About breaking a character

[Conradine]

My 2 cent about the concept of "breaking a character to reveal his true self".

I think that there is a difference between pushing a character out his comfort zone into a stressful situation, and damaging him to the point he's no more able to function normally.
Actually I'm pretty sure of that. PTDS do exist, and I don't think it's the "true self" of a person. Rather, it's when the "self" is damaged.

Has anyone here saw the film "Martyrs"? After being broken by prolonged torture, the victims became feral and insane shells of their former selves. It's hard to argue their character has beeen "revealed" that way.

Now, I agree that the true self shows up in situation of need and stress.
But I think there is a limit. If the stress becomes so extreme that it exceeds the ability to cope, it breaks the mind structures that allow a person to function.

Thoughts?

[dancrilis]

Thoughts?

Did you post this in the wrong section or is it tied into OOTS in some way that I am missing, maybe you are talking about a character you think was 'broke'?

[Fyraltari]

Did you post this in the wrong section or is it tied into OOTS in some way that I am missing, maybe you are talking about a character you think was 'broke'?

The Giant has said that he thought the best way to show a character’s fundamental nature is to « break » them by putting them in a situation where who they are and who they think they are are in conflict and so the cracks start to show.

This came up during a discussion about Tarquin, where the Giant said that the raving-mad Tarquin at the end of the desert book was the same Tarquin as the one in Bleedigham just pushed out of his confort zone so that the true colors showed as his facade of affability crumbled.

[Malloon]

Oh, now this is a topic I can have fun with. If I'm not careful I'm sure I'll leave here with a 5 page essay, so I'll try and limit myself to asking pointed questions rather than trying to answer them all myself. Well, except for the foundational ones.

What is a person's true self? What is a character's true self? Can we equate real world psychology with storytelling techniques used to build characters, aka. are the first two questions the same?

I'd argue, no, not entirely. The real mind is so complex beyond our understanding, layered beyond belief and always changing. To call any part of a mind the "true" self of the person it belongs to is simplistic and reductionist to a point that it's simply wrong. Are we not, at our core, feral animals, only held in check by our reason, our compassion, our beliefs about ourselves and the world? If you remove the outer layers, do you not find the "true" person underneath?

Well, no. The feral, selfish, frightened animal is just another layer. You could just as easily argue our true self is contained in our brain stem and our parasympathetic nervous system; our "true" self is that which keeps our heart beating, guts digesting and lungs inhaling. If you break someone enough, they'll return to their "true" self - comatose. Or dead, because what are we at our core but a pile of chemicals?

So instead of trying to find the applicability of the Giant's words to real life, lets use it for the far more productive activity of building and analysing characters and motivations. Characters generally certainly seem human; while you can build alien and animalistic characters, there needs to be at least a glimmer of what people call agency in them for us to call them characters instead of events or plot devices. This is, loosely, the ability to make choices that affect the plot. Every character has motivations, whether known to us or not - things they want. That is what drives them to make choices, and the possibility that they might have made a different choice to satisfy a different motivation is what gives them their agency. These things are loose descriptions of what we intuitively think it means to be a person, put in ways we understand.

What the Giant was referring to - I think - was that characters have a number of motivations, but some are more rigid and unyielding than others. In a conflict between them the more rigid motivations win out, the weaker ones are (at least temporarily) discarded, and these more rigid motivations are the ones that make up the "true" self of the character. Some motivations are about being different than (some of) the character's other motivations make them, and even if those other motivations are stronger than their motivations to be different, the motivations to be different may take centre stage as long as they aren't in active conflict with the stronger ones.

This can happen because those stronger motivations don't themselves contain the motivation to have those motivations: A motivation to make sure people do as their told no matter what (and which makes a character a horrible, rude person when it comes into effect) does not contain the motivation to have the motivation to make sure people do as their told no matter what (and thus to be horrible and rude). So so long as people do what they're told, another, weaker motivation, say, to want to be a polite and nice person, can take the forefront. But when push comes to shove making people do as they're told is more important and the motivation to be polite and nice goes bye bye.

