Building Sympathy

[doglim]

A lot of it can be (although not always) to do with relating to the character or wanting to be like the character.

Mat Cauthon doesn't often come across as a nice guy to his 'friends', but he always does the right thing in the end. He just moans about it the whole time. I grew up with five sisters, so know what it's like to have females moaning at you all the time. Not that I'm like Mat of course. The cheeky boy.

I usually find myself liking (and thus, feeling sympathy for) characters that make me laugh. Tyrion, Jaime, Dolorous Edd.

 

[Glisterspeck]

Give him a dog. Kill the dog. (It doesn't have to actually be a dog.)

Edit - He shouldn't be responsible for killing the dog, that'll work against ya!

 

[Gumboot]

Give him a dog. Kill the dog. (It doesn't have to actually be a dog.)

Edit - He shouldn't be responsible for killing the dog, that'll work against ya!

Unless he's forced to kill the dog...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The dog scene was hideously effective, but it almost made me put the book down...

 

[Darth Angelus]

Make a character whose personality is as different from Joffrey in Game of Thrones as they get.


I guess the underdog trick works, but only to an extent, for me. If they are totally evil villains who are facing overwhelming obstacles, I hope they succumb to said obstacles.

Moral crusaders (as Toby Frost calls them) can work, but I think the high horse that comes that has a problem, too. Basically, I can see two ways this could fail.
- They might fail to live up to these high standards, which could make them feel somewhat hypocritical (even though I don't like that word much, since it is often misused imo). If the reader starts to feel this way about the character, I think they will become less sympathetic.
- In order to ensure that they live up to these standards, the author makes them too good. Drakai mentioned a potential problem with that.
In short, I can see a certain balancing act needing to be done here.

I think the character who just wants a decent life and gets pulled into the plot (number 1 on Toby Frost's list) is probably the safest bet.

 

[JoanDrake]

Make a character whose personality is as different from Joffrey in Game of Thrones as they get.


I guess the underdog trick works, but only to an extent, for me. If they are totally evil villains who are facing overwhelming obstacles, I hope they succumb to said obstacles.

Moral crusaders (as Toby Frost calls them) can work, but I think the high horse that comes that has a problem, too. Basically, I can see two ways this could fail.
- They might fail to live up to these high standards, which could make them feel somewhat hypocritical (even though I don't like that word much, since it is often misused imo). If the reader starts to feel this way about the character, I think they will become less sympathetic.
- In order to ensure that they live up to these standards, the author makes them too good. Drakai mentioned a potential problem with that.
In short, I can see a certain balancing act needing to be done here.

I think the character who just wants a decent life and gets pulled into the plot (number 1 on Toby Frost's list) is probably the safest bet.

At first I thought that was the idea with Joffrey, to make all the other characters, who are, in the end, just a bunch of pampered royals riding about overtop the impossibly submissive peasants, sympathetic. Also, to illustrate that when you're about to be invaded by Wildlings, Wights and Dothraki you might just NEED a real *******. SPOILER ALERT Since he, however, is poisoned at his wedding I guess that's not his function, unless he survives

I much agree that funny characters are sympathetic even if they're total jerks, but funny is really HARD to write.

And I truly HATE moral crusaders, even more than Joffrey type baddies, so I guess the everyman pulled into the adventure is the only way I have to go

 

[sknox]

These are all great suggestions, but I personally have a hard time implementing any of them because they are either abstract or else are examples drawn from someone else's work. Either way, they don't fit into my world.

I don't think in terms of making a character sympathetic or empathetic or even just plain pathetic. I think about the story I'm trying to tell and I try to understand the people who populate that story. How they turn out is sort of secondary to telling the story itself. Sometimes, at least for me, some of the most attractive or repellent characters are secondary or even just walk-ons. It's like having a particular line or chord change in a song that feels especially emotive. You can't say how to write that particular chord change (except in a really abstract way), but somehow in the process of constructing the song, that one passage just really works.

