Persuasion
By Donald Maass | August 7, 2019 |
Do you agree with me? Let’s see.
It’s a well-understood principle of storytelling: If your protagonist has something to do, make it difficult. Obstacles. Complications. Handicaps. Rising stakes. Shortening time. Peril. Moral peril. Psychological resistance. Self-doubt. Self-sabotage.
There are plenty of ways to make it tougher on your main character, but here’s the thing: the familiar methods of making the job difficult presume that your protagonist’s looming task is positive, good, necessary and urgent. Simply put, your protagonist must do what needs to be done. It’s the right thing. No alternatives. No doubt.
But what if that isn’t true? There always are alternatives. There are other ways to look at the situation. Is what needs to be done absolutely necessary? No, not necessarily. In fact, something else could be done instead. That thing, whatever it is, could be tempting. It could even be better. It could become equally necessary, or even more so.
Someone knows that. Let’s call that person your story’s moral antagonist. That moral antagonist has a job of his or her own, which is to persuade your protagonist to take a different course, do something other than what we expect or first imagine is good. The moral antagonist must, naturally, sell the alternative to your protagonist, using the psychological methods of persuasion.
The ways in which we are persuaded to do things which we wouldn’t ordinarily do are well known to time share developers, encyclopedia salesmen, Girl Scouts with cookies, spies, con artists, street scammers, cult leaders and psychologists. Persuasion is a science. You can be trained in it. Its methods work not because they convince others of a better idea or superior choice, but because of psychological pressure.
Persuasion appeals not to reason, but plays on our inborn human nature. It’s made up of mind tricks that are difficult, or almost impossible, to resist. For insight into the devious methods of persuasion, I am indebted to researcher Dr. Robert B. Cialdini, whose book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion is an eye-opening explanation of how we all are manipulated. I will never again see in the same way the cheese and crackers offered at a wine tasting.
Let’s look at some of the means of exerting influence, for they can be put into the hands of moral antagonists.
First is the principle of reciprocation. Give something small, and thus incur a feeling of obligation to respond in kind. A Hare Krishna in a saffron robe has a better chance of getting money from you if he first hands you a flower. Politicians call in favors to pass legislation. Cult leaders not only isolate and indoctrinate their followers, they give them privileges and gifts. The psychological burden of debt is powerful. We will do things we dislike to avoid being the person who does not reciprocate. We can’t help it.
Related to that is making concessions. First ask for too much, then ask for something less. Agreement is more likely. If a character is asked to murder someone, it’s too much. Instead break a leg? That too can be refused. Well then, threaten someone instead? Well, that’s not so bad. There’s no physical harm. So, a character agrees to do that…and, wouldn’t you know it, that’s exactly the outcome that the moral antagonist wanted in the first place.
Another principle of persuasion is commitment and consistency. Get someone to agree to something small, and thereafter that person is likely to go along with propositions much bigger. It’s related to the political phenomenon of affirmation bias: Once having voted left or right, a voter will dig in and justify his or her choice even when reasons for regret and reconsideration pile up. This method is especially effective when the subject of persuasion has real problems needing solutions.
The simplest and most effective way to use the consistency principle is to extract a promise, which later must be kept even when doing so means doing wrong. Promise me you’ll always take care of your sister. Please don’t ever tell. You’ll be there for me when I need you, right? It’s easy to see how agreeing to those promises puts pressure on a protagonist to follow through. Similar is gaining agreement to something fairly benign—admit it, your monster-mother was nice sometimes—which then causes a character to stick to that position even when it is later shown to be incorrect. The more public a statement of position is, as well, the harder it is for anyone to retract, especially when that position is also widely held by others.
Laugh tracks on TV are what is known as social proof. If others are laughing, it must be funny. The same principle works in clubs and cults. When others are going along, it’s hard not to do so as well. The Lottery by Shirley Jackson is founded on this human reality. In Jackson’s story, townspeople stone to death a randomly chosen innocent because that’s what they have always done. The scientific term is pluralistic ignorance. Practically speaking, though, we go along with what is wrong because it is socially worse not to. Indeed, people will go out of their way—even to extremes—to demonstrate conformity.
There is no more effective way for a moral antagonist to gain psychological leverage over a character than to be likable. Friends of friends are hard to resist. People who are trying to help must be good, mustn’t they? Dressing nicely, smelling good, offering compliments, fitting in, being familiar and seeming alike…such qualities are persuasive. From Tupperware parties to choosing romantic partners, those who are likable and familiar are hard to resist. (Case in point: good cop, bad cop.)
Even better is when a moral antagonist pitches in toward a common goal. It’s hard to hate someone when you’ve worked together. Authority is another persuasive tool. Titles, clothes and trappings are persuasive all by themselves, before even a word is spoken.
