So my WIP so far, is full of morally grey characters, placed in a situation where they can either do good or bad to accomplish there goals. I find that this is one of my favourite ways of developing characters as it makes them more believable and makes them fall less into the good hobbits evil ugly goblin trope. One of my characters for example is morally grey because he kills people for money, but wants to write the wrongs of his past after murdering an innocent person. Another character is more of a victim of the worst of humanity who tried to do good and is seeking to do evil deeds himself to fit in and climb the ladder of success. (Think of Walter White from breaking bad) I'm no expert here so i'm merely using some of my favourite characters from other stories to inspire my own in terms of morality and development, adding twist here and there from real life experiences. But the reason i'm placing this here, is because i feel like my world, setting and themes need to follow the flow of the characters, after all we are products of our environment and culture and therefore i was wondering how i could tackle the subjects of philosophy, human nature, politics and culture without sounding too preachy and bias. I find that Game of Thrones does this quite well as theirs a character for everybody to like and hate and the issues are never black and white, but it doesn't beat you over the head with a message. Since my book is cyberpunk with fantasy themes , i decided to keep these elements vague for now but allude to them for world building (references to an Orwellian state, dark web, cyber crime, Machiavellian politics etc). One of the major themes in my book is time travel in a world where history has been rewritten to fit a certain type of Utopian description, to make humanity look like the perfect alien lifeforms we all had dreams of making contact with with our flying cars and cyborg creations. How would i (or you) tackle, organise and express this information in a more creative way which plays a part in the overall plot rather than sounding like some sort of political commentator or edgy teen? (This is also a concern due to the real world becoming stranger than fiction and everyone seeming to take an interest in politics(elections, warfare etc), certain creatives being accused of propaganda, taking sides etc) Thanks!
I have to keep this brief because my phone is dying, but when it comes to philosophy in fiction, I think that the best route is to write around the topic -- outright having characters spout their/your beliefs is when it gets hammy quickly. Slip the themes into the setting, let them influence characters' actions, but addressing them directly can way too easily feel like a soap box, and regardless of whether the reader agrees with you, that's just not a fun read. Not saying it can't be done directly, but I know I'm not good enough to pull it off.
Let's say two modern characters are watching a news item about a riot. One of them makes an offhand comment about how it's all because kids these days run wild due to no sense of civic responsibility, and the other replies that the younger generation are only frustrated because the government screwed up the job and house market so badly. That tells the audience of a problem in society, different opinions people have on it, and the stance of these two characters on the subject. Newspaper headlines and talking heads on TV--even if they're clearly biased or unrealistic--can also put the information out there for the readers, and you can have characters who are politically active, seizing on any opportunity to expound on their philosophy, even if other characters are disagreeing or silently rolling their eyes and thinking oh great, this again. One word of warning--you'll probably have stances you favour yourself, but an important thing to bear in mind is that a work of fiction can't prove anything. It can explain an idea or promote it, but it can't prove the idea to be good or bad, since the author has complete control over the story. I'm sure we can all name stories where a philosophy or political stance is 'proven' to be right and awesome, but it feels cheap and unconvincing because the entire story was rigged in order to support that conclusion. You can avoid that by showing the imperfections in a stance that a character is strongly in favour of, or by having other characters make reasonable objections that don't get glibly answered.
I also try to keep things as grey as possible, and give room for my characters who are considered good guys to do some pretty bad or "Awful" things. When I was younger my writing was full of holier than thou are preaching, and when I went back to revise it, I found it very unenjoyable. . But, most of that is gone in the revisions (hopefully I got it all). as for Philosophy, I try my best to steer clear of it, because I want people to enjoy my book. I know you won't get 100% of people reading your book, but I also don't want them reading it for the wrong reason either.
I'd say try very hard to think of both sides to any question. Very few philosophical beliefs (I say very few, but I can't think of any) don't have an opposite possibility. Make sure both sides get a hearing, and let the reader decide which works best. Just something simple like 'spanking a child is harmful to the child' will be countered by people who say things like 'I was spanked for various misdeeds as a child, and it didn't do me any harm.' Make sure both sides get dealt with in the story. It's the way the story's sympathies are manipulated and channeled by you, the writer, that will determine what attitude a reader walks away with. Let them think about the issue as you've presented it, and draw their own conclusions.
