Grey Area Characters: Good Guys or Borderline Villains?

Before I launch into my "character assassination" blog this week (no worries--it's one of my fictional characters!), first a bit of news:

The SFR Galaxy Awards are Coming!

This is the week!

This Thursday, January 31st, will be the Seventh Anniversary of this unique, SFR-only recognition(s) of excellence in the science fiction romance genre--otherwise known as the 2018 SFR Galaxy Awards!

Please join us on the awards site to catch all seven rounds of the unveilings and "surprisings," where the authors never know they've won--or that they're even in the running--until it's announced, so the "surprise!" is definitely part of the fun.

2018 SFR GALAXY AWARDS

I'm also asking that if you're a member of the Science Fiction Romance community as either a writer or a reader, that you help support the awards by tuning in, commenting, sharing on social media and congratulating the winners.

We want to ensure these awards continue on into the future, and they need a lot more support to make that possible.

Thank you.

Now on to my regularly scheduled blog!

Grey Area Characters in Fiction: Good Guys or Borderline Villains?

I've been thinking a lot lately about the subject of non-compromise, and how it paints characters in fiction a shadowy shade of grey.

As human beings, our very nature requires us to work out compromises in difficult situations. Let's face it, we don't all see eye-to-eye. We're a species with as many opinions and ideas about how-things-should-be as there probably are individuals on this planet. No two think exactly alike. No two dream alike. And certainly no two imagine a "perfect world" in quite the same way.

But somewhere between the polarized light side and dark side, there has to be a shaded area where both opposing groups can at least come to some sort of agreement that's a win-win, or at least a semi okay-semi okay, for both. It's very frustrating when it doesn't happen, indicating that someone is planting their feet, crossing their arms, and refusing to see any outcome that's not 100% "their way."

I have a character in Inherit the Stars who frequently exhibits these traits. He's authoritative, strong-willed, unbending, and at times, malevolently manipulative. He only sees things from one side--his side. And during the course of the story, he vacillates between being a great military leader and a hard-nosed ass.

He does this because he's striving for one particular outcome...and anyone not seeing things his way be damned. That "anyone" can include his subordinates, his peers, the people he loves, and other figures who are supposed to be his superiors. The nickname he acquires in the novel is one that suits him well--The Immovable Object.

(His love interest acquires the equally descriptive tag of  "The Unstoppable Force." I think you can see where that relationship is going--they're on course to burn each other up in the friction they generate.)

But the title he's saddled with isn't one of respect. People who refuse to bend--whether it's a matter of principle or personal philosophy--usually end up living with one of two outcomes. They are proven marginally right, or they are proven unequivocally, irredeemably wrong.

Admiral Ry Mennelsohn is often the "good guy" in my novel that readers love to hate. He's the brother of the heroine, Drea Mennelsohn, and he is, by all accounts, a hardliner.

He's been plugged into a role that, in essence, is a resistance leader. As the son of the late, great Zaviar Mennelsohn, he's stepped up to take the reins of a rising insurrection and complete his father's vision.

But he doesn't have the charisma, the good will, or the knack of negotiating that his father possessed, so he compensates for his shortcomings by refusing to compromise with his opponents, no matter the cost. Admiral Mennelsohn is definitely a "my way or the highway" kinda guy.

That's not leadership. It's belligerence.

His unyielding will sets up some powerful moral dilemmas for readers to ponder. Is what he did right? Wrong? Reasonable? Crossing the line? And ultimately, do the ends justify the means?

Eventually, the good admiral faces a reckoning for his behavior, and for once, shows a bit of compassion in acquiescing--though begrudgingly--while rationalizing that he was only trying to do the right thing.

Sadly, history is littered with individuals who try to "do the right thing" in entirely the wrong way. It always seems to catch up with them...especially when they wear their justification like a big, old pair of horse blinders.

I think Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and social philosopher Eric Hoffer once summed it up best:

"The uncompromising attitude is more indicative 

of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction."

I have to confess Ry has been a fun character to write because of his obstinance, but he's probably caused as much anguish for readers as the true villains. Let me share, as the author, that he's on a direct course to future retribution in this saga--both militarily and personally.

Will he be redeemed? Stay tuned.

Want to read more on the subject? I recommend this excellent article:
ProWriting Aid: Why You Should Start Writing Morally Grey Characters

Have a great week.