Jeff Spurlock
asked
Scott Hawkins:
This question contains spoilers…
(view spoiler)[You mention in the Qwillery interview that Erwin and Steve were Protagonists. I'm curious; Where your other characters fall? Either protag or antag. And I love the moral ambiguity of some of the characters. Carolyn and Father specifically. Father to me felt "evil" throughout the narrative and not by then end, and Carolyn who came across as good, until she didn't, but then redeemed herself (hide spoiler)]
Scott Hawkins
This answer contains spoilers…
(view spoiler)[Hi Jeff,
Thanks! The moral ambiguity was very much a conscious thing. I get kind of bored with characters who are either too saintly or too diabolical. I'm watching House of Cards right now (which I love) and I keep sort of wishing the dastardly Frank Underwood would take five minutes and secretly do something nice--help a kid win an XBox tournament, or something. I think it would round him out.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
I guess in the strict literary sense Carolyn is also a protagonist, inasmuch as it's largely her story. That doesn't make her good, necessarily. Her most pervasive failing was that she was often callous to the point of depraved indifference. That's bad, obviously, but to my mind it's not quite the same thing as outright malice. But she also actively does some things that were pretty much outright evil. Remember Detective Miner, the guy she killed+zombified to frame Steve for murder?
That said, I do think an argument can be made that the stakes Carolyn was playing for were so high that she was justified in breaking a few eggs in the service of the greater good. For instance:
One obvious alternative is a David+Margaret reign, which probably would have been bad for people in general. Is preventing something like that worth the life of a Miner or two? I'd say yes, and I think most people who are not Miner would agree.
OR: what if after she killed David she just thrown up her hands and said 'screw it, all this killing makes me feel dirty, I don't want to play anymore.' Presumably Father's off-stage enemies would have filled the power vacuum sooner or later and done Reign of Darkness type stuff. Looked at from that point of view, you can almost make the case that Carolyn is obligated to hold the throne.
OR: and i like this one best of all--what if after she'd bloodbath'd her way to the throne (as it were) she instead turned it over to someone like Jennifer or maybe Michael to do the actual ruling? Someone who hadn't done all the horrible shit necessary to unseat David and Father? Someone with a clean conscience? It could work out, I guess, but I think it's more likely that Sehlani Jennifer or Sehlani Michael would, sooner or later, have gotten outplayed by one of Father's enemies due to lack of guile. Who's at fault there? Jennifer and Michael for being inept (if good-hearted), or Carolyn for being irresponsible (if nobly-intentioned)?
So, a case might be made that even though Carolyn was doing some fairly heinous stuff to the Detective Miner's of the world, she was in fact making the most moral choices available to her.
Crap. I sort of like that argument, actually. I wish I'd thought to work it into the book somehow.
There was some other stuff going on with the moral ambiguity as well. For instance, in the movie Spirited Away (great flick, btw) one of the characters was a kid who got caught up in a sort of magic household. She started out as a scullery maid type, working for this lady Yubaba who was presented as sort of a wicked witch. But as the movie progressed the kid grew up and stopped shirking her duties and shed her sense of entitlement. Without really rubbing your nose in it, the wicked witch gradually turned into a benevolent auntie type. The implication was that it wasn't the witch who had changed. I loved that, and I was kind of making nods in that direction with Father.
Even I'm not completely convinced that something like the bull was justified, but then again I'm not 60,000 years old. Maybe Father knows something I don't?
But to answer your actual question:
Margaret is, I think, an antagonist in the strict literary sense but pretty much blameless by virtue of having been driven utterly mad at a young age.
Jennifer and Michael are good guys--morally superior to Carolyn and maybe even Steve--but they're also ineffective.
Mrs. McGillicutty - utterly blameless, and makes great muffins.
David - definite antagonist, obv. HOWEVER, I would argue that being roasted alive would put anyone in a bad mood. I think his actions should be viewed through that light, but only after David is safely dead.
Anyway, good morning! Pardon the wall-o-text, I usually do Q&A's with my morning coffee and I tend to blather on.
