the punishment would most likely be exile, but you have the evidence that can secure that punishment.
So in this scenario, would forgiveness equate to condoning the murder or conniving against society that it not be punished? With that definition of "forgiveness," no, I could not, under any circumstances. Or at least I hope I wouldn't. But then it would be my own selfishness talking, not my friendship for the murderer. But if forgiveness means maintaining my love and concern for the murderer and hoping for and working towards his best, yes. And his best would probably include him taking his due punishment. One thing I was wondering, does the "one free-thinking individual" in your original post refer to the murderer or to the potential forgiver?
re. the last question, both. As I see it at the moment; the character ("you") will uncover the murder. She will be disgusted by it, she will understand the reasons for it, she will need the protection of the murderer (also the murderer is probably the closest friend she has left at this stage), she will hate her reaction but will just want to sweep the whole thing under the carpet so she does not have to process it, she will discard the evidence. I am just unsure how I need to dress the actual act of murder up in order to make this sort of reaction convincing, hence I am gauging the responses in this thread.
Interesting. Does that amount to her having no inner conviction that Murder is Wrong? If so, on what basis is she disgusted by it? Because it's messy and there's blood all over the carpet? I think you may be close to your own solution. She doesn't need to "forgive" anything in order to help the murderer, she only needs to consult her own needs and convenience. If there is a stricture against murder in your cosmology, she should be able to think up all sorts of reasons for why it doesn't count in this case. Which seems to be where your list in the original post is heading. One thing to consider: You forgive the person who offends against you. Forgiving someone who's done a crime that doesn't affect you is presumptuous and absurd. So unless the victim was also a friend or family member of hers, if she "forgives" the murderer, it won't be for the murder per se. She may, however, choose to forgive him for dishonoring the family, or making her life difficult, or whatever.
This is sci-fi. She is disgusted by two things 1) the victim was innocent/harmless and a reasonably pleasant character 2) the perpetrator is in a position of strength, which she has only seen used for a sort of benign protection up until this act. She is distantly aware that the perpetrator is capable of brutal acts but usually as a reciprocal sport where there is a challenge. I was using "forgive" as shorthand for her ability to maintain an unbroken friendship with the perpetrator. I could argue away the murder entirely with something along the lines of; the victim was old and frail and in pain, so he agreed to euthanasia that resembled murder for the greater good, but I would rather leave more ambiguity than this.
Why should accepting their protection automatically mean forgiveness? I accept my mother-in-law's Christmas gifts, go to her home for (obligatory) family dinners, and have most recently accepted her gifts of clothes for the little babe still kicking around inside me. Have I forgiven her for trying to break us up before her son and I got married? For dragging him to a bloody psychologist on the pretense of discussing his relationship with her, just to have the the discussion - and the psychologist - turn the tables on my then-fiance by interrogating him on his choice of marrying me? All of which resulted in him telling me what, two months before the wedding, that he wants to call the wedding off? I asked, "So do you want to call the wedding off?" and he said, "Yes," whilst we sat together in an outdoor cafe at the park. I remember exactly where it was. Thankfully all this drama is past and my husband and I have been happily married for over 3 years now. But forgiven his mother for all that? Sorry, I can't say I have. But do I accept the things that she gives? Sure. I am thankful for them. That says nothing about whether I have forgiven her. So likewise, I don't see why accepting someone's protection should mean you have forgiven them for their past deeds. What it would affect, however, is whether I would trust such a person to actually protect me. If his capacity for murder actually strengthens the chances of him protecting me, then I could be happy to accept his protection without once thinking it's all right that he kills people.
She sounds like a bundle of laughs. I would also struggle to forgive that sort of arse-hattery. I only have one situation in real life where I might have cause to forgive someone for their past behavior, but in that scenario the power dynamics simply switched as I got older and I no longer see them as the same person they were then. The idea of forgiveness all seems rather silly and self-absorbed. But in terms of this I need them to still get along. Forgiveness is the wrong word as this character really has no cause or grounds to forgive the perpetrator. But she needs to be able to accept what happened, move on, and retain a sincere trust in the perpetrator (EDIT: up to a point, but where that line is drawn is also something I am trying to work out).
