How to write friends turned enemies right

How does this sound for a backstory? The main character (Drew) met Damien (his friend) and his younger sister Nina when all three were homeless orphans. By the start of the series the trio has grown very close, with Drew and Damien being as close as brothers, and Drew viewing Nina as a sister. Eventually, desperation drives Damien to joining a terrorist organization (Black Hawk) setting him against Drew and his own sister. The pair gradually grow into enemies, with Damien sinking lower and becoming more unhinged as time goes on. This reaches a head when Damien goes on a Roaring Rampage of Revenge upon his sister\'s death and tries to kill Drew upon going completely insane. However, i want to make it clear even then they still care for each other, I figured one way to show this is that, after Damien and Drew stalemate in a fight, Damien trusts his sister with him, what are some other ways? I know Naruto and Sasuke were said to be bad, I tried avoiding that by making Drew and Damien very close from the start, how do I develop the relationship properly?

Why are Drew and Nina against Damien? What is Black Hawk fighting for? How does Damien (think he might) benefit from being part of this organization? How do Drew and Damien become enemies? What kind of betrayal could turn them against each other? How and why does Damien become “unhinged”? What exactly does that mean? Why would Damien attack Drew? Did he blame him for Nina’s death? Why?

The main problem I had with Naruto and Sasuke is that there was no proper build-up to establish them as friends, so I couldn't care about their whole story arc. It came out of left field. In fact, most of the characters’ relationships were poorly handled in my opinion. The only rivalry that felt truly dramatic was Sakura and Ino, because there was a proper backstory. Of course, that's not saying much, as that rivalry was more of a joke than anything.

Generally, I found that the best way to write that sort of backstory is to do it in a way that shows neither side as the wrong one, and at the same time shows every side as just that. Rather than writing one shared backstory for all three of them, write it thrice, from the perspective of each one of them. And when you do, write it in such a way that in each of their respective backstories, the decisions and actions of the one from whose eyes it is make sense. Even if you do not actually show the readers those individual backstories, use that as the basis for writing the shared one.

So take Poor Communication Kills, add mix some Humans Are Flawed. Then, get some Well-Intentioned Extremist, I Did Wha TI Had To Do, and Just Following Orders, to add flavour to it. And then put a ribbon made of Utopia Justifies the Means and Fallen Hero on it, maybe with some He Who Fights Monsters too.

Remember, a character who is "a monster lurking in darkness" isn't sitting in darkness because it's fun. They do it because they were forced to hide in the darkness, or because it's all they know and if feels comforting, or because they are afraid of the light, or because someone took light from them and they no longer have the power or will to take it back. Or maybe for some other reason. But it's never because "they like to hunt"; if that were the case, they wouldn't be waiting in the darkness, they'd venture into the light to hunt.

And those who go against their friends but do not stop being friends, they are just that kind of "monsters lurking in the darkness". They are separated not because one is evil and the other isn't, nor because one is right and the other is wrong. It's because they are both flawed, and it's because they are both trying to do what they see as right ... but once your eyes get used to the darkness, does that not distort how you see the world around you?

That being said, don't write anyone of them as "unhinged" and yet "caring about the other". Unless you know how to write it, and you asked because you don't know how to write it, you will end up with something that will make your potential readers bash their heads into walls.

Why not write them? Because "unhinged" people have the ability to add 2 to 2 and get -74; in other words, their actions make sense to them in spite of how nonsensical they are, at some level there is a method to their madness, some filter through which they see it and make decisions that are quasi-rational. And yet, from what you wrote I can say that most likely you plan on making the actions of the "unhinged" one outright irrational, which rather than crazy or unhinged makes the person childish, petty, and whimsical. It makes them into people who would not be relied on and who would not rely on others, and yet you want the person you are asking about to be able to trust someone else; I reckon you can see how ... unlikely that is, for a dog that bites everyone will have no person it is nice to.


>> "I know Naruto and Sasuke were said to be bad"

Actually, they weren't ... not as far as the Japanese readers go, at the very least.

