Two simple rules. 1) You can't write characters that everyone will love. Just accept that. 2) If you really want characters to be loved, have multiple characters that varies and appeal to different people.
I also want to add that your points are much more fleshed-out than I typically see from videos like this. I have such a bone to pick with creators who, say, mention a point, and then explain the point only by rearranging their phrasing like two or three times. "Bland characters are something to avoid. A character without layers is not what readers want to spend time on. You HAVE to develop your characters, or people will get bored". As an example haha.
That's such a thing I do when I'm writing comments or anything that I'm not going to edit. The thing is: Autism I don't know how to phrase things so that people will understand, because while I just take words as their literal definition without any social connotation or anything, a lot of people will add a bunch of meanings to words that are purely based on their own experiences, and while a lot of people can intuitively understand them because they come from the same culture and they have prescribed the same very subjective meaning, because I simply don't do that, I don't know what landmines I'm stepping on and where misunderstandings will arise So I always either under explain or over explain. I under explain when I either have faith that they won't misunderstand (usually after I've spent a lot of time in autistic communities because they just do) or I just don't want to write an essay. This almost always results in a misunderstanding because someone had a personal definition that corrupted the message Other times, I overexplain because if I say this one thing in one thousand different ways, surely, even if I step on one landmine, most of the ways I explained it made it through and because it's 1 against 999, they'll forget about the one and understand what I mean (and occasionally, the person will pick a fight with the 1 and forget the 999 but most of the time it works but people get annoyed at my wordiness) Not trying to argue with you or critique what you said. It's just the saying it in so many different ways resonated and I wanted to share
Breaking Bad really is a masterclass on morally ambiguous characters and subtext. The progression from mild-mannered chemistry teacher to "I am the one who knocks" is fascinating.
Who is your favourite marauder? I'm stuck between... Remus, Sirius, Peter and James :/ (Sorry I have met like no one else who knows who they are, and I want to know other opinions)
@@crowhamill I mean you weren’t asking me but I found a fellow marauders fan… Remus is the best in my opinion, he has the werewolf angst, he was passive but still way nicer than the others when they were younger and a good kinda mentor character to Harry :)
I think a good way to look at one of your first points is to see the reaction of the "Han Shot First" retcon. The original version of Han was morally ambiguous to the point that many fans of A New Hope were disgusted that he shot someone for personal gain. Yet, when this was actually changed, just as many people were outraged about the lessening of Han's dimension as a character. You're not gonna make everyone happy. You can't. What matters is that your characters are believable, and to accomplish that, fulfilling traits is necessary.
I personally think the shot first thing is a bit over dramaticized. Like if you look at it it doesn't seem like he actually thought gredo would Fire. Also i get some prople see it as "aoh he is actually not that bad" but it's not like Han was about to abbanon Leia until he found out she has money. But regardless I don't think it ruins his charater because it doesn't look like they had this big John wick show down it was really barely worth of note. Especially since he shot first because he in self defense. He didn't con jaba he just lost his stuff by accident that's why he is wanted by Jaba. But the tldr -Han shot first because greedo was going to sell him out to a gangster which probably would kill him - he was wanted by jaba which is how he got their even in the og because he was honest to jaba and had a valid explanation why he lost his shit - it barely seems like Han knew greedo was going to shoot We can't talk about the special edition but the Han shot first thing is actually not worth complaining about imo
@@theunstablewoki6022 Curious if you saw it and if you did How was it its been a year. Also bcs is just as good if you get past season 1 I like bcs and there are momments where it surpasses breaking bad but season 1 is basically the wtf do we do season to give them credit they do a decent job at hiding it but the writters behind the scene had no clue what to do outside of jimmy and chuck I want to keep things spoiler free just in case
I feel like I always make my characters too nice and they tend not to argue much or do nasty things. Idk I like nice people Haha but I feel like I should try this out
There's also nothing wrong with writing characters who are good, nice, pleasant people. If that's your style then go for it! Those stories are important too!
A lot of mine tend to be very confrontational, regardless of moral leaning. The paragon will call people out on their dodgy ethics. The anti-hero will chew someone out for not being pragmatic.
My characters are all really good friends, but there has to be some kind of conflict. Two of the main characters are best friends, but there's some conflict there as to race, secrets that can't be shared, bossiness and temper tantrums. Dig deep into the characters and you'll find the conflicts. Think about your best friends, aren't there some things that just drive you crazy about them?
I think you can have both. More often than not, there is more than one character in a story. And depending on your plot you can put nice characters in situations where their moral code is challenged. People can be genuinely nice and not realize that some of the things they do or say are harmful. I LOVE nice people too. But I also LOVE characters that are morally ambiguous and navigate a thin line between good and bad.
I've found that a good way to write authentic flawed characters is to draw from my own experiences or emotions. So for instance, the two protagonists of my last novel were, respectively, very manipulative and very stubborn. These are both things that I have been myself, at different points in my life, though not to the extent that they are. Another way is to make their flaws and virtues stem from the same character trait. For instance, the stubborn character is an extremely determined person who'd move heaven and earth to achieve his goals, but that determination also makes him blinkered and unable to see any other paths, once he's decided on a course of action. The character trait is the same, it's just the situation that makes it a virtue or a flaw.
Exactly. I even started to make a list of character traits (both "virtues" and "flaws") and write how they could drive positively or negatively characters.
@@elisa4620 it's all about the situation, really. To give an obvious example, being an extrovert would be a virtue in a sales job and a vice in a remote accounting job. The character trait is the same, just the situation that makes it a good thing or a bad thing
The "interesting" part made me think of Black Sails. A short series about pirates. It was a bit hard for me to watch at first, because we're kinda used to having someone to root for, someone that's in one way or another "better" than the rest. But in Black Sails, that person doesn't exist. You have straight and gay, you have thieves, you have murderers, you have liars and schemers, and backstabbing bastards. But not a single one of them are all good, none of them are free of at least one evil/immoral trait. Which made them all rather interesting, it also made it hard to know how things were going to go. Very interesting.
I'm always a little bit jealous of you when I read your stories, because you write morally gray characters so well! *morally gray characters! Not children! Autocorrect lol
I have a perfect way to test audience reaction to a morally ambiguous character. That is storytelling tabletop role-playing. Would the players continue to maintain an alliance with this character after they discover their darker side? You can also learn by playing. Who would you be willing to ally with in order to achieve your character's goals?
YES to all of this! About the consequences gameplay: that might be a result of the code era of Hollywood studios. There is a lot we can learn from the cinema (Yeah, the 15 beat structure is great & there is a reason that video that comes up when you search is important, he says as he reached the 56% point of Jessica Brody's book!) The lessons we should not take from Hollywood is the code era & the restrictions that lead to some great Noir movies to counter some unnecessary handcuffs to storytellers. John Hess over at Filmmaker IQ has some good background information. I think the result of generations of storytelling promoting the lie that bad actions need to result in bad consequences is the rise of Presidents that have never dealt with consequences & accountability being a foreign concept... Like 6 Bankruptcies before 70 years of life. Belated Happy Canada Day, glad to share a Continent, there is just a lot of work ahead to, "Stand on guard for thee!"