But this is only at the breaking point. Before that, characters will do whatever they can to satisfy both motivations. It's only when they have to abandon one of the other that their "true self", their stronger (and often more basal) motivation, is revealed.



An interesting corollary to this that when the motivation to be different is stronger (or rather, becomes stronger, or else it would not be a motivation to be different), that is where character development happens and characters change their "true" self.

And damn, I've written an essay. Alright. I'll just say one more thing: Since motivations aren't divided into two groups of weaker and stronger motivations, but rather their motivations are all aligned on a sliding scale, the "truest" self, ie. the strongest motivation, often never reveals itself, since you need the circumstances to trigger it, and the conflict could just as easily happen between any other two motivations. And also, motivations shift constantly, and two or more motivations can be the same strength. Ok, now I'm done.

[Fyraltari]

For the record what, I think, the OP is referring to:

I think that's one of the big issues here: why couldn't Tarquin BE a calm and collected person whose actions in the various aspects of his life all follow from his Evil character?

Because then there's no climax to the story?

He IS that, 99.999999999% of his life, but you are looking at his very worst day. Drama is all about taking characters and pushing them until they break, one way or the other. If a character can't be broken, then they have no place as a main character in a story. So writing a drama involves thinking of all the ways that your characters can be broken; this is the way that I chose for Tarquin.

I once read excellent writing advice that said, "Is this the most interesting time in your character's life? If not, why aren't you writing about that instead?" This is the most interesting time in Tarquin's life, because it's where the rubber of his self-image hits the road of reality. It's where his worldview is being challenged in a way that he can't just throw resources at it to fix it. Take away that conflict, that inherent crumbling of his previous cool, and there's nothing interesting to write about. There's just, "Oh, he was bad for a long time, but then the good guys fixed it by stabbing him." Boring.

The issue I have is that from your previous posts you hinted that the way Tarquin is now is the way he's always been, that this is the REAL Tarquin, and we're just seeing it now, that he's dropped his facade and is showing us who he really is. Now, here you say that you've broken Tarquin. Fair enough. But when someone talks about breaking someone, the implication is that they aren't acting the way they would normally, or how they really are, but in an "altered" personality. When everything is crumbling around you, you tend to lash out ... but few think that in those cases you were always a person who lashed out blindly as opposed to someone who simply lost control of themselves and isn't acting how they would act normally or in a way that reflects who they really are.

Well, if few people think that, then count me as among those few. You reveal who you really are under stress—stress doesn't magically turn you into someone else unrelated to who you usually are. The fact that you may not have ever known that this is who you were doesn't change anything.

I don't think Tarquin sat around thinking, "Ha ha! I am fooling them into thinking I love my family! I am so clever!" I think he thought that he really loved his family, right up until the point where loving his family conflicted with him being in total control. And then both he and the readers got to see which one of the two really mattered to him.

In other words, when I use the word "facade," I am not referring to a conscious artifice on Tarquin's part. I am referring to the idea that the true core of his being is hidden—possibly even from himself—until the crucible of the story burns it out of him. This is why it was in conflict with comments on this thread about people in real life who segregate their evil actions from the love of family—because in real life, there's no guarantee that such a crucible moment will ever occur.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, I agree that the true self shows up in situation of need and stress.
But I think there is a limit. If the stress becomes so extreme that it exceeds the ability to cope, it breaks the mind structures that allow a person to function.

Thoughts?

I'll guess that you didn't read the books that I recommended in your other torture thread. Anything by Stockdale is pretty good.

What character do you think has been broken by torture in OoTS?
If that isn't your topic, you might want one of the other GiTP sub forums.

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I doubt people work like culture implies they do, we are big bags of chemicals. Is a person themselves when their bloodsugar dips? What about when they have chronic pain or when their serotonin levels are chopped off? Certain drugs make people crave physical touch with other people, and have similar effects on other mammals. So I doubt someone is their "true self" when flooded with endorphins under extreme stress.

In fiction sure, people have a stable personality and motivations. It doesn't translate to real life well at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Certain drugs make people crave physical touch with other people

Are you referring to Spanish Fly or beer?

