sympathetic child murder

Okay I was writing this romantic comedy where that trope of the Dogged Nice Guy trope gets rip to shreds

The 'hero' is this the offbeat underdog greek Michael Cera who tries to win over his cheerleader he has been crushing on since primary after her Jerk Jock dumps her when he knocks her up. The first half is them in high school as her tries to win her over with elaborate romantic gestures. She falls for him and then the story flash forwards two year later and he has become ridiculously jealous and obsessional to Tom cruise levels.

I was going to have things come to a head where there is some sort of disaster and girl has to choose between saving herself or her baby. Michael Cera knowing that she will rather die then kill own her child takes the choice away from her rather then lose her. Despite knowing she will hate him forever because of it. But that's okay.

I'm just stuck on trying to give him a plausible justification for him to do it and keep him fairly sympathetic. Any ideas? Right now they are hanging over the edge of a volcano and he's about to toss the bastard in.

edited 18th Dec '10 5:50:04 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

It's Mad Love. We aren't supposed to feel sympathetic for those characters, we are supposed to cringe as they self destruct.

Make it first-person?

That's what I'd do, anyway. Pretty much Through the Eyes of Madness; make it clear that the Dogged Nice Guy is seriously just that messed up. You could swap between first- and third-person, too, and show him as seeing the baby as a malevolent presence. He's so obsessed with her that he sees any pain to her as the end of the world, and so, in his mind, the child warps into this terrible thing, which would mesh well with the volcano—only way to destroy it.

Or make another group's life dependent on hers, so that it isn't just that he's killing the baby, he's saving [number] people. Goes from Moral Event Horizon to tragic.

I'm not entirely sure if that answers the question you asked. *shrug*

edited 18th Dec '10 7:08:27 PM by RedWren

Blog; tumblr

Does he have to actively hurt the baby, or just let the baby die? There's a huge difference between the two, the latter being a lot more sympathetic. Something like some sort of disaster where he's forced to save only one.

I can't think of many situations where he'd have to actively kill the baby to save the mother that aren't extremely contrived or ridiculous.

Is it essential that the baby already be born by the time he goes crazy? You could have a situation where the pregnancy goes wrong and they can only save either the baby or the mother, and he forces the doctor to save the mother despite her protests.

It's totally sympathetic, and rather tragic, if he loves his wife too much to listen to her and let her die. Make it feel as natural as possible, while still preserving his element of willful choice to save her over the baby.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Good idea! that just what I wanted. The plan was for him to start out as a sympathetically relatable 'nice guy' who just want to get the girl. And used typical hollywood 'romantic' stunts that only work because of her emotional vulnerability. As the story goes on it becomes clear that his actions are less the sign of 'True Love' but the jealous insecureness of a possibly unstable individual. Basically what Edward would be like if he lacked supernatural powers and the author wasn't insane.

Yeah that's believable and has a wonderful sense of tragedy to it (at least compared to my original plan of them hanging over a cliff face after a volcanic eruption >_> ). I'm not sure of what sort of disorders would realistically causes Death by Childbirth in today's world but. Anyone know of any?

edited 19th Dec '10 3:15:40 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I honestly don't think it's possible to still feel sympathetic to him after he does this.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it! I'm just saying that I don't think the reader will sympathize with the father/child-murderer after this event.

well A) it's the jock's kid not his and B) under common law it's not murder till the child draws first breath. So that going to improves things isn't it?

Make no doubt it's meant to be a Moral Event Horizon but I think that the audience will be sympathetic as long as it's clear that he does it out of love

edited 19th Dec '10 6:20:35 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

No, then we will just have fear and repulsion. Killing a harmless child just proves he is crazy and a threat to others not that he deserves pity.

Admit it, you made this thread to make fun of the "Sympathetic Rape" thread.

...I don't mind.

I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...

Originally, but whenever I get a bad idea i tend to run with it.

hashtagsarestupid

Why would you run with something you think is a bad idea?

mainly self destructive tendencies. Plus I would like to see the 'romantic heroism' of Always Save the Girl taken to a logical conclusion just for the feedback from fans who had identified with the hero.

edited 20th Dec '10 8:47:28 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

What's the situation why has it come to this?

Life's Gonna Suck When You Grow Up... But Is It That Great Now?... Also I'm Skylark2 now.

Isn't assuming you would have fans for a hypothetical work getting a bit ahead of yourself?

Well I don't put pen to paper under the assumption that no one is going to like it. The formula of a teen Romantic Comedy where the Dogged Nice Guy wins over his better looking childhood sweetheart through zany schemes is pretty much time proven. My story is just going to avoid the Happily Ever After by having his 'romantic' drive to go to any length to get the girl become disturbing when you see the extend he will go to keep her

edited 21st Dec '10 12:50:30 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid