Tolkien got around the need to deeply explore this by creating a world where evil really did exist, and some creatures did things because they were bad evil things to do. In this sort of scenario, you don’t have to worry too much about internal consistency for a antagonist’s actions as long as you have the formula “evil is good”. Unfortunately, Tolkien’s many imitators have generally not done as well as he did, and these days most people who encounter the Evil Overlord stereotype are likely to assign a label of “campy” “trite” or “overdone” to whichever story has the latest iteration of the trope.

Another loophole to spending a lot of time with discovering a character’s internal logic is the “Rendezvous with Rama” effect. For those of you who haven’t read or don’t remember the original story *spoiler alert skip to the next paragraph* an alien ship passes through our solar system, refuels from our sun, and departs. We send a ship out from Earth to explore the large alien ship, see lots of really interesting things, and learn nothing much about the aliens who created the ship. It’s the ultimate story in creating aliens with very alien motives that have little to nothing to do with humans except in passing.*end of spoilers*

Similarly, in Steve’s book Issola, the Jenoine are massively powerful and very alien, doing things that from the view of both the reader and the characters are hard to understand. Since that’s rather the point, we don’t really need to understand further about the Jenoine’s internal viewpoint.

With both of these examples, the unfathomability is the point of both the alien ship and the Jenoine. With characters that come closer to human-like actions and understandings, internal logic considerations become more of a factor. The world from the outside-looking-in and the inside-looking-out are often far different for people, and even for non-POV characters you might need to know something about their internal motivations. So how do you depict this?

One of my own characters tends to organize their environment in ways that to my first impressions seem counter-intuitive. It’s not a way that I would organize things, and sometimes doesn’t seem to make logical sense from my perspective. However, when I ask myself “why would [said character] arrange their things in that way?” I nearly always have an answer that comes to mind that makes sense from the viewpoint and life experiences of the character. Even if the internal explanation for the room arrangement doesn’t make it directly onto the written page, the fact that I as the writer understand why the character does a certain thing means that it’s more likely to reflect that knowledge in little bits of characterization throughout the story that will bring that understanding to the reader.

-Reesa

What springs to mind is the skeptic’s mantra: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.  As it applies to fiction, it seems to me that the more bizarre the thought processes of the character, the more you have to convince the reader that the character really does think that way.   The fun part is: how do you do it?

I was remembering Will Shetterly’s first novel, Cats Have No Lord, in which the antagonist’s primary motivation was fear–he did all sorts of horrible things because they seemed to be the best way to keep himself safe–and Will sold it so thoroughly that I never questioned it.   Will did it with a hint here, a comment there, which was enough to clue the reader in to what was going on.  Generally, I like the “less is more” approach when practicable.

The most fun way to approach it, for me, is to fall completely into the head of that character, and then write it in first person from his POV (I did that in Agyar), but there have to be other ways.  I’m wondering what other people have used, or noticed.

-Steve

Copyright 2008 The Dream Cafe.

Characterization discussion: Internal Logic

©2010 Words Words Words. All Rights Reserved.