Shift from Idealism to Cynicism?

[Mindfire]

There seems to be a recent trend of straying away from a black/white moral dichotomy to more grey and grey or grey and black. This trend is practically embodied by George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire books and the popularity thereof. From what I know of the books (very little) they seem to be very well written, but also very harsh to the point of fatalism, which puts me off a bit as i prefer things to be a bit more clear cut and idealistic. By contrast the battle lines between good and evil in things like the works of Tolkien are very clearly drawn. There are characters who cross those lines periodically and not all is pleasant, but those lines are still there and rather concrete.

What do you guys think of this? As I said, I prefer to lean toward idealism. Not necessarily black hat/white hat, but the idea that there are "good" and "evil" alignments even though both sides have flawed characters. I also like the assurance that eventually, though it may require sacrifice, good will eventually triumph. Works like ASOIAF strike me as depressing and (here's that word again) fatalistic.

What end of the spectrum do you tend to lean towards? Is one approach better than the other? Should writers choose one rather than the other?

 

[Steerpike]

I'm happy to read either of them if done well. Joe Abercrombie's excellent book Best Served Cold makes George Martin's books look like a happy frolic.

But I also enjoy a more traditional fantasy where the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, and you know who is who. So long as it is well done

 

[Ghost]

I prefer grey, but I can go either way as long as the author touches on universals. I'm not sure if that makes sense. I want something timeless, whether it's about who we wish we could be or who we are. If the sides are clear and the goal is simple, I want to see qualities that make it otherworldly to show this isn't a reflection of reality. I prefer black and white conflicts to be more mythical than realistic. When the book has more shades of grey, I want to see the what allows people to keep going in spite of all that happens around them.

If people are unwavering in their goodness or their badness, I can't relate to anybody or put myself in their shoes. If everyone in the story is an insufferable asshole and things go from bad to worse to shitstorm of the century, I can't relate to anybody and don't want to put myself in their shoes. There has to be something to balance it out.

I try to populate my fantasy worlds with real people. That means things can get messy. I like for my protagonists to walk the line between right and wrong. I'm more interested in someone who doesn't know what choice to make than someone who is is right because of the side they're on. I do have a few individuals and creatures are evil, but the people they encounter are more important.

Is one approach better than the other? Should writers choose one rather than the other?

I don't like this line of thinking. I don't think either approach is better than the other. It depends completely on the story, the author, and the quality. Whatever you chose should fit your personal taste. I'd hate fantasy if it was 100% grey or if everyone was required to do the black/white approach. We need more variety, not less.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I like things real, and though I don't know what my alignment would be in real life.... I tend to be very realistic without a hint of fanaticism. Life is a sort of brutal thing here on earth... imagine what it might be like somewhere else.....

While I like characters I can relate to, and do enjoy happy endings.... my main characters are perfectly capable of inhumane acts against differently motivated people (rather than monsters). In fact, I'd say 80-90% of my characters are Grayish.

That being said, I have enjoyed some books where it was very Black vs. White, but I tend to expend more effort trying to relate to the characters. To me there's not much more predictable than a supremely evil master trying to control the world with armies of monsters..... but then, I've read and enjoyed more than a few books that had that exact plot, so who knows. I read and enjoy many things; I write how I feel: Grayish.

 

[Jabrosky]

In real life I'm very much an idealist with a black-and-white view of the world, so I voted idealism, but I have enjoyed stories with more gray areas before.

 

[Ivan]

As far as my reading preferences I have no use for something that looks on the world through a polarizing lens.

I like to start out idealistic in my projects, and then people start to realize that things aren't as simple as that, and that sometimes the one who is the most good is also the most evil (not exactly a new idea, but I think it is an important one).

 

[Penpilot]

I don't have a preference. It all depends for me. Sometimes I just want to read that black and white heroes's hero and villains's villain and have fun with the ride. Others times, I'll want something more meaty and complex with all the shades of gray. I don't think there's a right choice as to which to write as long as you're aware of which you are writing and it fits the story. A well written moustache twirling villain can be a lot of fun. Both types of story have their place in fiction.

 

[Mindfire]

Others times, I'll want something more meaty and complex with all the shades of gray.

...A well written moustache twirling villain can be a lot of fun. Both types of story have their place in fiction.

This is part of the issue. Characters can be complex and have a clear good/evil alignment. They are not mutually exclusive options. Yet many people seem to consider works with a clear good/evil dichotomy to be "simplistic" or "childish."