^^^^ THIS!! Absolutely! Forgiveness means looking the offense in the face and acknowledging that it is an offense, against you. It takes on board how terrible it is and then says, "Despite all that, I choose, from a position of strength, to let go of it and continue our relationship as if it never happened at all. In fact, if you ever mention that offense you committed against me, I will ask you, 'What offense?' As far as the east is from the west your offense will be flung from you and me." @Chinspinner, it doesn't sound like your character is in that position of emotional strength. As you say, she needs the murderer for her own protection. And does she fancy him a little, too? (Just wondering.) She may choose to justify it, to ignore it, to sweep it under the carpet (to use your image), but true forgiveness is not on the table. How does the murderer justify the killing? Does he claim he had the right to do it? If so, and if the friend is a certain kind of person, she could join him in his claim that might makes right, maybe agree that Ubermenschen like them have the power of life and death over others, in whatever situation. But then she'd be Bonnie to his Clyde and the emotional conflict you seem to be wanting to set up would be gone. How much more satisfying in terms of inner turmoil it would be, as @Mckk points out, if she's nervously aware that the victim did not choose to be pushed out of the world and has to deal with the fear that her "friend and protector" might do the same to her if it suits his convenience.
We crossed posts here, but I tried to correct the forgiveness thing above: But in terms of this I need them to still get along. Forgiveness is the wrong word as this character really has no cause or grounds to forgive the perpetrator. But she needs to be able to accept what happened, move on, and retain a sincere trust in the perpetrator. I would add here that she might not need to retain sincere trust, but I am undecided quite how far I am pushing it one way or the other and this seems a good starting point. There is no fancying going on, it is sci-fi, the perpetrator is alien and they aren't exactly compatible. I am taking any sort of weird "death-row romance" or Bonnie and Clyde fucked-up behavior off the table entirely, or even a childish infatuation. I don't want to fetishize the murder in any way. However, there may be a loosely formed surrogate parent attachment on her side. This is exactly what I am trying to work out. What would be acceptable and what would strain all credibility. Again, this is part of what I want to explore, but it is just how far I can push it that I am worried about. i.e. I need to tread a line between some anxiety and just feeling unsafe and running for the hills.
So I am a french citizen in 1941. A member of the French underground, my friend, kills another friend who is neither a Nazi sympathizer nor a member of the underground. He does so because he fears that the Gestapo will discover the connections, interrogate the person and expose the resistance. I'm now fleeing with my resistance friend. Does this sound analogous to what you are going for? Extreme circumstances more easily lead to forgiveness or acceptance than normal circumstances. It would be a complex process trying to reconcile the actions even though I understand them. We're probably not best friends after the war. But for the purposes of the escape, its easily believable.
More like you have solved German military codes and suspect an imminent invasion. Your friend kills someone (chosen because he could realistically introduce a false motive for the murder) and implicates (or even frames) a known German spy. In response the German spy is concerned that he may imminently be searched and his plans uncovered, and he may be incarcerated and thus unable to fulfill his role in the suspected imminent invasion. It will force him to modify his role, communicate this back to his masters (before destroying evidence of the invasion) and thus reveal the German invasion plans. I think in this scenario the murder is more questionable. I don't think I used the word "imminent" enough in the above explanation so I am imminently going to use it again: imminent.
Seems rather Rube Goldberg. The key is establishing this person was left will no other options. Everything is imminent so that is one issue in your favor. OTOH, you've broken the codes so you should actually know. Good luck.
haha, this was the simplified version, it is far more convoluted than that. And this is not an exact replica of the scenario, in fact it only distantly mimics it; but the intricacies of the plot are something I want to avoid in this thread as I was just trying to gauge people's reactions to the OP.