ShaelinWrites this is John Hess’ video on the censorship issue... ruclips.net/video/Ynf8BmfgPtM/видео.html In general your starting point is the Hays Code: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
I know this character is from a tv show not a book but in my opinion he is one of the best Morally ambiguous characters. He is ‘Ivar The Boneless’ from the Tv show ‘Vikings.’ He is the son of the most famous Viking Ragnar and his brothers are great warriors and all achieve great things. Ivar was born with a disability that caused his legs not to work so he has to crawl everywhere. As the seasons go on his actions and beliefs get more extreme as he uses his flaw of not having Working legs in a time that was so tough and uses that to work on his mind and become one of the most cunning and intelligent people on the show. Long story short, he believes bending others to his will makes him more powerful to fill the void of not having working legs. Throughout the show he does terrible things like leaving his own son to die in the forest because his son was also born with deformed legs and you would expect him to sympathize with the child but then does the opposite and kills the child. Yet in the final season when he befriends this young boy, he stops being his narcissistic, violent self and actually loves and cares for the boy whilst trying to get his kingdom back. I didn’t do him justice trying to explain him there but he is in my opinion one the best morally grey characters.
I think it's important to practice ambiguity through characters. I notice a lot of writers tend to put their own worldview in the characters to make it 'personal', but it comes off biased. Like it's not about agree or disagree, but right vs. wrong= no exception. Moral arguments shouldn't be polarized against one side, but there should be some representation on both sides in order to allow the reader to agree or disagree with the characters instead of being lectured or discriminated against for their own differing beliefs.
Amazing video, it's so good to see a character that i love the most fit close to every single positive point or tips to how to do. Eren Jager from Attack on Titan just hits so many of those, he almost is my base to study this subject
EXACTLY! This video was awesome! Another really wonderful morally ambiguous character that just fires on every level is Howard (Adam Sandler) from Uncut Gems. Almost every character is incredibly ambiguous, the movie is a masterclass on characterization, but Howard specifically is a good example of everything you got into here
One of My oc's flaws is lying to protect people. She lies about her secret identity to everyone besides her coworkers. The flaw stemmed from her dad lying to her to protect her from the truth, and like the two of her parents doing that, but when that backfired on her dad, she didn't realize how hypocritical she was being keeping that flaw.
I keep thinking back to "Saul Goodman" when I watch this video. As for pen and paper game alignment systems, the closest that I can think of that includes complex alignments is Palladium. Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Diabolic (Evil) and Miscreant (Evil). Feel free to read the overview of these alignments to get a break-down of how they interact with the world around them and their internal attitude to their place within it.
I’m going on a binge for these. I listen to them in the background like a podcast as I stare into my vacant word document. Quarantine’s killed my creativity. And I just flumped a writing contest. But thank you for rekindling my passion for writing!
This was very interesting. You made many good points. But I wonder about your point when you talk about the character's backstory. I feel that it is more complicated than that. While I agree that it doesn't excuse their wrongdoings, it is still a good way to explain why they are the way they are. When well done, I don't think it is cheap at all. Traumas are often the origin of a lot of maladaptive and/or morally ambiguous (or outright evil) behaviors. It creates twisted belief systems that are deep-rooted and hard to acknowledge and then equally as hard to change. Said behavioral patterns almost always end up being self-destructive in a way or another. Things you talked about in a positive way earlier in the video ... And it happens a lot in real life. I know people who developed big issues (including mental illness) because of traumatic events in their childhood. And I think it is important to talk about it. It also can raise questions: if the characters are the way they because of what they went through, do they or not deserve a second chance? Should we condemn them or should we give them an environment that could help them heal and change? Isn't the society/system/people that made them like this also to blame? etc.
I think this is kind of the point I was making. I wasn't trying to say that you *can't* include trauma or some kind of complex backstory for your villain, in fact many times it adds necessary and interesting context and texture to explore their backstory in this way. The point I was going for was just that if their backstory is simplified into a "trauma happened therefore they are evil" narrative, without the needed nuance, it can really cheapen the trauma and make it seem like a plot device, since trauma responses are more complex than this.
I love Hannibal Lector for this reason. He is inexcusable, and he doesn't excuse himself either. But he helps Clairice and stands up for her because she's helpless in a man's world. He teaches her to be a predator like him. Makes him so nuanced
Your videos are all so helpful and inspiring and I’m so grateful for ur platform omg. I love that I can reference your videos in my critique group and just stan them all the time lol
So, how would I write the difference between "I'm selfish" and "I believe that all people will take what they can and run, so I have to protect what I have"?
John 117 is the kind of character that is morally… fucked. Not ambiguous. Everything about him is morally fucked. Even how he physically IS is morally fucked. And the way he thinks… he’s just enough human that the way he thinks is horrible. Like, no one cares if a character like Terminator thinks like a killing machine… because he is. But John is a human that thinks like a killing machine… while still having human feelings, friends and all that stuff. And that’s fucked.
I think the reason bad actions more often than not get consequences in books and movies is because it's comforting to think that the bad ones will get their due. You know. It's comforting to see the murderer get behind bars, and the rapist killed, and the bully get beaten down, and such things. It's that whole revenge thing. And if they don't get their due, something has to teach them a lesson to see the error of their ways, making them good. I think this is popular because it feels better that way. We know it's not like that in real life, but it's how we'd want real life to be, right? Making the characters more realistic and having them get away with things is more depressing I suppose. Even if it is more realistic. :P
True. I think the most important difference to reality is that the outcome has to mean something to the reader, be it satisfying, shocking, funny, surprising in a good way, there has to be something that makes the story worthwhile to be told. Shitty person does some shitty things, gets away with it and lives happily (and shitty) ever after tends to be not a meaningful story, even though or maybe even because it often happens in real life. Something remarkable has to happen in your story. This can be the bad person suffering consequences for the bad things he has done and/or beeing redeemed. It doesn't have to be, though, there are other possibilities. I think the ending of "Basic instinct" can be a good example how you can flash readers/viewers with a bad guy winning, whithout having said bad guy suffer consequences or redeeming him (I won't elaborate here for spoilers, those who know the movie will very likely get what I mean).
I'm writing a story with a morally ambiguous main female character, and this is so timely. Just the past week I had a struggle accepting the role of simps and of morally ambiguous women. It's such a challenge to navigate.
I really enjoyed this video because I’m writing a story where my main character is sort of accidentally morally ambiguous and now I just want to accentuate that :)
This makes me think of a quote I saw on Tumblr: If you want your female characters to be complex and have agency, sometimes bad things have to be their fault
So interesting to learn you like writing ambiguous characters since they're intriguing by doing unexpected things. As an instrumental guitar composer who composes/performs music for characters like that, I liked hearing your thoughts about one not worrying about others perceptions in order to convey a story which is important as a writer and as one of the musicians who are focusing on representing stories/characters with original music, i've also come to this realization so it was nice to hear you also convey that idea. Also, I find its quite fun committing to ambiguous characters since special representations, ideas, and music result from this mindset that are different than what results from just representing clear cut "good" characters. Some of my most unique musical art resulted from committing to ambiguous characters which I'd guess story writers who also commit to such characters might find similar results and could even have fun representing those types of characters. You have great thoughts from a writer's standpoint and thanks for sharing!
Great vid! Though personally, my favourite examples of this in terms of TV shows are actually The Sopranos, which has an entire cast of morally ambiguous characters, and The Shield, which has a corrupt cop protagonist. I'd also recommend the Korean crime drama movie Asura: City of Madness.
Coming very late to this party, but I am not sure I agree with your definition and approach to morally ambiguous characters. For me, the classic morally ambiguous character is Dexter, a serial killer who kills because of a trauma he experienced as an infant when he was forced to watch his mother being brutally butchered. Dexter kills to relieve himself of his horrific pain BUT he kills despicable murderers that the police and the courts are unable to charge and convict. He never kills innocent people. he never kills randomly and he doesn't kill for any kind of personal gain. He kills because he must and although he is a sadistic murderer he is less evil than those he kills. Dexter, then is the equivalent of Dirty Harry, a cop who behaved lawlessly to defeat criminals whose behavior was even more lawless. Both Dexter and Harry are anti-heroes who are bad but always better than their antagonists. and we DO root for them , sympathize with them , identify with them because while they are bad the world they inhabit is far worse. But while we may disagree profoundly with their moral universe, their actions in their own eyes (and in the viewers, I would argue) is not wrong or even ambiguous.