[Conradine]

What character do you think has been broken by torture in OoTS?

As far as I know, no one.

Yet, Roy himself admit the possibility of that happening ( breaking to the point of insanity under extreme stress ) when he thinks the gladiator champion he's going to fight is a poor loner that was jailed for public urination and forced to fight.

[Tvtyrant]

Are you referring to Spanish Fly or beer?

Yes

I drink a liter of coffee or more a day and workout before my job to have the affable personality society calls for. Is my drugged likable version the real me, or the one that wants to slap people who chew with their mouths open?

edit: Korvin your mailbox is full.

[dancrilis]

Yes

I drink a liter of coffee or more a day and workout before my job to have the affable personality society calls for. Is my drugged likable version the real me, or the one that wants to slap people who chew with their mouths open?

Both.
Panels, 3 and 7.

[Tvtyrant]

Both.
Panels, 3 and 7.

Kind of missing my point there. There isn't a "me," there is a set of chemical reactions that constitute my entire memory, personality and interaction with the world. The idea of showing a true self under stress implies there is a true self, but there really isn't one. Just another set of chemical states. People are essentially inessential.

[Worldsong]

Both.
Panels, 3 and 7.

I wonder if that page means that The Giant has changed his mind about what constitutes someone's true self.

What you are on your worst day definitely says something about who you are as a person, but I'd agree with Durkon that it only shows one facet of your being.

[dancrilis]

I wonder if that page means that The Giant has changed his mind about what constitutes someone's true self.

What you are on your worst day definitely says something about who you are as a person, but I'd agree with Durkon that it only shows one facet of your being.

Tarquin is also who he is on every panal - the Tarquin who was comforting his wife to be when she got cold feet is exactly the same man who disapproved was going to kill Haley, burn a ship and everyone on it to the ground and chop off Elan's hand, the exact same guy who wanted a hug before Elan went off on his adventure (and effectively bugged his carpet) and the exact same guy who killed Nale without blinking.

The only difference is that some of those happened when he was a little out of sorts for various reasons.

I wouldn't be surprised if he went back to his palace*got a glass of wine and thought to himself 'well played son'.

* possible after torturing some slaves to death for his amusement.

[Jasdoif]

For the record what, I think, the OP is referring to:

There's one more on this specific subject:

To bring in pendell's point, there may well be a certain level of physiological stress that will reduce anyone to savagery. Tarquin is nowhere near that stress level. He could walk away at any time. So it's totally fair to judge him on that.

[Conradine]

Indeed Tarquin was nowhere near that breaking point.

But when his family was slaughtered, mabye Redcloak was.

[KorvinStarmast]

edit: Korvin your mailbox is full.

I'll go and fix that, thanks for the alert.
KS

OK, a half a dozen gone, I'll do a more detailed scrub later.

[Dr.Zero]

The question hasn't a worthy answer, too many variables, to many possible definitions of "true colors"

1) The character is an hypocrite and is put in a situation where some of his hypocrisy can't work. And that situation is not temporarily and there is no escape. Think of a everyday "good person" declaring that he won't ever do/be X and then he is put in a situation where X is by a far shot the most convenient option or the most natural reaction.

2) The character is not strictly an hypocrite, but he hasn't ever experienced the situation he is put in. He truly thought he could resist, but he can't.

In the above cases, the situation shows the character's "true colors", even if we won't ever be able to know if he was hypocrite or weak (or not strong enough). Anyway: "in reality he was a hypocrite or not strong enough to stand by his words" is showing the true colors, to an extent.

3) The character didn't ever think about the situation he is put in, he never stated anything about that. Oblivious that it could happen to him. Think of a good person who sees a dear one killed, or worse. It is not a thing you usually think about a lot. He reacts badly. To an extent he has showed his true colors too, but his true colors strictly related to that situation. A good person who snaps and becomes a murderer in a roaring rampage of revenge says to us that he could be a murderer in a roaring rampage of revenge, but it doesn't say anything about him being an hypocrite before, when he behaved as a good person. Are his true colors the ones he shows after his dear one was killed or were his true colors the ones he showed when he was living his life with his dear one?

