Two main characters

[JRTomlin]

Planning several novels ahead, as I usually am, I am thinking of doing a series of novels with two main characters, brothers, on opposite sides of war. It has certainly has happened in real life and this is a war where at least some families were split. I have a feeling I recall it being done in a civil war novel that I can't think of at the moment.

I worry that it might be seen as a bit cliche though. It wouldn't be that hard to plot it happening. But I would really like to show both sides of what was happening. Unlike most of my novels, this will have fictional main characters. Any thoughts?

[Maggie Ann]

North and South by John Jakes, But that was two friends divided by the Civil War, not two brothers.

[Jeff Tanyard]

Instead of two brothers, you could do a father/son thing like Ben Franklin and his son William.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Franklin

[idontknowyet]

I really like this idea. In war it's very easy to see one side as the "good" side and vilify the other. The dual perspectives can make for an interesting experience.

[JRTomlin]

North and South by John Jakes, But that was two friends divided by the Civil War, not two brothers.

Thanks. Yes, that's what I was thinking of.

I found having Thomas Randolph on the English side for a time rather interesting since if forced me to take a closer look at the English involved, so it would be interesting from my point of view.

[Vidya]

I wouldn’t worry that it might be cliché. Certain tropes are evergreen for a reason: people are endlessly fascinated by them. Close friends, family, lovers, on opposite sides of an important conflict is always of interest. Hence all the romances where the hero and heroine are on opposite sides and fight their way into love.

[cecilia_writer]

I think there were quite a few examples of this in the English civil war also. It would certainly be interesting to write.

[Maggie Ann]

I think there were quite a few examples of this in the English civil war also. It would certainly be interesting to write.

I'm pretty sure a good example was Sarum (in the Civil War chapters) by Edward Rutherfurd. One brother was a Cavalier and the other was a Roundhead.

[PJ Post]

Everything's been done. Family conflicts like this are as old as the written word, so who cares. It's definitely a good idea, especially the part about exploring both sides of the conflict.

But...given our current social climate and the rapidly disappearing appreciation of nuance, I'd make sure to pick a conflict where both sides were more or less virtuous in their beliefs. The American Civil War, as an obvious example, is problematic because one side was fighting for the right of the super-rich to literally own other people, so creating empathy for the Confederate brother might be a bit tricky.

[idontknowyet]

Actually PJ that's not completely accurate.

As we all know the victors in a war tend to slant history to favor their side a bit more.

Did the south believe in slavery? Yes because it was financially beneficial for them.

Was that the reason for the war? No. The reason for the war was the same as the American Revolution. The south was sick of the north trying to tell them what they should do.

Lincoln was actually not against slavery (though his wife very much was). He freed the slaves to thumb his nose at the south and further prevent them from rising up against them again.

I found this quite shocking to research in college. Little tidbits our public school history books exclude.

[cecilia_writer]

My son wrote a fantasy novel in which one sibling fought on one side in a civil war and another one didn't believe in war itself, which made for a very interesting read - and I think in that particular case both sides could definitely be seen as virtuous. But that's maybe a more modern option.
I think both sides in the English civil war had something to be said in their favour although I personally prefer the Roundheads, and in the case of the Jacobites, even if you were Scottish you didn't necessarily support them (see 'Kidnapped').

[notthatamanda]

Actually PJ that's not completely accurate.

As we all know the victors in a war tend to slant history to favor their side a bit more.

Did the south believe in slavery? Yes because it was financially beneficial for them.

Was that the reason for the war? No. The reason for the war was the same as the American Revolution. The south was sick of the north trying to tell them what they should do.

Lincoln was actually not against slavery (though his wife very much was). He freed the slaves to thumb his nose at the south and further prevent them from rising up against them again.

I found this quite shocking to research in college. Little tidbits our public school history books exclude.

I remember being shocked when I learned the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all the slaves because Lincoln knew doing that would tip certain states into joining the confederacy.  But I did learn that in my public high school history class.

[JRTomlin]

My son wrote a fantasy novel in which one sibling fought on one side in a civil war and another one didn't believe in war itself, which made for a very interesting read - and I think in that particular case both sides could definitely be seen as virtuous. But that's maybe a more modern option.
I think both sides in the English civil war had something to be said in their favour although I personally prefer the Roundheads, and in the case of the Jacobites, even if you were Scottish you didn't necessarily support them (see 'Kidnapped').

Kidnapped was written by a fervent Unionist so it is not exactly an unbiased examination of Scottish opinion, but there were certainly Scots who supported a Protestant monarchy.

(Deleted comment on slavery and the American Civil War as I don't particularly want to get into that). However, the novel will have a late medieval / early renaissance setting as do all my novels, so I won't have to deal with American politics. European politics can be just as fraught though and resentments go back a lot further. 🙅‍♀️

[j tanner]

ON TOPIC:

I don't think it's cliche. I like the trope in general. Game of Thrones has its pros and cons, but one of the things it did really well was present two characters on opposing side sympathetically and then have them eventually clash and it worked like gangbusters pretty much every time. You'd hope against hope that somehow both could win. Brienne vs The Hound is probably my favorite example.

