So, I'm creating a character that is essentially a man taking his revenge out on the country that outcast him and tortured him. How do I write this is a way that is slightly sypathetic but doesn't come across as painting him as a hero.
I don't know Thanos, but think about the reaction of the country to his torture. Without going all Debate Room, Germany's reaction to the Holocaust has, over the years, solidified pretty solidly into one of shame and guilt. A Jewish character set anytime after the 1970s trying to get revenge on all Germans would be pretty unsympathetic, as many of them would have been born after the crime or been too young to have had any influence or personal guilt. However, the Japanese public continues to be unaware or in denial of the events that took place during the Japanese occupation of China in the same period (one of my students insisted it was a cooperative effort to civilize the Chinese and Koreans), so the grudge a character from the mainland was carrying against my hosts would be somewhat more relateable.
IMO, just the fact that he is taking his revenge out on a whole country is enough to not make him hero material, since I assume it was certain people that were responsible for his torture, and not every single man, woman and child. You could give him emotional conflict over that; have him be aware that there may be innocents involved but portray the severe trauma he's left with and use it to justify his actions. Without knowing your story and how exactly that revenge will look like, I'm thinking something along the lines of "for a greater good" here. To stay with the WWII analogy, the Allies who bombed cities like Dresden or more extreme, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, must have known about the civilian casualties it would cause, but for the sake of winning the war they did it. And some I'm certain also saw it as acts of revenge. If someone perceives these attacks as justified or not depends on their point of view.
To understand him a bit better. As a child he was tortured by a specific man who currently holds seats in a position of government who still believes that the genocidal maniac is under his control. Understanding that he also knows most of his people are outcast in this society taking what power he has to destroy this man and the citizens that sit idelly by and watch as his people are persecuted.
Give him soundlogic, that people may agree with not realizing the truth of his logic till later in the story when it is reveal what he's doing
I fucking hate that way of thinking. Either you kill none or you kill all. Sparing someone based on gender would not make a character relatable to me.
Cooperative effort to "civilise" the Chinese and Koreans? And the student presumably has no idea how shamefully racist that sounds? I remember my dad (we're Chinese) saying he couldn't finish watching Grave of the Fireflies because he felt it was the Japanese trying to paint themselves as the victims of the war. Now I was born in the 80s and I just saw it as, of course, a Japanese perspective of the war that they suffered but I didn't relate it back at all to the atrocities they did in China. I just saw it as a general statement about war, that everyone suffers. Why should Japanese children who had nothing to do with the war or any of its decisions not feel like victims? But this is from the perspective of someone who does not have any war memories or war grudges. My dad doesn't have personal memories of the war either, of course, but I'm guessing his parents might have had.
Historically, the young people of the Red Army Faction/Baader Meinhof took to guns/kidnapping/robbery/murder partially on that basis - a frustration how so many of those wielding power in West Germany during the 1970s were the same individuals, or remnants of the 3rd Reich.
Flashes of conscience, of guilt; but unfortunately the wild beasts of revenge (you know, that primitive part of the human character) prove impossible to master. (Forgive me, I’m about to get shamelessly Platonic.) Think of it this way: Imagine a horse and rider. The rider is the conscience, the good part of him; the horse represents his desire for revenge. In a normal situation the horse is under the rider's control; but in this situation something has stirred up the passions of the horse to such a degree that all discipline is lost and the rider loses control. Then imagine the horse goes around trampling on people, kicking them about all over the place while the poor rider is holding on for dear life trying to regain control. In that moment we might be horrified by the horse, but at the same time sympathetic to the rider. Then let’s take it a step further. Imagine eventually the rider loses his grip and falls off and ends up trampled under hoof. You’re now left with pure revenge-lust. A true monster is born. It’s an idea that just came to me. So it’s probably a load of nonsense.
