The Epic and shades of grey

[BWFoster78]

Only kidding. I'm sure you have reasonable justifications for your opinions. But I'm sure you also understand why I can't share them.

Actually, I can't because I have not stated any opinions. Therefore, it seems like it would be kinda hard for you to take any stance either way and hard for me to understand why you could possibly disagree since there's nothing for you to disagree with.

 

[Mindfire]

Actually, I can't because I have not stated any opinions. Therefore, it seems like it would be kinda hard for you to take any stance either way and hard for me to understand why you could possibly disagree since there's nothing for you to disagree with.

Stated, no. Implied... arguable.

And while we're at epics, Tolkien's characters aren't nearly as flawless as people claim they are. I submit for your consideration: The Silmarillion.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I've heard it argued that the modern epic fantasy comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of Tolkien--later authors wrote about saving the world, and he wrote about magic inexorably passing away despite the fact that the world was saved. (I never made it out of the Shire, so I don't know.)

 

[Zero Angel]

WotA goes on this path pretty early on. In Book 1, the elves are portrayed rather unsympathetically, but with Book 2 and beyond the characters get more complex and the kingdoms themselves aren't so black-and-white.

 

[Ophiucha]

Hmm, I don't know, I think they're called 'shades of grey' for a reason. You can still have a villain and a hero, one side obviously morally superior to the other, without having them both have bits of white and black. Just have the hero be a lighter shade. It doesn't have to be neutral grey vs. neutral grey. But I suppose there are also two ways of looking at the scale, one as a gradient and one as a literal scale for weights. A gradient has a thousand options between black and white, whereas a scale really only has three: black, white, grey. With the scale, an evil character could have some small stones on the 'good' side of the scale but like a brick or two on the 'evil' side. Like, 'killing millions of people' will outweigh 'good father' and 'environmentalist'. The scale would still be as far down in the black as it can go despite there being stones in the white. Certainly with characters like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, they both have their 'grey' traits - Voldemort less so than Harry - but both would be undoubtedly good or evil with a scale whereas Harry, at least, might be a very pale shade of grey.

Semantic analogy arguments! The true meaning of writing.

But seriously, I didn't even really like simple 'good vs. evil' conflicts as a kid, let alone now.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

"The best stories don't come from "good vs. bad" but "good vs. good."
- Leo Tolstoy

 

[OGone]

I think it depends on your audience. A younger audience is going to be more partial towards characters which are morally black and white while a a more mature audience is going to want morally grey characters. I think your characters need to have diversity or they'll become uninteresting. I don't like when authors take it to the extreme though, this is probably just a personal choice. I find it hard to care for characters when they exist in a whole roster of morally grey characters and are a medium shade themselves...


I just got done finished with Mistborn. Very good example of morally grey characters written as epic fantasy while still maintaining a solid good vs. evil plot. A lot of the things Kelsier does (one of the two protagonists) are irrational and selfish yet he's still a good guy come the end of the novel. And the villain himself, the Lord Ruler, has his own reasons but I haven't discovered them yet as I haven't read the next two books.

I said this before but a character who is evil just for providing an antagonist is very rarely a good character. There are exceptions though, for example Carnage who's one of my favorite comic book villains. Comics are a little different to novels, though

 

[Zero Angel]

I don't need gray. I was raised in a fantasy world and I'd like to go on living in it if I can. I don't mind seeing characters struggle with decisions and anti-heroes are always fun, but it is not a necessity to me.

 

[Mindfire]

"The best stories don't come from "good vs. bad" but "good vs. good."
- Leo Tolstoy

I have to disagree with Tolstoy. "Good vs. Good" just makes everyone involved look like an idiot. See: every unnecessary superhero vs. superhero fight ever.

 

[Ophiucha]

Good vs. good does require either a misunderstanding (which I find boring as heck) or a conflict in which moral objectivity can't be applied. Where two opposite sides are equally valid. Which is pretty rare. But when it works, I love it.

 

[Philip Overby]

There's a "realism" movement going through fantasy right now: some people like it, some people don't.

I think what some of these writers that have grittier stories and characters are trying to show is that there is no good and no evil in the world. Everyone is influenced by their background, culture, or environment. That's how real humans form their morality.