I would forgive the murderer if she was really hot. That's pretty much the only reason I can think of.
Yeah, we did. Exactly. Just enough anxiety to keep things interesting for the reader. Otherwise you get an unsympathetic character who's too ready to condone murder, or a totally naive idiot, both of which aren't that engaging. It occurs to me that I may have a similar situation in the novel I've currently got at the beta readers. My male protag grew up resenting and hating his father, partly because when the protag was a child in the early 1950s, his beloved sister fell deathly ill. His father, who was working at a location a couple hundred miles distant, neither came home to see his daughter nor left/sent enough money to pay for her medical care. At least this is what the protag's equally-beloved mother told him at the time. The sister dies. Years later, he finds out that his mother's version of his father's behavior wasn't always to be trusted, and comes to the horrible suspicion that Momma may have sat back and let his sister die just to get back at her husband. But the protag can't challenge her on this, because she's in a nursing home with Alzheimer's. So he refuses to consider the possibility any further. He pushes it out of his head and makes himself think of her only in a favorable light. The point of this in my story is to show the protag that his father may not have been the thoroughgoing villain he grew up thinking he was, etc., etc. My point here is that some version of the situation your female character is in happens all the time, and can make things Really Interesting.
I think I would probably at least try to judge by their standards but I'm not sure. If they're given a fair shot to fight I'll be more forgiving. I have a big issue with non-consensual euthanasia; it terrifies me. If they kill them over a mental illness rather than physical especially. But I don't think all readers will feel this way. In a way. There'd be the survivor's guilt but also a thankfulness, I think. Yes, but it would still be hard. I want the perp to feel some guilt I read something a while ago that basically said you need to try to forgive everyone and accept what they've done and stop letting it haunt you, but you don't need to reconcile with them. Like if your friend says something rude to you, you can forgive them and then go back to being friends but you can also forgive an abuser while still never seeing or otherwise interacting with them ever again. You forgive them but you don't give them the power to hurt you again. Don't know if that applies, but ...
It is funny, when I see someone"forgiving" someone else, I usually see one of two things:- 1) A lot of pain and anger bubbling beneath the surface and the act of forgiveness is nothing more than a wholly inadequate emotional sticking plaster over the wound. The forgiveness is a lie and the pain and anger are real. 2) A means of control by taking the upper hand in a rather self-righteous and self-important manner. If there is still a need to forgive, then you aren't in a position to do so. It is just a meaningless platitude.
If they explained the murder to me in a way that made it absolutely clear their was no other choice in their predicament, without sacrificing something that was more important to the both of us, then maybe. It would create a lot of friction between the companions but if incoming events prove the necessity of the murder, beyond the explanation, it would make it easier for the 'friend' to accept this and trust that it was a necessary sacrifice. (i.e. Barely escaping from a German Prisoner Camp, and killing your prisoner friend who was a part of the escape plan, Because Germans figured out he was up to something. And then they figure out some other person is up to something that is also a part of the escape plan right before the escape plan happens and end up barely escaping. if the person earlier was interrogated for the information they would have failed before the plan had a chance to succeed. And then they kill the prisoner if any allegations are true so it was more of a mercy kill in that situation.) Edited: for examples and grammer
I don't think that counts as forgiveness then ? But the way it was explained in the book basically said that forgiveness was for you and reconciliation was for the other person, so I think # 2 can still count in a way ... hm ...
One thing that has been touched on, but IMO only lightly, is the fact that often people believe what they need to believe. If your character needs the protection of the murderer, they may choose not so much to rugsweep what they know, but to refuse to know what they know.
Yeah, in my explanation I inaccurately used "forgiveness" as short-hand for "acceptance", an ability to put the act behind you and continue the friendship.
Which is the answer I was expecting, but I don't think people like to recognize that quality in themselves. I don't know why, it is self-preservation, our most basic instinct.