Dexter Morgan is given a "Code" by his father to help him channel his monstrous urge to kill. Dexter ends up alone in the end because he is the bad guy and is a villain. We aren't meant to excuse him anymore or fool ourselves into thinking he is different. He isn't.
Shaelin, I was a part of a writing workshop this week. I wrote and edited a short story, The Charms of the Land of Far. Today was the last day of the workshop and I learned so much about writing vividly. I definitely want to explore morally ambiguous characters in my writing because they are crafted in a completely different way. Most characters that are morally ambiguous are unreliable narrators. I love how the protagonist can have multiple layers to its character. I write so ardently because it is my life purpose. I love you
*cough**cough* Thomas Rainwater But seriously, Yellowstone may be full of morally ambiguous assholes, but Thomas is by far the most well executed one when it comes to this. Then again, might just be because I just really love this bastard and find the character the most interesting on the show in the smart and calculated way he does things, topped with the fact that he's the definition of "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" because on paper his motive does come off as well intentioned, but his brain is wired in such a way that he goes about it in every way that deviates from it as much as possible,especially when money and land is involved. But what makes him amazing in that regard is, he isn't just, a hero who plays the cards the way he does out of necessity, he plays the cards the way he does because that's just, how he does business, and he doesn't see anything wrong with it whatsoever. He doesn't do it out of obligation, he does it because it's just the way he thinks. And the more you poke the bear about it by telling the guy that the shit he does is wrong, the angrier you make the bear. Does practically almost literally nothing but make him double down on it.
I don't have to agree with the character or like them as a person to like them in general. For me what matters the most is if they're complex and interesting.
This video... was a GODSEND. For the longest time, my character wasn't feeling right and my story was NOT making sense. This made me realize I was trying too hard to punish my character for one "bad" choice she made, AND trying too hard to excuse it through that sappy backstory you were talking about. And yes, I WAS overly concerned about making my character likeable. I think after seeing this video, a morally grey character is going to fit my story SO much better.
Currently writing a “morally ambiguous” character, a woman in a fantasy setting who had her young sister stolen. The idea is that she does some awful things to get her back. And weather or not she was right to do those things is up to the reader. This has been very helpful, thank you. In my first drafts my character felt off. I was thinking in needed her to be less of a stand in for the reader and more of someone with real choices to make. My idea has changed from “she does awful things to find her” to more of a goal based character. Her ONE true goal is to find and rescue her sister, nothing else matters to her, she may let people die, or manipulate them for her goals. Meaning that if a character falls into the wrong situation, they could die because of her goal, or she could even put some random person in a bad situation and not care. She would have favourites among the characters based on their usefulness or connection to her sister, but none are more important to her than this goal. as long as that character trait is maintained, no character will ever feel truly safe.
I tend to find morally ambiguous characters that don't have ANY views that I do annoying...but if theres one that has at least one relatable, if selfish or wrong, belief that I relate to, I will read them any day
"The idea that people only do or believe bad things because they've gone through trauma is not only untrue, but also a little problematic. You've gone through something traumatic and then treat other people poorly like that's not an excuse." Amen, this is why I hate the 2019 Joker film. It's basically this obnoxious trope, combined with a really simplistic and stigmatising portrayal of people with mental health issues.
@@chrisanthit.5642 In other words bad stuff happened to him and he was sad so he killed a bunch of people. This shit's been done before and I'm sick of it.
To write morally ambiguous characters, think first of what heroes don't do, then think what is "too wimpy" for villains to do. For instance, most superheroes have a Code Against Killing, while a typical slasher movie villain will take out an entire high school body, one-by-one. An antihero would single-handedly wipe out a drug cartel without remorse but not a stoner or a sex worker, because "I'm after bigger fish!" or "I've got no beef with you." Or think about what is considered good and bad behavior in real life, then think about what behavior nobody knows or agrees is right or wrong, such as substance abuse, profanity, non-marital sex, gambling, etc.
So I found this great video as I was exploring all the reasons behind my writers block as I recover from burnout- I want to be ready to get back to work as soon as my wellspring is full again. I am trying to write this morally gray vampire protagonist, and I am not sure I'm writing him right. This is at the heart of part of the block. 🙄 I have this doubt in my chest that he's still too good, too Edward Cullen, yet I don't want to take him over the line into actual evil, like the old Count Orlock in Nosferatu. How do I know if I am doing this right? Do morally gray characters have to destroy themselves? Maybe I am being morally ambiguous in the message I might be giving to the reader, but his moral ambiguity is what leads him to his success. He failed in the past because he was trying to be 'good', he used to be like Edward Cullen, but he only met with failure. He's a vampire and to survive he has to BE a vampire. There is a character who goes over the line into Evil that illustrates what would happen to my hero if he goes too Black. It isn't pretty. You wouldn't happen to know of a good writing forum where I can talk with other writers and get opinions and advice on things like this?
It is true that you don’t need the character to be sympathetic. You just need the character to have understandable goals and character flaws. Take for example Thanos he has an understandable view: murder half the universe so that the remaining majority can be saved. (It's Utilitarianism to its awful logical conclusion) His flaw: terrible relationships with the daughters he cares about the most.
Loved this video! Morally ambiguous characters are my favorite kinds of characters. Can we get that list of your favorite books with morally ambiguous characters, though? It's not in the description lol
that a villian had to be punished by the end of the film was forced by the 'hays code' from the 1930's to 60's. similar guidlines were applied for comics (CCA) up until very recently.
Great video! Most of my characters are morally ambiguous for the very reason it makes them more realistic and relatable. We all have flaws and imo reading scripts or books with the “perfect” protagonist kinda just makes me roll my eyes
My advice is to ask where do you tow the line and commit to it Jimmy mcgill may not kill and he may of redeemed himself but that doesn't mean he is misunderstood jimmy as saul goodman was a bad person jimmy when he repents admits it "I was kneeling in front of an open grave, with a gun pointed at my head. That was my introduction to Walter White. I was terrified. But not for long. That night I saw opportunity." "So yeah I wasn't there when the meth was cooked. I wasn't there when it was sold. I didn't witness any of the murders, but I damn well knew it was happening. I was more than a willing participant. I was indispensable. I kept Walter White out of jail. I laundered his money. I lied for him. I conspired with him and I made millions. If he hadn't walked into my office that day, Walter White would have been dead or behind bars within a month. And Agent Schrader and Agent Gomez and a whole lot of other people would still be alive. Fact is, Walter White couldn't have done it without me!" It's fine to tow the line like walt or tow it like jimmy both are valid heck I almost like them equally. The episode Saul Gone wouldn't work if he was walt but it wouldn't feel as powerful if the bar wasn't set jimmy can't have this big momment if he was barely involved or miss understood. No it works because the bar is set period. Jimmy did many bad things with no excuses. The rules to an moral ambiguity I have are Where it the bar set? How far do you tow it? Finally commit? Charaters can change but you got to commit to the story you tell and if you want to go the redemption route understand that you have to make sure that their redemption feels powerful because they were bad not because they were having a momment. Other wise commit walt doesnt really improve as a person in felina he just rights what he did to his family the only people he cared about and not those who suffered because of him.
"I know it's hard because you love your characters." Me, who constantly makes my characters go through horrific trauma that will require at least five lifetimes of therapy to recover from: "I do?"
