What do you do when you hate a core part of your story?

[hippoman]

Two examples I have is one story that been brain storming for years, the entire story hinges on a mechanic that I actively dislike and has made me drop other stories that had it. I am having trouble rationalizing continuing to work on it, how can I expect others to keep interest in it if I myself would not as a reader.

Second example is I hate when characters are complicate in slavery or the slave trade, but it then dawned on me that one of my characters does own a slave, that she purchased. She is reformed soon after the story begins and is meant to be a not nice person, ruthless, murderous, etc. Who only cares about what is best for her kingdom, but even so, how can I make people root for her, when, should she not have been forced, she would still be visiting a slave trader once every few years to get a new disposable pawn.

This second example is obviously an easy fix, just get rid of that aspect of the story. But I wanted to know how others justify writing tropes/characters that they actively dislike.

My guess is most people simply don’t try to justify it and just write something they like instead like smart people.

 

[Paul_Tromba]

Usually, I try to see if I can rework it to be better. If not, I'll cut and paste it to another file to see if it can fit elsewhere in the story later on. Then I edit the original document to flow like stitching up a wound.

 

[RepresentingEnvy]

For the first example you can just drop it entirely. If you aren't getting paid there is no guilt, and you can always come back to it later. Or you move on from it, and write something better.

The second example is one that you don't route for that character typically. Only a certain reader base will root for the villainess character (ME). Though the easiest way to make more people relate to them is a sort of cop out. You just have them with a relatable backstory. Basically, you just give them a probable cause for their actions.

Another way is to give them a trait that humanizes them. Maybe she is shitty to everyone besides children? The money she steals she gives to orphanages?

 

[LilRora]

I personally don't continue stories I don't like (and I do have a whole lot of them), but often reuse what I did in one story and put it in another, just without the part that troubles me. It can be virtually anything, but I can tell you from experience it's mostly power systems (or systems in general, also including the LitRPG kind of systems).

Recently though I started looking at it another way, and I just tell myself that an imperfect system created by someone in the far past is a perfectly normal thing to include in a story. Dunno if it will work for you, but that's essentially what I did - I made the part that bothered me into a proper part of worldbuilding and wrote around it. Some people even do it intentionally (I'm mostly thinking about fairly popular broken system kind of stories).

 

[Lloyd]

Just get over it.

 

[J_Chemist]

Call myself a pathetic piece of shit who can't do anything right like the retard that I am who belongs in an African cobalt mine.

Then I proceed to fix it because it's not a big deal and probably won't take much effort.

 

[TwoApes]

But I wanted to know how others justify writing tropes/characters that they actively dislike.

My like or disdain for a character is irrelevant. I had chosen them for the particular story to fulfill a particular purpose. Be it an antagonist, side character, or a protag. Otherwise, everyone would be an idealized copy of me.

I'm not that interesting, to be honest.

It helps to empathize with the character. Understanding their motivations, flaws and traits. Especially flaws. It also helps to understand human psyche at least to rudimentary degree. Things like cognitive biases and defensive mechanisms? Why do people do things that are objectively harmful to them?

You invoke the example of slavery - which, in all honesty - was a thing for the majority of history. Why? Can you answer this question by means other than 'racisms' and other trivialities?

 

[MatchaChocolate69]

Second example is I hate when characters are complicate in slavery or the slave trade, but it then dawned on me that one of my characters does own a slave, that she purchased. She is reformed soon after the story begins and is meant to be a not nice person, ruthless, murderous, etc. Who only cares about what is best for her kingdom, but even so, how can I make people root for her, when, should she not have been forced, she would still be visiting a slave trader once every few years to get a new disposable pawn.

I believe it's positive when characters have flaws or commit ignoble acts, and it's interesting to see how they deal with it. It makes them human. If you want to make them more relatable, focus on showing their positive qualities. Then, put them in situations where they have to confront their flaws and see how they evolve. They can either improve or worsen. If they remain the same, it's a bit of a problem in a story. Remember that you are not your characters, and describing something bad doesn't mean you approve of it. When you empathize with a character, you're playing a role. We all agree that slavery is bad, but two thousand years ago, it was the norm. This is to say that there's a context, and characters move within that context.

 

[melchi]

Depending on the setting, slavery is normal. It is just that things in the 19th century got really nasty and along with peasantry it didn't make sense to continue a system that was too easily abused. I think I read somewhere that the only people who would have their freedom denied to them their entire lives were enemy combatants.

The real issue is power imbalance. If a peasant wants to learn to be a fisherman and move to a coastal barony can they? If they don't owe the lord of the land any dept they should be able to right? It is when the power balance gets so bad that people don't really have agency anymore is when it becomes hard to stomach IMO.

 

[KuruKinaar]

Typically when there is something that makes your character hard to root for is also a way to write in overcoming the issue and being worthy to root for. Everyone in a story and life have obstacles and poor choices that they can choose to do better and grow stronger. Despite it being a simple fix of taking out something that's poorly looked upon, you can use that as character growth and development.