Actually I disagree with Jannert here. I think that you should only be focusing on a single pole in a work of fiction. You aren't writing a political essay, you are writing a narrative and you don't have a duty to provide balance. It's ok to write a book where the main character has some philosophy that drives him (maybe he's a vigilante killer, or marxist revolutionary, or a Nieztchian or something) and explore how that effect their values and their life. But I think the point of comparison needs to be against normal people, not against their dipole. You should show both positives and negatives, and if you know what you're about then you'll certainly ensure that their view of the world is tested but that's more a matter of good writing. After all, the character starts out with a philosophy and needs to develop from there, you know? And you should treat it seriously and show that it's imperfect, as all things are, and potentially to find some pathos in it because his beliefs come into conflict with the rest of his life and he might have to choose his philosophy over love or even over his life. Done this way you aren't writing a book about the philosophy, you're writing a book with a character who follows it. And that means you as the author have the space to explore what that actually means in practice with a slightly detached and narrativly ironic sense. The Marxist who works for Starbucks and his rich father pays his rent. The white supremacist who is convinced he's the ubermench but still lives with his mum and is scrawny and unattractive and fails at everything he tries at. Those are interesting characters with some contradictions, where the philosophy itself can be explored, but moreso the character can be explored. That's how I think you need to go after philosophy in a book, by treating it like any other part of a character and playing with it as a narrative device and taking the story to places where it will be tested in a deep and meaningful way. Even if you are writing to support or endorse a philosophy (or indeed your own philosophy) then that's ok, but to be a good book you can't write propaganda so be careful there. But the point of contrast should always be to normality, to how the average person (ie the reader) thinks and feels. You don't have to let someone argue against it, because honestly the least interesting parts of every philosophy are how they dismiss and deride each other. "Death to the fascists!" isn't a particularly damning criticism of the Nazis, you know? Even the more acceptable lines of philosophical argument (relativism vs absolutism, freedom vs control, post-modern vs modern) are really dull in how they refute each other. The post-modernist says "You can be whatever you like!", the modernist answers "What, you think you can be a tree just by thinking it, stop being silly...". The modernist says "things are as they are and we just have to make the best of it", the post modernist answers "But they don't have to be as they are." These difference are so fundamentally opposite that they don't even accept each others terms and never the twain shall meet. So don't do that. It'll just get in the way of the book being a good book.
I actually think we're in agreement, or rather I don't disagree with anything you said. I probably put my own argument in overly simplistic terms, and made it look more polarised than I intended. But when you say 'the Marxist who works for Starbucks while his rich father pays his rent' - that's exactly the kind of depiction I meant. I presume the writer would lead our sympathies one way or another with this idea. Either the son has the correct philosophy about sustainable living, but Marxism requires collective agreement in order to work and, sadly, nobody else shares the son's outlook. Or the father has the right philosophy because he's the capitalist who's actually producing the means to keep his son in living quarters. Depending on how the writer approaches the issue, the readers should be able to understand the philosophy without getting it preached at them. And I do maintain that it's a good idea to show both sides of an issue, if possible. It never hurts to consider all consequences, does it? A subtle way to present an argument is by taking the opposite view and demolishing it gently, step-by-step.
Totally agree with Jannert. Good art leaves room for interpretation. If a novel is so wrapped up in itself and one point of view, like say, how I remember Catcher in the Rye, the novel can become unbearable if you don't agree with it. It's really not that different from a dogmatic person who refuses to accept that he might be wrong and is condescending toward all beliefs other than his own. Get too invested in a certain ideology without providing any room for alternative conclusions and the novel risks becoming a parody of itself.
I remember reading The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist many years ago, and while I share the author's philosophy, it was a really difficult slog to get through, simply because it was all so one-dimensional and preachy. I suspect it probably didn't convert too many people, unfortunately.
Yep, you can even agree with a lot of what a specific person has to say, but if they're preachy about it and insistent that they're right about everything, which of course is highly unlikely, suddenly you may find yourself not agreeing with anything they say.