The place where it makes sense to me to ask about technique here is if I have sent my triumphantly complete novel to an editor and she comes back with a suggestion to make Character X "more sympathetic" or "more evil" or whatever. By that point, though, my choices are constrained by the story. Honestly, though, most suggestions are far more specific. Character X should be more frightened in this scene. Or should be more curious about Mystery B. Or he's too friendly toward Character Y, he hardly knows her at this point! That sort of thing. Character consistency, if you will (creamy and smooth, with no lumps).

 

[Jonathan C]

I guess the underdog trick works, but only to an extent, for me. If they are totally evil villains who are facing overwhelming obstacles, I hope they succumb to said obstacles.

I think that can come back to the whole likeability / sympathetic thing. There are characters who on close inspection are really every bit as scummy as Joffrey or worse, but somehow the readers always seem to like them. Like Milton's Satan, who a lot of people read as a tragic, complex and ultimately well--meaning villain but who Milton intended to be read as an evil, selfish, pathetic jerk who just has a lot of charming and insincere excuses. He's just as bad as any Joffrey (or several magnitudes worse) but he is rarely read with the same loathing. Kennit from Liveship Traders is liked by a lot of fans even though he is a pure psychopath who just happens to be loved in-universe by people who think they known him better than they do, and who he often thinks about murdering.

That might be a bit more of a detail thing, though. Villains from family or children's stories are usually far, far worse than anything from any adult tale, but the tone of the story makes them look less heinous. Darth Vader kills billions of people, personally slaughters a bunch of children, and is the top enforcer of an evil Emperor and his totalitarian galactic empire; Hannibal Lecter murders a couple of dozen people, most of whom were at least unpleasant if not downright villains in their own right. But Lecter is the one who is the "grown-up" bad guy because his crimes are given more detail and his story is given more of a gritty feel. So, tone and approach are factors too, not just what the character is like.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I think that can come back to the whole likeability / sympathetic thing. There are characters who on close inspection are really every bit as scummy as Joffrey or worse, but somehow the readers always seem to like them. Like Milton's Satan, who a lot of people read as a tragic, complex and ultimately well--meaning villain but who Milton intended to be read as an evil, selfish, pathetic jerk who just has a lot of charming and insincere excuses. He's just as bad as any Joffrey (or several magnitudes worse) but he is rarely read with the same loathing. Kennit from Liveship Traders is liked by a lot of fans even though he is a pure psychopath who just happens to be loved in-universe by people who think they known him better than they do, and who he often thinks about murdering.

That might be a bit more of a detail thing, though. Villains from family or children's stories are usually far, far worse than anything from any adult tale, but the tone of the story makes them look less heinous. Darth Vader kills billions of people, personally slaughters a bunch of children, and is the top enforcer of an evil Emperor and his totalitarian galactic empire; Hannibal Lecter murders a couple of dozen people, most of whom were at least unpleasant if not downright villains in their own right. But Lecter is the one who is the "grown-up" bad guy because his crimes are given more detail and his story is given more of a gritty feel. So, tone and approach are factors too, not just what the character is like.

With the exception of Darth Vader, I can't comment on the cases you mention, because I have not read them.

However, one thing I have to say is that I think the number of people someone kills is a pretty poor indicator of how bad they are. Evil is, fundamentally, a state of the mind, and therefore of qualitative rather than quantitative nature. Sure, crimes and generally wicked acts can prove that someone is evil, but they are not the evil itself.

Here, motivation and circumstances under which the acts are commited come into the picture. Killing for a purely sadistic motive, i.e. simply because one takes pleasure in the act of ending the life of another human being, is the lowest motivation, pure and simple. Yes, I even rank it below greed, quest for greater power, vengeance or whatever other dark motive you can think of. And you can look at Ros...

To further illustrate why I feel the number of people someone has killed is a bad indicator of how evil they are, let us compare Joffrey's murder of Ros to Magneto's turning of the missiles on the human fleets in X-men: First Class. Magneto was stopped in the last moment, but that is not the point, as he intended to blow up the fleets, which would have killed thousands.
Here is the thing, I still don't think he was as bad as Joffrey was when murdering Ros. The fleets had just backstabbed the mutants on the shore by attempting to take them out, without warning. While it may not fully justify Magneto's retaliation, he has a quite strong and understandable reason to be indignant and furious. Heck, I am even doubting it could be classified as war crime, technically. I am no jurist, but I don't think any military force attemping to wipe someone out is protected by the rules of war. I think Magneto should have been acquitted, in a neutral war tribunal, for that act.
The thing is that excessive retaliation is not ok, at all, but it is not as low a motivation as sadistic pleasure killing.