The illusion of scarcity and last chances also breaks down resistance. Act now! Final clearance! Only two tickets left at this price! Even more powerfully, the forbidden, banned, and hard-to-get are always highly desirable. Think Tickle Me Elmo when you’re a toddler or Valley of the Dolls when you’re a teen. Persuaders know how to create scarcity and sway behavior with it.
Losing the freedom to choose also creates a powerful urge to have that that thing. Juliet was all the hotter to Romeo because their parents would disapprove. That’s scientifically demonstrable in real life. People desire what is disallowed. Revolutionaries gain support when they are silenced; their ideas gain credence when censored. In the legal realm, juries believe testimony when they are told to disregard it.
So, let’s turn these principles of persuasion into practical tools which you can put into the hands of your moral antagonists:
- Who is your current story’s moral antagonist? What does that character want to prevent your protagonist from doing? What does that character want your protagonist to do instead?
- What can your moral antagonist give to (or previously have given) your protagonist? How does your protagonist feel obligated to give something in return?
- What can your moral antagonist urge your protagonist to do that is extreme? Less extreme, but still disagreeable? Reasonable by comparison?
- What (at first) reasonable-sounding promise or proposition can your moral antagonist get your protagonist to agree to? How can that pledge or promise be made public? How can it then be used to weaken or pressure your protagonist? (“Look, you already agreed to this, are you going back on it now?”)
- How can your moral antagonist argue that your protagonist’s plan goes against community values or social norms? How will your protagonist lose status, be shunned or be driven out?
- Can your moral antagonist be a friend? Well regarded? Well liked? Attractive? An authority, with impressive title and trappings?
- How can your moral antagonist make the alternative plan perishable? An option available only now? A rare, or one-time opportunity?
- How can your moral antagonist convince your protagonist that his or her original plan does not represent who your protagonist truly is? Whereas, the alternative plan does affirm your protagonist’s true and better nature?
- Who backs up your moral antagonist? (“You know, she has a point.”) Conversely, who casts doubt on your protagonist? (“Are you really sure you’re doing the right thing?”)
- What’s the first, slippery step your protagonist could take to go the way your moral antagonist wants? Having done that, what makes it increasingly hard to reverse course?
What your protagonist must do ought to be difficult, but that is not the only way to create drama. Creating an alternative path is possible and even better when there is someone in the story to persuade your protagonist that it’s the better way to go.
Persuade how? There are tricks, as we’ve seen, and if those tricks can sell you unneeded Amway soap or unnecessary encyclopedias then they can surely sell your protagonist on the wrong thing to do. All it takes is a skilled persuader.
Who is your story’s moral antagonist and what does he or she want your protagonist to do? What methods of persuasion will he or she use?
[coffee]
Donald Maass (he/him) founded the Donald Maass Literary Agency. in New York in 1980. He is the author of The Career Novelist (1996), Writing the Breakout Novel (2001), Writing the Breakout Novel Workbook (2004), The Fire in Fiction (2009), The Breakout Novelist (2011), Writing 21st Century Fiction (2012) and The Emotional Craft of Fiction (2019). He has presented hundreds of workshops around the world and is a past president of the American Association of Literary Agents (formerly AAR).
(“Is what needs to be done absolutely necessary? No, not necessarily. In fact, something else could be done instead. That thing, whatever it is, could be tempting. It could even be better. It could become equally necessary, or even more so.
Someone knows that. Let’s call that person your story’s moral antagonist. That moral antagonist has a job of his or her own, which is to persuade your protagonist to take a different course, do something other than what we expect or first imagine is good.”)
Donald – is it accurate that the “moral antagonist” can be positive (supportive) or negative (obstructing) relative to the protagonists true goals (presumptively “good, moral, just”)?
Might this persuasive character help the protagonist advance (e.g. Yoda in ‘Star Wars’) or attempt to corrupt or destroy them (e.g. top trader in ‘Wall Street’)? Is it correct that the moral antagonist can be friend or foe?
Perhaps you could share some examples of “moral antagonist” characters?
Very interesting post!
Thank you
This is a great question Tom: “Perhaps you could share some examples of “moral antagonist” characters?”
Yoda
Mickey from the Rocky Movies
The Mad Hatter
Mrs. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice
Ms. Havisham in Great Expectations
Hermione Granger
Donkey from Shrek
My top pick is Samuel Gerard in The Fugitive played by Tommy Lee Jones. Harrison Ford’s character Dr. Richard Kimble points a gun at Gerard and exclaims “I didn’t kill my wife.”
Gerard replies with absolute honesty and says “I don’t care.”
Good question, Tom.
