“They pestered him piteously until he gave them what he had.” This incident seems to me to strangely undermine your establishment of his character. He steals a much bigger item from those same kids like two pages later, and then the whole drama of the next few chapters is about him learning to let go of his desperation-driven rapaciousness in order to consider the needs of others. (Yes, I know there’s an element of self-interest in what he does with the silver, but even still.) You could certainly have Min La give them his leftovers to get rid of them—that would establish that he has the early seed of selflessness—but in my opinion it’s too early in his arc to portray him giving up the minimum that he needs for survival for the sake of people he doesn’t know. It really blunts the drama of the mini-arc in which he decides what to do with the silver because in view of this incident it seems like the type of choice he makes all the time, not a break from his previous habits of character.
On my initial reading I remembered feeling like this guy was really contradictory and difficult to figure out, and upon my second read I think this passage may be why.
I really love Min La’s character arc. He’s a fantastic character.
The point of Min La's early development isn't that he needs to learn selflessness, but that he needs to learn courage. He's very soft-hearted. But that doesn't mean he won't steal from people in need. It would take a lot more courage to let them keep the silver and find something else. Just as it took so much courage to abandon the silver and let fate decide his next steps. It would have taken a lot of courage to slam the door in the kids' faces. It would have taken a lot of courage to, instead, share with them and welcome them into his hidey-hole. He's contradictory only until you learn his motivations. He's been sticking with his stubborn path not out selfishness or courage, but out of cowardice and self-doubt. There's a difference between being selfish and looking out for yourself.
Moreover, chances are he would have let the kids have the silver if that's all they had stolen. Desperation and fear drove him. Not selfishness. Just as selflessness was not what drove him to give them his food. He's softhearted. To a degree that's almost cowardly. That's why the monk forced him to choose in the way he did and didn't frame it as making a selfless choice to help the children. The monk knew, to some degree, what was coming. He knew that Min La would need courage and tenacity a LOT more than he would need selflessness and compassion, which he already possessed.
I had him give them the food to show that he was too kindhearted, so much so that he lacked a certain amount of conviction. His motivations were wrong. He gave them the food even though he knew it was a bad idea. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because he lacked the courage to be selfish and harsh. Desperation got him over that hump when they stole his silver. But even then, he wasn't willing to kill them to get it back. When he gave the monk the silver later, it wasn't so he could help them. It was so he could let go of his cowardly stubbornness.
Additionally, the secondary reason he gave them the food was, as I said, to get rid of them. He knew he could get more the next day. But having a crowd around him was undesirable. He didn't like having people around him, especially if he had to take care of them. Because he knew he couldn't be trusted to choose between his needs and someone else's, as he was too soft-hearted.
I intended for him to seem contradictory. Because I want him to be unable to understand himself, to some degree. I know why he is the way he is. But he doesn't.
Rereading my comment, I was definitely very sloppy with my wording. That was very injudicous of me. I definitely understood that Min La is supposed to seem contradictory. I also understood the role of courage. My mistake was that I definitely didn’t understand your point about selflessness. I had understood his development to involve both. I think excepting this small opening interaction under discussion, that was my mistake. In his discussion with the monk, you made your philosophical point clear, but I misinterpreted it as Min La hedging or coping.
Might you consider fleshing out that passage slightly to convey some of those nuances? I’m not convinced I could have derived why Min La gave the beggars all his food based solely on the passage as it’s written. Bear in mind that it’s our very first introduction to him and as such we have no context to help. What I’ve noticed about well-written contradictory characters is that once the reader is given the interpretative key —their motivation—everything clicks into place and you can go back to the very beginning of the story and perfectly understand all of their actions. Snape from Harry Potter is the clearest example. You don’t get the information that he loved Lilly Potter until book 7 but once you know that it explains everything all the way back to book one. Another good example is Sydney Carter from the Tale of Two Cities. Once we understand that Min La is an indecisive coward who needs to pick a better goal in life, that totally explains the rest of his behavior, but I still couldn’t make sense of this interaction. Like I said, you could probably make it go with minimal revision. Alternatively, you could cut it. The marketplace scene would be a very strong introduction and I feel like you explore all those nuances sufficiently when they come up elsewhere. It’s up to your excellent judgment!
In fact, it might be most in keeping with his paranoid hoarding if he flatly refused to help them. Ultimately your choice to make, of course! :) I’m sorry if my tone comes across rudely over the internet.
I’d be lying if I said that I liked you cutting away from So Ga, … but Min La is interesting, mysterious. Is he a member of that disgraced noble family? Is he a prince that didn’t actually die? He’s not an urchin that was originally from the streets… is that why he has two names? I think he would have hidden and waited an hour to see if anyone followed before he reentered his temporary stone hut.