As for Darth Vader, I don't think he was sadistic, either. He was merely twisted in the mind by the Emperor. Yes, he did terrible things, including the murder of the Jedi children, backstabbing Mace Windu instead of helping him destroy the Emperor (an act which would likely have saved the Jedi order, including said children), choking his own wife to near death etc. So when he burned on Mustafar, which was intended to be tragic, I found that...just.
On the other hand, the Emperor himself was even more evil. Also, as for killing billions, I think Darth Vader only did so indirectly. It was Tarkin who ordered Alderaan destroyed (and he surely had the Emperor's permission to do so). Then, of course, we have the unnamed superlaser operator who pulled the button. A few people have a good share of the blame for all those deaths, but no matter what, clearly Vader can't shoulder all that it alone.

But yes, I think some people sympathize too much with lowlife scumbag character. If such a character is well-written, I guess they could be enjoyable to read about, but it is not like their succumbing to obstacles would bother me.

 

[Jonathan C]

With the exception of Darth Vader, I can't comment on the cases you mention, because I have not read them.

However, one thing I have to say is that I think the number of people someone kills is a pretty poor indicator of how bad they are. Evil is, fundamentally, a state of the mind, and therefore of qualitative rather than quantitative nature. Sure, crimes and generally wicked acts can prove that someone is evil, but they are not the evil itself.

Here, motivation and circumstances under which the acts are commited come into the picture. Killing for a purely sadistic motive, i.e. simply because one takes pleasure in the act of ending the life of another human being, is the lowest motivation, pure and simple. Yes, I even rank it below greed, quest for greater power, vengeance or whatever other dark motive you can think of. And you can look at Ros...

To further illustrate why I feel the number of people someone has killed is a bad indicator of how evil they are, let us compare Joffrey's murder of Ros to Magneto's turning of the missiles on the human fleets in X-men: First Class. Magneto was stopped in the last moment, but that is not the point, as he intended to blow up the fleets, which would have killed thousands.
Here is the thing, I still don't think he was as bad as Joffrey was when murdering Ros. The fleets had just backstabbed the mutants on the shore by attempting to take them out, without warning. While it may not fully justify Magneto's retaliation, he has a quite strong and understandable reason to be indignant and furious. Heck, I am even doubting it could be classified as war crime, technically. I am no jurist, but I don't think any military force attemping to wipe someone out is protected by the rules of war. I think Magneto should have been acquitted, in a neutral war tribunal, for that act.
The thing is that excessive retaliation is not ok, at all, but it is not as low a motivation as sadistic pleasure killing.

As for Darth Vader, I don't think he was sadistic, either. He was merely twisted in the mind by the Emperor. Yes, he did terrible things, including the murder of the Jedi children, backstabbing Mace Windu instead of helping him destroy the Emperor (an act which would likely have saved the Jedi order, including said children), choking his own wife to near death etc. So when he burned on Mustafar, which was intended to be tragic, I found that...just.
On the other hand, the Emperor himself was even more evil. Also, as for killing billions, I think Darth Vader only did so indirectly. It was Tarkin who ordered Alderaan destroyed (and he surely had the Emperor's permission to do so). Then, of course, we have the unnamed superlaser operator who pulled the button. A few people have a good share of the blame for all those deaths, but no matter what, clearly Vader can't shoulder all that it alone.

But yes, I think some people sympathize too much with lowlife scumbag character. If such a character is well-written, I guess they could be enjoyable to read about, but it is not like their succumbing to obstacles would bother me.

Darth Vader at least occasionally seemed to kill for pleasure, or on a whim, such as executing commanders for trivial failures. It gets easier, after all, and anyone who kills regularly and easily will start to kill for a variety of reasons (eg. a hitman who enjoys their work, even if their principal motive is profit). And I would think that, even if some reasons are worse than others, when you have killed that many people....Vader might have been redeemed in the end, but still....Few motives are pure, and most people do one thing for many reasons. Vader didn't just kill a big number of people once; he has been killing people in various fashions and numbers for decades. He isn't guilty of one big crime- he is guilty of hundreds of them. And it is an extension of his character.

