Writing a likeable racist character

[AstralCat]

So I have this character. He isn't the main character. The main character is a seventeen year old girl. She's also the narrator. This guy is the same age as her, and, in general, isn't that bad of a guy. He tries his best to be a gentleman, is always trying to make other people happy, and his dream is to be a heroic knight that goes around slaying dragons and rescuing damsels (which is pretty unrealistic since he's easily frightened, has no magical talent, and is clumsy with a sword).

Anyway, I wanted to give him a negative trait so that main-character-lady will have a reason to dislike him for a while. Plot related reasons. You know. So I decided that he can be racist towards these batlike people. It's not unique to him either. Most of the people from his country distrust the bat folk, because of wars and tragic events that the bats caused. He's afraid of them, like everyone else in his country. But main-character-lady is close friends with a bat-person, so she would take offense. It all works out well, plotwise and characterwise.

But the problem is... How do you write a racist guy without him being extremely hateable? I don't want the readers to hate him. He's an important character, and he's also the eventual love interest for the main character (after he gets over himself).

So yeah. How do I do this thing? Any insight?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There's only a couple things you need, in my opinion.

First, create sympathy for the character in a few, counterbalancing ways. Does he have a good relationship with his mother? Perhaps he's an adoring father? Is he an expert in some profession that's needed? There are many ways to develop sympathetic characters and lots of resources online that cover the topic.

Second, and it seems you've got this partially covered. Give his bigoted views a reason. You might need to go deeper than "his people distrust that other group". Make it intensely personal. Did he lose a brother during a war? Did a lover abscond with someone from the other group? The important thing to remember at this stage is that your views on racism and bigotry are not the character's views. Create powerful reasons for his opinions and be true to their affects on that character.

The key in all of these characterization efforts is to make the character understandable, while the reader may still not condone their actions.

 

[Sanctified]

You can make him "lovably racist" like Jason Stackhouse on True Blood. As long as the character has a turn-around, readers will probably come to like him anyway. But in the case of Stackhouse, part of his appeal is his hilarious stupidity, which is a way of signaling to the viewer/reader that he's not to be taken too seriously.

Like your character, Stackhouse isn't racist toward a real group of people (which would make his character loaded in ways viewers would probably not be able to reconcile), he's racist toward vampires and says hilariously stupid #%Â¥+ because he doesn't have a good argument for being racist.

Stackhouse (to Bill Compton): A lot of Americans don't think you people deserve special rights.

Compton: They're the same rights you have.

Stackhouse: No, I'm just saying there's a reason things are the way they are.

Compton: Yeah, it's called injustice.

Stackhouse: No, it's called this is how we do it!


And also:

The Lukinator: God always punishes evil, Stackhouse.

Stackhouse: Oh yeah? Then explain Europe to me.


Another TV character worth checking out is Merle Dixon of the Walking Dead, who goes from being completely reprehensible to a somewhat-redeemed character, thanks to his later actions on the show and backstory that explains -- even if it doesn't excuse -- why he is the way he is.

 

[Feo Takahari]

The first step is to put yourself into his head, and give him a framework in which he can be racist while still seeing himself as the "good guy." This doesn't mean he can't be ignorant or even hypocritical*, but he needs to be able to justify his actions to himself. The biggest mistake I see writers make with characters like this is to write them as if they're reading the outline and know they're the villains.

The second step, since you want him to be sympathetic, is to establish just how racist he is and isn't. If he doesn't want to interact with bat people, contrast him with someone who wants to kill them. If he wants to kill bat people, give him the chance, then have him chicken out. Show that somewhere deep inside, he still has standards for behaving towards other people, even people he doesn't like.

* A word on hypocrisy: in my experience, the worse the racist, the worse the hypocrisy. If you're reading an account by someone who believed in scientific racism but advocated against slavery, their position tends to be self-consistent, just based on false information. If you're reading an account by a slave trader, they often make statements that blatantly contradict each other (for instance, black people are lazy one moment, then hard workers the next.) For racists less sympathetic than this one, also consider the degree to which they lie or withhold information. I once read an excerpt from an essay by a slave trader who repented and became a preacher--the essay itself stated that he'd seen thumbscrews used on rebellious slaves, whereas the historian who excerpted it noted that there was documented proof that he'd personally used thumbscrews on children.

 

[AstralCat]

Thanks, all of you, for the very insightful advice. ^^

I do think I have something that could happen in his past that would make him forever distrust the bat folk...

You see, there was this one time, when the King went off to go figure out a peace treaty with the fauns so that maybe they could team up and take on the bat folks who were causing trouble like usual. But the fauns went and double-crossed the King, told the bat people what was up and lured the King into an ambush. And then the bat-queen sent an envoy who showed up at the throneroom, took the King's severed head out of a box and rolled it down the carpet towards the widowed queen, more or less dareing her to declare war. She didn't, but only because she knew a war would completely devastate the kingdom.