Scott
Oh, and you might like the book Red Dragon, by Thomas Harris. The bad guy, Frances Dolarhyde, is about as scary as you can get but at the same time he's also utterly pitiable. It's probably my favorite thriller. (hide spoiler)]
Thanks! The moral ambiguity was very much a conscious thing. I get kind of bored with characters who are either too saintly or too diabolical. I'm watching House of Cards right now (which I love) and I keep sort of wishing the dastardly Frank Underwood would take five minutes and secretly do something nice--help a kid win an XBox tournament, or something. I think it would round him out.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
I guess in the strict literary sense Carolyn is also a protagonist, inasmuch as it's largely her story. That doesn't make her good, necessarily. Her most pervasive failing was that she was often callous to the point of depraved indifference. That's bad, obviously, but to my mind it's not quite the same thing as outright malice. But she also actively does some things that were pretty much outright evil. Remember Detective Miner, the guy she killed+zombified to frame Steve for murder?
That said, I do think an argument can be made that the stakes Carolyn was playing for were so high that she was justified in breaking a few eggs in the service of the greater good. For instance:
One obvious alternative is a David+Margaret reign, which probably would have been bad for people in general. Is preventing something like that worth the life of a Miner or two? I'd say yes, and I think most people who are not Miner would agree.
OR: what if after she killed David she just thrown up her hands and said 'screw it, all this killing makes me feel dirty, I don't want to play anymore.' Presumably Father's off-stage enemies would have filled the power vacuum sooner or later and done Reign of Darkness type stuff. Looked at from that point of view, you can almost make the case that Carolyn is obligated to hold the throne.
OR: and i like this one best of all--what if after she'd bloodbath'd her way to the throne (as it were) she instead turned it over to someone like Jennifer or maybe Michael to do the actual ruling? Someone who hadn't done all the horrible shit necessary to unseat David and Father? Someone with a clean conscience? It could work out, I guess, but I think it's more likely that Sehlani Jennifer or Sehlani Michael would, sooner or later, have gotten outplayed by one of Father's enemies due to lack of guile. Who's at fault there? Jennifer and Michael for being inept (if good-hearted), or Carolyn for being irresponsible (if nobly-intentioned)?
So, a case might be made that even though Carolyn was doing some fairly heinous stuff to the Detective Miner's of the world, she was in fact making the most moral choices available to her.
Crap. I sort of like that argument, actually. I wish I'd thought to work it into the book somehow.
There was some other stuff going on with the moral ambiguity as well. For instance, in the movie Spirited Away (great flick, btw) one of the characters was a kid who got caught up in a sort of magic household. She started out as a scullery maid type, working for this lady Yubaba who was presented as sort of a wicked witch. But as the movie progressed the kid grew up and stopped shirking her duties and shed her sense of entitlement. Without really rubbing your nose in it, the wicked witch gradually turned into a benevolent auntie type. The implication was that it wasn't the witch who had changed. I loved that, and I was kind of making nods in that direction with Father.
Even I'm not completely convinced that something like the bull was justified, but then again I'm not 60,000 years old. Maybe Father knows something I don't?
But to answer your actual question:
Margaret is, I think, an antagonist in the strict literary sense but pretty much blameless by virtue of having been driven utterly mad at a young age.
Jennifer and Michael are good guys--morally superior to Carolyn and maybe even Steve--but they're also ineffective.
Mrs. McGillicutty - utterly blameless, and makes great muffins.
David - definite antagonist, obv. HOWEVER, I would argue that being roasted alive would put anyone in a bad mood. I think his actions should be viewed through that light, but only after David is safely dead.
Anyway, good morning! Pardon the wall-o-text, I usually do Q&A's with my morning coffee and I tend to blather on.
Scott
Oh, and you might like the book Red Dragon, by Thomas Harris. The bad guy, Frances Dolarhyde, is about as scary as you can get but at the same time he's also utterly pitiable. It's probably my favorite thriller. (hide spoiler)]
More Answered Questions
Travis Cottreau
asked
Scott Hawkins:
Thanks so much for "The Library at Mount Char". Your bio reminded me so much of a friend of mine living in the US (I'm in New Zealand), that I took a photo off the back cover and sent it to him. He agreed. I would love to know your writing method. Do you just set aside time and write, or do you have techniques to trick yourself into sitting down? Also, how long had you been working on the novel before publication?
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more