As far as Alderaan goes, Vader was the ranking man on the Death Star (it might not be immediately obvious, but that's what all the additional materials state- he's 2nd-In-Command of the entire Empire; Tarkin was simply the direct commander of the Death Star and due to personal history could treat Vader as an equal). And even if he wasn't, he clearly was the most feared and dangerous man on the station. He certainly could have put a stop to it if he wanted to, and is obviously culpable. He might share the responsibility with others, but his share is pretty damn big.

As for Palpatine, even taking him, my point was that bad guys from family films are often implicity much, much worse than bad guys from more serious works. But the work treats them more likely. So, the tone and seriousness of a work can be another factor in making a bad guy likeable or sympathetic.

As far as Magneto goes, that wasn't a war crime because nobody was at war (technically). As such, it would probably be classified as either (attempted) mass murder or an act of terrorism, at least if he actually hit them. The fact that they fired first would be a mitigating factor, but trying to kill every single one of them (thousands, if not tens of thousands) when he did not need to probably would outweigh that, especially since he was also motivated by racist hate and mutant supremacy, not to mention personal revenge for everything that had went wrong in his life. Whether the Navies or their commanders would be guilty themselves for firing in the first place is another matter, but two wrongs do not make a right. Given the number of dead involved, whether or not he should be technically legally culpable would probably have been a moot point, particularly since Magneto would regard it as his opening salvo in his campaign of genocide. Combined with anti-mutant hysteria, his actions would mean he'd get a trial anyway. Most likely he'd be deemed too dangerous to be allowed to live and would be marked for death.

Joffrey, incidentally, is a minor and a king, and has been raised by his mother to believe such behaviour is acceptable (plus he never does that in the book- plenty of other heinous stuff, but not that), so he might be deemed less legally culpable if it went to court. He also is apparently under the impression that such behaviour would make his dad (Robert) proud of him, and his mother (who regards his behaviour as fine, because she thinks it means he isn't weak) and probably has trouble with concepts like empathy and guilt. So...he might not be doing this stuff just because he enjoys it. He might not even be capable of enjoying things in such a way. He probably does it because he hates being controlled and takes out his frustrations on other people, and because he is bored (which is not quite the same thing, if not exactly a good motive either).

 

[Darth Angelus]

Darth Vader at least occasionally seemed to kill for pleasure, or on a whim, such as executing commanders for trivial failures. It gets easier, after all, and anyone who kills regularly and easily will start to kill for a variety of reasons (eg. a hitman who enjoys their work, even if their principal motive is profit). And I would think that, even if some reasons are worse than others, when you have killed that many people....Vader might have been redeemed in the end, but still....Few motives are pure, and most people do one thing for many reasons. Vader didn't just kill a big number of people once; he has been killing people in various fashions and numbers for decades. He isn't guilty of one big crime- he is guilty of hundreds of them. And it is an extension of his character.

As far as Alderaan goes, Vader was the ranking man on the Death Star (it might not be immediately obvious, but that's what all the additional materials state- he's 2nd-In-Command of the entire Empire; Tarkin was simply the direct commander of the Death Star and due to personal history could treat Vader as an equal). And even if he wasn't, he clearly was the most feared and dangerous man on the station. He certainly could have put a stop to it if he wanted to, and is obviously culpable. He might share the responsibility with others, but his share is pretty damn big.

As for Palpatine, even taking him, my point was that bad guys from family films are often implicity much, much worse than bad guys from more serious works. But the work treats them more likely. So, the tone and seriousness of a work can be another factor in making a bad guy likeable or sympathetic.