 

[Amanita]

My preferred style is probably something in between. I want protagonists who have moral ideals I can sympathize with more than with those of the opponents.
If a story's only about corrupt, peasant-abusing noble A and corrupt, peasant-abusing noble B both wanting the throne, I couldn't care less about the outcome and wouldn't read the story. If it's about elves and humans who are good (if a bit flawed) because they're elves and humans fighting orcs and trolls who are evil because they're orcs and trolls, I don't care much either.
I don't like capitalised Good and Evil but a more realistic approach. A setting where characters can choose between doing the right and wrong thing and sometimes between the lesser of two evils as well.
Someone can have good intentions and want to do the right thing but still not see all ends and maybe help a group that doesn't deserve their help after all, for example.

I have a problem with all settings where someone is evil simply because they belong to a certain group, be it orcs, dark elves, cursed humans or whatever. I wouldn't go as far as someone on another thread who claimed that this kind of thing can promote racism in real life but I do think it's using the fear of strangers or people with different beliefs in people for story-telling ends. Besides that it's a cheap way to have battles in the story rather than scenes where they're hunting animals without having to deal with the consequences of the protagonists killing human beings. It seems to me as if these authors want to write about the "glory of war" with sword fights and fire balls but exclude the fact that people are dying on both sides, soldiers and civilians including children alike.

By the way, this seems to be a quite recent developement, at least in Western mythology the enemies used to be humans and in cases such as the Ilias even humans, some of whom were seen as honorable as well. People did fight dragons and other monsters from time to time, but most of the time, the enemies were human. Wars against evil non-humans being so popular seem to be a quite recent developemt, maybe it has to do with the different perception of war now common in industrialised countries. I wonder, if someone's ever researched this developement.

In short I like protagonists I can sympathize with and whose goals I can understand but I don't like stories with pre-determinated good and evil groups whose members don't have any choice.

 

[JBryden88]

I used to be big on fantasy that was black and white. Good vs. Evil.

But... it's kind of like how times change I think. Back when Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, it was during a time in which that mentality "worked." Look at World War 2. The USA, the UK, France, hell, anyone in the Allied Powers as "the hero." Germany and Japan were the evil overlords.

That kind of thinking changed during the Vietnam era and quite frankly, its both a blessing and a shame. A blessing because no longer is it acceptable to think of things as so simple.... and a shame because this means a lot of people will be even more divided.

Translate this into a fantasy. People aren't simple, no matter if they're people from Earth, people from Westeros, or people from any other fantasy world. That's just how people are. Complicated, and quite frankly, quite flawed. I don't think cynical is the right word though.

Realistic, perhaps.

I find IMO, the best kind of fantasy is the kind that mixes it up. There's mostly grey, but some shades do vaguely hint as black and white. That is to say, you can have a hero, you can have a villain, but don't make them tropes or stereotypes. Best of both worlds that way.

 

[Rullenzar]

All things in life are grey, so why not apply that to story? Gives realism to a story. However, there is nothing wrong with drawing a clear line White/Black as it is in most fantasy.

Example: Your a straight A student, never had a hair out of place or a fight with someone to speak of. Along comes punkman who brutally kills someone very close to you. Looking in on this situation one would say arrest him and let the legal system draw out his punishment. But, for the straight A student it hits very close to home and 9 out of ten times the person would want to kill the one responsible. This is human nature and this is the point the real gritty fantasy novels like George Martins Game of Thrones tries to explore.

The point is you need to ask yourself what type of novel you want yours to be. Gritty or clear cut. Each has its benefits and each can be told equally as well. Tolkien Vs. Martin is best example. Tolkien being clear cut.

On an other note if you haven't yet read Game of thrones, you need to get on top of that ASAP. One of the best fantasy series you'll ever read.

 

[Steerpike]

This is part of the issue. Characters can be complex and have a clear good/evil alignment. They are not mutually exclusive options. Yet many people seem to consider works with a clear good/evil dichotomy to be "simplistic" or "childish."

Yes, this is precisely right. It can also be a realistic portrayal. Ultimately, this comes down to a reader's subjective preference. Any effort to pretend it is something beyond that is simply that - pretense. People like to try to find objective support for their preferences, even though it isn't necessary to do so.

 

[Devor]

I like to write idyllic settings because I want the conflicts to come from the characters, their choices and their relationships. Even when I write with harsh environments and horrible economic conditions, those need to fall quickly into the background so that the people can stand out.

Most of my characters are closer to good or evil, but there's some morally grey as well. It doesn't have to be a strict dichotomy.

I enjoy following a lot of different stories. There's one risk with morally grey, however, that I see a lot of books falling into. The character is an anti-hero, who does things that he shouldn't. But the presentation suggests that we're supposed to root for him the same way we're supposed to root for a "good guy". The tone should change throughout the book if that's the route you want to take. The "grey" actions should come across as grey, but I think they sometimes come in white packaging.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

I love both, and I tend to write somewhere in between. My characters don't end up nearly as morally ambiguous as I would sometimes like them to be. Lately, though, I've been reading more in the vein of Martin, so that is why I chose cynicism.