[snowblizz]

I wouldn't be surprised if he went back to his palace*got a glass of wine and thought to himself 'well played son'.

* possible after torturing some slaves to death for his amusement.

The person we see Tarquin being would spend that time twisitng his mind around so he comes up with a way he himself has managed to control the situation to his own advantage. He won't accept an actual defeat and irrelevance. He will talk himself into believing it's all really just a dramatic prelude to their final confrontation.

And the torturing is a given.

[Grey Watcher]

I also don't think Rich meant "break" in the sense of PTSD-inducing trauma. More like breaking past the lies they tell themselves about themselves, the world, etc. Tarquin had a very particular image of himself: suave, sophisticated, in control, smarter than everyone else around him, a consummate manipulator, and, above all, civilized. But as soon has he encountered someone who he couldn't immediately bully or bribe into compliance, he quickly abandoned that persona and was reduced to screaming screaming threats in his son's face.

[snowblizz]

I also don't think Rich meant "break" in the sense of PTSD-inducing trauma. More like breaking past the lies they tell themselves about themselves, the world, etc. Tarquin had a very particular image of himself: suave, sophisticated, in control, smarter than everyone else around him, a consummate manipulator, and, above all, civilized. But as soon has he encountered someone who he couldn't immediately bully or bribe into compliance, he quickly abandoned that persona and was reduced to screaming screaming threats in his son's face.

Furthermore from Tarquin, he likes to pretend he is a familiy man, just villanous for the cause really. Yet the second Nale tries to assert independence openly and uneqivocally he gets a knife in the chest. Here Tarquin's "family man" image is "broken" and we get to again see the real person. His open and hidden personality clashes.

Compare it to Lauren's evil-for-family-cause where she makes sure (corruptly) her daughter has gainful employment. She cares for her family.

Tarquin sires pawns, nothing more. And pawns are for sacrifice for the king.

[Conradine]

Although I consider Tarquin utterly and totally despicable, evil and irredemable...
for truth's sake, Nale just killed his best friend and gloated about it.

He asked to be treated like anyone else and he got that.

[Dr.Zero]

Compare it to Lauren's evil-for-family-cause where she makes sure (corruptly) her daughter has gainful employment. She cares for her family.

Well, actually we don't know if Laurin's daughter has ever killed Laurin's best friend and stated openly that she doesn't want her protection anymore.
Personally I find the answer -knife to the chest- Tarquin gave in line with an extremely lawful personality, since he has given Nale exactly what he wished: no more protection from him (and so he immediately paid for his conduct).
What started the dissonance was his lack of empathy for the death of his son, a little cry or something.
Arguably, if Tarquin was only interested to Nale for the sake of the story, that would be all the more reason to add some cheap teary drama.

Tarquin sires pawns, nothing more. And pawns are for sacrifice for the king.

Well, actually... he is ok if they kill him, sacrificing himself for the story and to make them heroes.
One might argue that he hopes to gain the legend status from that, and therefore it is not a real sacrifice, but that is debatable to no end.

Of course I agree that in the intentions of the author you're absolutely right on this last point (and maybe right on the first one).

[danielxcutter]

Hmm...

There was always a line - among others - from Bionicle that stuck with me.

Beneath every being's thin shell of civilization, there lurked always a Rahi beast, longing to emerge. All it needed was the slightest crack to slip through into the daylight, and becoming a Hordika was more than a crack — it was a chasm.

Does that apply here, to either “breaking point”? I think it might be relevant but I’m not quite sure... it feels like it to me, at least.

[LadyEowyn]

I think Malloon’s answer is an excellent one.

It’s not about a character being tortured until it breaks their mind. (That has never happened in OOTS.) It’s about pushing a character into a corner until they’re making decision based on their deepest values and desires and inclinations, not the surface-level stuff.