As far as Magneto goes, that wasn't a war crime because nobody was at war (technically). As such, it would probably be classified as either (attempted) mass murder or an act of terrorism, at least if he actually hit them. The fact that they fired first would be a mitigating factor, but trying to kill every single one of them (thousands, if not tens of thousands) when he did not need to probably would outweigh that, especially since he was also motivated by racist hate and mutant supremacy, not to mention personal revenge for everything that had went wrong in his life. Whether the Navies or their commanders would be guilty themselves for firing in the first place is another matter, but two wrongs do not make a right. Given the number of dead involved, whether or not he should be technically legally culpable would probably have been a moot point, particularly since Magneto would regard it as his opening salvo in his campaign of genocide. Combined with anti-mutant hysteria, his actions would mean he'd get a trial anyway. Most likely he'd be deemed too dangerous to be allowed to live and would be marked for death.

Joffrey, incidentally, is a minor and a king, and has been raised by his mother to believe such behaviour is acceptable (plus he never does that in the book- plenty of other heinous stuff, but not that), so he might be deemed less legally culpable if it went to court. He also is apparently under the impression that such behaviour would make his dad (Robert) proud of him, and his mother (who regards his behaviour as fine, because she thinks it means he isn't weak) and probably has trouble with concepts like empathy and guilt. So...he might not be doing this stuff just because he enjoys it. He might not even be capable of enjoying things in such a way. He probably does it because he hates being controlled and takes out his frustrations on other people, and because he is bored (which is not quite the same thing, if not exactly a good motive either).

Not to defend Vader (he is a cool villain, but I certainly don't sympathize with him), but I don't think the idea is that he is pleasure killing. He is just more or less running the show with fear, probably thinking that makes those beneath him work harder. That has always been my impression.
Yes, he has a massive share of the responsibility for Alderaan's destruction, no doubt.

Yes, I agree with your point the bad guys from family films can be much worse than those from serious works and that the tone changes them so that people like them more. I guess my liking of them just stops short of sympathy.

As for Magneto, my point was that in that particular situation, the navies were a hostile military force who started firing, which would normally classified as an act of war. US was not at war with Japan when Pearl Harbor was attacked (that would have come afterward), and I don't think that fact would make any sinking of Japanese ships by the US during that initial encounter into an act of mass murder or terrorism.
The point is that a military force coming in firing on you is fair game, at least until they have laid down their weapons and surrendered. That is the implicit risk of being in a military force, and every soldier knows you could die in service during an engagement with an enemy. "Innocent", the way Charles Xavier intends, doesn't really apply for a military force starting an engagement.
The question is whether to regard the mutants on the shore as just a group of people, or as a military force they engage. However, if they were regarded as civilians, they should have certain civil rights of their own (which were violated as they were to be summarily executed on the spot). The fact that the navies fired at them indicated that they were considered an actual military threat (at least, that would be the official reason, if any came up). If they were not believed to be a big enough military threat that they could fire back at all, the fleet had no business firing on them (except that they wanted mutant extermination, which was of course the case).
Whether Magneto would later commit genocide is another matter. The point is that in that scene, he was just attacking a military force that had attacked him and his kind.
Then again, like I said, I am not a jurist, so I am just speculating. It just seems weird that you can go in with full military force on someone and not be fair game yourself, given that military engagements are usually about enemy forces blowing each other up.

"Racist hate" is a strong term for Magneto in the films, at least at this point. He has been given pretty strong reason to fear what humans would want to do to mutants, and that fear just got confirmed. Is not human fear of mutants constantly used to excuse all sorts of attacks upon basic rights of mutants? Yes, two wrongs don't make a right, I guess.
However, he also raises valid points. What does "just following orders" even mean? It doesn't mean you are promised not to be fired back upon by the party you just opened fire upon. Nor is it much consolation to an innocent victim.

Still, Charles Xavier is right. The morally superior thing to do is obviously to spare the navies. It is just Xavier appears overly idealistic and does not argue his point well, in my opinion.


About Joffrey, I guess I can't rule out that he might be marginally more sympathetic in the books. I assume he still orders the decapitation of Ned, though. Yes, I know, Ned is a "traitor". Cersei has lied to him, like she has to everyone else, to make him believe that. I guess he cannot be held responsible for the false belief that Ned is a traitor (not that I believe he would have acted differently had he known the truth, that Robert was not his father), but he can be held responsible for not sparing Ned.
Overall, he is probably a lower scumbag than Magneto. He, along with a bunch of other ASoIaF characters.

