A post I saw on facebook recently made me consider the responsibility of the author when writing characters that buck societal norms. In the current social climate where whole swathes of people are dehumanised and referred to as “the enemy” written and spoken words can be taken out of context and, in some cases, provide the necessary motivation for certain people to act on their fantasies. As such it’s incredibly important for authors not to glorify acts of violence against any identifiable group.

In order to combat this, authors should have very clear behaviour and motivation parameters for their characters.  An example would be Batman, a vigilante who works illegally to bring those that the law can’t catch to justice.

On the flipside of the virtuous Batman is The Punisher. While Batman thinks nothing of breaking a few bones, The Punisher is all about the killing. They both do the same thing (protect the innocent, bring the wicked to justice) and both have inalienable principles that they follow, and yet one is more acceptable than the other. Is it merely that police brutality is more palatable than extra-judicial executions?

Personally, I always found superheroes like Batman problematic in that their moral code and faith in a seriously broken judicial rehabilitation system (Arkham Asylum…. really?!) prevented them from ever fully resolving a situation. In fact it would seem that each time a villain was caught, and would then escape, they were angrier and their desire for revenge was greater which in turn caused the suffering of more innocent people.

The Punisher didn’t really have that problem: Bad guy. Bad guy dead. Bad guy’s friends/family come after the Punisher. Bad guy’s friends/family dead. Punisher does some push ups. So why is the Batman a massive franchise while (despite his more effective conflict resolution skills) The Punisher remains more of a cult/fringe character?

The answer is sympathy. How sympathetic the character is written. How much can the reader identify with the character and how much much they can support the character’s actions. Part of this is down to how well rounded the character is, their back story, and their consistency.

To continue with our two examples we have a billionaire orphaned in childhood, who goes on to philanthropic activities, and uses his massive wealth aid in his quest to punch baddies in the face. On the other side we have an ex-military badass who goes totally Paul Kersey after his family is murdered by people from his past.

From this we then spin off in a paradox of cause and effect. Batman is created through no fault of his own, but continues to battle the same villains with collateral damage each time due to the limitations of his moral code, while The Punisher is created after those he has previously damaged seek revenge on him.

Batman is arguably the more sympathetic character as he attempts to use technology to change the villains compared to The Punisher just using bullets (mostly). (Side note: as a philanthropist billionaire, why didn’t Batman put his money into rehabilitation research? Perhaps he just likes round-housing baddies into next week?). People don’t want to believe that the world is actually horrible and that humanity is good at the core.

At the point where Lament for the Living is written, there are far more Punishers than Batman/woman/girl. This is because the world gets the heroes it needs, not the heroes it wants. The challenge when writing characters that kill is how to do it in such a way that doesn’t glorify it. Even when writing a character that likes killing, you’d have to a very specific type of writer, writing for a very niche market to rejoice in the murder of others.

It’s entirely acceptable to write a character being happy about killing, but it should be justifiable and proportionate, and form part of the overall characterisation. Actions your characters take should be consistent, and while not necessarily predictable they should fall within the range of behaviours for that character. If they don’t then they should very clearly have a reason and an impact. For example, a character who has pacifist tendencies would go through a personal crisis if their actions caused someone to die, they are even less likely to voluntarily kill or murder.

Within the Lament for the Living universe some characters are more kill-happy than others, and violence or the threat of violence are used to further their objectives. In the case of Alex, while he appears to kill on a whim it is never for fun. Even resorting to an almost mercy killing at one point. That’s not to say he’s a good guy, far from it. But his killing falls within his behavioural and character parameters. There is no glorification of the act, the action has to occur to protect/prevent x, y, or z. On the Batman-Punisher scale, Alex is most definitely on the Punisher spectrum.

Closer to the Batman side of the scale is Tobias whose killings were, to Tobias at least, the very last resort. Necessary acts with no alternative for the protection of everyone else, and at great emotional cost to himself. Again, the world of Lament for the Living is inhabited by the heroes that worlds needs. It is a dark time, and as the saying goes it’s always darkest before the dawn.

There is beauty, even in the dark. Write the beauty.

Lament for the Living is available in e-book and paperback formats.

To keep up to date with TBFmedia news and releases then subscribe to the newsletter here