I think it's in part three of Jordan Peterson's "Maps of Meaning" on youtube. He talks about how Hitler became what he was over time through his interactions with the mob, and how the mob was complicit in him becoming what he was. So if you have a maniac who's going to wipe out WW2 Germany, the closer he is to the time of the war, the more you can understand it. I mean, the allies firebombed German cities killing hundreds of thousands of people and no one here bats an eye at it. I think you can make an argument that some of what the allies did in WW2 was motivated by revenge and savagery rather than strategy and tactics. In that context, there were villains on the allies' side, but we don't remember them that way because we won. Edit: This is what we did. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history...significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html
Spoiler: Infinity Wars Movie in MCU, Thanos' motive is literally to make life better for all people. He wants to wipe out half the universe, so the remaining people have double the food, natural resources, etc. If your villain thinks they're doing good, or even better, is doing good but just doing it the wrong way, they'll probably be relatable.
It terrifies me the things some people here believe, and this was a highly educated mature adult student, not some yob or child, but your parents' feelings do tie into the OP's question (not that your parents are genocidal, just still stung by the war)
Then you must hate the majority of movies where they purposely avoid showing the killing of women and children to avoid angering the audience. The point was to show the killer has some moral code.
Yes. I think it's stupid in all the movies too. And sticking any old moral code on a character doesn't make them better in my eyes.
This. Not harming children for a moral code, that's ok. But if you gonna to kill a bunch of people, don't be sexist 'bout it. It's enough of a dick move already. Their motives were something else than revenge though, and when the first generation started their actions, murder (and especially harming innocents) was no integral part of their strategy. They even tried to avoid it in the beginning but instead wanted to stir up the masses against a corrupted, imperialist government (until they went all apeshit with the guns and bombs and stuff, of course). Not trying to justify the RAF here but I think it's not quite what OP is looking for. Unless maybe the MC is trying rather to replace the government and bring his people into power than to destroy the country as a whole? You could go the rebellion-gone-awry RAF route then. Have him start out with a plan that would cause casualties that could be forgiven for a better cause to build sympathy but then he lets his own ideals slip willingly (the maniacal part) until it's only "we against them". This would be different from "just" taking revenge, which in my eyes is an end unto itself.
I wrote a second paragraph but deleted it for lack of 'rigour,' but I'll give you a version. OP was asking how to write 'sympathetic?' - lots of the narrative on that 1970s rampage examines the group - and excuse me if I'm simplistic or trite on this - but writers sometimes portray those in the/any group in a way that some individuals are naive and idealistic political, Marxist, [following] others who are 'psychopathic' in some vague, pop sense, and ruthless and manipulative of their/these sheep. I think I wrote that right, feel free to polish me up... ... I was struck by the radio documentary last week - the former RAF guy/kidnapper/murderer of the banker - had served 20 years - and 20 years more had passed. He was asked 'was it worth it, why, how do you feel?' His response was a poignant and crippling 'SHAME.' He was a very sympathetic character. Phew, I got there in the end.
There's also another option, if you feel daring and in control of the story and its contact with the readers. That is to not write the villain as definietly unsympathic but just write the villain like you envison him or her, and then let the audience themselves decide if they think its a scumbag or a person with legitimate greviances to settle, and if the people harmed deserve it or not. I understand that this can backfire but this is the kind if stories that I love most of all. When the author lets the reader decide for himself/herself who the villain and hero is for them.
Well yeah. I'm not going to argue with you on that. But I do want to write him in a way that makes him memorable, and understandable to a certain extent. I'm not asking people to overall agree with his motives or even like him. I do want the audience to decide. I just want him.... not to be flat? If that makes any sense I want him to relate to the hero in a way that actually works and the audience... feeels like it does. That the paralels work, and that audiences while not all... feel it is written in a way that is interesting. I'm not asking for people to agree with him. GOD no. I just want him to be 3 dimension and not written in an overly cliche way.
Have you ever played or heard of Far Car 4, if not give it a try. It may give you some inspiration as the villain in it sounds a bit close to what you want, I think i've never actually played it. but I do know of him, I thin his name is Ming.
