So I‘ve decided to finally work on this book idea I‘ve had for about 8 years (I was like 13 when I came up with it). I‘ve plotted this novel out, I‘ve created my characters and already wrote the first 4 chapters. Even though I don‘t really intend on releasing my novel, I have a question. This novel is probably New Adult or Young Adult and has the main genre Fantasy with a romantic subplot. Due to the plot it also had aspects of crime novels. So nothing special there. The question concerns my protagonist. She starts of being someone who values etiquette and morals. She‘d do anything for her family and friends. However she is kind of denying herself due to society‘s take on people like her while she is also denying anyone similar to her. She thinks of herself as human and dislikes people like herself who are not human. During the plot she is forced to deal with her true nature and she slowly begins to accept it. A lot of things happen and in the end of the book she is forced to make a decision to stay with the friends she made during the course of the book and the antagonist. Staying with her friends means denying her new belief that her actual self is not something horrible and her new found morals. She‘d also be sacrificing those like her. Siding with the antagonist however means betraying her friends. She making a deal with devil because she now believes that saving others like her and her true beliefs about herself is most important. She however still hates what the antagonist does and would be supporting his sick plan in order to save others. In the long run this could also hurt a lot of other people. Long story short, she ends up killing one of her friends to save others like her which makes her friends turn against her saying that she has become a monster. She tries to flee from the antagonist but because no-one helps her, she gets captured. Novel 1 ends with her solving the crime, changing her view on herself and therefore saving those like her but she betrays her friends and loses them. She supports someone horrible to save what she thinks is most important. I know this is not what the typical YA/NA protagonist does and I kinda feel insecure about her for that reason. I do like that she actually fights for what she believes in but she turns from a very morally sound character to someone with twisted morals. What would think about that kind of protagonist?
While I'm in favour of the less than perfect main characters, killing one of her friends puts her into more of the antagonist line than even anti-hero. I think that would be pretty unforgivable to me until it was an accident or she was provoked and/0r it was self defense. She kills her friend to save strangers just because they are "like me" doesn't really cut it. But it depends on what kind of character you want her to be. Do you want her to be a good guy just in a horrible position? If so, you may want to think about the motivation to killing her friends. Betraying them in bad enough to me. I'd never turn my back on my old friends for some new ones no matter what my beliefs were. Or do you want her to be more morally grey and giving into her darkness? Are you prepared that the murder of her "friend" might turn people off her? Or find it hard to root for her? To me there needs to be more good friendships in novels and they seem to be very few.
This is pretty vague—I don't understand what it means that she saves "people like her". In what way are they the same? Morally? Racially? Philosophically? Do they like the same flavor of ice cream? I think the answer to this is vitally important. I can think of stories where a protagonist has to kill a friend. Example—Ben Hur's childhood best friend Massala, who he hasn't seen in decades, returns to Judea, but has become a conquering Roman warrior, and his mission is to convince Ben Hur (leader of Judea) to sell out his people, and annex Judea to the Roman Empire IIRC. Hur makes the only morally defensible choice and stands against his former friend to the bitter end, finally killing him in a chariot race after Messala sentenced him to be a galley slave. But it sounds like in your story the character isn't really making a morally defensible choice, rather one that she believes is defensible but nobody else does. So she's operating from a distorted morality? It's very hard to say anything about your idea without understanding what you mean by 'people like her', and how society feels about them, and also what you mean by saying she believes people not like her are not human. Human in what way? It sounds like you're describing racial discrimination and hatred, but it could be a metaphor for it. Or maybe there are humans and non-humans in this world? This would be a lot easier to understand if you just say it more clearly without all the vague word acrobatics.
@cosmis lights First of all, thank you for your opinion. My protagonist is supposed to become a bit more like an antagonist throughout the story. I read quite a bit but I am really fed up with protagonists who never have to make difficult choices and if they do, they are always morally justified. What if Katniss Everdeen had to choose between her sister and the revolution? I mean she would've chosen her sister but she never had the choice. What would've become of the rebellion? We don't know. I want my protagonist to actually forge their own pathway, not have others make the horrible decisions in order to be likeable. That's why I came up with the conclusion to make her pick. She is actually pretty kind and a pacifist but she still believes morals are more important than friendships. Her decision, at least to me, is a bit of a middle ground. I think you could understand her reasoning but I don't think a lot of people would chose the same. There actually been a survey about a similar dilemma where about 47% of people made a similar choice as my protagonist. The other 53% however strongly disagreed with the choice which means most readers wouldn't like this. Anyway I do agree that novels are lacking genuine friendships which is really disappointing. However the thing that annoys me the most that novels are missing protagonists who (have to) make decisions. The "like me" thing I mentioned a bit more layered but I understand your point. Choosing strangers over friend is a tough choice and can easily make a character unlikable. In my head I thought if my character had to decide between what she believes is just (which probably describes her decision better than the "like me" thing) and loyalty, what would she choose? She'd choose justice over loyalty. Her murdering her friend also is not just done just like that. She keeps begging her to change her view on justice and not get rid of those people who are like the protagonist but the friend doesn't listen (she also has good reasons not to) which is why my protagonist then chooses to kill her in the moment (it's not planned). Anyway, you said you already disliked betrayal of friends in books but is there a line? What would you be able to forgive the protagonist?
