars on his face - very major ones that make people flinch when they see him (well, the insensitive ones) and he finds it hard to believe that people would love him because of the way he looks.
You'll have a much more interesting and dramatic argument without a piece of proof. Otherwise it would just be: "Here's my proof." *Kathunk!* "Ok, my mistake." Having one character forced to convince the other without any proof can lead to much more drama about the meaning of trust.
Thanks mammamaia, Cogito and HorusEye. I'm still working on it and hopefully I will resolve it soon. I appreciate your advice and I will take it into account.