 

[Phin Scardaw]

This is part of the issue. Characters can be complex and have a clear good/evil alignment. They are not mutually exclusive options. Yet many people seem to consider works with a clear good/evil dichotomy to be "simplistic" or "childish."

I think that maybe there is something to this. A creature that is ONLY capable of being good or evil is relatively simple, to my mind - such as an animal that cannot help but follow its nature.

To me, any complexity that a truly evil character can have will be in its history. For example, consider the Mouth of Sauron (brilliantly portrayed by Bruce Spence in Jackson's film!) who is "no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dur he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' But it is told that he was a renegade, who came of the race that are named the Black Numenoreans..."

This man quite possibly was a being of brilliance and beauty at one point, but got turned down a very dark road. That's the kind of complexity that I admire in an evil being, because it makes me want to know the back-story. I suppose other examples could be offered.

I think that what makes characters most interesting in stories is the choices they make, whether good or bad, and what interests us are the circumstances that bring those choices about. A good or evil character is much more predictable in its responses than a person who is capable of both, and so can be perceived as less riveting. Personally, it seems to be that there's a current movement especially in television to have protagonists that are deeply flawed, not only because it seems more real, but because producers know that the audience gets a thrill out of seeing their favourite characters go to the dark side. That might explain the success of shows like Californication.

We are all angelic monsters, after all - or is it monstrous angels???

 

[Steerpike]

I think that maybe there is something to this. A creature that is ONLY capable of being good or evil is relatively simple, to my mind - such as an animal that cannot help but follow its nature.

Yes. The inability to act autonomously, according to one's will, is results in a rather simplistic creation. I don't have a problem if someone wants to use this approach with respect to some species like orcs, though it isn't necessary to do so. For characters, I think you can have a complex character who is unarguably a 'good guy.' The complexity comes in the form of choices, the conflicts within the character as a result of choices and situations, and so on. The fact that the character may, ultimately, always choose 'good' doesn't make him any less complex for it. Nor does it necessarily make him any less realistic. You could even create a tragic character who always does the good or honorable thing, and thereby suffers for it in a world that does not reward such behavior.

 

[Mindfire]

I think that maybe there is something to this. A creature that is ONLY capable of being good or evil is relatively simple, to my mind - such as an animal that cannot help but follow its nature.

See, that's the thing. When I write clearly good or evil characters, it's not that they just "are" good, so they do good, but they are people who have made a conscious choice to do the write thing, or to do whatever they want. They made a decision, but their decisions can still be clearly seen as either right or wrong. A hero still has the capability to do harm. And a villain still has the capability to do good (or did at one point), but they have chosen not to follow those paths.

 

[Steerpike]

See, that's the thing. When I write clearly good or evil characters, it's not that they just "are" good, so they do good, but they are people who have made a conscious choice to do the write thing, or to do whatever they want. They made a decision, but their decisions can still be clearly seen as either right or wrong. A hero still has the capability to do harm. And a villain still has the capability to do good (or did at one point), but they have chosen not to follow those paths.

A good example of this in a religious system would be Christ. I'm not religious, and not implying that anyone should have an opinion one way or another on the veracity of the story of Christ, but as the story goes he was without sin. But it wasn't because he was a being who was absolutely incapable of sin. The story would be meaningless in that case. He was capable of it, was tempted by it, struggled with it, but in the end made the 'good' choice. The fact that he had a choice is essential to the story. The same holds true for characters in your Fantasy story. They can be good, bad, or any shade of grey in between. Their autonomy is what is compelling.

 

[ScipioSmith]

As far as my reading preferences I have no use for something that looks on the world through a polarizing lens.

I like to start out idealistic in my projects, and then people start to realize that tIhings aren't as simple as that, and that sometimes the one who is the most good is also the most evil (not exactly a new idea, but I think it is an important one).

I sort of go the opposite route: the protagonists idealism is strengthened by his determination to oppose the cynical complexity of his world, and clean up the morals of the citizenry. I'm a White and Grey sort of guy myself: all people are good, but some need help bringing that goodness out.

People have talked a lot about realism here, and that's at the route of why I prefer idealism (GRRM is the only Grimdark fantasy author I'll read, because I actually think he's a lot less cynical than he's given credit for). Yes, the real world is a dark and complex place and you can't be sure of anything, but the moment we accept that as the best we can hope for, and stop aspiring to better, nobler or higher things will be, I feel, a very sad day for fantastic literature.

 

[Amanita]

Yes, the real world is a dark and complex place and you can't be sure of anything

Yes, it may seem that way sometimes, but there's plenty of good in there as well. So I don't see any reason why people making decisions we view as right are necessarily unrealistic. Sometimes, the opinions on which decision is the "good" one can vary greatly however.