The problem with this one is that relied massively on cultural elements that were (and to some degree still are) prevalent and seen as very important in the Japanese culture, but are non-existent or almost non-existent outside of it (especially among people who live in USA or Europe, which means most western readers).

To those who have a good enough knowledge and understanding of Japanese culture, it was clear from the beginning that Sasuke was all about familial piety and penance via fulfilment of familial duties. His family, their honour, the dues to them, that came first; anything that he himself was came secondary to all that. And the form he'd bonded with Naruto, though those with little to no awareness of Japanese culture will not understand it, that was a bond between "honourable rivals", another concept rooted deeply in their traditions; and though for us those words might not mean anything special, for them an "honourable rival" cannot be anything less than an important friend.

Thought I will not dispute that there is a lot of silly or weird moments in that series, I will say that sufficient knowledge of the culture used in that work changes the perception of many things. Make no mistake, I am not saying that their relationship was perfect, nor am I saying that Sasuke wasn't warped. No, warped he was, through and through, and their relationship was barely functional. But it was still some sort of relationship, which to Sasuke should not have been possible before his familial duties were no more.

The very fact that he did not outright discard it in spite of trying, in spite of his duty demanding that he does so, is telling. Heck, the scene where they fought against each other seriously for the first time, the one where he could have killed Naruto to upgrade his eyes, it wasn't a "kill Naruto or let him leave" choice, but rather a "family or myself" choice. And though his honour dictated that he should choose family, he didn't, he couldn't; he left his honour behind by choosing himself over his family, by not doing what should have been done and killing Naruto for the sake of his familial duties. And to those who say that it wouldn't have worked anyway because Naruto wasn't the most important person to him, I say this: Itachi was the most important person to his familial duties, but to Sasuke himself it was his "honourable rival" Naruto.

That makes the whole thing a bit heavier, don't you think? That whatever he chose, there was no choice he could have taken that would really be right. Duties to his family required leaving everything else; duties to his village required not fulfilling duties to his family; duties to his friends required choosing himself over his family. And not fulfilling any of those automatically marked him as a failure. It's no surprise he broke in the end.

And as many mistakes as he made, as many things as he messed up, he was not a "psychopath" that some people think him to be. He just followed on the traditions that he knew, fought his own desire to put himself above his family which would have been dishonourable and not proper, made a lot of mistakes as he went on. But he never did what he did just to do it, there was always a reason for it.

Mind you, I don't really like him as a character, and I disagree with the decisions he made (heck, I don't even read this thing, my cousin does for whatever reason). But I do understand the why of what he did, which is why I cannot condemn him outright nor can I say that his and Naruto's relationship is a joke.

And while I am not saying that it's fine to make it the same as what the creator of that particular comic had done, I am saying that we should let this be a lesson: anything that relies on cultural values or symbolism will be hard to understand for many people. In this particular case it doesn't help that the comic was addressed to kids and teenagers, which means that most foreigners who read it generally wouldn't be aware of the cultural connotations and all that stuff.

And I could add more examples of things or characters that are seen as warped by people who are not aware of the cultural connotations. But I very much doubt that is necessary.

edited 14th Mar '15 4:35:46 PM by Kazeto

Now that I think about it, I'm sure there's a big difference between the manga and the anime, and maybe another between the Japanese anime and the US version (like with Sailor Moon).

I can understand the concept of "honorable rival". But the series I watched didn't even do a good job of establishing that. For one thing, Naruto was never presented as a credible threat to Sasuke's ambitions, so there was no true rivalry. What I saw was this weird rushed version of a friendly rivalry at best. I think it could have been handled better if not for all the filler, maybe.

>> "Now that I think about it, I'm sure there's a big difference between the manga and the anime, and maybe another between the Japanese anime and the US version (like with Sailor Moon)."

Well, generally adaptations tend to differ. I can't tell you what the difference between the comic and the animated series is in this case since my experience with it basically amounts to reading the comics while I was at my cousin's place and had to wait for him as that was the only thing there then that I had yet to read, but I generally concentrate on the original work when analysing whatever I do analyse unless the adaptation is different enough that it warrants analysing it separately from the original work.

