Doubting Thomas

Doubting Thomas or any other character a writer pens increases when the author is female. No matter the experience. As you may know, my position has always been that a writer is a writer no matter their sex.

Let’s just take one Thomas, for now. He’s trained in logic, the sciences and even understands that the rest of the world prefers to solve problems using emotion. They don’t always get it right. He can describe to them why they’re wrong using Boolean or Aristotelian logic, QED/legal arguments and evidence, scientific principles, the laws of nature and pure insight borne of brilliance why they are wrong. He can lead them to the right spot where the body must be buried but no one wants to lift a shovel.

To the heroine, he’s insufferable. That’s a good thing. But can a female author dawn Spock ears and create a male not driven by emotion seem real or likable? Of course, right your character somewhat emotionally flat with some zany flaw or two and give the job of humanizing him to the heroine.

Why should she want to?

Besides being outrageously handsome, good in bed, he realizes that the best result in life comes from unions. He understands the Golden Rule transcends religion, and that the idea of treating people like you would want to be treated is an a priori truth and the basis on which all his science lies.

Where’s the change, the arc?

The change can come from compromise. Since a large portion of the world doesn’t believe him, in order to effect change, he must proceed incrementally. Science is sometimes handicapped by current theory, which someday will prove insufficient. The heroine can lead the way. That’s just one take or example.

So if the heroine doubts Thomas or the hero doubts her etc. or if the author doubts her ability to render this rascal, have faith.