But anyway, a lot of people were there in the court when that happened. And sympathetic-racist-guy is the son of the court wizard, so he could easily have been there for take-your-son-to-work-day or something and seen all that go down. He would have been... like... nine years old? ...I imagine if a nine year old saw all that happen in front of him, he might be scared for life. It also means that whenever he sees bat people, he sees cruel barbarians and monsters.

That work for a backstory? XD

...Incidentally, that was already something that I'd planned to happen. I just never thought about having that guy present to see it until just now.

 

[Helen]

American History X (1998)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Thanks, all of you, for the very insightful advice. ^^

I do think I have something that could happen in his past that would make him forever distrust the bat folk...

You see, there was this one time, when the King went off to go figure out a peace treaty with the fauns so that maybe they could team up and take on the bat folks who were causing trouble like usual. But the fauns went and double-crossed the King, told the bat people what was up and lured the King into an ambush. And then the bat-queen sent an envoy who showed up at the throneroom, took the King's severed head out of a box and rolled it down the carpet towards the widowed queen, more or less dareing her to declare war. She didn't, but only because she knew a war would completely devastate the kingdom.

But anyway, a lot of people were there in the court when that happened. And sympathetic-racist-guy is the son of the court wizard, so he could easily have been there for take-your-son-to-work-day or something and seen all that go down. He would have been... like... nine years old? ...I imagine if a nine year old saw all that happen in front of him, he might be scared for life. It also means that whenever he sees bat people, he sees cruel barbarians and monsters.

That work for a backstory? XD

...Incidentally, that was already something that I'd planned to happen. I just never thought about having that guy present to see it until just now.

In my opinion, it's not personal enough. That is, unless we know about a spectacular relationship this son had with the king, or another way that death affected him personally. Just witnessing the event as a child could be traumatic, yes. However, if you're going for the kind of deep-seated, life-long hatred you've described it needs to have the greatest emotional impact. Now, if his father's head rolled down the aisle, bouncing off the King's tumbling noggin and wound up at the boy's feet, staring up at him...that's traumatic & personal. It's life changing. Or....perhaps the boy was in love with the princess. Witnessing her father's death drove her to suicide.

It certainly doesn't have to be these events. They're just illustrations. There are hundreds of directions you can go. Make it as emotional as possible. Greater emotion will lend more understanding to the character's bigoted nature. Greater understanding will lead to deeper levels of sympathy.

 

[The Dark One]

Have a look at how others have done it. Flashman is one of the truly great literary characters - an arch cad, coward and womaniser...and those are just his good points. Flashie is casually racist but he's so casual about it you hardly notice. Also, he is a C19 character working at the vanguard of imperial Britain - 99% of such people were appallingly racist so it would actually be a surprise for him to be any other way.

I thinks that's the key. If racism is so unselfconsciously common - like breathing oxygen - then write it that way without making a big deal of it. I think if you invite scrutiny by trying to make it palatably understandable, at best you'll sidetrack the story...at worst you'll make it all preachy and boring.

If you're uncomfortable about writing a proper racist, find some other negative trait for him.

 

[skip.knox]

I'm not sure racism needs to enter in. You have two (at least) races. They are different species. They mistrust, even hate one another. Where's the problem? Cats don't like dogs; that doesn't make them racist. I think you are introducing a particular political and cultural dynamic where one is not needed.

The analogy I reach for is Vulcans in Star Trek. There's cultural arrogance that goes in both directions, but the writers managed to make Bones a likeable character even though he grouses about Spock. The "racism" doesn't run very deep, but it's certainly a good example of how to have the character expresses his prejudices and still be likeable. Note that Spock provides specific reasons for McCoy to grouse. And vice versa. But when the chips are down, they have each other's back. It's hinted that these feelings are more widespread than these two individuals, but (original series) the show didn't make a big deal out of it.

 

[Scribble]

Every fleshed-out character should have a collection of traits that can be perceived by the other characters as positive or negative. I think it is important to note that most moral judgments we have are based on a gut feeling that we later rationalize, not the other way around. If you are anti-racism, you react strongly to racist comments, and then try to explain why they are wrong.

A liberal western person will generally make judgments based on individual freedoms, while an eastern or conservative will typically make a judgment based on what they perceive to be in favor of the group's good. The point I am making is that people can feel strongly justified in their moral judgments of which people are good and which are bad, what is right and what is wrong, and the judgments can be entirely opposite. People aren't racist because they wish to be mean and counter-liberal, they are racist because they have a negative feeling about a certain race which they are forced to rationalize.

So, to make the character seem real and not a 2D caricature, they need to feel their stance is vindicated, particularly if they are called out on it. If someone calls them out, they aren't going to reach for a rational argument and find none... rather they are going to either have one handy or they will fabricate them as needed. Nobody ever ends up saying, "Oh, well I suppose you are right, I shouldn't hate X people." They will usually borrow a popular rational defense.

I certainly do feel morally superior to a racist, and not because I can reason about racism, but because I make an unthinking gut moral judgement about it, and just like the racist, I back it up with reason afterwards. Everyone feels morally superior to people who believe differently. Changing these things in us means going really deep. That is why movies like American History X are great, if very hard to watch. The change he has to make goes down into questioning his core, and most people do not do that. I don't think it is interesting to show people as simply racist, ignorant, and mean-spirited so you can knock them down as bad guys (although I would root for that). I think it is more interesting to show how complicated people actually are, and let that create conflict.