 

[Gumboot]

About Joffrey, I guess I can't rule out that he might be marginally more sympathetic in the books. I assume he still orders the decapitation of Ned, though. Yes, I know, Ned is a "traitor". Cersei has lied to him, like she has to everyone else, to make him believe that. I guess he cannot be held responsible for the false belief that Ned is a traitor (not that I believe he would have acted differently had he known the truth, that Robert was not his father), but he can be held responsible for not sparing Ned.
Overall, he is probably a lower scumbag than Magneto. He, along with a bunch of other ASoIaF characters.

Strictly speaking, Ned is a traitor. Robert explicitly named Joffrey his heir, and Ned deliberately miswrote Robert's will with the intention of disinheriting Joffrey. While his intentions were honourable, the fact is that's treason, by any standard.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Strictly speaking, Ned is a traitor. Robert explicitly named Joffrey his heir, and Ned deliberately miswrote Robert's will with the intention of disinheriting Joffrey. While his intentions were honourable, the fact is that's treason, by any standard.

It is true that he miswrote Robert's will, but Robert didn't know the truth, because Ned withheld that information. I think Ned's greatest treason (in spirit, at least) towards his king and friend would be revealing what he learned to Cersei before Robert. He did so with the intention of saving the Lannister children. The fact that he changed Robert's will seems like a moot point, because it just counterweighted Robert's misunderstanding of the succession situation that came from the greater betrayal of withholding such crucial information (by himself and Cersei) from his king.
However, there are normal laws of succession, and according to those, Stannis was the rightful heir. The entire claim for Joffrey is counterfeit, so anyone involved in that should have their head chopped off, too.
I am not sure how the law works in Westeros, though. Maybe the king can name anyone his heir. Maybe Jon Snow could be the next king, if named so by the previous one. He has as much right by blood as Joffrey, after all (i.e. none whatsoever).

I also think ripping up Robert's will would be an act of treason of and by itself. Cersei did not know Ned had miswritten it.

Again, Ned's greatest treason was not what Joffrey order Ned's head chopped off for. His greatest treason was what saved the lives of Joffrey and his siblings, most likely.

In either case, none of my sympathy goes to Joffrey. He is a lowlife scumbag with a counterfeit claim to the throne, who deserves to die painfully.

 

[Gumboot]

It is true that he miswrote Robert's will, but Robert didn't know the truth, because Ned withheld that information.

That's beside the point. Robert was the king, and his will is law, even if it's wrong or misguided. A hand can advise a king, and offer arguments against a specific course of action, but once the king has decided, that's the end of it. If he didn't want to Robert to name Joffrey as heir he should have offered a reason not to - just as he offered reasons not to kill Daenerys.

However, there are normal laws of succession, and according to those, Stannis was the rightful heir. The entire claim for Joffrey is counterfeit, so anyone involved in that should have their head chopped off, too.

I'm not so sure on that. Robb had expressed his intention to officially recognise Jon Snow as a Stark, which indicates that lineage wasn't as strict as genetics, but existed by decree. In other words, if Robert named Joffrey his son and heir he was his son and heir, even if unrelated by blood. This is actually pretty common, historically. Most Roman emperors, for example, were adopted by the previous Emperor, rather than related by birth.

I also think ripping up Robert's will would be an act of treason of and by itself. Cersei did not know Ned had miswritten it.

I agree. I actually view the end events of "A Game of Thrones" to be a treasonous seizure of the throne by House Lannister, using the "true king" (Joffrey) as a puppet. Of course if you seize the throne by treason, you immediately make your claim legitimate - after all that's precisely what Robert did. That's the point that Ned never understood, which is a little odd given he'd already done precisely that once already in his life.

Again, Ned's greatest treason was not what Joffrey order Ned's head chopped off for. His greatest treason was what saved the lives of Joffrey and his siblings, most likely.

I guess it depends whether you consider legal treason or moral treason, as it were.

In either case, none of my sympathy goes to Joffrey. He is a lowlife scumbag with a counterfeit claim to the throne, who deserves to die painfully.