This was a very interesting and helpful video! I view my main character as kind of morally ambiguous, but he might as well just be immoral for a huge part of the story. My main character is kind of a fascist, so his actions are a consequence of his world view. The reason why he became radicalized in the first place, is because he thinks that society has become too individualistic, he feels like he doesn't belong anywhere, and he wants his country to return to former greatness. His time in the military also influences his views. It makes him believe that all of society should kind of be like that: disciplined and collectivist. But another influence on his views is his gullibility. He believes propaganda quite easily. His hatred of the people he perceives as the enemies of his country's greatness make him violent and eventually murderous. However, he does always rationalize all the violence that he does. Because of his fanaticism and his gullibility, he soon gets a place in the inner circle of the leader of this radical movement. This leader, who later becomes the dictator once they win the civil war, takes advantage of the MC's gullibility, but also admires encourages his fanaticism. Their 'friendship' becomes quite toxic. Once MC has his place in the inner circle, he is determined to not disappoint the leader (and lose his place, or worse). His denial of the truth, which is that the dictator does things that cannot be condoned or rationalized (to say the very least) and that the MC should at least try to stop this, becomes his demise.
Very good but he sounds like a villain. For a military antihero, I would have him doing "Stripes" on-base and "The Hangover-meets-Eyes Wide Shut" behavior on his shore leaves, lol.
When she talked about giving a character a traumatic backstory as a way to explain a character’s cruel behavior it made me think through one of my own characters After thinking it over I came to the conclusion it wasn’t the same thing because my character crosses the line, but in an attempt to prevent other people from going through the same thing he did
My problem is my MC is very emotionally manipulative and do not regret... But I'm scared that readers will not see him as a character fit to be a hero. Another problem is that I'm planning a love triangle. One of them is a musician, decent, and kind but has anger issues. The other one is a doctor, but unemotional. I just don't know whom to win in the love battle.
Im writing a survival horror story about a young woman who is morally ambiguous. She's a coward in most of her actions but believes what she does is justifiable in order to survive. The story is basically a journey for this character to learn about her flaws and how her belief, while somewhat right in order to survive, was morally wrong, and she could've taken better moral route to accomplish it.
@@ShaelinWrites he's awesome. Tbh I couldn't read any other fantasy for a while because the First Law Trilogy is sooo good. Hell, even now I am mindblown by the twists in the third book. Every Abercrombie fan ever says: *Say one thing for Joe Abercrombie, say he's a genius!*
I feel like you just don't quite know what people mean when they say "sympathize with" a character. Your description of a character being "interesting" seems to be relatively close (though not exact) to what people mean when they talk about then being sympathetic.
No, I know what sympathizing with a character means. I said that a character being interesting can lead to sympathy, not that they are the same thing. My overall point was to concern yourself with other priorities and sympathy can emerge.
to give an example of an interesting character that isn't sympathetic would be the joker from the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy, he is by far a very evil and reprehensible character but because there is a level of separation between the written text/ film and real-life we are drawn to his actions and the ways he goes about to achieve his goals. if the Joker was a living breathing human around today, people would undoubtedly hate him. But it is because he is an interesting character that many of us adore him (if he is written well anyways) Edit: The Joaquin Phoenix Joker, on the other hand, was an interesting and (to a degree) sympathetic character and it helped establish that sympathy by seeing the world from his flawed point of view
Thank you shaelin :) great video as usual. I'm in such a bad writing slump right now it's super frustrating and your video got me motivated a bit. I'll TRY to write know. Hopefully it goes well...
Not even half a minute into the video, and i already love this woman cause our goals align! Morally corrupt women are reason why i even write ✊ now imma binge watch all of your videos.
We all have flaws and all fictional characters brought out of the background to play a slightly bigger role must have them. Again a flaw is relative. We usually think of a flaw in terms of the author's perspective but it is in relation to the reader and this perspective will keep varying. The way to handle this is to surface inconsistencies and incongruities and the resultant controversies become food for thought with varying perspectives.
I am writing about a woman victim of abuse who fled her estate and will fight to get it back with the help of some felons and outlaws who will have their personal gain on it. And her husband is driven more by neurosis than pure evil or greed. Like, he doesn't want others to think that he is not able to manage it all. He's like a flawed authority figure whose errors and misleadings make others inside the estate lean towards his fugitive wife and long for her return.
I'll be that guy that contests you in the comments! I'd say Elliot Alderson from MR ROBOT could go toe-to-toe with Walter "The Danger" White. Elliot is so wonderfully well written that at first, you may not realize how severely his skewed worldview drives him sometimes a little too far. Though, I do say this having not seen Breaking Bad. But I'm watching it next and I can't wait! If you haven't seen Mr Robot, I highly recommend it. Thanks for the video! Perfect timing, as I'm trying to dive into my characters a bit more to figure out where to take them. One of my antagonists is giving me trouble. He's one of those used-to-be-a-good-guy types and I'm trying to make his backstory understandable. This was super insightful!
The only way to write a 'morally ambiguous" character is to frame them by two other characters who hold extremes of the "moral" your being ambiguous about.
Two simple rules.
1) You can't write characters that everyone will love. Just accept that.
2) If you really want characters to be loved, have multiple characters that varies and appeal to different people.
I also want to add that your points are much more fleshed-out than I typically see from videos like this. I have such a bone to pick with creators who, say, mention a point, and then explain the point only by rearranging their phrasing like two or three times.
"Bland characters are something to avoid. A character without layers is not what readers want to spend time on. You HAVE to develop your characters, or people will get bored".
As an example haha.
That's such a thing I do when I'm writing comments or anything that I'm not going to edit. The thing is: Autism
I don't know how to phrase things so that people will understand, because while I just take words as their literal definition without any social connotation or anything, a lot of people will add a bunch of meanings to words that are purely based on their own experiences, and while a lot of people can intuitively understand them because they come from the same culture and they have prescribed the same very subjective meaning, because I simply don't do that, I don't know what landmines I'm stepping on and where misunderstandings will arise
So I always either under explain or over explain. I under explain when I either have faith that they won't misunderstand (usually after I've spent a lot of time in autistic communities because they just do) or I just don't want to write an essay. This almost always results in a misunderstanding because someone had a personal definition that corrupted the message
Other times, I overexplain because if I say this one thing in one thousand different ways, surely, even if I step on one landmine, most of the ways I explained it made it through and because it's 1 against 999, they'll forget about the one and understand what I mean (and occasionally, the person will pick a fight with the 1 and forget the 999 but most of the time it works but people get annoyed at my wordiness)
Not trying to argue with you or critique what you said. It's just the saying it in so many different ways resonated and I wanted to share
Shaelin: "I feel like most morally ambiguous characters are actually just heroes with sarcasm."
Me: Looking at you Deadpool...
the big-screen version of him
@@JD-te6zc You're right. Deadpool is pretty messed up
@Alfredo Zachary bot
@@EventualWarlord yeahhhhhh yep the comic version is a straight mf at times. real vicious.
Breaking Bad really is a masterclass on morally ambiguous characters and subtext. The progression from mild-mannered chemistry teacher to "I am the one who knocks" is fascinating.
But that was more of a corruption story where the main character starts with a truth of some sort and then ends in a lie.
Write people, not characters.
Sorry Frodo
Ah, a fellow maurauder
Who is your favourite marauder? I'm stuck between... Remus, Sirius, Peter and James :/ (Sorry I have met like no one else who knows who they are, and I want to know other opinions)
@@crowhamill I mean you weren’t asking me but I found a fellow marauders fan… Remus is the best in my opinion, he has the werewolf angst, he was passive but still way nicer than the others when they were younger and a good kinda mentor character to Harry :)
'Writing morally corrupted women is my mission in life.'
And instantly, your most anticipated written work will be your future memoir.
I think a good way to look at one of your first points is to see the reaction of the "Han Shot First" retcon.
