I like Sifunkles idea of him thinking he'd give the baby a quicker death than some of the other rebels. Maybe you could show another child being brutally murdered by one of the other rebels in the build up, and that could be on the MCs mind when he enters the baby's room. Then when he hears the others coming he decides to end it quickly.
That's a good idea; maybe he enters the room only to see Amelia trying to save the baby. He wants to give the baby a mercy kill, citing that she will know no peace while Amelia, of course, refuses to do such a thing. Um, this is something I failed to mention to you all: David Maywalker is a white, mix-raced child born to a slave mother. Slave laws back then dictated that if your mother was a slave, it didn't matter what skin color you were, you were also a slave.
Yeah, I think you've probably hit on the answer... David should fall shy of becoming a baby killer. Well, this thread sure got nasty, but interesting all the same.
I think this is a very important thing for all writers to realize. Years ago, I wrote a story about a mother who wanted to come back into her son's life after abandoning him as a baby. The circumstances surrounding her abandonment were, as I intended them, extremely sympathetic and understandable. However, the readers split pretty much 50/50 on having any empathy for her. Many thought that her actions were insurmountable and unforgivable, and refused to accept the eventual reconciliation as a good thing for her son. It was one of the best learning experiences I had as a fledgling writer.
As the mother of a 15 month old baby - no, I would find the act of murdering the baby completely irredeemable. Babies are so completely helpless that I can find no justification for it. I think the fact that your character actually stands there considering it first before the killing actually makes him all the more repulsive. Because it shows he knows exactly what he's doing, who he's killing, and that a moral dilemma exists here that may be a little more blurred had the victim been an adult. He knew all of these, even thinks about it and weighs it up, and decides: this child deserves to die. That makes him monstrous to me. I also find it extremely ironic - your character is the son of a landowner. Yes he's also the son of a slave woman, but that he's the son of the landowner too cannot be overlooked. If this baby deserves to die, then so does he, by virtue of whom his father is. Now, the killing of babies does happen, unfortunately, esp during rebellions/wars. So it depends on how realistic your book is. If you could make it sound like it was simply something that had to be done, or perhaps that the character's blinded by hatred (and hopefully self-hatred), it could work. None of that means I will like your character from the point of his murdering a child. However, successful protags don't necessarily need to be liked. But for me, few things would redeem him. You'd have to write this reeeeally well to pull it off.
First off, you don't want to be black&white about it because you can't be. That's impossible. There are very few to zero issues someone can be reasonably black&white about. Thank you for realizing that. Secondly, where in the story does this occur? Thank you for the background information, but I am curious as to whether or not it would be ridiculous to suggest you used this as a character's downfall that he has to come back from... does that make sense? I hope it does, but if it does not I'll do my best to elaborate.
Not sure if I understand. Are you saying this is how David royally screws himself up and his character arc is him trying to redeem himself? As others said, they probably would find him utterly unredeemable if he actually went on with murdering a baby. But what if he tried saving the baby, but couldn't for some reason? Like he didn't know there was a baby until the middle of the revolt and he decides to save her, but something or someone impedes him and its too late for him to do anything. Would that work towards making him redeemable in the slightest?
Screwing up his morality, perhaps, yes. More of an internal drive. Coming back from something he thought he'd never do. How he had made a mistake and wanted to find a way to prove to himself that he wasn't that kind of person. That was what I was getting to try to get across, but what you're saying works as well.
For me personally, I think it would be (very) hard to find a character who murders a baby sympathetic. I understand how you are trying to show his desperation but I think a character murdering something as innocent as a baby is too...I am missing the word for it, but to me it would be more powerful if he chose not to hurt the baby despite the pain he may feel knowing that he/she is the child of his owners. Regarding, Amelia, I hope this is not controversially said since of course almost all men will also want to save a baby, but I think there's a saying that a paternal instinct isn't awakened before a man becomes a father whereas a woman always have a maternal instinct to a certain extent. I think it's very realistic that Amelia will fight David for hurting the baby. If I see a child in pain or getting hurt, I'd definitely do anything - no matter how I'd get hurt - to help / safe the child. And I am really not very tough. I think it would be natural for Amelia to fight David.
Interestingly enough, the more I think about it...the more I find myself asking the questions David would likely ask himself: ‘What sort of person am I?’, ‘Would I turn my back on Amos by doing this? I know he wouldn't want me to hurt innocent people...’ His thoughts keep turning back to Amos because he views both Amos and the baby as helpless. If the baby got hurt or killed, it'd be like if he had hurt or killed Amos. Amos seems to represent the last bit of humanity he has left (in my eyes) as the horrid mistreatment he's endured has done much to chip away at it. The more I think about it, the more I believe he wouldn't dare hurt that baby. More than likely, just before the real revolt goes underway, he has someone sneak in and spirit the baby away to safety (most likely toward Amos' location as again, he trusts Amos and sees them both as victims of this cruel, harsh, uncaring world.) Amelia doesn't realize this so when she can't find the baby in the middle of all the violence, she imagines the worse case scenario and demands David tell her where the baby is. Of course, he'd probably have to as it'd be creating manufactured drama if he doesn't and lets her assume he killed -- or at least allowed someone else to kill -- the baby. Maybe deep down beneath all the anger, hatred, and vendetta against his oppressors, he just can't bring himself to hurt the baby. So I guess the question now would be...would the baby actually make it, or would the person David entrusted the baby to reveal his darker intentions and do the last possible thing David ever wanted?
Ooook, So way back to the original post: are we to understand that, since David is "the son of the white landowner," (as opposed to "son of a white landowner") that the child in question would in fact be his half-sibling? For me, this opens a whole other door of emotional implications. Also- what do we know about the child's parents? How nasty/not nasty is Dad? What is Mom's temperment like? What clues to previous scenes give us as to how David might view the potential temperment of the child? What other options does he have, realistically, at this point? This is a harder subject for me to comment on in the way I think most people do. I have no children, nor do I particularly care for them, so I think I can speak without some of the revulsion most people have on a subject like this. NOT that I don't respect the humanity of the situation, and NOT that I think it's ok to go around axing babies. I just don't go all momma-instinct over it. Which leads me to my point: NOT EVERYONE is wired the same. If David is a young man, with no little siblings to protect (to activate his daddy instincts), no children of his own, no nesting lady-friend... and literally the MOST inportant thing to him is to gain his freedom- so much so that he is willing to murder (possibly deserving characters, possibly not) in order to gain it- in the moment... maybe axing that baby makes absolute sense to David. If that is the case, then the murder of this baby is symbolic of the murder of David's humanity by the evils of slavery. It speaks to the cycle of violence in human nature. And it begs the age-old question, who's right to live (and live free) is worth more than another's. It's deep stuff, no matter how you slice it. If it were me, I wouldn't second guess having him kill the baby, simply for the dark doors it opens for him as a character. If the child is his sister (right? not brother?) that makes even more of a statement. As i see it, though, if you go there, you should be prepared to understand and address all the resulting implications.
@Link the Writer To answer the question in your OP, I think it's entirely possible for the MC to justify it enough so as to least not make him unreadable. He's not the one who created an us or them mentality. Many people would agree it is better to be dead free than alive a slave. In that regard, there is really nothing worse than enslaving an entire race, which is what your MC is experiencing. That child would most likely grow up and become another slaver, and if he didn't, he still benefited off of all the tragedies of your MC's race. It's a horrible situation that your MC is in, and while he would be a murderer with a corrupted soul, I would look at him as a victim more than a bad guy.