Well... the only person with a "legitimate" claim to the throne is Daenerys...

And I agree on Joffrey.

 

[Darth Angelus]

That's beside the point. Robert was the king, and his will is law, even if it's wrong or misguided. A hand can advise a king, and offer arguments against a specific course of action, but once the king has decided, that's the end of it. If he didn't want to Robert to name Joffrey as heir he should have offered a reason not to - just as he offered reasons not to kill Daenerys.

True, but he was held back by mercy. The reason he had not to want Joffrey named as heir was one which would have put the Lannister children in danger.
Ned's greatest crime seems to be too honourable in that dirty world.

I'm not so sure on that. Robb had expressed his intention to officially recognise Jon Snow as a Stark, which indicates that lineage wasn't as strict as genetics, but existed by decree. In other words, if Robert named Joffrey his son and heir he was his son and heir, even if unrelated by blood. This is actually pretty common, historically. Most Roman emperors, for example, were adopted by the previous Emperor, rather than related by birth.

Bastards don't typically seem to be recognised as part of their families. Otherwise, Gendry would have the strongest claim. However, just because genetics is not sufficient, it doesn't mean it is not a minimum requirement.

I agree. I actually view the end events of "A Game of Thrones" to be a treasonous seizure of the throne by House Lannister, using the "true king" (Joffrey) as a puppet. Of course if you seize the throne by treason, you immediately make your claim legitimate - after all that's precisely what Robert did. That's the point that Ned never understood, which is a little odd given he'd already done precisely that once already in his life.

Yeah, it is weird. Ned didn't seem to have a mind for how politics works, in his world.

I guess it depends whether you consider legal treason or moral treason, as it were.

To what extent can you withhold information from your king as central to the issue of succession as the fact that Joffrey was not his son, without that constituting a certain notion of treason. How would Robert have seen it, if he found out?

Well... the only person with a "legitimate" claim to the throne is Daenerys...

I guess, although that depends on how far back you go, as some Targaryan ancestor of hers seized the throne some centuries in the past. According to the current, Baratheon succession, Stannis is the most legitimate successor.

And I agree on Joffrey.

Which was my main point, anyway. Thoroughly unsympathetic.

 

[Ursa major]

While I'm sure this discussion is of interest to many - it is to me, for example - I'm not sure discussions about what is and isn't treason in Westeros is entirely in line (in sympathy ) with the purpose of this thread.

It isn't as if there's not a whole GRRM sub-forum in which to debate this, one where possible spoilers are far more easily accommodated.

 

[Darth Angelus]

While I'm sure this discussion is of interest to many - it is to me, for example - I'm not sure discussions about what is and isn't treason in Westeros is entirely in line (in sympathy ) with the purpose of this thread.

It isn't as if there's not a whole GRRM sub-forum in which to debate this, one where possible spoilers are far more easily accommodated.

Good point, Ursa major.

I think (almost) everyone can agree that Joffrey is not sympathetic, and I am about 99% sure GRRM didn't intend for him to be. Who is technically a legal traitor in Westeros has little to do with reader sympathy.
I shall leave it at that.

 

[Wanted Hero]

Ok, so building sympathy. How do you do it, and do it well? Please be as in depth as you feel.

I know people suggest to make characters likeable--and yes, that works, but I think it's more. Especially if you want to really hit a reader in the heart.

When writing, I tend to agree with the statement "we don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are." So when I want to create sympathy, my focus is to shape my characters and events to something the readers will personally relate to. It's not about liking someone so much as scratching the back of the readers mind with situations that force them to relive something that has an emotional hook in it.

I have a character who deals with death. He lost his father. I can write this, because I lost my mother. The emotions and internal dialogue that come out are intense and real. That hits readers who have experienced similar things. But it doesn't have to be death...

We all experience fear. But what's a hot button for readers? Being stalked? prank calls that get creepy? The dark? Fear of being kidnapped, being left, being abandoned? Think about that, then take a character with a well developed background, and built those tensions and situations into the plot of your story. Create more and more and more stress--more conflict.

You'll find that your readers are trying to solve the problem just as much as your protagonist.

Just a thought. Hope it helps.