A question of character
In a previous post, I shared a deleted scene from Incursion, and I thought it might be instructive to dig into why the scene doesn’t work.
To recap: it opens on a captain in some paramilitary unit being thrown across a room, kept clear of the haze my Darren as he enters the building and announces ‘I told you what would happen.’ He beats up some of the captain’s men in front of him, but the captain has reason to believe he is at least somewhat safe. Even in the scene as-is, Darren demonstrates this presumed safety is an illusion, but as we go further into the scene it is implied the captain has attacked innocent people after he has been warned not to, and we see Darren provide a second warning.
When I came back to this scene, Darren’s actions didn’t really seem to match his character. If you find this in your own pieces—characters acting not like themselves—it’s probably a good idea to think about why. Perhaps the scene can be brought closer to the idea you have for who that character is but, of course, ideas can often be nebulous and writing things down is a great way to bring things into focus.
So what does this scene, as written, tell us about Darren?
As a whole, he gives the captain not just a chance, but a second chance, to change.
He converses with the captain, in an effort to convince, but physically attacks subordinates, as part of his attack on leadership. He almost ignores the other men in the building we open on. Everything is in service of his efforts with the captain.
He tries to intimidate the captain, and although it’s a stretch to say he acts personally aggrieved, he does seem happy to toy with the man.
So why is this not Darren?
No second chances. I’m that sort of man.
There are circumstances in which Darren might feel it necessary to give men who do serious evil a chance to do better. He will take into account political realities, not because that is where his concern is, but in an effort to ensure his actions do not interact with the political environment to make things worse.
Let’s take an extreme example and look at the present war in Ukraine. Darren would, in isolation, be happy to capture Vladimir Putin and drop him at the Hague, but what then? Would the remaining Russian leadership feel so embarrassed by this they might launch a military operation to retrieve their president? Would the Dutch government intervene directly to return him?
If Darren were to deliver Putin to the Hague, he would also obviously be the one responsible for it, even if there were no witnesses, and Putin were to be unconscious. Darren is capable of killing someone in such a way that they would appear to die from natural causes, but his respect for human life is such that he would not do it.
There are too many risks of escalation, too many ways things can go wrong. Darren would likely concern himself with destroying Russian weaponry in or targeting Ukraine. He’s smarter than I am, though, so perhaps would come up with a better solution.
For this scene, I imagined that the captain had some protection by virtue of the political environment. Not as much as, say, Putin, but enough that a direct attack would risk an escalation at a national level. Threatening the captain, and giving him a chance to change, would not be entirely foolish.
But a second chance? If the captain has killed innocent people, Darren would feel it irresponsible to put others at further risk. One chance, and you’re done. And he’d blame himself for the harm done because he gave someone a chance.
Effectiveness first, and a rejection of hierarchy
Darren engages the captain in conversation, but attacks three other men (he does also throw the captain out of the building, dislocating his shoulder, but this feels an afterthought). Is this the most effective way to prevent harm?
An argument could be made that Darren is teaching the captain and his men in a manner he believes is most effective at preventing harm overall. Maybe attacking these three men physically will be the best way to stop them doing further harm.
This argument falls apart, however, when we look at who is targeted. The men in the building are beaten, but the ones outside are simply put to sleep. Why specifically go after the men inside, if not to impress something upon the captain? What makes them different from the men outside, aside from proximity to their leader? The idea that the men inside are tools with which Darren can demonstrate something to the captain feels very wrong to me.
And for the men who are simply shut off, what would they learn from the experience? Imagine you are going about your day, and then find yourself waking and skipping time, your workplace destroyed but you unharmed. Would your primary reaction not be confusion?
Darren rejects the idea that systems, in this case a rigid hierarchy, are a means by which one can be absolved of responsibility for one’s own actions. The captain may give the orders, but his men still carry them out.
No games. We’re done.
In the scene, Darren slowly steps the captain through a sequence, leading to the destruction of the Saint Christopher medal, as a means to show the captain he does have weaknesses Darren can target. Darren wants to make the captain fear the consequences of bad behaviour.
Book Darren is more than happy to use demonstrations of power to convince people to stop doing bad things. He is willing to stage his attacks for maximum effect. But he will not do things slowly unless required to and, if he makes himself known, he will not do so remotely.
There is nothing to stop Darren going directly to the captain, ripping the medal from him, and destroying it straight away. If Book Darren thought destroying the medal would work, he would just do it.
Not what he’s not, but what he’s not not
I’ve gone over some part of who Darren is not, but who is he? This is answered over the course of the book, but the traits most relevant to this scene are:
Darren is scary. Even those Darren helps are often terrified of him. He will not kill, but the nature of his attacks are often ruthless and unorthodox.
Darren’s focus is on harm reduction, not on retribution or even holding people accountable. He seeks to make a better future, however he can. He does not want to hurt anyone.
Darren never, ever lies… except to himself. He will bluff, he will mislead, but he believes every single word he says.
As Darren says in the second chapter, “a man can be quantified, analysed; assumed to be understood and so made safe. Better to be as unknowable as a force of nature, to hide behind a mask because I am a distraction, unimportant compared to the message that actions such as today’s will invite upon your head a reckoning.” If you are harming innocent people, treating him as a man is probably a mistake, because he will not present as one.
On that point, he sees purposefully harming innocent people not merely as bad, but as an act in contravention of our common humanity. He sees it as abhorrent and it inspires in him utter contempt.
Fixing the problems
As I said in the previous post, “[t]he vignettes give me the opportunity to show the reader how Darren is seen…” With that in mind, I’m going to write a new version of this scene, one that will try to show how many of the traits above are experienced by those he targets. It will be very different, but I’ll borrow as much as I can from the original.