OFF TOPIC:

Actually PJ that's not completely accurate.

...

Was that the reason for the war? No. The reason for the war was the same as the American Revolution. The south was sick of the north trying to tell them what they should do.

Lincoln was actually not against slavery (though his wife very much was). He freed the slaves to thumb his nose at the south and further prevent them from rising up against them again.

There's nuance here to be sure, but your summation isn't all  that accurate either.

State's rights is and always has been sugar-coating it. The precursor to succession was the election of Lincoln with sub-40% of the vote, his shiny new Republican party's "stop the spread of slavery with the long-term goal of eradication of the practice", and the realization that the ability to politically protect and expand slavery for economic reasons had passed the tipping point. While individual states threw in a few secondary grievances in their articles, the primary reason for succession was perpetuation of slavery no matter how it's been danced around at the time or since.

Lincoln was late to the abolition cause and never 100% on-board, but he was quite clearly anti-slavery by his own admission in the 1850's prior to his election at a time when it politically was disadvantageous to say so. Just one of numerous quotes on the subject: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist." - Lincoln, 1858 (Those same speeches do still present a lot of pretty awful racism by today's standards.)

I had a great history teacher in high school. These nuances were covered, though in brief. YMMV.

[idontknowyet]

I think that was my point. There are nuances to each side.

Political speeches and jumping on the band wagon with one side or the other don't necessarily represent personal beliefs. Many people don't believe in what they end up supporting.
Mine wasn't taught in school. I had some really terrible history teachers in both high school and college. I actually did research reading original documents written by Lincoln before presenting a paper. They were quite eye opening.

There are ways of presenting either side of most wars.

[PJ Post]

Civil War aside, it was just an example...my point was that if both sides of the conflict are righteous in their cause, then it makes for a far more compelling narrative because the reader will be engaged with both brothers - every strike against their cause will be both championed and lamented at the same time. It's a great, bittersweet narrative path.

[JRTomlin]

I would have great difficulty presenting the Edward III's determination to conquer Scotland or to destroy it if he couldn't conquer it as 'righteous' but sometimes you are stuck with what is rather than what you would like it to be. Were I writing about the English Civil War, I would have difficulty presenting the genocidal Oliver Cromwell as 'righteous' either for that matter. Again, history is what it is. Fortunately, I'm unlikely to write about the Cromwell.

I am not picking something out to write about but deciding how to write about it and it would be interesting to show the English side of a war that lasted 30 years, the second Scottish War of Independence to be specific. I had a lot easier time finding myself sympathetic with Edward II who actually had a lot of characteristics that appeal to a modern reader once you dismiss the homophobia that has been aimed at him in the past, not that he didn't also have some weaknesses. But weaknesses do not necessarily keep a character from appealing to readers.

[j tanner]

I've only skimmed the crackerjack box version of the conflict, but it sounds like you could present the Edward Balliol faction in relatively sympathetic terms from their point of view.

[JRTomlin]

Believe me, I won't find it easy. There was neither legal nor moral justification for the invasion and even before the invasion, Edward Balliol had sworn fealty to Edward III, making him abhorrent from the Scottish point of view. It was expressed clearly in Scotland's Declaration of Arbroath that never would the Scots allow themselves to be subject to English rule and would repudiate any king who swore fealty to the English.

[cecilia_writer]

But there might be individuals whose psrt in a conflict, on one side or the other, was justifiable, even if the whole thing was immoral/illegal/a waste of time/got the wrong result.

[JRTomlin]

It got the right results in the end, Scotland once more pushed out the English conqueror. The cost was horrendous. I find no problem being sympathetic to the Scottish side (surprising no one). The English side is a struggle.

Yes, the trick is to find someone who is sympathetic or to find some sympathetic characteristic in less than sympathetic characters.

[notthatamanda]

Alternatively the reasons behind a character's actions don't need to be sympathetic, just ones that the readers can understand even if they don't agree with the cause.

Example - Familial pressure to not be the reason the family loses control of the land that they have been ruling for x generations. I know three people who went to med school just to make their parents happy and never practiced as doctors. People can understand the pressure parents and family can put on someone. If there is a dead older sibling, there is even more pressure to be perfect.

[JRTomlin]

The reasoning behind it, in this case, would probably be fairly straightforward. They are young squires and one is captured at the Battle of Dupplin Moor by the usurper's forces after his father is killed. It can be fairly sympathetic when one of the knights or nobles takes him in, which is understandable if that gains his loyalty. His brother, of course, remains with the loyalists. They both can have personal loyalty to people who may or may not totally deserve their loyalty.

I have never written a novel where I did a lot of switching back and forth between characters so that would be new but obviously it can be done. I am definitely writing a series about that war after I finish this current one. It is the 'how do I do this and who is the main character' that I'm still mulling over.

[notthatamanda]

Right now I'm struggling because I go back and forth between two character POV every chapter and I really want to write only the one character. Are you an outliner? You may want to outline for both and see if you have enough to say on each side.

[JRTomlin]

Good point but I'm not an outliner at all. I usually make a timeline of actual historical events that I want to include which I suppose might serve some of the same purposes.