The original version of Han was morally ambiguous to the point that many fans of A New Hope were disgusted that he shot someone for personal gain. Yet, when this was actually changed, just as many people were outraged about the lessening of Han's dimension as a character.
You're not gonna make everyone happy. You can't. What matters is that your characters are believable, and to accomplish that, fulfilling traits is necessary.
I personally think the shot first thing is a bit over dramaticized. Like if you look at it it doesn't seem like he actually thought gredo would Fire.
Also i get some prople see it as "aoh he is actually not that bad" but it's not like Han was about to abbanon Leia until he found out she has money.
But regardless I don't think it ruins his charater because it doesn't look like they had this big John wick show down it was really barely worth of note.
Especially since he shot first because he in self defense. He didn't con jaba he just lost his stuff by accident that's why he is wanted by Jaba.
But the tldr
-Han shot first because greedo was going to sell him out to a gangster which probably would kill him
- he was wanted by jaba which is how he got their even in the og because he was honest to jaba and had a valid explanation why he lost his shit
- it barely seems like Han knew greedo was going to shoot
We can't talk about the special edition but the Han shot first thing is actually not worth complaining about imo
Zuko. That’s it, that’s the comment.
valid !!
I'll have to respectfully, yet ADAMANTLY disagree.
@@BoneheadGirl_
Oh? Explain
Honouuuurrr!!!
Just to be clear even if you aren't interested in writing morally ambiguous characters you should still watch Breaking Bad.
YES.
Now I wanna watch that
@@theunstablewoki6022
Curious if you saw it and if you did How was it its been a year.
Also bcs is just as good if you get past season 1 I like bcs and there are momments where it surpasses breaking bad but season 1 is basically the wtf do we do season to give them credit they do a decent job at hiding it but the writters behind the scene had no clue what to do outside of jimmy and chuck
I want to keep things spoiler free just in case
this was very helpful! my current project is focused on a morally ambiguous character. i’m hoping i can use some of these tips to improve my work :)
Mine is too but my story isn’t that good
Hope it helps!
I feel like I always make my characters too nice and they tend not to argue much or do nasty things. Idk I like nice people Haha but I feel like I should try this out
There's also nothing wrong with writing characters who are good, nice, pleasant people. If that's your style then go for it! Those stories are important too!
A lot of mine tend to be very confrontational, regardless of moral leaning. The paragon will call people out on their dodgy ethics. The anti-hero will chew someone out for not being pragmatic.
My characters are all really good friends, but there has to be some kind of conflict. Two of the main characters are best friends, but there's some conflict there as to race, secrets that can't be shared, bossiness and temper tantrums. Dig deep into the characters and you'll find the conflicts. Think about your best friends, aren't there some things that just drive you crazy about them?
I'm more into write flawful characters, also they tend to do a lot of nasty and "evil" things.
I think you can have both.
More often than not, there is more than one character in a story.
And depending on your plot you can put nice characters in situations where their moral code is challenged. People can be genuinely nice and not realize that some of the things they do or say are harmful.
I LOVE nice people too. But I also LOVE characters that are morally ambiguous and navigate a thin line between good and bad.
I've found that a good way to write authentic flawed characters is to draw from my own experiences or emotions. So for instance, the two protagonists of my last novel were, respectively, very manipulative and very stubborn. These are both things that I have been myself, at different points in my life, though not to the extent that they are.
Another way is to make their flaws and virtues stem from the same character trait. For instance, the stubborn character is an extremely determined person who'd move heaven and earth to achieve his goals, but that determination also makes him blinkered and unable to see any other paths, once he's decided on a course of action. The character trait is the same, it's just the situation that makes it a virtue or a flaw.
Great tips, thanks for sharing!
Exactly. I even started to make a list of character traits (both "virtues" and "flaws") and write how they could drive positively or negatively characters.
@@elisa4620 it's all about the situation, really. To give an obvious example, being an extrovert would be a virtue in a sales job and a vice in a remote accounting job. The character trait is the same, just the situation that makes it a good thing or a bad thing
@@zetaforever4953 I know, right! I've always thought that context makes all the difference :)
The "interesting" part made me think of Black Sails. A short series about pirates. It was a bit hard for me to watch at first, because we're kinda used to having someone to root for, someone that's in one way or another "better" than the rest. But in Black Sails, that person doesn't exist. You have straight and gay, you have thieves, you have murderers, you have liars and schemers, and backstabbing bastards. But not a single one of them are all good, none of them are free of at least one evil/immoral trait. Which made them all rather interesting, it also made it hard to know how things were going to go. Very interesting.
Honestly, my grey(fuck off autocorrect. I don’t mean gay) characters are basically just Slytherins/carbon copies of Draco Malfoy.
I'm always a little bit jealous of you when I read your stories, because you write morally gray characters so well!
*morally gray characters! Not children! Autocorrect lol
a morally gray child is a very interesting idea tho lol
@@haloum I know this comment is really old, buuut I think you'd love Bug from The lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch.
I have a perfect way to test audience reaction to a morally ambiguous character. That is storytelling tabletop role-playing. Would the players continue to maintain an alliance with this character after they discover their darker side? You can also learn by playing. Who would you be willing to ally with in order to achieve your character's goals?
I love writing morally ambiguous characters, I only have to remind myself not to use too many of them in a single story
A morally ambiguous character is one that does selfless things through selfish means
YES to all of this!
About the consequences gameplay: that might be a result of the code era of Hollywood studios. There is a lot we can learn from the cinema (Yeah, the 15 beat structure is great & there is a reason that video that comes up when you search is important, he says as he reached the 56% point of Jessica Brody's book!) The lessons we should not take from Hollywood is the code era & the restrictions that lead to some great Noir movies to counter some unnecessary handcuffs to storytellers. John Hess over at Filmmaker IQ has some good background information.
I think the result of generations of storytelling promoting the lie that bad actions need to result in bad consequences is the rise of Presidents that have never dealt with consequences & accountability being a foreign concept... Like 6 Bankruptcies before 70 years of life.
Belated Happy Canada Day, glad to share a Continent, there is just a lot of work ahead to, "Stand on guard for thee!"
Cool point about Hollywood, I didn't know that!
ShaelinWrites this is John Hess’ video on the censorship issue...
ruclips.net/video/Ynf8BmfgPtM/видео.html
In general your starting point is the Hays Code:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
I know this character is from a tv show not a book but in my opinion he is one of the best Morally ambiguous characters. He is ‘Ivar The Boneless’ from the Tv show ‘Vikings.’ He is the son of the most famous Viking Ragnar and his brothers are great warriors and all achieve great things. Ivar was born with a disability that caused his legs not to work so he has to crawl everywhere. As the seasons go on his actions and beliefs get more extreme as he uses his flaw of not having Working legs in a time that was so tough and uses that to work on his mind and become one of the most cunning and intelligent people on the show. Long story short, he believes bending others to his will makes him more powerful to fill the void of not having working legs. Throughout the show he does terrible things like leaving his own son to die in the forest because his son was also born with deformed legs and you would expect him to sympathize with the child but then does the opposite and kills the child. Yet in the final season when he befriends this young boy, he stops being his narcissistic, violent self and actually loves and cares for the boy whilst trying to get his kingdom back. I didn’t do him justice trying to explain him there but he is in my opinion one the best morally grey characters.
I had an eureka moment when you said that flaws should come from worldview and not from a mere adjective! Thank you Shaelin!
I think it's important to practice ambiguity through characters. I notice a lot of writers tend to put their own worldview in the characters to make it 'personal', but it comes off biased. Like it's not about agree or disagree, but right vs. wrong= no exception. Moral arguments shouldn't be polarized against one side, but there should be some representation on both sides in order to allow the reader to agree or disagree with the characters instead of being lectured or discriminated against for their own differing beliefs.