Definitely you need to show that whatever philosophy you're talking about is not just all sunshine and roses, that would be pretty much literally propaganda, so you definitely don't want to do that. So it matters a lot to show kinda the totality of an idea when you're exploring it that way, to see how the practical implementation of a philosophy differs from the idealized version. That's actually something that's interesting in it's own terms and lends itself to a real character journey through it. Although that would make it somewhat harder to show a philosophy in a positive light. When you deconstruct them like this it's quite hard to make any philosophy look like a good idea (some might say there's a lesson in that) and it will make it hard for the character walk out the end of the story still believing in his principles once he's seen how sordid and messy it all becomes as he sees the sausage being made. So you are definitely right in substance, I just wouldn't call that 'showing both sides' because these days that tends to mean 'offer another equally biased and unhelpful opinion on the same topic'. I suppose a better way to put it might be "Be realistic in how you show the philosophy and show all aspects of it, not just the positive."
Well, you can advocate for a position or demonstrate multiple positions. Both have audiences. There are far more than two sides to any issue, though the greys only come out when you look beyond stats, facts, logic, and debate, and consider actions taken by different people and their reasons for taking those actions. Emotion, basically. Humanize the philosophy or political discourse by showing its misunderstandings, its interpretations, and how they're applied by your characters, which each might represent a different major facet of the philosophy. If people are the results of their environments, then write it from cultural perspectives. Applied philosophy does not and cannot exist within a vacuum. Humans corrupt it -- show us how. That said, context is important and I wouldn't simply allude to an Orwellian state. I'd be pretty up front about it, but that's my preference.
The book Unwind by Neal Shusterman comes to mind. It's a YA novel set in a universe with retroactive abortion. Say your thirteen-year old turns out to be an uncontrollable ne'er-do-well, you can send him off to be "unwound"--to have his body taken apart for organ donations. That's obviously a rough topic people feel very strongly about. But through several characters, we get many sides of the issue. Here's the rub: the story is about unwinding, so the debate between characters has its place. If this was, say, Reservoir Dogs, that debate wouldn't have a place. Mr. White and Mr. Pink aren't going to debate the merits of abortion or the sanctity of life at length while Mr. Orange bleeds on the floor. But Reservoir Dogs does start with a conversation about the meaning of "Like a Virgin" by Madonna. While that conversation doesn't have diddly to do with the central plot, the interactions between characters shows us something about them. Tell your story, but keep it moving. One thing I dislike about "Christian fiction" (and I'm a Christian) is the part where we inevitably pause the story to share the Gospel. It's unrealistic and ridiculous, because the author set the story aside with an agenda to evangelize the reader. You don't want to throw in a soapbox moment that your story could do without. In Unwind, there comes a point where one character has to convert another to his way of thinking. That requires a bit of a soapbox moment, but it's done well, and it's necessary to tell the story. I recently read another story where the main character is a racist Confederate out for the blood of the slave who burned down his plantation. The author never gives any arguments for or against racism or slavery, because that's not the point of the story. Are your characters trying to stop a social injustice? Then soapbox moments have their place. If your hitman trying to right the wrongs of his past needs to justify himself to his organization or boss, then he might bring up some moral argument. But if he's a freelancer who doesn't have anyone to justify himself to, then there's less potential for those arguments. What you as the author shouldn't do is write a college essay or op-ed piece disguised as a story. Tell a good story, first and foremost, without trying to preach.
Thanks for the responses! So yeah, looking at both sides of the argument seems like a good idea, but i was originally planning on having each character have there own unique ideas, philosophy and ideas which counter each-over to the characters act as each-overs negative to there own idea, if that makes sense. For example, one character holds the belief that doing bad to benefits ones own self isn't a bad thing because everyone does bad anyways. Whereas another character believes that doing bad isn't a good thing, because the world will always remain a terrible place and sacrifice for another is a better option. I plan to have these two characters meet to have there ideas and the way they live there lives clash, hopefully having both of these characters completely do a 180 on there beliefs now that they have experienced the other side, to illustrate that no one side is better than the other. This also links into a previous question i posted called "How do i show not tell" where i basically asked that question. I think that question plays vital importance here, as its important to have the characters show there beliefs through there actions which the readers can judge for themselves rather than giving it through exposition for the leader to learn, then the reader can take whichever side they want and come to there own conclusions on the subject. But i'm guessing exposition isn't a bad thing, since shows like GOT and House of Cards handle this very well with exposition. In terms of the philosophical leaning side, i planned on having a bit of fun with this, similar to the way the matrix did, with conspiracy theory's, what is the meaning of life/human nature etc. Again, this falls in the showing part for me, having characters act and respond depending on there own personal views. But i think in conclusion, just giving both sides of the argument a fair chance unbiased, and to balance out exposition with character actions is probably a good way to go! Cheers, post any other ideas if they pop up :3
"Doing bad" is an extremely generic concept. I think that most people's views are far more specific than that.