And as for the differences between the Japanese and the translated versions, that's a given. I mean, different languages with different ways to write certain things and completely different slang, no way to translate the cultural connotations and all that stuff without basically rewriting the whole thing which defeats the purpose of translating it in the first place, words that can be read in many ways used to convey hidden meanings; with all that, I wouldn't expect the translated versions to be completely accurate. Sometimes the translations do get close enough that it's acceptable and there are no elements that can't be translated ... and sometimes we have mess like that instead.

Though whenever characters get their names changed to something completely different without any acceptable reason for those changes (theme names that require knowledge of the language, or punny names with the pun being important, or names that are plot elements and have to match the language, basically stuff like that), I automatically expect a mess.


>> "I can understand the concept of "honorable rival". But the series I watched didn't even do a good job of establishing that. For one thing, Naruto was never presented as a credible threat to Sasuke's ambitions, so there was no true rivalry."

Sorry to say it but no, you don't understand it. Or at least don't seem to understand it.

Despite its name, this concept, as present in the Japanese culture, is not really about rivalry. It is about comradeship of a particular sort, and also about duties of a certain sort. It is ... hard to explain properly to someone who isn't already aware of the cultural connotations of "duty" in the Japanese culture.

That being said, I will try to explain it somehow.

"Honourable rivals", as present in the Japanese culture, are people who associate with each other, acknowledge each other's presence in some way and acknowledge each other's abilities. They are people who are supposed to use each other as a measuring stick, but only when a measuring stick is actually used, and do it in a way that would cause neither of them to lose their honour by not being able to perform adequately. They are not required to act amicably or even really like each other, but they have to acknowledge each other and care about each other in some way. And if they fight not to improve but rather to train, they cannot dishonour the other by holding back on their abilities nor by being indirect with what they do. All that, they have a "duty" to do, a "duty" they cannot fail at or reject without losing their "honour", and a "duty" they are supposed to pick above other things.

Essentially, it is a weird mix of Vitriolic Best Buds, Heterosexual Life-Partners, and whatever else you can fit in there. And whatever stuff you get out of that mix, it's pretty much an acquired taste as it's something those not raised to know about "duty" are unlikely to understand from the get-go.

And if you check, you'll see that all of those actually are present in their relationship. It's one heck of a dysfunctional relationship, but nonetheless all the required elements are here.

Also, "duty", not "ambition". The translation you read/watched might have used the latter name, but it's the former, and there's a world of difference because of what "duty" is in Japanese culture. It could have been translated both ways, but I guess a kid talking about a "duty" of killing someone appeared too grisly to the translators ... I don't blame them, to be honest, as to those who don't know what sort of "duty" that is supposed to be it does sound a bit out of it.

I suppose I must've worded it weird, but I understood the concept. There are few Japanese cultural concepts I DON'T get, actually. The point is that Sasuke never regarded Naruto as worthy of note - he thought of him as a bumbling idiot who sometimes got lucky. At least, that's the show I watched Again, I may have watched some terrible retooling of the series or something.

Oh, right, that thing.

I have no idea how butchered the version you watched is compared to the comic so I can't say if what you watched is just the translated adaptation or some terrible retooling of it. I can, however, repeat that all the elements required for them to be "honourable rivals" are there (again, actually liking each other happens not to be on the list of requirements), and as for the acknowledgement of each other ... well, do note that Naruto is kind of socially retarded and his attitude towards people he doesn't acknowledge is "whatever, screw them" and yet he can bicker with Sasuke; and Sasuke who is bound by "duty" and should not care about others actually cared enough about Naruto to think up a nickname (I'm not sure if it was translated properly in the translation you'd watched, nor if it even was present in the adaptation, but a nickname it really was rather than just something generic) for it, one that was used as a mix between an insult and a "hello", but nonetheless he did do that (and I will note that people who aren't at least somewhat friends generally don't do that), in addition to other moments where his behaviour makes it clear that he considers Naruto to be someone in his life.