@Xoic Thank you for advice. To be less vague: You have three forms of beings and humans. These beings live in our world but keep detached from human society. First form is absolutely not dangerous, the second and most common one is slightly unstable with unpredictable mood swings and loss of any emotion from time to time. The second form works in their government etc. and has specific powers compared to form one. The third from is rare and forbidden because these beings suffer from having absolutely no emotions. Some of them can conform to society but their are often unable to control their powers which makes them unpredictable and dangerous. Many have died under their influence. They are also so instable that they often die young. Now to plot basically is that there's a way to make from 3s' powers controllable. If you "help" them early enough they also might be able to have emotions. Though in order for these beings to be able to survive another has to die in their place. This what the antagonist does for these beings. The protagonist belongs to the sealed form 3. A lot of things happen and it comes to a point where her friends want to capture this new sealed 3s. This would mean they'd rot in jail or an asylum for the rest of their life. Most of are children. The protagonist begs them to reconsider but they don't waver. The antagonist plays a dirty trick which leads to one of her friends trying to kill one the children which the protagonist ends up protecting in the spur of the moment by killing her friend. That's probably the easiest explanation. It's because of her morals that she does it. The choice is supposed to morally defensible. The protagonist is a pacifist but truly believes that jailing these beings is truly unjust. Thank you by the way for the great example. I guess I still need to work on making her motives a lot more understandable.
What do you mean by sealed form 3? I understand you mean the form 3 beings, but what does sealed mean? Sealed into not having any emotions? You say your protagonist is one of the form 3 beings—does she have emotions? I assume she does or she wouldn't be struggling with the choice. Thank you for the better explanation. I must say though, it's still difficult to make sense of and seems complicated. If you could attach a name to these beings, rather than always referring to them as beings, it would be very helpful. It's very difficult to always have to say or read a complex string of words (sealed form 3 beings for example) rather than just a simple name, like Spleebs with emotions and Spleebs without emotions (psychopathic Spleebs?) Sometimes people are very reluctant to share any details about their story, but they want help with parts of it. They'll make a thread like "A guy is doing a thing, but stuff goes wrong."—that's my plot. How can I make it better? Nobody can help with such vague ideas. You need to decide, which do you want to do—protect your ideas by not revealing anything, or get some real help with them? I don't think anyone is going to steal the names of your beings.
@Xoic My problem is more the translation. I'm German and all forms have German names (and explanations) which are not easily translated into English but I'll go with something that also fits. Form 1 - Those who can see - Seers - This form is able to communicate with the "spirits" and write in their language. It's the only language that's always changing which means it cannot be learned. The knowledge has to be inherited by birth right. Form 2 - Those who can manipulate - Lighteners - This form can manipulate objects but they can only manipulate objects that have spirit words (from the spirit language) written on them. That means they have to work with seers. How they can manipulate them depends on the source of their energy which is individual. Some could burn them for example. They still get burned if they touch the fire though. Form 3 - Those who can change - Shadows - Shadows can manipulate objects just like Lighteners but they can also manipulate their own bodies which also causes great harm to their body and can lead to death. Their abilities also depend on the source. Human are considered a perfect equilibrium. The further one's abilities stray from the traditional role of a human the more they lose the benefits of being human like emotion or logic. Your are born with one of these forms. They are not choices. To sealed shadows: Shadows that are sealed are ones that have control over their own power. If a shadow is sealed in the early stages of it's life, it can keep it's emotion. The protagonist was actually the first shadow is was tested on and therefore has her emotion but absolutely no control of her powers. In her cause though it shows as her having absolutely no powers (under normal circumstances). This is why the protagonist considers herself human. Apart from the fact that Shadows are actually genuinely dangerous. The government also keeps them locked up in order to protect society. Shadows are feared as monsters. They are considered a threat to society. As the protagonist progresses through the story she learns to accept her actual self though. The antagonist tries to create sealed Shadows that can be free without being bound by a justice system that only helps the majority. His intentions aren't good but what he does actually helps a lot of Shadows. And again he uses mostly children because adults are extremely unstable. Also a seer, a human or a lightener has to die in order to create a sealed Shadow. The protagonist's friends believe in the old idea that shadows should not be hold accountable for being born this way. However they still believe that they cannot simply be a part of society. They want to capture the sealed shadows. The protagonist believes, now that she actually accepts herself, that they are not to be held accountable for being born this way. She also believes that they are treated like outcasts and monsters even when a sealed shadow is capable of controlling itself. She begs her friends to listen to her but they don't. They also believe she cannot be compared to the other sealed shadows since she never had abilities. The other sealed shadows are still considered a threat.