I’d say any moral “antagonist” is by definition arguing what turns out to be the wrong path… though of course everything here also applies to making a legitimate mentor or other source of good advice persuasive. (Though a mentor can also get away with being less convincing since they’ll be proven right in the end. An unconvincing moral antagonist is a waste of pages.)
One other thought: one of the best tools for making persuasion convincing is have it *turn out to be right* a time or two. Let the hero see it work, and really wonder if sticking with this approach is the way to go.
So sometimes the reader won’t know who’s a moral antagonist and who’s not, until the final revelation of what works.
Don, are there perhaps multiple moral antagonists in some stories as well? Each with their own reason to manipulate the protagonist? I think you see that sometimes in ensemble casts or in families.
In my latest finished story the antagonist is trying to break down the protagonist’s positive perceptions of the main male character. He tells her “we all manipulate each other, it’s just a matter of degree and intent.”
My statistics class and my Human Behavior and the Social Environment classes in college were eye opening to the methods of persuasion and the ways we all interact (manipulate?) each other. Group think is very scary and I was appalled to learn how easily we are persuaded to buy and do things we wouldn’t normally do just because companies and the ilk have learned the mind games to control large groups of people. Thankfully they included critical thinking skills, too!
What I appreciate about your post is that you’ve created actionable steps. Instead of relying on instinct (and I have to say I am such a straight forward person I find it very difficult to get into the mind of a manipulator), your post will help me to think through the development of a moral antagonist. Thanks, once again, for the free lesson on craft. :D
Hey Don
Thank you for this post, it’s already giving me ideas.
Let’s say you draw a circle around all moral antagonists, would that encompass all *active* mentors?
*active in this case meaning they had more story impact than giving the protagonist a useful skill*
I have a moral antagonist in my WIP but didn’t know it. Now I know exactly what to do with her. This is really going to impact the whole story in a positive way.
THANK YOU!
Yes, what James said! You made lightbulbs flash this morning. And you made me see one of my characters in her true light. With her dark agenda in mind, she lures my hungry-to-learn magic MC with promises of mentorship, then begins an indoctrination. You also cracked me up about Girl Scouts bearing cookies. Those young women are good!
Fascinating and important. Persuasion is definitely the factor that presses my young protagonist to head down a wrong and dangerous path in the hope that it will “deliver” what she seeks. The culture she lives in becomes the persuasive antagonist.
Thanks for this helpful and clarifying post!
I almost hate to comment, I’m enjoying the discussion.
Obviously, there can be multiple moral antagonists and the alternate course the MA espouses isn’t necessarily bad, just different…and, ultimately, wrong.
My topic today arose because in manuscripts I often notice that whatever it is that the MC must do (The Task) is the *only* available, or contemplated, course of action. That’s okay, just not terribly complex. Why not persuade the MC toward a different path?
To me, the most dangerous method of persuasion is the push toward conformity. Don’t get me wrong, I like fitting in. But “everyone does it” and “that’s how we do things here” create a social inertia that justifies all kinds of injustice. Change is good, and we needn’t be afraid of it. MC’s are stirring when they show courage and going against the grain, when it’s the right thing to do, is great.
I’m out and about today and may not get to drop in as much as I usually do, but please keep talking. There’s more than one way to tell a story and the more we talk the more new possibilities arise.
Donald –
(“Obviously, there can be multiple moral antagonists and the alternate course the MA espouses isn’t necessarily bad, just different…and, ultimately, wrong.”)
This appears internally contradictory.
Isn’t ‘and, ultimately, wrong’ synonymous with ‘bad’?
I’d like to see character examples from you if possible. Would help clarify for me.
Question: does a story have to have a moral antagonist?
In survival stories like Hatchet, maybe not. Robinson Crusoe had a sea captain warn him against a life of sailing. Ruth in I Am Legend counts. The marlin in The Old Man and the Sea could count.
Heck, Wilson the anthropomorphized volleyball in Castaway could count.
I’ve read Conan stories by Robert Jordan that don’t seem to have one. In them Conan has allies who never challenge his brute moral code, but simply have disparate goals.
This post helped clarify my story. I hadn’t realized it before, but my 12-year-old main character’s moral antagonist is her best friend, whose values and way of life she ultimately must reject even though the two friends love each other. I am writing a fantasy, so the rejected value system has to do with how to use magic in the world. In my plotting, I had already used the principle of reciprocation Don describes. But now I see how I can add some of the other elements of persuasion: extracting a promise and having the moral antagonist pitch in toward a common goal. Thanks!
As storytellers we use creative persuasion to mislead readers down one path while foreshadowing the opposite, and twist events and our hapless characters in a dance of conflicting moralities that each character experiences as being right.
In my work-in-progress, the female protagonist is beset by two moral antagonists who coerce her into two far-reaching agreements. One, made in the past when she was a vulnerable teenager, and the second, fifty years later when she’s a vulnerable adult. All three characters consider their motives moral.