Amazing video, it's so good to see a character that i love the most fit close to every single positive point or tips to how to do. Eren Jager from Attack on Titan just hits so many of those, he almost is my base to study this subject
EXACTLY! This video was awesome!
Another really wonderful morally ambiguous character that just fires on every level is Howard (Adam Sandler) from Uncut Gems. Almost every character is incredibly ambiguous, the movie is a masterclass on characterization, but Howard specifically is a good example of everything you got into here
One of My oc's flaws is lying to protect people. She lies about her secret identity to everyone besides her coworkers. The flaw stemmed from her dad lying to her to protect her from the truth, and like the two of her parents doing that, but when that backfired on her dad, she didn't realize how hypocritical she was being keeping that flaw.
The character development in Breaking Bad achieved this very well Walt is a great example of moral ambiguity
One of the best imo!
I have to say, this seems like a really ironic choice of words to describe a morally ambiguous character 😆
I keep thinking back to "Saul Goodman" when I watch this video.
As for pen and paper game alignment systems, the closest that I can think of that includes complex alignments is Palladium. Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Diabolic (Evil) and Miscreant (Evil). Feel free to read the overview of these alignments to get a break-down of how they interact with the world around them and their internal attitude to their place within it.
I’m going on a binge for these. I listen to them in the background like a podcast as I stare into my vacant word document.
Quarantine’s killed my creativity. And I just flumped a writing contest. But thank you for rekindling my passion for writing!
This was very interesting. You made many good points.
But I wonder about your point when you talk about the character's backstory. I feel that it is more complicated than that. While I agree that it doesn't excuse their wrongdoings, it is still a good way to explain why they are the way they are. When well done, I don't think it is cheap at all. Traumas are often the origin of a lot of maladaptive and/or morally ambiguous (or outright evil) behaviors. It creates twisted belief systems that are deep-rooted and hard to acknowledge and then equally as hard to change. Said behavioral patterns almost always end up being self-destructive in a way or another. Things you talked about in a positive way earlier in the video ...
And it happens a lot in real life. I know people who developed big issues (including mental illness) because of traumatic events in their childhood. And I think it is important to talk about it.
It also can raise questions: if the characters are the way they because of what they went through, do they or not deserve a second chance? Should we condemn them or should we give them an environment that could help them heal and change? Isn't the society/system/people that made them like this also to blame? etc.
I think this is kind of the point I was making. I wasn't trying to say that you *can't* include trauma or some kind of complex backstory for your villain, in fact many times it adds necessary and interesting context and texture to explore their backstory in this way. The point I was going for was just that if their backstory is simplified into a "trauma happened therefore they are evil" narrative, without the needed nuance, it can really cheapen the trauma and make it seem like a plot device, since trauma responses are more complex than this.
I love Hannibal Lector for this reason. He is inexcusable, and he doesn't excuse himself either. But he helps Clairice and stands up for her because she's helpless in a man's world. He teaches her to be a predator like him. Makes him so nuanced
I haven't seen breaking bad, so I don't know who Walter White is outside of the memes... And I STILL agree with you that he's morally ambiguous.
Your videos are all so helpful and inspiring and I’m so grateful for ur platform omg. I love that I can reference your videos in my critique group and just stan them all the time lol
That fact you reference my videos in your critique group Warms My Heart
So, how would I write the difference between "I'm selfish" and "I believe that all people will take what they can and run, so I have to protect what I have"?
"I only care about my own well being other's be damned" vs "I don't want people to screw“ mw over""
John 117 is the kind of character that is morally… fucked. Not ambiguous. Everything about him is morally fucked. Even how he physically IS is morally fucked. And the way he thinks… he’s just enough human that the way he thinks is horrible. Like, no one cares if a character like Terminator thinks like a killing machine… because he is.
But John is a human that thinks like a killing machine… while still having human feelings, friends and all that stuff. And that’s fucked.
I think the reason bad actions more often than not get consequences in books and movies is because it's comforting to think that the bad ones will get their due. You know. It's comforting to see the murderer get behind bars, and the rapist killed, and the bully get beaten down, and such things. It's that whole revenge thing. And if they don't get their due, something has to teach them a lesson to see the error of their ways, making them good. I think this is popular because it feels better that way. We know it's not like that in real life, but it's how we'd want real life to be, right? Making the characters more realistic and having them get away with things is more depressing I suppose. Even if it is more realistic. :P
True. I think the most important difference to reality is that the outcome has to mean something to the reader, be it satisfying, shocking, funny, surprising in a good way, there has to be something that makes the story worthwhile to be told. Shitty person does some shitty things, gets away with it and lives happily (and shitty) ever after tends to be not a meaningful story, even though or maybe even because it often happens in real life. Something remarkable has to happen in your story. This can be the bad person suffering consequences for the bad things he has done and/or beeing redeemed. It doesn't have to be, though, there are other possibilities. I think the ending of "Basic instinct" can be a good example how you can flash readers/viewers with a bad guy winning, whithout having said bad guy suffer consequences or redeeming him (I won't elaborate here for spoilers, those who know the movie will very likely get what I mean).
Lolita by Nabokov -- great choice for morally ambiguous characters, not one, I'd go as far as saying that at least two.
Bro's a pedophile. Even if he kills that dude in the end, he's still horrible. He ruined Dolores' life.
3:36 I felt that, I always feel the need to make excuses for my characters. So I just stopped trying to write morally ambiguous.
The characters in better call Saul are so good. None of them are good. None of them are bad. But there’s conflict between them all. It’s so good.
You should have helped out with The Last Of Us 2. Moral ambiguity for babies.
I was thinking about TLOU2 while watching this. And the timing fits this perfectly!
I'm writing a story with a morally ambiguous main female character, and this is so timely. Just the past week I had a struggle accepting the role of simps and of morally ambiguous women. It's such a challenge to navigate.
I really enjoyed this video because I’m writing a story where my main character is sort of accidentally morally ambiguous and now I just want to accentuate that :)
This makes me think of a quote I saw on Tumblr: If you want your female characters to be complex and have agency, sometimes bad things have to be their fault
So interesting to learn you like writing ambiguous characters since they're intriguing by doing unexpected things. As an instrumental guitar composer who composes/performs music for characters like that, I liked hearing your thoughts about one not worrying about others perceptions in order to convey a story which is important as a writer and as one of the musicians who are focusing on representing stories/characters with original music, i've also come to this realization so it was nice to hear you also convey that idea.
Also, I find its quite fun committing to ambiguous characters since special representations, ideas, and music result from this mindset that are different than what results from just representing clear cut "good" characters. Some of my most unique musical art resulted from committing to ambiguous characters which I'd guess story writers who also commit to such characters might find similar results and could even have fun representing those types of characters. You have great thoughts from a writer's standpoint and thanks for sharing!
Could you do more videos on dark themes in storytelling? Your perspective on this subject was alone was quite fun!
Is there any chance you could maybe do a video on “Inner Narrative” ?
Hey Shaelin If I may, I have an idea! A video on how to write a villain or a morally ambiguous character *without* backstory ever being revealed.
This came at the perfect time! Thanks!!
Dang this is really helpful for the characters that I’m developing.
Preciate it
Glad it helped :)
Great vid! Though personally, my favourite examples of this in terms of TV shows are actually The Sopranos, which has an entire cast of morally ambiguous characters, and The Shield, which has a corrupt cop protagonist. I'd also recommend the Korean crime drama movie Asura: City of Madness.