Miko when she learns of Shojo’s lies. V when they’re offered the deal by the fiends. Durkon when he’s controlled by a vampire. Tarquin when he loses control of his sons. Sigdi on the day after he husband’s death when she gets a pile of wealth and learns five strangers have died dishonourably. These are all situation where the character is pushed to the wall.

Miko kills Shojo. V accepts the deal, gets power-drunk, commits genocide, and prioritizes their desire to prove that magical power can “fix everything” over staying with their family and working things out. Durkon chooses to fight and think and plan despite apparently having no power to influence anything, and succeeds in destroying the vampire. Tarquin’s courteous image breaks down and he shows that he values control more than he does his sons. Sigdi gives away her wealth to save five strangers.

These choices all reveal who the person is, at their core.

The addition element of this is that a character doesn’t have to stay that person; V is trying to change. But those moments still get at fundamental truths of who a person is and what drives them.

Just dumping torture on a character does not do that; that’s lazy writing. For the moment to be revealing, the character needs to be in a position to make a choice.

[Conradine]

I don't know if V was totally himself when he agreed to the deal.
Sleep deprivation is hard.

I suffer from chronic insomnia, I know that. After a couple of days you start getting irrational thoughts. Three days and you start hearing strange noises, seeing weird things. Four days, and you find yourself doing weird things.
Five days ( my record ) and...
no, you don't wanna know what happens after five days.

[snowblizz]

I don't know if V was totally himself when he agreed to the deal.
Sleep deprivation is hard.

Elfs don't sleep.

The addition element of this is that a character doesn’t have to stay that person; V is trying to change. But those moments still get at fundamental truths of who a person is and what drives them.

Very true. V found within elfself something V didn't know nor like about elfself and is thus striving to improve elfself to be become more like someone V can live with elfself being.

Hmm...

There was always a line - among others - from Bionicle that stuck with me.

Does that apply here, to either “breaking point”? I think it might be relevant but I’m not quite sure... it feels like it to me, at least.

I think that is perfectly apt description.

Well, actually we don't know if Laurin's daughter has ever killed Laurin's best friend and stated openly that she doesn't want her protection anymore.

Personally I find the answer -knife to the chest- Tarquin gave in line with an extremely lawful personality, since he has given Nale exactly what he wished: no more protection from him (and so he immediately paid for his conduct).
What started the dissonance was his lack of empathy for the death of his son, a little cry or something.
Arguably, if Tarquin was only interested to Nale for the sake of the story, that would be all the more reason to add some cheap teary drama.


Well, actually... he is ok if they kill him, sacrificing himself for the story and to make them heroes.
One might argue that he hopes to gain the legend status from that, and therefore it is not a real sacrifice, but that is debatable to no end.

Of course I agree that in the intentions of the author you're absolutely right on this last point (and maybe right on the first one).

Although I consider Tarquin utterly and totally despicable, evil and irredemable...
for truth's sake, Nale just killed his best friend and gloated about it.

He asked to be treated like anyone else and he got that.

Yes, but Tarquin's Evil isn't in question. I was pointing out that Tarquin's claims about his surface character seems to be just that, surface. When backed into a corner caring for his sons takes a very odd turn.

Don't forget, Tarquin doesn't kill Nake as a response to Malack's redeath. Tarquin tries to get Nale back within his control first. Malack's death was never the problem (inconvenient, a waste, but not an issue), refusing to be under Tarquin's control was. Solutions Tarquin could have gone with had caring for his sons been more than a surface claim:
* Ok son, you don't want my protection, but you just killed the friend of a powerful psion, if I can't protect you best run now.
* You killed my best friend. You are my son. So I won't kill you for this. Someone else might see to that. But I would like not to see you ever again.

None of these responses necessitates a knife into the chest of your son. We accepted the idea that Evil means you could care for stuff. My contention is that Laurin is an example of that. She is Evil and cares for her daughter. Which means she makes sure she stays well away from what Laurin got going on. Her daughter benefits from but is not involved with her evil. At one point I read it like her daughter doesn't even know Larin is her mother but that's probably not right (Laurin would likely have been away a lot of her daughters life).

