Research question x-posted with Natter: Anyone know how sturdy old VW buses were? Body-wise? If a vintage bus crashed into a modern police car, not hard enough to hurt anybody, but with definite impact, would the VW need a lot of bodywork? Or were they pretty sturdy?

Thinking aloud and seeking feedback....

One aspect of my alternate history WIP that AFAIC is a feature, not a bug, is that my protagonists aren't necessarily good nor my antagonists bad. It's a war series, and the protagonists' side looks better in terms of Just War Theory, but other than that which side a character is fighting on--or whether s/he chooses to avoid the fight altogether--isn't a reliable indicator of virtue or likability. I want my readers to root for the protagonists, but I wouldn't mind if they occasionally stop and ponder the gray areas, and I hope they like some of the antagonists as much as I do.

In particular, in the WIP, which is book one of what I expect to be a 4-5 book series...I think my principal antagonist is turning out a bit nicer than his protagonist. Antagonist is highly ambitious and a bit quixotic, but he's also a brave officer who loves his country and has a beloved daughter whom he's trying to provide for. He ends up opposed to Protagonist chiefly because by defeating and capturing him he expects to get further advancement. He gets a bit obsessed with it after Protagonist eludes him several times, but non insane-obsessed, just determined. Protagonist, OTOH, is an arrogant, entitled son-of-a-bitch--and since he's one of my real historical figures, I can't just alter his personality at a whim. Plus, he has to have room to grow over the course of the series--Antagonist doesn't, because he's just this book's antagonist and will die at its climax.

To me, this is good--there are enough reasons for the reader to root for the protagonists without having to make them a race of saints or the antagonists into actual bad guys (well, one or two of them are). There's the whole Just War thing, and the other major protagonist characters are pretty likable. (Except for Antagonist's daughter, who ends up a traitor to her father's side. She's kind of a piece of work.) But it seems to be bugging some of my CPs a bit. And I *was* originally planning to make Antagonist a bit more, well, evil. But he felt one-note and out of place in the story, and in his second scene he more or less insisted that he wasn't that bad and really did love his daughter and his country.

I think it should work just fine, Susan. It's one of the things I love about Le Miserables. You can have two polar opposites, yet feel sympathy for the antagonist and dislike for the protagonist. It makes the story more thematically complex. Perhaps your CPs are a tad simplistic in their outlook?

Perhaps your CPs are a tad simplistic in their outlook?

Possibly--and really, it's only two out of 8 people in my two critique groups. Now that I've switched genres, I think some of them aren't sure what to make of me. Really, I'm still figuring it out myself. This isn't the first time I've had a sympathetic antagonist, but in my romance manuscripts I didn't push the ambiguities quite so hard, and none of my heroes were quite so flawed as Protagonist.

Anyway, what I'm writing is still so new to me that I don't know whether it works or not. Scary, that, but at least I'm enjoying the ride.

You know, this makes me want to read "Great Expectations" again. Maybe I'd enjoy it if I read it on the assumption the reader is intended to dislike Pip. I like most of Dickens.

I think the ambiguous approach is worth exploring, Susan. It's hard to judge of your protagonist is too flawed or your antagonist too sympathetic without the whole picture. As you say, your protagonist will be growing, presumably he will do some of that in this book, and you've got Big Picture stuff that can add to the tragic downfall of the good guy on the wrong side aspect of your antagonist.

As you say, your protagonist will be growing, presumably he will do some of that in this book, and you've got Big Picture stuff that can add to the tragic downfall of the good guy on the wrong side aspect of your antagonist.

Yes, he does grow in this book--at least, I drag him kicking and screaming down a few pegs from his supreme heights of arrogance. As for the antagonist...maybe it's just me, but I enjoy the occasional sympathetic antagonist, and I like the idea of his downfall as a tragic necessity for the protagonists' survival rather than a triumph of good over evil.

As for the antagonist...maybe it's just me, but I enjoy the occasional sympathetic antagonist, and I like the idea of his downfall as a tragic necessity for the protagonists' survival rather than a triumph of good over evil.

I do, too. It can go too far. If at the end of the book your readers are thinking "damn, the wrong guy died", that might be a problem. But it doesn't sound like that's where you're headed.

Maybe I'd enjoy it if I read it on the assumption the reader is intended to dislike Pip.

I'm pretty sure Dickens intends us to dislike that prick. The book rings false to me at the end, when we're suddenly supposed to wish him well.

Having a hard time this week, with the sense that, even if I work at the top of my game, nobody will care. Sometimes the stuff I do seems really silly.ETA: Does anyone deal with that? How?