Coming very late to this party, but I am not sure I agree with your definition and approach to morally ambiguous characters. For me, the classic morally ambiguous character is Dexter, a serial killer who kills because of a trauma he experienced as an infant when he was forced to watch his mother being brutally butchered. Dexter kills to relieve himself of his horrific pain BUT he kills despicable murderers that the police and the courts are unable to charge and convict. He never kills innocent people. he never kills randomly and he doesn't kill for any kind of personal gain. He kills because he must and although he is a sadistic murderer he is less evil than those he kills.
Dexter, then is the equivalent of Dirty Harry, a cop who behaved lawlessly to defeat criminals whose behavior was even more lawless. Both Dexter and Harry are anti-heroes who are bad but always better than their antagonists. and we DO root for them , sympathize with them , identify with them because while they are bad the world they inhabit is far worse. But while we may disagree profoundly with their moral universe, their actions in their own eyes (and in the viewers, I would argue) is not wrong or even ambiguous.
Dexter Morgan is given a "Code" by his father to help him channel his monstrous urge to kill. Dexter ends up alone in the end because he is the bad guy and is a villain. We aren't meant to excuse him anymore or fool ourselves into thinking he is different. He isn't.
Shaelin, I was a part of a writing workshop this week. I wrote and edited a short story, The Charms of the Land of Far. Today was the last day of the workshop and I learned so much about writing vividly. I definitely want to explore morally ambiguous characters in my writing because they are crafted in a completely different way. Most characters that are morally ambiguous are unreliable narrators. I love how the protagonist can have multiple layers to its character. I write so ardently because it is my life purpose. I love you
*cough**cough* Thomas Rainwater
But seriously, Yellowstone may be full of morally ambiguous assholes, but Thomas is by far the most well executed one when it comes to this. Then again, might just be because I just really love this bastard and find the character the most interesting on the show in the smart and calculated way he does things, topped with the fact that he's the definition of "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" because on paper his motive does come off as well intentioned, but his brain is wired in such a way that he goes about it in every way that deviates from it as much as possible,especially when money and land is involved. But what makes him amazing in that regard is, he isn't just, a hero who plays the cards the way he does out of necessity, he plays the cards the way he does because that's just, how he does business, and he doesn't see anything wrong with it whatsoever. He doesn't do it out of obligation, he does it because it's just the way he thinks. And the more you poke the bear about it by telling the guy that the shit he does is wrong, the angrier you make the bear. Does practically almost literally nothing but make him double down on it.
Gonna say two words:
The Sopranos.
I don't have to agree with the character or like them as a person to like them in general. For me what matters the most is if they're complex and interesting.
Also I think that AHS: Hotel did this to perfection with all of those characters. It's probably why I binge it at least twice a year.
This video... was a GODSEND. For the longest time, my character wasn't feeling right and my story was NOT making sense. This made me realize I was trying too hard to punish my character for one "bad" choice she made, AND trying too hard to excuse it through that sappy backstory you were talking about. And yes, I WAS overly concerned about making my character likeable. I think after seeing this video, a morally grey character is going to fit my story SO much better.
Currently writing a “morally ambiguous” character, a woman in a fantasy setting who had her young sister stolen. The idea is that she does some awful things to get her back. And weather or not she was right to do those things is up to the reader.
This has been very helpful, thank you.
In my first drafts my character felt off. I was thinking in needed her to be less of a stand in for the reader and more of someone with real choices to make.
My idea has changed from “she does awful things to find her” to more of a goal based character. Her ONE true goal is to find and rescue her sister, nothing else matters to her, she may let people die, or manipulate them for her goals. Meaning that if a character falls into the wrong situation, they could die because of her goal, or she could even put some random person in a bad situation and not care. She would have favourites among the characters based on their usefulness or connection to her sister, but none are more important to her than this goal. as long as that character trait is maintained, no character will ever feel truly safe.
I tend to find morally ambiguous characters that don't have ANY views that I do annoying...but if theres one that has at least one relatable, if selfish or wrong, belief that I relate to, I will read them any day
"Nice person I'd like to hang out with them' Its dead to us- we're not even going to worry about it" Shaelin you are INCREDIBLE
Well I’m late to the party but someone should explain the Consequences section to JJ Abrams 🙃
Who would be an example of a morally ambiguous character ?
Severus Snape
Every character from Joe Abercrombie.
Saul Goodman or pretty much anyone in the Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul universe
Amy in Gone Girl
Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly.
In other words - Gryffindor vs. Slytherin.
"The idea that people only do or believe bad things because they've gone through trauma is not only untrue, but also a little problematic. You've gone through something traumatic and then treat other people poorly like that's not an excuse." Amen, this is why I hate the 2019 Joker film. It's basically this obnoxious trope, combined with a really simplistic and stigmatising portrayal of people with mental health issues.
I believe part of the reason why Arthur reacted the way he did, was because he wanted to be seen and listened to. And in his mind, it was justice.
@@chrisanthit.5642 In other words bad stuff happened to him and he was sad so he killed a bunch of people. This shit's been done before and I'm sick of it.
Love this! I‘m writing a novel right now with two morally ambiguous characters, your advice is really helpful, thanks!
To write morally ambiguous characters, think first of what heroes don't do, then think what is "too wimpy" for villains to do. For instance, most superheroes have a Code Against Killing, while a typical slasher movie villain will take out an entire high school body, one-by-one. An antihero would single-handedly wipe out a drug cartel without remorse but not a stoner or a sex worker, because "I'm after bigger fish!" or "I've got no beef with you." Or think about what is considered good and bad behavior in real life, then think about what behavior nobody knows or agrees is right or wrong, such as substance abuse, profanity, non-marital sex, gambling, etc.
So I found this great video as I was exploring all the reasons behind my writers block as I recover from burnout- I want to be ready to get back to work as soon as my wellspring is full again.
I am trying to write this morally gray vampire protagonist, and I am not sure I'm writing him right. This is at the heart of part of the block. 🙄
I have this doubt in my chest that he's still too good, too Edward Cullen, yet I don't want to take him over the line into actual evil, like the old Count Orlock in Nosferatu. How do I know if I am doing this right?
Do morally gray characters have to destroy themselves? Maybe I am being morally ambiguous in the message I might be giving to the reader, but his moral ambiguity is what leads him to his success. He failed in the past because he was trying to be 'good', he used to be like Edward Cullen, but he only met with failure. He's a vampire and to survive he has to BE a vampire. There is a character who goes over the line into Evil that illustrates what would happen to my hero if he goes too Black. It isn't pretty.
You wouldn't happen to know of a good writing forum where I can talk with other writers and get opinions and advice on things like this?
you look so beautiful here omg ♡(u always do but still)
It is true that you don’t need the character to be sympathetic. You just need the character to have understandable goals and character flaws. Take for example Thanos he has an understandable view: murder half the universe so that the remaining majority can be saved. (It's Utilitarianism to its awful logical conclusion) His flaw: terrible relationships with the daughters he cares about the most.
Dazai and Chuuya from bungou stray dogs are probably some of my favourite examples of likeable but morally ambiguous characters.
My favorite morally ambiguous character is Julian Blackthorn from the Dark Artifices series
Loved this video! Morally ambiguous characters are my favorite kinds of characters. Can we get that list of your favorite books with morally ambiguous characters, though? It's not in the description lol
that a villian had to be punished by the end of the film was forced by the 'hays code' from the 1930's to 60's. similar guidlines were applied for comics (CCA) up until very recently.
Great video! Most of my characters are morally ambiguous for the very reason it makes them more realistic and relatable. We all have flaws and imo reading scripts or books with the “perfect” protagonist kinda just makes me roll my eyes
My advice is to ask where do you tow the line and commit to it
Jimmy mcgill may not kill and he may of redeemed himself but that doesn't mean he is misunderstood jimmy as saul goodman was a bad person jimmy when he repents admits it
"I was kneeling in front of an open grave, with a gun pointed at my head. That was my introduction to Walter White. I was terrified. But not for long. That night I saw opportunity."
