Our Annoyances Can Make for Good Stories

Like most people, there are a variety of things which can tork me off pretty good. There are two, which kind of go hand-in-hand with each other. They're opposites to the extreme.

On the one hand (and sometimes this is my hand), there are those quick to condemn simply because of who has been accused. I do this with politicians. Accuse a politician of anything bad and I'm likely to assume their guilt. This rush to judgment is based on personal prejudice instead of evidence. That the accused sometimes actually are guilty only fuels their flames of hatred and injustice. This prejudice can be based on anything, but the most common forms fall into one of these categories:

Belonging to (or appearing to belong to) a particular Race, or Nationality. (Think Arab and American.)

Religion. (Think Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.)

Politics. (Think liberal and conservative.)

Gender. (This one's easy. It'd better be.)

Age. (The very old and the very young.)

Class. (Wealthy versus poor.)

There are a host of others. Anyone has the capacity to be prejudiced about anything.

Then there is the opposite end to this spectrum. The assertion of no guilt despite all evidence to the contrary. That there are so many innocent who are convicted fuels this flame. I've been part of this group, too.

I'm not sure which is more sickening: the blowhard who is trying to establish someone's guilt regardless of evidence; or the whining fool who insists on "not guilty" despite the evidence.

The fact that these two voices ultimate become the voices heard by the general populace only makes matters worse. The public realizes the blowhard is an a**hole, and the whiner is a fool, so judgment ultimately comes down to who is less likeable. If the blowhard can raise enough fear and hatred toward the whiner, the accused is guilty. If the whiner can establish the prejudice of the blowhard, the accused goes free. But in neither case did the truth matter.

I recall interviewing the head of the Interactive Television Classes between three school districts when I worked at the newspaper. These were classes in which a single teacher at one school would teach students from three schools at the same time via a television hookup. There was a boy who was being kicked out of the class for unruly behavior. His parents came in and assured with great heat that "little Johnny" would never behave like that. But the instructor had used the "record" feature on the cameras which allowed him to see students in other schools. But even with the video, the parents insisted Johnny was innocent. Five will get you ten that "little Johnny" has spent some time in jail since graduating.

Knowing these behaviors is irritating and annoying in real life. However, they become very useful when writing stories. But we needn't be cliche. Let the characters be complex enough so that each sides' point of view has it's own level of validation. Perhaps the accused, while innocent this time, has a history of real guilt. Or perhaps they are guilty, but those accusing them don't really know it. Kind of like a phrase I heard in one of the Thin Man movies: The DA framed me. Not knowning I was actually guilty.

I use this in Swords of Fire. It's a different way of venting, I guess.