How do you write characters that are wrong about something? Facts, values, opinions, grammar etc.

This is one of those questions where there is probably no universally right answer. But however you do it, someone will claim that you are doing it wrong.

Sometimes, characters are wrong about something. They think they have the right facts, and it makes sense in the context of the story that they would think that, but it is actually misinformation. Sometimes, misinformation can be really harmful if real people believe it (see: Television Is Trying to Kill Us). Or at least, would make the author look really bad if people thought they didn't know any better.

Sometimes, characters are wrong in a way that is less about hard facts and more about opinions and values. That can mean Deliberate Values Dissonance, especially if the setting as a whole operates on a different value system. But sometimes, characters in a story have differing opinions from each other. With complex characters, even an otherwise reasonable character can have opinions, values, and beliefs that I don't actually want to support or promote (The Captain in the age of Wooden Ships and Iron Men thinks differently about colonialism than I do, for example). In an Ensemble Cast, probably every character is wrong about something. Sometimes they learn from the experiences they have during the story, but that's not always feasible or even realistic.

And then there is language. Maybe I, as a writer, am generally okay at grammar. Not always, not in the first draft, but I can work on and revise and proofread this draft, I can ask other people or use software to help me out. But what if my character is the one to break a grammar rule? Or what if there is a specific word for what's happening - say, the difference between fry and sauté -, but my characters and maybe even the readers cannot be expected to know this word? And how do I capture accents and dialects on page, especially if the language that I'm writing in isn't exactly what the characters are speaking? But even without that complication, dialects can be hard to parse.

There are several approaches to this type of dilemma. Some authors just write whatever, even if what they write should really come with a public service announcement about safety risks. Some write the story how it works best and clarify in footnotes, afterwords, content warnings and such. This is probably my preferred solution, but it can come across as somewhat "tacked on" and/or hypocritical if the story demonstrates something else. Some try for a more clean approach where everything can be assumed to be correct as written on page, where only the bad guys have wrong opinions and everyone carries a thesaurus at all times. This makes sense in some contexts, but can make the story feel artificial (see: Politically Correct History) and/or make it lack depth.

So, how do you deal with it?

Edit: Do you "make" or "have" experiences?

Edited by prinzessinnen-und-raben on Mar 28th 2024 at 3:43:46 PM

Well regarding this I just got one rule for myself whenever I write.

"I'm not my story and the story is not me."

So I just write it and let the characters be themselves and do whatever they want to and feel to do.

I have absolute zero control over them whatsoever, I just write them and their story.

That's that.

Well, I'm going to snag the low-hanging fruit, if I may: :P

I believe that one "has" experiences. (One "makes" memories, however.)

[edit]
As to the main topic of the thread, I think that I generally take something similar to Trainbarrel's perspective, above.

That said, I'll also note that I do have some say in what perspectives I follow, and what narration I provide, so there may at times be opportunity there to allow a bit of commentary.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Mar 28th 2024 at 5:48:39 PM

Yeah, same here. I don't typically fret if my characters spout some nonsense since I hope my readers understand that I'm not the one saying it. It also helps if they're either called out or have their words backfire somehow, it shows the problem without me needing to step in and say "readers, this character is wrong".

I think it depends on the type of error and the type of narration. Certain types of narrators can get away with commenting on the narrative. Although, if it is obvious, then the reader might be annoyed.

As far as grammar, writing in dialect is a time honoured practice. Actual dialects tend to follow their own rules and people that use bad grammar tend to do so in predictable ways. Knowing language can help to do it.

Using ideal language is also normal. I think what you want to avoid is that a reader thinks you made a mistake when it was on purpose. So don't make grammatical errors subtle.

Another thing to do is to lampshade errors, and maybe have another character present the opposite position. It might help to establish early on that the character makes mistakes. That way if the character makes a controversial mistake later on, the reader will know that the character is not meant to be an Author Avatar.

I'll note here that commenting needn't be explicit. For example, one might mention the opinions of others.