"So yeah I wasn't there when the meth was cooked. I wasn't there when it was sold. I didn't witness any of the murders, but I damn well knew it was happening. I was more than a willing participant. I was indispensable. I kept Walter White out of jail. I laundered his money. I lied for him. I conspired with him and I made millions. If he hadn't walked into my office that day, Walter White would have been dead or behind bars within a month. And Agent Schrader and Agent Gomez and a whole lot of other people would still be alive. Fact is, Walter White couldn't have done it without me!"
It's fine to tow the line like walt or tow it like jimmy both are valid heck I almost like them equally.
The episode Saul Gone wouldn't work if he was walt but it wouldn't feel as powerful if the bar wasn't set jimmy can't have this big momment if he was barely involved or miss understood. No it works because the bar is set period. Jimmy did many bad things with no excuses.
The rules to an moral ambiguity I have are
Where it the bar set?
How far do you tow it?
Finally commit?
Charaters can change but you got to commit to the story you tell and if you want to go the redemption route understand that you have to make sure that their redemption feels powerful because they were bad not because they were having a momment.
Other wise commit walt doesnt really improve as a person in felina he just rights what he did to his family the only people he cared about and not those who suffered because of him.
2:29:
Villanelle: Are you sure about that?
I think Geto from Jujutsu Kaisen is a good example of morally ambiguous here.
"I know it's hard because you love your characters."
Me, who constantly makes my characters go through horrific trauma that will require at least five lifetimes of therapy to recover from: "I do?"
This helped me with something I'm working on. In my case the character isn't morally ambiguous, but morally at odds with the other characters
This was a very interesting and helpful video! I view my main character as kind of morally ambiguous, but he might as well just be immoral for a huge part of the story. My main character is kind of a fascist, so his actions are a consequence of his world view. The reason why he became radicalized in the first place, is because he thinks that society has become too individualistic, he feels like he doesn't belong anywhere, and he wants his country to return to former greatness. His time in the military also influences his views. It makes him believe that all of society should kind of be like that: disciplined and collectivist. But another influence on his views is his gullibility. He believes propaganda quite easily. His hatred of the people he perceives as the enemies of his country's greatness make him violent and eventually murderous. However, he does always rationalize all the violence that he does. Because of his fanaticism and his gullibility, he soon gets a place in the inner circle of the leader of this radical movement. This leader, who later becomes the dictator once they win the civil war, takes advantage of the MC's gullibility, but also admires encourages his fanaticism. Their 'friendship' becomes quite toxic. Once MC has his place in the inner circle, he is determined to not disappoint the leader (and lose his place, or worse). His denial of the truth, which is that the dictator does things that cannot be condoned or rationalized (to say the very least) and that the MC should at least try to stop this, becomes his demise.
Very good but he sounds like a villain. For a military antihero, I would have him doing "Stripes" on-base and "The Hangover-meets-Eyes Wide Shut" behavior on his shore leaves, lol.
That does sound like a straight up fascist. Not a person I would classify as morally gray but rather straight up condemnable.
When she talked about giving a character a traumatic backstory as a way to explain a character’s cruel behavior it made me think through one of my own characters
After thinking it over I came to the conclusion it wasn’t the same thing because my character crosses the line, but in an attempt to prevent other people from going through the same thing he did
Super late to the party… Walter White is classic, but I’ve got to say, the Shelby family members from Peaky Blinders are a ton of fun!
My problem is my MC is very emotionally manipulative and do not regret... But I'm scared that readers will not see him as a character fit to be a hero.
Another problem is that I'm planning a love triangle. One of them is a musician, decent, and kind but has anger issues. The other one is a doctor, but unemotional. I just don't know whom to win in the love battle.
Im writing a survival horror story about a young woman who is morally ambiguous. She's a coward in most of her actions but believes what she does is justifiable in order to survive. The story is basically a journey for this character to learn about her flaws and how her belief, while somewhat right in order to survive, was morally wrong, and she could've taken better moral route to accomplish it.
You know who does morally ambiguous characters the best? Joe Abercrombie.
I've heard he's quite good!
@@ShaelinWrites he's awesome. Tbh I couldn't read any other fantasy for a while because the First Law Trilogy is sooo good. Hell, even now I am mindblown by the twists in the third book. Every Abercrombie fan ever says:
*Say one thing for Joe Abercrombie, say he's a genius!*
The title. We fucking love to see it!
I recently wrote a couple of short stories that had morally ambiguous characters as the protagonists. I don't know if I am finished with them.
I feel like you just don't quite know what people mean when they say "sympathize with" a character. Your description of a character being "interesting" seems to be relatively close (though not exact) to what people mean when they talk about then being sympathetic.
No, I know what sympathizing with a character means. I said that a character being interesting can lead to sympathy, not that they are the same thing. My overall point was to concern yourself with other priorities and sympathy can emerge.
to give an example of an interesting character that isn't sympathetic would be the joker from the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy, he is by far a very evil and reprehensible character but because there is a level of separation between the written text/ film and real-life we are drawn to his actions and the ways he goes about to achieve his goals. if the Joker was a living breathing human around today, people would undoubtedly hate him. But it is because he is an interesting character that many of us adore him (if he is written well anyways)
Edit:
The Joaquin Phoenix Joker, on the other hand, was an interesting and (to a degree) sympathetic character and it helped establish that sympathy by seeing the world from his flawed point of view
Thank you shaelin :) great video as usual. I'm in such a bad writing slump right now it's super frustrating and your video got me motivated a bit. I'll TRY to write know. Hopefully it goes well...
Not even half a minute into the video, and i already love this woman cause our goals align! Morally corrupt women are reason why i even write ✊ now imma binge watch all of your videos.
We all have flaws and all fictional characters brought out of the background to play a slightly bigger role must have them. Again a flaw is relative. We usually think of a flaw in terms of the author's perspective but it is in relation to the reader and this perspective will keep varying. The way to handle this is to surface inconsistencies and incongruities and the resultant controversies become food for thought with varying perspectives.
I am writing about a woman victim of abuse who fled her estate and will fight to get it back with the help of some felons and outlaws who will have their personal gain on it. And her husband is driven more by neurosis than pure evil or greed. Like, he doesn't want others to think that he is not able to manage it all. He's like a flawed authority figure whose errors and misleadings make others inside the estate lean towards his fugitive wife and long for her return.
Sometimes I have a hard time deciding which is more beautiful? 🤔 those eyes or your zillion dollar smile 😊
I'll be that guy that contests you in the comments!
I'd say Elliot Alderson from MR ROBOT could go toe-to-toe with Walter "The Danger" White. Elliot is so wonderfully well written that at first, you may not realize how severely his skewed worldview drives him sometimes a little too far. Though, I do say this having not seen Breaking Bad.
But I'm watching it next and I can't wait! If you haven't seen Mr Robot, I highly recommend it.
Thanks for the video! Perfect timing, as I'm trying to dive into my characters a bit more to figure out where to take them. One of my antagonists is giving me trouble. He's one of those used-to-be-a-good-guy types and I'm trying to make his backstory understandable. This was super insightful!
I haven't seen Mr Robot but cool to hear about it!
Dara from City of Brass comes to mind ✨ 100% read on because of his flaws in a big way
The only way to write a 'morally ambiguous" character is to frame them by two other characters who hold extremes of the "moral" your being ambiguous about.
There were some tips that I found useful here, thank you for the video! 😁
All of my characters do terrible things because they’re trying to fulfill a basic human need ..
Any book recommendations on this subject?
This will be like Silco in Arcane
This is going to be so helpful for my camp nano project-thanks for making this video Shaelin!