balance of sympathies

[Shecky]

I think Watchmen is actually doing something more complicated than that polarity, by a long shot.

I see four moral poles in Watchmen; the Comedian at "nothing really matters so do whatever the hell you like" moral nihilism, Dr. Manhattan at "nothing can be changed so just hang around brooding" existential nihilism, Rorschach at a spurious moral absolutism which pretty much always boils down in practice to "let's go hurt people we think are scum until by chance alone we find a clue", and Ozymandias at pragmatism, which to my mind the text demonstrates as capable of outmatching each of those other poles.

Certainly. Although even expanding to four is an oversimplification; the underlying psychological influences motivating and governing each character are multifaceted, and the "bad" isn't necessarily as bad as it's made out to be, while the "good" is equally not entirely as it would be portrayed (e.g., Rorschach DID do a lot of good despite being reprehensible in many ways, Dr. Manhattan DID help a lot despite being aloof and disconnected and uncaring in most ways, Veidt was in many important aspects purely out for his own advancement to the detriment of others, etc.). The key is that EACH of them had something for everyone to like and something for everyone to dislike... just like people.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Every one is the hero in their own story.

I very much don't believe this, because of the small number of truly malevolent real people I have met, the majority saw themselves as villains and took pride in it.

[meh]

Ideally, I would want characters on either side of the central conflict, as close to equally sympathetic as possible.  I am not particularly interested in the story having a hero or a villain, let alone a hero defeating a villain; it's a complex issue where I want to explore questions rather than throw out simple answers.

*goes to hunt down his copy of Schismatrix*

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

*goes to hunt down his copy of Schismatrix*

Now that setting is a good example, particularly "Twenty Evocations".

[Der Sturmbrecher]

I'm new to the writing craft, but am also an avid reader. Hopefully you get something out of this.

The movie The Prestige. Excellent film. If you haven't seen it, see it. If you have, skip to next paragraph.

(click to show/hide)

Basically, it's about two contesting magicians, played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. An accident at the beginning causes Jackman's character to lose his wife in a trick performance. Bale's character had proposed the possibility of tying a different sort of knot for her to escape from in the trick. At the funeral, Jackman asked "Which knot did you tie?" Bale responds. "I don't know." That response sends the two apart and begins a contest of sorts, first they sabotage each others' acts (Jackman throwing the first punch out of grief), and then it becomes a goal to out-think the other magician for each of them. The ending is quite interesting...

Despite his flaws, I continuous found myself favoring Jackman's character. Likely cause? Reader's sympathy was well established at the beginning with the loss of his wife. Maybe I also just preferred his performance.

The beginning of the story favors Jackman's point of view as well. You never doubt that the story is about both, but you see a little more from Jackman's eyes. This stacks up with previous posters' advice that I saw.

Alternatively, you could go the direction The Dark Knight did. The Joker was a completely despicable character in terms of moral make-up, but it also made him fascinating, and easily my favorite character in the movie. One way to go might be to make one of your characters someone who the readers are drawn to in spite of rather than because of themselves, and have the other be palatable and entertaining.  Unlikely given your plot description, but possible.
Inevitably,  readers will pick sides. One way you can keep the balance a little is to keep them guessing, like Rowling did with Snape. I love Snape as a character, and am glad he turned out good. But I also would have loved it had he been the Machiavellan villain I’d heard one theory call him, topping even Voldy and being the real antagonist. If you change the circumstances surrounding your characters, it’ll keep them wondering who’s going to do what.

Hope you get something good out of this, and good chance to you!

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Inevitably,  readers will pick sides. One way you can keep the balance a little is to keep them guessing, like Rowling did with Snape. I love Snape as a character, and am glad he turned out good. But I also would have loved it had he been the Machiavellan villain I’d heard one theory call him, topping even Voldy and being the real antagonist. If you change the circumstances surrounding your characters, it’ll keep them wondering who’s going to do what.

I still regret Uncle Dudley not turning out to be a deep-cover SAS type who took Voldemort's head off with a shotgun in the final book, but that may just be me.

[Der Sturmbrecher]

I still regret Uncle Dudley not turning out to be a deep-cover SAS type who took Voldemort's head off with a shotgun in the final book, but that may just be me.

Not just you: 'loved the idea of Voldemort getting killed by Muggle weaponry.

[Sihaya]

Not just you: 'loved the idea of Voldemort getting killed by Muggle weaponry.

Like in Wizards?  That may be why it didn't happen.  Of course, it's been thirty years since that film.

[meh]

Of course, it's been thirty years since

I'm still convinced that the late 70s did film resolution right and that everything since has been compromised to pander to audiences in a *feelgood* way.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I'm still convinced that the late 70s did film resolution right and that everything since has been compromised to pander to audiences in a *feelgood* way.

There are times, usually after watching some Powell and Pressburger, that I think that art was lost track of much earlier than that.

On the other hand, I would point to Polanski's Ghost Writer as an example of a taut and lean and tightly resolved thriller very much dong Seventies-era avoiding of "feelgood" compromises that came out this year.

[meh]

On the other hand, I would point to Polanski's Ghost Writer as an example of a taut and lean and tightly resolved thriller very much dong Seventies-era avoiding of "feelgood" compromises that came out this year.

Saw that.    Had a bit of trouble /not/ thinking

(click to show/hide)

"OMG, McEwen gets sum Jane Fairfax, the lucky git"

but past the bike scene it was nice and tight and fun.      I did have a question about it that I can't remember now.