How to Enrage Your Character
by Randy Ingermanson
Advanced Fiction Writing
How to Enrage Your Character
As Iâve said many times, writing fiction is about giving your reader a powerful emotional experience. And you do that by giving your characters a powerful emotional experience.
The question is how to do that realistically. How do you set up a situation in which the character would naturally feel strong emotions?
Thatâs a large subject, too big for one column, but I can tackle one piece of it today.
Letâs talk about rage. Thatâs a powerful emotion for you, and itâs one that some of your characters will feel.
Sometimes rage is justified. Think about the #MeToo hashtag, and you can come up with millions of examples of justified rage. I think we can all understand justified rage.
Unjustified Rage
But sometimes rage is unjustified. Thatâs a little harder to understand. Why would somebody go into an unjustified rage? Are they bad people, or is there some other explanation?
This is important. If we canât understand it, we canât write it.
Letâs do a little thinking on unjustified rage. How do we make sense of it? Or is rage so irrational that we canât make sense of it?
Think about the last time somebody was enraged at you. Has that happened to you, ever?
If you canât remember, let me toss out some short phrases that may jog your memory. I got these phrases by going to four popular web sites and scrolling down, looking for controversial topics, and typing them out in the exact order I saw them. Itâs kind of a long list, even after I removed the duplicates:
- Guns
- National anthem
- Election districting
- Fundamentalism
- UFOs
- Federal corruption
- Russian investigation
- Climate change
- Environment/conservation
- Trump
- Obama
- Election fraud
- Putin
- Mega pastors
- Immigration
- LGBT
- Economic inequality
- Crime
- Fake news
- Taxes
- Bitcoin
- Euthanasia
- Creationism
What Makes People Angry?
Have you ever had a discussion on one of these topics and gotten angry at somebody? Maybe even enraged?
Were you justifiably enraged, or unjustifiably? Thatâs actually a bad question. No doubt your rage was justified.
But letâs turn it around. Has anyone ever been unjustifiably enraged at you over one of these topics? Iâm guessing they have.
Now letâs ask the hard questionâwhat caused them to be unjustifiably enraged?
Thatâs tough to answer, because you canât go inside someoneâs head to know what theyâre thinking. All you can do is guess.
Hereâs my guess, and I know itâs just a partial answer. People get unjustifiably enraged when they have a strong false belief about a current danger that is being ignored by âthose other people.â
The rage comes from the strong belief that this terrible danger is being ignored.
If they actually had some expertise on the subject, their rage would probably be justified, because there are real dangers in the world. Ignoring those dangers is wrong. If a danger is high enough, people should be enraged that itâs being ignored.
If youâre on the Titanic and you know thereâs an iceberg ahead, you should be enraged when the captain says, âFull speed ahead.â
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
But what if the danger isnât real? What if the person is misinformed? What if there is no iceberg?
That happens a lot. In that case, the rage is unjustified.
Iâve seen a fair number of cases where it looked to me like the rage-provider was much less informed on the subject than the rage-receiver. I bet you have too.
Thereâs some rather weird psychology that comes into play here, the âDunning-Kruger effect.â It has two sides:
- Incompetent people often think they are much more competent than they actually are.
- Very competent people often assume that other people are much more competent than they actually are.
The key point here is that incompetents tend to rate themselves too high. Competents tend to rate other people too high.
Competent people tend to rate themselves fairly accurately. They know what they know and what they donât know. They have a good understanding of the level of uncertainty in ideas. They know which statements are real facts and can be known with high certainty. They also know which statements are less certain and could be right or could be wrong.
But competent people tend to assume that âif itâs easy for me to understand, itâs easy for other people,â which is why they overrate other peopleâs level of knowledge. Note that they are overrating âother peopleâ taken all together as a group. Of course, a competent person can easily tell that a particular person is incompetent by talking to them one-on-one.
Incompetent people, on the other hand, tend to lack the knowledge to even recognize what competence is. They donât realize how much there is to know. So they think they know more than they actually do. As your grandmother told you, âa little knowledge is a dangerous thing.â You might say that incompetent people are logjammed by their own incompetence.
The way to break that logam is for incompetent people to study the subject more. A lot more. Once you get past the beginner stage, you realize how much you donât know and you stop overrating yourself. Then as you start getting some actual expertise, you begin to rate yourself higher and higher, but now your self-rating is justified.
One advantage of education is that you learn how much you donât know. When I was 13, I knew pretty much everything. By the time I was 26, I knew pretty much nothing, except on a very few subjects where I had some level of expertise. I like learning, and I know a lot more now than I did at 26. But Iâll never again be as smart as when I was 13.
One disadvantage of education is that there is an endless supply of people who know very little, but think they know more than you.
Iâve found that I can learn something from just about anyone, if only I can find out what subject theyâre an expert on. The trick is figuring out if theyâre a real expert, or if they just think they are. You can do that by asking questions about how they know that they know what they say they know. Real experts will answer differently than non-experts.
Authentic Unjustifiable Rage
So getting back to the subject of unjustifiable rage, here are my thoughts. Over the years, Iâve had some massive rage directed at me in discussions on certain controversial subjects where I actually have some expertise. Things Iâve spent years studying.
And the rage has come most often from people who didnât appear to have much knowledge at all on the subject. But they thought they did. And they thought my opinion was not only wrong, it was dangerous. Hence, the rage.
The Dunning-Kruger effect explains this. They have a little knowledge. They see a danger that isnât real. They get angry because I donât see the danger.
Theyâre not necessarily bad people. But theyâre still angry and the rage is still toxic. Knowing that can make it easier to deal with toxic people. (Although I wouldnât advise ever telling anybody, âYouâre toxic because youâre ignorant.â There are probably better ways to respond than that!)
And if you want to write fiction with three-dimensional characters, thatâs the key thing youâre looking for. You can have nice people go into a terrible, toxic rage attack. The secret is to make them ignorant on the thing theyâre angry about. Itâs no sin to be ignorant. Everybody is ignorant on something.
Homework
Think about the novel youâre writing right now. Is there any scene where a character goes into a rage? Is that character a bad person? Or just a regular, flawed human? How are you playing that character? Whatâs the motivation youâre showing for the rage? Is it possible youâve got a Dunning-Kruger situation? How would you show that to make your character more three-dimensional?
About The Author
Randy Ingermanson is a theoretical physicist and the award-winning author of six novels. He has taught at numerous writing conferences over the years and publishes the free monthly Advanced Fiction Writing E-zine.
No comments:
Post a Comment