Tarquin... he drags his son in and makes the other's life a misery for drama. Honestly, I'm not even sure Tarquin is about the drama as much as he claims. To me it seems convenient that his adherence to narratives just gets him what he wants (so far). Personally I no longer believe he is so cavalier with the notion of his impending doom as he claims either.

TL:DR Laurin is Evil that cares for her daughter. Tarquin is Evil that claims to care for his sons.

[dancrilis]

Don't forget, Tarquin doesn't kill Nake as a response to Malack's redeath. Tarquin tries to get Nale back within his control first. Malack's death was never the problem (inconvenient, a waste, but not an issue), refusing to be under Tarquin's control was. Solutions Tarquin could have gone with had caring for his sons been more than a surface claim:
* Ok son, you don't want my protection, but you just killed the friend of a powerful psion, if I can't protect you best run now.
* You killed my best friend. You are my son. So I won't kill you for this. Someone else might see to that. But I would like not to see you ever again.

None of these responses necessitates a knife into the chest of your son.

Neither of those honour Nale's request.
Presumedly if nearly anyone else had killed Malack, Tarquin would have killed them - so it was his protection of Nale that was stopping him from killing Nale, Nale made it clear he didn't want his protection and Tarquin confirmed and honoured that.
The only way Tarquin could grant Nale's request was to kill him.

[Bedinsis]

I think Malloon’s answer is an excellent one.

It’s not about a character being tortured until it breaks their mind. (That has never happened in OOTS.) It’s about pushing a character into a corner until they’re making decision based on their deepest values and desires and inclinations, not the surface-level stuff.

Miko when she learns of Shojo’s lies. V when they’re offered the deal by the fiends. Durkon when he’s controlled by a vampire. Tarquin when he loses control of his sons. Sigdi on the day after he husband’s death when she gets a pile of wealth and learns five strangers have died dishonourably. These are all situation where the character is pushed to the wall.

Miko kills Shojo. V accepts the deal, gets power-drunk, commits genocide, and prioritizes their desire to prove that magical power can “fix everything” over staying with their family and working things out. Durkon chooses to fight and think and plan despite apparently having no power to influence anything, and succeeds in destroying the vampire. Tarquin’s courteous image breaks down and he shows that he values control more than he does his sons. Sigdi gives away her wealth to save five strangers.

These choices all reveal who the person is, at their core.

The addition element of this is that a character doesn’t have to stay that person; V is trying to change. But those moments still get at fundamental truths of who a person is and what drives them.

Just dumping torture on a character does not do that; that’s lazy writing. For the moment to be revealing, the character needs to be in a position to make a choice.

I'd argue that the moment of Miko being pushed into the corner to reveal what she truly is comes only slightly later, when she has fallen and the gods themselves have stepped in and said "Miko, you screwed up.". And the authority figure of the paladin Hinjo steps in and offers her to lay down her weapon, which if her deepest desires was to act in accordance to paladin code she would've complied with. Instead what she desired more was to be the better of people at large, hence why this attack on her ego was something she was unable to accept.

[Dr.Zero]

Neither of those honour Nale's request.
Presumedly if nearly anyone else had killed Malack, Tarquin would have killed them - so it was his protection of Nale that was stopping him from killing Nale, Nale made it clear he didn't want his protection and Tarquin confirmed and honoured that.
The only way Tarquin could grant Nale's request was to kill him.

Exactly.
He goes so far as explaining it to Nale as the last thing he hears: What did you think was going to be the price for killing my best friend?

If I can add another point, not strictly related, but more about the dissonance of the whole scene: Nale was just saved by Tarquin from the attack (probably a psionic disintegrate) Laurin was clearly going to shoot at him one moment before. And Nale laughed in her face, strong of the protection of Tarquin. Personally I always headcanoned the whole scene about Nale's last act more as a drama queen act, caused by jealousy toward his brother, who had most of Tarquin attention at that point, than about really wanting that his requests were granted (and understanding the consequences). Bad for him that his act was apparently sincere enough to convince Tarquin that it really was what he wanted.