What do you mean specific?? Could you provide an example perhaps? I did write that sentence in a very vague way, but if you want me to elaborate a bit more on what i mean by bad in the characters sense i can.
If you have two characters with opposing views, that's good, because it creates story worthy conflict. The key there is "story worthy." As long as the actions and discussions between characters moves the story forward, you're fine. "Show, don't tell" is good advice most of the time, and is mostly a pacing tactic, in my experience. Suppose you have a character who is shown waking up. You don't need to walk the reader through every step of the character's morning routine. With the banalities of life, it's okay to do more telling. It's when a character does something specific to the story that you want to show more than tell. As for showing what a character believes, that's good, too. In Pulp Fiction, three characters are in a car. Two of them have just survived a hit gone slightly bad; they escaped unscathed but could have easily died. Julius says it's a miracle, where Vincent calls it a freak occurrence. Vincent accidentally shoots the third man, prompting Julius to complain about the mess and possible problems with the police. Neither says killing the third man was wrong, which tells us something about their beliefs. You can often find ways for characters to show what they believe by what they don't do or say, as much as what they say and do. It's something I learned through practice and critique. The bottom line is to only include those things that move the story forward. If a character goes off for a page about something that isn't relevant to the story, that's bad storytelling.
There are countless ways to do bad things. Throwing bricks through windows, stealing candy from babies, murder, poisoning, theft from the rich, theft from the poor, theft from family, kicking puppies, kicking children, kidnapping slander, child abuse, spousal abuse, random assaults on strangers, insider trading, graffiti, cutting brake lines... People are likely to have different views on different actions.
Thanks, i think i have a more solid understanding now! And i see what you mean chicken! What i meant in more detail, is that one of my characters is a hit man who does bad (murder) for money from the mafia whereas the character who believes in good, is an FBI agent who upholds the law and believes in justice system to dish out worthy punishment to criminals and is opposed to killing. With a character who does murder on a weekly basis like its nothing and one who is so opposed to it that it interferes with his job, i thought that would create a nice dynamic. Hopefully that isn't too generic. Now the next thing i need to look into is how to move the plot along, as my plot is a long way from being resolved (near the end of the book) and iv'e been putting mini plots in my story so far to keep readers occupied and develop characters/the world.
Again, I see this as too simplistic. So the hit man may kill people for money. Will he kill anyone at all? A child? A baby? His own grandmother? I'll bet that he has limits. And I'll bet that in his world view, he's not "bad". I'll bet that he has a mental structure that makes his actions OK, and/or he has moral rules that he does stick too that give him a part of his existence where he sees himself as good. And while the FBI agent may be opposed to murder, it's possible that he may also do "bad" things. It sounds like you're at risk of creating a featureless Evil Person and a featureless Good Person.
Ah, so what your saying is that i need to make the characters more complex and less predictable then? By adding more details, perhaps a moral code based on some on previous event, how far they are willing to go etc? Or maybe because the Hitman does bad and the FBI agent does good, its too predictable and maybe i should make the characters less cliche? (The Hitman does good whilst the FBI agent does bad?) This is all new information for me so I'm trying to absorb it before i dive into another writing session and again thanks for the help!
Yes, and also, a story where the purpose of the story is to communicate that murder is bad is likely to be so non-controversial as to have no purpose. We're all pretty much agreed that murder is bad.
Thanks, and the purpose of the story wasn't to prove that murder is bad, but to give a unbiased approach to a variety of so many issues, that people cant decide whether or not murder is bad. The story will play on what people assume is right and wrong and flip it on its head to make people question there own sense of morality, that's the idea anyways For example, we say that murder is wrong yet we kill others during times of war, murder animals to feed ourselves and some people would even murder others to fulfil there own sense of justice (revenge). Would we murder others during times of war if we truly believed that murder is wrong, would we kill animals if they looked like us and spoke the same language as us? What would it take to change our morality (or the readers morality) from someone who believes that murder is wrong, to murder is justifiable in this situation. That's the idea anyways