With the issue of becoming bored or dislike the story plot line: write what you like. As much as it sucks to scrap an idea, I have a entire folder of stories over the years that have been scrapped of ideas of my now published book. Trying to write through a dead end idea causes disinterest and abandonment, and as a writer we don't want that XD Step back to where you did like the ideas and brainstorm other ways the story could go until you like it, not what others like, but what you like.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

I finish it as per my contract.
Otherwise, I never start anything for free I don't like. I'll spend months maybe years on something before I self publish, so I know if it sucks or not.

 

[Jemini]

The only time I ever have something I hate in my story, it is because it serves some purpose in being there and is necessary to tell the story I want to tell. For instance, the condoning of slavery in the world can be a part of showing the times or working through how slavery gets overcome. Or, perhaps exploring the manner in which slavery was practiced historically (because there is an astonishing ignorance to historical slavery among western populations. People in the US are even so egocentric as to somehow think that the US was the only nation to ever practice slavery.)

You can't educate people on such a subject without diving in and exploring it.

So, that's what I do with such things. I only include them for objectives such as that, and when I do I am focused on the objective.

 

[ConansWitchBaby]

Sprinkle in some smut

 

[ZukoMee]

Or, perhaps exploring the manner in which slavery was practiced historically (because there is an astonishing ignorance to historical slavery among western populations. People in the US are even so egocentric as to somehow think that the US was the only nation to ever practice slavery.)

Try mentioning the fact that there are more slaves alive today than even back in the 1860's and watch heads explode.
It's only terrible and noteworthy to self-proclaimed "activist" filth if big-bad ole whitey is involved. Anyone else? Nobody cares. It doesn't suit the typical bullshit Leftist media narrative if the offender's aren't white.

 

[BlackKnightX]

Just... don't write something you don't like?

The first example is basically you've grown to hate or bored of your story now. This can happen if you're a pantser who let things get out of control and see what happens but end up hating it.

But you said the core mechanic of the story is something you dislike in other stories, that means you've already known about this problem from the very beginning, probably even before you started writing the story, so then why did you even write about this mechanic in the first place?

There are no rules in writing. None. If your purpose in writing a story is to entertain people, and you're one of those people, then just simply write what you enjoy as a reader and don't write something that you don't enjoy or make you drop a story.

Take conflict, for instance. Lots of people will say conflict is extremely important. Some even goes to say that no conflict = no story. But not every conflict is good. Relationship drama that hinges on immaturity, for instance. As a reader, I don't like that in a story at all, so I wouldn't add it in my story. If I need some conflict to add in excitement, I would just brainstorm for something else that achieves that effect better.

The second problem is how can you make readers root for an unethical or immoral character. This is a common concern among those who write about anti hero protagonists.

Let's look at some example, shall we? Light Yagami from Death Note is a mass murderer, a serial killer. But we still root for him, don't we? Although we like L, we still root for Light. Why? For me, I root for him because I understand his desire and motivation. He has a god complex and wants to create an elusive utopia with no criminals. But I also know things wouldn't end up well for him considering the path he takes and his hidden dark side that slowly reveals itself more and more as the story progresses. I also root for him because he's intelligent and charismatic.

So there's the answer: make me understand the character and maybe even agree with them given the circumstance. "It can't be help" is certainly a solid reason. Also, make the character likable helps a lot. We tend to forgive flaws and shortcomings if we like that person.

Say, some readers hate slavery, but the story still has that system for some reason, and the character we're supposed to root for purchases a slave; you need to establish a damn good reason why she really needs it or that she has no other choice. Ideally, she would be someone with a similar view to those readers—believing slavery is bad—so you can establish empathy. Once the readers know and understand her circumstance, they'll let it slide.

On the other hand, some readers will drop a story simply because there's a slavery in it. In that case, just don't write about it, unless it's something you really want to write about.

 

[Beeteetee]

I use the aspects I dislike as a foil of criticism and a conflict that drives the plot.

Let's take slavery - MC buys a mine that is notorious for slavery use and individually the operations of the mine to demonstrate the purpose of freemen, that people that has a future has a drive to improve on work and life, innovation of technology rather than relying on cheap lives to get the job done and loyalty of the workers.

This would give rise to the profile of MC which brings in scheming nobles, predatory merchants that mistakes pragmatist equality as naive, suspicious workers that keeps expecting the other shoe to drop, a nervous government that don't like an unpredictable successful nobile and foreign nations that eyes the profitable mine as a spoil of war if prosecuted successfully.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

Two examples I have is one story that been brain storming for years, the entire story hinges on a mechanic that I actively dislike and has made me drop other stories that had it. I am having trouble rationalizing continuing to work on it, how can I expect others to keep interest in it if I myself would not as a reader.

Second example is I hate when characters are complicate in slavery or the slave trade, but it then dawned on me that one of my characters does own a slave, that she purchased. She is reformed soon after the story begins and is meant to be a not nice person, ruthless, murderous, etc. Who only cares about what is best for her kingdom, but even so, how can I make people root for her, when, should she not have been forced, she would still be visiting a slave trader once every few years to get a new disposable pawn.