 

[SeverinR]

I think one should study how they made "Archie Bunker's" character to see how to make a racist likable.

He is labeled "the ultimate bigot" to some, but also is tauted as the best illumination of racist/bigoted thought patterns and teaching people to not be like him. even if they agree with some parts of his generalizations.

 

[The Dark One]

I don't think an Archie Bunker character would work these days. The 70s was a really different time, with far more endemic racism than today; ie, the ugliness/injustice of it was more acceptable to the mainstream than it would be in most 1st world countries today.

Having said that, I will disagree with myself by saying that any character will work if done well, it's just I can't see such a blatantly gratuitous racist character appealing to mainstream audiences on a sitcom these days.

 

[Helen]

HOMELAND is an example.

There was an episode recently where the new analyst walked into the CIA building wearing a headscarf. Everyone was aghast and Saul said something that made her cry. But then, that was also a good example of anti-racism, to watch her become part of the team.

 

[SeverinR]

I don't think an Archie Bunker character would work these days. The 70s was a really different time, with far more endemic racism than today; ie, the ugliness/injustice of it was more acceptable to the mainstream than it would be in most 1st world countries today.

Having said that, I will disagree with myself by saying that any character will work if done well, it's just I can't see such a blatantly gratuitous racist character appealing to mainstream audiences on a sitcom these days.

I agree, the 70's was a unique period. But I also believe if Bunker was modified to todays soceity, that new creation would be liked also. I would say most characters in past shows wouldn't be as accepted in todays cultures, as they were then.
Very few of my favorite shows have the same appeal as they did back then.
{Except for Benny Hill, I think to me, that humor is timeless. but then again, I heard that BH was basically 20's style vaudeville}

 

[Feo Takahari]

Part of how they made Archie Bunker likeable was to put him in context. For instance, one black guest star pointed out that Bunker only called him "colored," whereas a real racist would have called him the N-word.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I agree, the 70's was a unique period. But I also believe if Bunker was modified to todays soceity, that new creation would be liked also. I would say most characters in past shows wouldn't be as accepted in todays cultures, as they were then.
Very few of my favorite shows have the same appeal as they did back then.
{Except for Benny Hill, I think to me, that humor is timeless. but then again, I heard that BH was basically 20's style vaudeville}

I agree Severin. I'd also add that I think any character can be made likable, especially in literature, if the author is skilled and likability is what they intend. That said, TV is a different animal. I doubt many modern TV studios would touch that with a ten foot pole....maybe some of the cable networks, but not the big ones.

 

[SeverinR]

I also think that is why tv is carbon copy shows.
If one station brings out something, the other brings out something similar. Afraid to strike on their own.
They forget, they will never truly get a smash hit with a mushball, carbon copy idea.

 

[Jackarandajam]

If you want him to stay racist and justified, continually remind your reader of the reason for his hatred.
If you want him to transform to a less racist stance, you could TRAP him in a survival situation with one of these bat people and create the ah-ha "you're not so bad" moment. American History X was mentioned earlier (Thank you, Helen), the famous ah-ha moment there being when Ed Norton's character is confined to laundry duty with an African-American, and learns the error of his racist ways.

there was a movie too, with (i think) kevin cosner and an alien or something… Enemy Mine, maybe?

 

[The Dark One]

Speaking of racist characters...and I'm looking to any older English types to help me out here.

Back in the 70s the old Love Thy Neighbour show (which would probably seem quite alarming today) used to feature this regular exchange between Eddie (white) and Bill (black). Bill would make some comment and Eddie would reply: Knickers!

Then Bill would come back with: Cobblers!

Bill would always look triumphant, as though he'd just trumped Eddie with some excellent piece of syllogistic wit, while Eddie would gnash his teeth in anger.

What on earth does this mean, and why did Eddie (apparently) fall for it every time?

 

[Jackarandajam]

Speaking of racist characters...and I'm looking to any older English types to help me out here.

Back in the 70s the old Love Thy Neighbour show (which would probably seem quite alarming today) used to feature this regular exchange between Eddie (white) and Bill (black). Bill would make some comment and Eddie would reply: Knickers!

Then Bill would come back with: Cobblers!

Bill would always look triumphant, as though he'd just trumped Eddie with some excellent piece of syllogistic wit, while Eddie would gnash his teeth in anger.

What on earth does this mean, and why did Eddie (apparently) fall for it every time?

"Knickers" is a "politically correct" spelling for the much more inflammatory "N word."

"Cobblers" is specifically "british rhyming slang," which is a thing. "Cobblers Awls=Balls". Same as "Bees N' Honey=Money".
Not sure why "Balls" was an appropriate and clever response, maybe equivalent to the american "DEEZ n*ts"…?
Sort of accepting with pride what was intended as an insult?

I'm not an older English type, so this is a mixture of research and my own speculation...