In addition, time travel is a character that may be considered a fourth, and by far the greatest, moral antagonist. Manipulating time for one’s personal ends never bodes well.
It will take the intervention of a fifth character to damage control the clash of conflicting wills and bring to light a series of mysterious events suppressed since high school to redress the wrongs of the dispirited spirit of a girl in a painting and a woman whose life was highjacked in 1965 for her ‘own good’.
Sometimes moral antagonists are too good to be true. Benign human intentions grow evermore sinister. Well meaning motives evolve into persuasions that border on manipulation and control that wreak chaos when several wrongs fail to make a right and dozens of rights make an even more terrifying wrong. Not everyone will survive in my story where morality is compromised.
Thank you for this post. I feel enlightened. Now I can see how Professor Snape was the perfect necessary moral antagonist until the bitter end.
Great post, Don! I love to read non-fiction books on psychology—I suppose that makes sense for someone who writes psychological women’s fiction—but, like most authors, I am endlessly fascinated by why people do the things they do, and how they justify them. Adding this one to my list!
My protagonist feels some confusion concerning her own moral pathway, which at the very beginning goes against what her husband wants. For the sake of her child, she gives in to her husband–only to discover that there’s more at stake and that her initial instincts were the right ones. So many ways we can use Don’s ideas.
In my WIP, the moral antagonist strong arms my protagonist into doing what he wants, for a while anyway. As I read through this edit, I’ll be more aware of persuasion vs. resistance leading up to that moment to add more tension.
There were two moral antagonists in The Favourite. (Ironically, neither were very moral.) Not my favorite movie but an example of how power can be manipulated.
Thanks for another insightful post.
Fascinating post! To the list of persuasive strategies, I would add: precedence or presumed resemblance (“hey, you already did X once before and this is no different”), delayed gratification (“you’ll be glad you did”), lesser of two evils, the end justifies the means, sunk costs—and well, just about every single thing we tell ourselves as we justify our actions! In fact, it occurs to me that the moral antagonist can be inside oneself …
I’m guessing the moral antagonists within ourselves, the things we tell ourselves to justify our actions, are usually internalised voices of our culture, our parents, our friends. Having the MC question these internalised voices is a rich source of conflict.
The MC in my WIP has multiple moral antagonists (thanks for identifying the concept, Don!), some of whom truly want what’s best for her while others have their own agenda. But it’s the inner voice that’s hardest for her to resist.
In Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Kylo Ren is Rey’s moral antagonist. He lies to Rey inside a cave. He tries to get her to turn to the dark side. He wants the two of them to form a new alliance.
I just realized, reading this, that I did this with my first novel. The MC’s guardian ends up trying to persuade her to accept the villain’s compromise – even though she hates him – because she sees it as a safer way to achieve the MC’s goals. Or at least, those of the MC’s goals that the guardian herself sees as important.
I am also reminded of the first three Tempters in Murder in the Cathedral, who offer Thomas easier, safer ways to do good than to take a stand that will cost him his life.
It’s so much easier to stand against direct and blatant opposition than that which comes in at a tangent to persuade you to veer yourself.
The whole time I’m reading this, I’m thnking of Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca. So cold, so overbearing, so judgmental. But then, when she sees the new bride weakening, breaking under the weight of so much failure, Mrs. Danvers turns gentle, reassuring — as she gently, reassuringly urges the young woman to jump out the window and end it all.
I also thought of Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight. Harvey Dent has lost the love of his life and half his face. The Joker, masquerading as a nurse, stands bedside with a pistol. He wants Dent to turn away from the pursuit of the good and join him (the Joker) in the pursuit of destruction. He places the gun in Dent’s hand and presses the barrel against his own head, daring Dent to shoot if he still believes in goodness. Then he says, “I’m an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos — chaos is fair.” He appeals to Dent’s bitter despair by offering a new form of empowerment, one not tied to maudlin ideas of justice and virtue or love, but instead one that speaks to the horrific sense of meaninglessness Dent now feels.
The point: good manipulators have a keen sense of when the mark is vulnerable to the con.
Great post, as always.
Many of my stories concern main characters wrestling with their own conflicting needs, fears, and desires. Can an MC be his or her own moral antagonist?
This gives me more to think about in my writing and in life. Thanks!
“How does your protagonist feel obligated to give something in return? What can your moral antagonist urge your protagonist to do that is extreme?” This is exactly what my novel, The Sleeping Serpent, is about… that slippery step the protagonist takes that makes it “increasingly hard to reverse course.” Great post!! And right up my alley! Thank you!
Thank you so much for this. Answers some questions I had about relationships. Just ran out and got Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Cialdini.