My takeaway is that your protagonist needs some better friends. By extension I'm a little concerned that her friends don't feel like individuals. Your saying that every single one of them is so caught up in the idea that these people are monsters that none have the protagonist's back. None. That when the chips are down all of them turn their back on her. How many friends does she have, two? That said I also want to warn you about allegory. Now not everyone who reads fiction thinks much about allegory, but some readers will take any fantastical elements and assign real world meaning to them. For instance, the white walkers of Game of Thrones aren't just a magical race of creatures intent on wiping out humanity. For a lot of readers/viewers they represent climate change whether the author intended them to or not. I love allegory (even if I'm not always smart/observant enough to spot it,) so when I was reading your first blurb my impression was that the nonhumans were an allegory of LGBT. People who have to struggle with hiding their own identity lest everyone around them declares they are some type of monstrosity that must be wiped out. With your other posts, it seems more like a struggle with mental illness. I mention this, because allegory is something the audience decides upon, so an author might not have any intention of creating an allegorical representation in their works and thus no awareness of how their audience might interpret situations as allegorical. Which can result in unintended problematic representation. If we view your non-humans as allegories for those suffering mental illness we come back with one of the most damaging, and false, stereotypes that affect that community. Namely that those who have mental illnesses are more dangerous than the general populace and should be locked up. This stigma creates situations where people will avoid treatment for fear of facing rejection and punishment. By creating a scenario which justifies these fears you run the risk of telling a story that perpetuates harmful stereotypes as opposed to confronting them. Now that doesn't mean you should go back to the drawing board and rewrite the whole thing, I just wanted to let you know one way your story might be misinterpreted so that you can keep that in mind as you write and avoid potential stumbling blocks.
@TheOtherPromise You actually do have a point. I didn't think about allegories at all, maybe because I don't really like them. They always remind me of Thomas Mann (he lived during the 2nd world war) and his work "Mario and the Magician". Everyone talked about how it was an amazing novella about nationalism while Thomas Mann said that that was never the intended meaning. He asked people to stop but they then assumed he wrote it about nationalism either without knowing or he was hiding his true intentions. I can say that my novel is not intended to be about LGBT or mental health. I don't mind people interpreting it that way though as long as they don't assume it was my intention. This story is actually supposed to be about justice and it's many forms. Each character represents a different idea of justice and morality. She has three friends and a romantic interest. The romantic interest has to kind of be excluded from this though since he not really judging her for what she does and takes a very different role in the novel (or series). Her friends represent different kinds of moral principles. Not sure if they're just hollow vessels since I'm the writer and know all of these characters quite well. I always thought the conclusion, that if you know that someone is X and good, all X are good, is very foolish. The friends' reasoning (in my head) was: Yes, there a good ones like the protagonist but we cannot tell which ones are and which ones aren't. Making a wrong choice could actually greatly harm a lot of people. There is one friend (let's call him Alex) who thinks categorical. Killing is wrong, so she is in the wrong. Would the other friend (let's call her Sam) been in the wrong if she called someone? Yes but she had less of a choice than the protagonist. The protagonist wasn't forced but had to actively intervene. That makes her someone that does not comply with the categorical imperative. She would kill under circumstances, meaning she does not care about the clear rules of categorical morality. The last friend (let's call her Julia) believes in utilitarianism. Putting the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people as her top priority means she will not agree with someone who puts their own believes over the greater good of society. That's also the reason she'd sacrifice the others. Both Alex and Julia are close with Sam making her death even more difficult to accept. From their perspective Sam was forced to choose between protecting them and their people or the sealed Shadows. She made the decision to protect them. The protagonist however did not choose loyalty but rather chooses to protect her own justice and possibly the future of outcasts. While the others believe in and protect a status quo, the protagonist fights for an idealistic but impossible world. She is a pacifist yet she sacrifices her friends and her own feelings for what she believes will create true justice. If I ever write the sequel, her character will become a lot darker though. Taking the ending of book 1 as the inciting incident, she will turn into someone who sacrifices others in order to achieve her own justice (before realising that that is a mistake).