Anyway, not that I'm complaining but I think we are derailing this thread ... which might or might not actually be bad in this case, but there is a very real possibility of it being the former which leaves me a bit conflicted.

The key thing would be to have them be conflicted. I've seen stories where one friend clearly no longer gives a damn and I tend to end up wondering "what's the point of that backstory then?"

For a well-done example I'd suggest you find the novelisation of Revenge of the Sith. The film may not have conveyed the emotions that well, but the book is brilliant at it. Another good one would be the novel Fade.

In respectful but firm disagreement with Ambar, sometimes the most obvious remaining sign of a former relationship is the depth of hate between its members now that it's over. One of them probably feels betrayed. The other hates because they are hated.

And I'll counter what you said, Night, by reminding you that we are talking about the supposed backstory in which the characters, in spite of their differences, can still trust each other with things precious to them; I'm afraid that's something that generally won't happen with people whose relationship is defined by hatred.

After the whole thing is over, sure, it might be defined by that. But before that it would take a lot of skill to try to write that and still have it be somewhat plausible.

Well, that and as far as I see it what AmbarSonofDeshar said is that the characters shan't be indifferent (if you don't give a damn, it generally means that you are indifferent, and not that you hate), and in spite of saying that you disagree you don't seem to actually be disagreeing with what he said. I don't want to be mean but are you sure you didn't misconstrue his post?

edited 15th Mar '15 3:47:26 AM by Kazeto

You'd be wrong on all counts; kids in a divorce. One of the most common and obvious examples of passion turned on its ear makes a mockery of your assertion about having to trust.

Consider his example: yes, what he said works for Obi-wan in that case. He is conflicted. (Incidentally that was his assertion, you've worked backwards through his posting and arrived at the supporting details first.) But that does not work for Anakin. Anakin hates.

Is it truly hatred then, though?

I mean, how can we measure whether two divorced people hate each other or are merely bitter and dissatisfied and do not want to have anything to do with each other? As far as I know we don't know this unless we are given proof or told, and in the latter case the best we have is someone else's word for it. And if they primarily hate each other then I really find it doubtful that they would trust each other with children; in those cases it is far more likely that they would fight for the right to children and try to restrict the other parent's right as much as possible, only "trusting" them as much as the court forces them to which honestly isn't "trust" at all.

That, and this really isn't an answer to what I asked. But that in itself is an answer, considering what I asked, so I guess I will take that as a substitute one.

@Night

Actually in the novelization Anakin doesn't just hate. He tries to give Obi-Wan the chance to walk away (something he doesn't do for any of his other victims), and subsequently expresses regret over how things have turned out. It doesn't stop him from trying to kill him, but there's still a sense that despite all of Anakin's rage, and despite how much he has come to hate everything Obi-Wan represents, that he'd rather not be doing this.

Frankly, I've never liked it when writers use "we used to be friends" as an excuse to make characters hate each other more. There's plenty of reasons why characters might hate each other, and if you're not going to actually explore the relationship, then what's the point?

THANKS FOR THE ADVICE AMBAR, and I did read Revenge of the Sith, it's one of my favorite books! I wanted to make Damien honestly a bit like Anakin was. His basic backstory is that his family was killed by a vampire, leaving only him and his sister, similar to how Drew's family was killed by a werewolf, except Damien is never bitten. Black Hawk, the group, sought to free society from the Elven elites how they saw as oppressive, they're meant to be somewhat sympathetic and for a god cause, they just go about it the wrong way. Throughout the story line, once they become enemies (they're friends for the first couple of arcs, even for nearly half the story) both are conflicted, Damien especially. Damien's issue is that he only joined the Black Hawks because he was revealed as a Dark Mage, meaning he would either face death or life imprisonment and had nowhere else to go. His fall doesn't truly start until he learns that his family's death wasn't an accident, and then a botched government mission critically wounds him and kills Nina. He gets "resurrected" and endowed with new powers and goes on a mission of revenge (for those that have seen FMA, think Scar), that's when he and Drew truly become enemies.