For (off-the-cuff) example:

(Which is not really in disagreement with the quote above; indeed, I agree. However, I do want to note use of narration isn't necessarily limited to narrators that express opinions of their own.)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Mar 28th 2024 at 8:57:51 PM

Thank you all for your answers! I try to find a way to answer that is generally applicable and not just a monologue about my own story ideas.

Re: language

That is important to remember. Seems simple, sure. But using "wrong" language doesn't mean that you don't have to proofread your writing.

Re: story and perspective

I think this is good writing advice in general, not just for this question. As a writer, I'm not the morality police for the characters, and I want them to act naturally. But as a (hobbyist / independent / not hired to do a specific thing) writer, I wouldn't write a specific type of story if I didn't like it for whatever reason.

In practice, that means that I don't have to put up with a setting where everyone is a horrible bigot or a narrative that only follows the worst possible characters. I don't have to provide a solution to the problem of how to deal with it if the concept of someone else's writing requires it, I can just not do that. Yay, freedom!

Re: narrator commentary and consequences

Yes, there is certainly a balance to be aimed for.

If the character is wrong about something that is very obviously untrue and/or against my opinion - e.g., "women are incapable of writing books" -, then it can stand as a piece of characterization on its own. If it is something that might not be obvious, or that is half-true but potentially dangerous if applied to real life, then it warrants some sort of comment by other characters, the narrator, or subsequent plot development.

I think of the Earth's Children books that have gems like "this particular fungus can be used to end a pregnancy" (true, but if you don't know anything about dosage and such, it's like taking medication from the black market) and "babies can eat everything their mothers eat as long as it is soft enough, that is true for animals just as it is true for humans" (yeah... don't feed your infants raw honey, people). I also think of all the romance novels where characters have unprotected sex all the time and nobody gets pregnant if this is not part of the current plot and nobody ever gets an STI. That is the stuff that I wish came with warnings.

That's also good advice. Either do it like that, establish the character - or the whole cast, in a Deliberate Values Dissonance situation - as fallible early on. Or alternatively, establish someone as trustworthy, reasonable, intelligent or whatever and then treat it as The Reveal when they are not.

But flip-flopping on someone's competence level without explanation or Lampshade Hanging is probably not a good idea.

Re: Author Avatar

Yes, that is kind of my problem. Queue monologue about my own stuff.

My characters take turns at being wrong, which means that they also take turns at being (in my opinion) right. It's Grey-and-Gray Morality mixed with different levels of general life competence, education, background/bias, and willingness/competence to be manipulative. Which means that the characters who hold opinions like

• "Men who have sex with men exist, especially at sea, so it is better if the boys learn about it from a trusted adult explaining it to them (so, from me, I'm such a trustworthy adult). While we are at it, sexual abuse is wrong."

or

• "Taking the land and livelihood from people who live in a recently discovered country and justifying that with the fact they are not Christians isn't that morally upstanding, actually. Also, I doubt that the government cares about poor people." (Note that this is before the English government establishes their own colonies overseas, so these two statements seem rather disconnected.)

or

• "Violence against children doesn't, generally speaking, make the child in question trust you more. Having patience and understanding for one Troubled Teen and not another comes across as favoritism."

or something

are not necessarily nice people, nor in agreement with each other. So this is probably not so much about characters who are wrong than it is about characters who are flawed but still sometimes right. I hope that the audience neither shoots the message nor takes the characters as intended to be perfect.

Demonstrate to the reader that they're wrong.

For example, if they claim that everybody in group X is Y way, there's a person from group X (perhaps even right there in that scene) who isn't Y. Or something directly contradicting the character's claims then or later (or earlier, but the character doesn't know it happened).

The "immediate cobtradiction" variant could be plsyed for drama or comedy.

That's also an interesting idea. How to play that for comedy, for drama, for horror, for tragic irony. Easier for strict "right vs. wrong" claims than for complex moral issues, but still interesting.