Craft: Ad Hominem Attacks on Your Protagonist
by Randy Ingermanson
Advanced Fiction Writing
The protagonist of your novel is going to face obstacles. A lot of obstacles. Of all different types.
The exact kinds of obstacles will depend on what kind of novel you’re writing. This month, we’ll talk about one particular kind of obstacle that most of us face often in real life. But I can’t recall ever seeing it discussed before in a book on fiction writing.
This particular obstacle is called an “ad hominem” attack.
What’s an Ad Hominem Attack?
Rather than tell you, I’ll show you by giving an example. If you took geometry in high school, then you learned something called the “Pythagorean theorem.” This is a theorem about triangles that is said to have been first proved by Pythagoras, a Greek mathematician who lived in the sixth century BC.
We don’t know who actually discovered this theorem, but let’s pretend it really was Pythagoras, as the legends say. Let’s imagine that he wanted to tell his friends about it. And let’s pretend that his friends threw up all sorts of objections to his new theorem. Here’s how the dialogue might have gone:
Pythagoras: “I’ve discovered this amazing theorem. Take any right triangle on a plane. If you add up the squares of the lengths of the two short sides, you get the same number as the square of the length of the long side.”
Friend 1: “Your theorem is false because you’re an Egyptian, and all Egyptians are idiots.”
Pythagoras: “I’m not an Egyptian! But even if I was, that has nothing to do with whether my theorem is true.”
Friend 2: “Your theorem is false because you’re a Greek, and all Greeks are liars.”
Pythagoras: “Yes, I’m a Greek, but that still has nothing to do with whether my theorem is true.”
Friend 3: “Your theorem is false because you are gullible and easily fooled into believing false theorems.”
Pythagoras: “Even if I were gullible, you would still have to prove my theorem is false. Gullible people can believe true things.”
Friend 4: “Your theorem is false because you have a bad motive. You always wanted to become famous by discovering some deep mathematical theorem.”
Pythagoras: “Yes, I’ve always wanted to become famous by discovering some deep mathematical theorem, and now I will because my theorem is very deep and it’s also true. A theorem does not become false merely because I have impure motives.”
Friend 5: “Your theorem is false because you have a bad motive. You hope to use this theorem to short-weight your scales so you can cheat your customers.”
Pythagoras: “No, that’s a lie. But I won’t waste time refuting your malicious attack, because your lie is irrelevant. A theorem does not become false merely because I have impure motives. But your lie tells me something about how your mind works—your first reaction to my theorem is to tie it in to cheating people. I won’t be buying figs from you in the future.”
Friend 6: “Your theorem is false because you believe in transmigration of souls, which is a stupid idea. If you were wrong once, you are wrong every time.”
Pythagoras: “I might be wrong on transmigration of souls and still be right about my theorem. Being wrong once does not prove I am wrong every time. Just look at the proof of my theorem and you must agree it’s true.”
Friends 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: “We don’t have to look at your proof because we already gave good arguments that your theorem is false.”
Pythagoras: “All your arguments are arguments against ME, rather than arguments against my theorem. Your arguments are irrelevant. My theorem stands on its own, whether I’m flawed or not.”
And that’s the nature of an ad hominem attack. “Ad hominem” is Latin for “to the man” and it means that an argument is aimed at a person, rather than being aimed at what the person is saying.
Each of the friends chose a different kind of ad hominem attack on Pythagoras. Some of their attacks were actually true. Some were false. But it doesn’t matter whether an ad hominem attack is true or false, because it’s irrelevant to the question of whether the actual theorem is true or false.
A theorem is true or false on its own merits. A person’s national origin, personality traits, motives, and past history have NOTHING to do with the theorem’s truth.
What Does This Have to Do With Fiction?
Ad hominem attacks are one way of deflecting an argument away from ideas. An ad hominem attack throws mud on a person, with the hope of also throwing mud on that person’s ideas. And fiction often involves exactly that.
Are you writing a murder mystery? There’s an objective question to be answered here—which suspect is the killer? The detective needs to answer that question. When the detective starts getting close, he or she is likely to be hit with an ad hominem attack to deflect attention from the facts.
Are you writing a legal thriller? The defendant is either guilty or innocent. That’s the objective question to be answered. The defendant’s lawyer may be getting paid lots of money to defend the client. The lawyer may be grandstanding to make a name for himself. Those aren’t great motives, but they don’t prove the defendant is guilty. If the prosecutor has a weak case, they may make an ad hominem attack to muddy the defense in the jury’s eyes.
Are you writing a spy novel or a political thriller or a military novel? Your protagonist will face hard questions. Getting the wrong answer will have huge consequences. There is a right answer and a wrong answer, even if nobody knows which is which. Your protagonist is (hopefully) trying to find the right answer. And on his way, it’s very likely that he’s going to get hit with ad hominem attacks.
The reason ad hominem attacks are common in real life is because they’re easy. And because they work.
Dealing With an Ad Hominem Attack
How is your character supposed to deal with an ad hominem attack?
It’s very natural to get angry when somebody goes ad hominem on you. It’s natural, but it doesn’t solve the problem.
I’ve seen ad hominem attacks many times over the years, sometimes coming at me and sometimes directed at other people. There’s a wrong way and a right way to answer them.
The wrong way is to fight fire with fire. If somebody makes an ad hominem attack on you, you can’t respond with an ad hominem attack back on them. That’s lame and drags you down to their level and it confuses the issue.
The right way is to unconfuse the issue. There are three steps to this:
- Start by saying clearly that they’ve made an ad hominem attack. You may have to define what ad hominem means, because not everybody knows this term.
- Then point out that ad hominem attacks are just a way of deflecting the argument from logic and evidence. It’s a sign that the other guy’s case is weak. But it’s not proof the other guy is wrong. The only way to prove the other guy is wrong is to go back to logic and evidence.
- Then go back to logic and evidence and make your case. (If the only thing you can say is that the other guy is making an ad hominem argument, then you yourself have fallen into an ad hominem argument. But if you also have logic and evidence on your side, then pointing out that the other guy has gone ad hominem is the only practical way to get things back on track.)
This actually works in real life. And it works in fiction. It works in fiction BECAUSE it works in real life.
Fiction is all about conflict, and conflict isn’t always a fair fight. I’m hoping your protagonist fights fair, but I’m guessing your villain doesn’t. Which makes ad hominem attacks a very useful tool for adding conflict to your fiction.
Homework
Think of a time in your own life when someone used an ad hominem attack against you.
How did it feel? That’s how your characters should feel when they come under a personal attack.
Why was the ad hominem attack irrelevant? Were you able to explain at the time why it was irrelevant? Did you eventually bring the argument back to logic and evidence?
Think of a time in your own life when you used an ad hominem attack on someone else. (Not trying to make you feel guilty here, but the odds are good that you’ve done it. Most people have. It’s only human.)
Why did you sink to that level? Did you know at the time that your attack was irrelevant? Did it work anyway? How do you feel about it now? That’s how your villains might feel when they make a personal attack on the protagonist in your novel.
Also see:
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.
