This is
part two of my post about Good vs Evil in fantasy fiction. If you have not read
my first post on this subject then you can read it here.
French philosopher, Simone Weil, said, “Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy,
monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new,
marvelous, intoxicating. Therefore ‘imaginative literature’ is either boring or
immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if
in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art –
and only genius can do that.” She says a lot here in these four sentences.
Basically, in fiction, evil is romantic and diverse; but in real life, evil is
not great at all. In fiction, good is not so intriguing, but in real life good
is wonderful. Weil makes a strong statement in saying that fiction
(“imaginative literature”) is either boring or immoral (considering that good
is boring in fiction and evil is fascinating in fiction), but can escape such an
outcome if it would depict reality—but “only genius can do that.” Now let’s
keep in mind that Weil’s comments are from the early part of the 20TH
century, and, just like the talk of most philosophers, her comments are from
the fountains of her own thoughts and opinions; but one cannot deny the degree
of truth in those profound words.
American writer, Flannery O’Connor, stated, “I know nothing harder than making good
people believable.” It’s true, writing characters that are good, and trying
to make them believable is quite the task for a lot of writers. The same can be
said of characters that are evil; however, I think writers don’t have as much
of a struggle writing a flawed, twisted character than writing a character that
is good and noble in an interesting and believable manner. Readers want to read
flawed characters, because in real life all people are flawed—nobody is
perfect. Readers can relate to characters that are more like them than they
could with characters like King Arthur or Aragorn. To me, a character that is
“good” will have that struggle of good and evil within them; however, they tend
to master, or suppress, their own “evil” desires to do what they know and
believe to be right to oppose the external evils. Stephen King does a great job
of writing flawed characters that are capable of standing against evil; but
sometimes, in my opinion, King can go a little too far and make a character kind
of goofy or bizarre, where it just doesn’t work all that well.
George R.R.
Martin has destroyed the likes of the chivalrous knight, and made him a murderer
or rapist; and he’s smothered the likes of the noble king and made them brutal
and manipulative. This completely grays out the contrast between good and evil,
compared to the more traditional fantasy. Of course, Martin is not the only one
doing this, but he’s the top of the fantasy chain right now, so I use him as an
example.
English
writer, G.K. Chesterton, wrote: “This is
also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for
ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his
adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in
the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central.
Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is
monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a
dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad
world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic
will do in a dull world.” This quote is from the dawn of the 20TH
century, yet it is so relevant for today (over one hundred years later). Chesterton
simply argues that the traditional stories of taking an ordinary person and
putting them in extraordinary circumstances stand the test of time. But the
stories where the character is ultra flawed in a world just as chaotic lacks any
kind of variety. Think of a photo that has no contrast. It’s dull and
washed-out looking. But the photo with good contrast is nice to look at, and
makes for a much better picture. Fiction should be viewed likewise.
Here is
another quote from G.K. Chesterton: “The
sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch
of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he
has a touch of the madman.” This goes back to my earlier point; a good
person will have that struggle within, conflicting between the good and bad
within them. This brings such a realistic contrast within a character; and this
can go both ways—with hero or villain. The villain is no exception. He/she
should have the same inner battles, but, of course, they tend to lean more
towards the bad. Think of it in this simplistic way: a character is being good
when they act selflessly; a character is being bad when they act selfishly.
A story
should take the conflict of good and evil within the characters and display the
same contrast externally. So when the hero acts out their selflessness
(goodness) against the villain's selfishness (badness), there’s that iconic
clash between the two, and the reader gets to sit back and watch a story of
good versus evil unfold. When good and evil is blurred together in a story, and
all the characters are acting selfishly, in most part, then you have a
monotonous story. Everything is just grayed out, with no variety of color.
Since modern fantasy is trying to steer more toward realism then it should
reflect the real world, which has contrast and variety; and has people who do
selfless acts and selfish acts, and the two acts battle each other for eons.
Good and evil exists; and it should not be diminished in today’s fantasy
fiction.
RELATED POSTS:
Good vs Evil
RELATED POSTS:
Good vs Evil