This second example is obviously an easy fix, just get rid of that aspect of the story. But I wanted to know how others justify writing tropes/characters that they actively dislike.

My guess is most people simply don’t try to justify it and just write something they like instead like smart people.

I always make sure to review and edit my works before releasing those online.

However, there were times I really abhor what I wrote. In most cases, it was just exhaustion, so I take a break before rereading and editing it.

Nevertheless, there are some parts of the work I made that I didn't really like much. In this case, I ask the opinion of others, particularly my beta readers, on their opinions. If they find it good, not 'it's okay', then I proceed to publish it online.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

Two examples I have is one story that been brain storming for years, the entire story hinges on a mechanic that I actively dislike and has made me drop other stories that had it. I am having trouble rationalizing continuing to work on it, how can I expect others to keep interest in it if I myself would not as a reader.

Second example is I hate when characters are complicate in slavery or the slave trade, but it then dawned on me that one of my characters does own a slave, that she purchased. She is reformed soon after the story begins and is meant to be a not nice person, ruthless, murderous, etc. Who only cares about what is best for her kingdom, but even so, how can I make people root for her, when, should she not have been forced, she would still be visiting a slave trader once every few years to get a new disposable pawn.

This second example is obviously an easy fix, just get rid of that aspect of the story. But I wanted to know how others justify writing tropes/characters that they actively dislike.

My guess is most people simply don’t try to justify it and just write something they like instead like smart people.

listen man its easy for the second one.
"I cant trust other people to be a good slave owner, only myself!"
At that point its just indefinite indentured servitude anyway. People who dont like slaver dont like it merely because there is a very real possibility of slave owners being cunts and abusing their slaves. If your MC is a slave owner, all you need to do is make them THE ONLY slaver. Any others they meet? death, death everywhere. That makes her unique. Even if she is a slaver who uses them like pawns, as long as they get treated well otherwise then hey i dont see anyone who would complain. Plus, she'd be killing the really bad fucked up slavers. And the less bad ones. Because all slavers but her are scum who deserve death. Making her aware of this hypocrisy and unashamed of it also helps, tha way she cant be called out on it by others

The first, you're being a cock tease. The fuck is this "mechanic"? And cannot you simply use a different one to take its place?

 

[Jemini]

Try mentioning the fact that there are more slaves alive today than even back in the 1860's and watch heads explode.
It's only terrible and noteworthy to self-proclaimed "activist" filth if big-bad ole whitey is involved. Anyone else? Nobody cares. It doesn't suit the typical bullshit Leftist media narrative if the offender's aren't white.

Worst thing about that, most of the people talking all this anti-white propaganda are white themselves. They're just racists with guilty consciences.

And it shows too. Their activism is incredibly racist in it's nature. They believe white people are the only ones in the world who are capable of evil. This is, in effect, also the same as saying that white people are the only ones in the world with agency. In other words, the reason they think only white people can be bad is because they are infantilizing all other ethnicities and regard them as blameless because they see them as nothing but children.

In other words, these "activists" are literally white supremacists. Considering they are also literally advocating for segregation, I think it even shows how racist they are. Very concerning stuff.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

In terms of "story mechanics", I really hate time travel. The way I've seen it used doesn't make sense most of the time, fullstop. However, I myself have often thought about writing stories with regressors (I mean, how would I write a story with regressors?) I came to the conclusion that if I can clarify the rules of time-travel well enough in my head that I'm happy with it, and act accordingly, I would be ok with time travel stories.

Elaborating, specifically for time travel just in case anyone is interested, my thoughts were:
1. "regression" being the idea of re-winding time, like a recorder, then re-playing it out, but differently. Hence I can change the timeline since the timeline doesn't exist anymore, since its "re-wound".
2. time-loops in which you go back in time would have a set future. You could not change the past or present, because it already has happened, and anything you do after you go back to the past has "already happened". If anyone has seen crime-traveller, you know what this looks like.

I hate any form of "timeline-multiverse" so I would never write that, fullstop.

So in the case of 1. I find myself needing to clarify exactly how the machanic works, and what I can get away with, and cannot in my story. I would be ok with time-loops provided the timeline doesn't change, and I'm ok with regression provided it follows certain rules.

If I were to write myself in a corner where the part I hate of time travels needs to rear its ugly head to make the plot progress, unintentionally, I would simply be left with no alternative but to change the plot of the story to accommodate the rules I've laid down, since I wouldn't write about timeline-multiverses for the life of me.

In terms of 2. I don't know. I hate harems, so if I were to write a story with a harem in, it would probably be as an antagonist with a harem of insignificant minor characters who are good-for-nothings.

In your specific example, I don't see why change and repentance can't fix that issue. But im not sure if you are saying that you hate characters who are ok with slavery, or when novels as a whole bring up slavery. If the latter, you'd just ignore the issue in the story fullstop.