“They pestered him piteously until he gave them what he had.” This incident seems to me to strangely undermine your establishment of his character. He steals a much bigger item from those same kids like two pages later, and then the whole drama of the next few chapters is about him learning to let go of his desperation-driven rapaciousness in order to consider the needs of others. (Yes, I know there’s an element of self-interest in what he does with the silver, but even still.) You could certainly have Min La give them his leftovers to get rid of them—that would establish that he has the early seed of selflessness—but in my opinion it’s too early in his arc to portray him giving up the minimum that he needs for survival for the sake of people he doesn’t know. It really blunts the drama of the mini-arc in which he decides what to do with the silver because in view of this incident it seems like the type of choice he makes all the time, not a break from his previous habits of character.
On my initial reading I remembered feeling like this guy was really contradictory and difficult to figure out, and upon my second read I think this passage may be why.
I really love Min La’s character arc. He’s a fantastic character.
The point of Min La's early development isn't that he needs to learn selflessness, but that he needs to learn courage. He's very soft-hearted. But that doesn't mean he won't steal from people in need. It would take a lot more courage to let them keep the silver and find something else. Just as it took so much courage to abandon the silver and let fate decide his next steps. It would have taken a lot of courage to slam the door in the kids' faces. It would have taken a lot of courage to, instead, share with them and welcome them into his hidey-hole. He's contradictory only until you learn his motivations. He's been sticking with his stubborn path not out selfishness or courage, but out of cowardice and self-doubt. There's a difference between being selfish and looking out for yourself.
Moreover, chances are he would have let the kids have the silver if that's all they had stolen. Desperation and fear drove him. Not selfishness. Just as selflessness was not what drove him to give them his food. He's softhearted. To a degree that's almost cowardly. That's why the monk forced him to choose in the way he did and didn't frame it as making a selfless choice to help the children. The monk knew, to some degree, what was coming. He knew that Min La would need courage and tenacity a LOT more than he would need selflessness and compassion, which he already possessed.
I had him give them the food to show that he was too kindhearted, so much so that he lacked a certain amount of conviction. His motivations were wrong. He gave them the food even though he knew it was a bad idea. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because he lacked the courage to be selfish and harsh. Desperation got him over that hump when they stole his silver. But even then, he wasn't willing to kill them to get it back. When he gave the monk the silver later, it wasn't so he could help them. It was so he could let go of his cowardly stubbornness.
Additionally, the secondary reason he gave them the food was, as I said, to get rid of them. He knew he could get more the next day. But having a crowd around him was undesirable. He didn't like having people around him, especially if he had to take care of them. Because he knew he couldn't be trusted to choose between his needs and someone else's, as he was too soft-hearted.
I intended for him to seem contradictory. Because I want him to be unable to understand himself, to some degree. I know why he is the way he is. But he doesn't.
Rereading my comment, I was definitely very sloppy with my wording. That was very injudicous of me. I definitely understood that Min La is supposed to seem contradictory. I also understood the role of courage. My mistake was that I definitely didn’t understand your point about selflessness. I had understood his development to involve both. I think excepting this small opening interaction under discussion, that was my mistake. In his discussion with the monk, you made your philosophical point clear, but I misinterpreted it as Min La hedging or coping.
Might you consider fleshing out that passage slightly to convey some of those nuances? I’m not convinced I could have derived why Min La gave the beggars all his food based solely on the passage as it’s written. Bear in mind that it’s our very first introduction to him and as such we have no context to help. What I’ve noticed about well-written contradictory characters is that once the reader is given the interpretative key —their motivation—everything clicks into place and you can go back to the very beginning of the story and perfectly understand all of their actions. Snape from Harry Potter is the clearest example. You don’t get the information that he loved Lilly Potter until book 7 but once you know that it explains everything all the way back to book one. Another good example is Sydney Carter from the Tale of Two Cities. Once we understand that Min La is an indecisive coward who needs to pick a better goal in life, that totally explains the rest of his behavior, but I still couldn’t make sense of this interaction. Like I said, you could probably make it go with minimal revision. Alternatively, you could cut it. The marketplace scene would be a very strong introduction and I feel like you explore all those nuances sufficiently when they come up elsewhere. It’s up to your excellent judgment!
In fact, it might be most in keeping with his paranoid hoarding if he flatly refused to help them. Ultimately your choice to make, of course! :) I’m sorry if my tone comes across rudely over the internet.
I’d be lying if I said that I liked you cutting away from So Ga, … but Min La is interesting, mysterious. Is he a member of that disgraced noble family? Is he a prince that didn’t actually die? He’s not an urchin that was originally from the streets… is that why he has two names? I think he would have hidden and waited an hour to see if anyone followed before he reentered his temporary stone hut.