For an epic story that involves these type of characters, the endgame isn't as easy as "destroy the evil presence." Because in an effort to be more realistic, human beings mostly don't function this way. They want to know why they have to destroy the evil presence. Who is the true evil presence? Am I the true evil presence?

An example:

Your main character is a mercenary. He's seen his share of wars and fought for both sides. As an analogy "he likes both Coke and Pepsi." He doesn't care which side he's on. He's brought into a conflict. On one side, you have a very rich kingdom, they'll give the MC a lot of money, but he has to do some nasty things. On the other side, you have the opposing kingdom, which is also very rich and he has to do some different nasty things. So which side does he choose?

Well, one side has held his wife captive, the other holds his son captive. He has to choose which one he really wants to save. Can he save both? Can he only save one? Will he choose to save one over the other? Why?

These are morally complex questions that the average reader may not want to deal with. They may just want "knight kills the dragon because it's evil." It's easy to consume and doesn't require any further analysis. The average reader likes books like this. Is there anything wrong with that? No, but that's why this "good vs. evil" theme keeps coming up in fantasy throughout the years. It's ingrained in world culture, it's in their myths and legends. It's easy to understand for the masses.

 

[OGone]

I have to disagree with Tolstoy. "Good vs. Good" just makes everyone involved look like an idiot. See: every unnecessary superhero vs. superhero fight ever.

I do disagree that Good vs. Good is always better but the Marvel Civil War storyline was pretty awesome and that is superhero vs. superhero. I didn't understand what you meant though, give an example of when superheroes thought unnecessarily?

 

[Sheriff Woody]

I think a lot of people mistake "greyness" of character for depth of character. This mistake can lead some to think that a clear hero or a clear villain cannot have any depth of character, which is utterly untrue.

It's just a lot easier to write when you have characters with obviously conflicted morals. Writing a more traditional story with more traditional character types is a lot more difficult, in my view.

 

[Philip Overby]

I think you're both misinterpreting what Tolstoy's quote means. It doesn't mean Iron Man vs. Thor, it means throughout history good people have fought good people in numerous wars. Most people who fight in these wars are doing the deeds of others.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

There's a "realism" movement going through fantasy right now: some people like it, some people don't.

Not just fantasy, but all genres. And not just books, but all mediums of storytelling.

Personally, I get a little upset when I have to go back in time to watch a movie or TV show or read a book that isn't following the current trend only because it's the current trend.

 

[Jabrosky]

It's just a lot easier to write when you have characters with obviously conflicted morals. Writing a more traditional story with more traditional character types is a lot more difficult, in my view.

What do you mean by this?

I for one want clarity on what is considered "gray" in this thread. Having sympathetic characters with flaws isn't terribly revolutionary by itself. Would those be considered "gray"? When I read about grittiness in modern-day fantasy, I keep thinking moral ambiguity.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

What do you mean by this?

A grey character can sometimes act as either hero or villain in any given situation, which means their actions are often unpredictable. They can do something "good", they can do something "bad", they can do something that has both positive and negative effects. This often leads to a good deal of internal conflict within that character, and as we all know, conflict is the single most important element of storytelling.

It's easier to get bored with a guy or gal who's always good or always bad. Moral ambiguity is just more dynamic. It's easier to make that interesting, because the situation in itself is inherently interesting.

 

[Mindfire]

I do disagree that Good vs. Good is always better but the Marvel Civil War storyline was pretty awesome and that is superhero vs. superhero. I didn't understand what you meant though, give an example of when superheroes thought unnecessarily?

Remember the part in Avengers when Iron Man and Thor fight each other? I thought that was stupid. Not that the scene was stupid, the scene was awesome. But the characters were behaving like idiots. They were clearly on the same side, but were fighting each other anyway because of petty bull-headedness.

 

[OGone]

I think you're both misinterpreting what Tolstoy's quote means. It doesn't mean Iron Man vs. Thor, it means throughout history good people have fought good people in numerous wars. Most people who fight in these wars are doing the deeds of others.

I never misunderstood the quote but I assumed it was posted in relevance to the thread, where we're talking about fiction...

 

[Steerpike]

Good v. Good can make for a very compelling plot. The fact that comic book writers can't pull it off doesn't have any substantive effect on my opinion.