On Assuming The Reader's Ethics
Recently I was reading a book that made me pause and think about societal norms of right and wrong. The situation in the story was that character 1 was very upset that character 2 (their bodyguard) had spied on them without their consent. Character 2 had placed a video bug in the interest of better protecting his charge. Character 1 was pissed, and it wasn't explored beyond "he's mad that I spied on him."
This made me realize... I didn't have sympathy for character 1, because I felt character 2 was in the right. The author seems to have assumed the reader would be on-board, and so the "just cuz" explanation would suffice.
Assuming that isn't necessarily wrong; I don't think an author needs to go out of their way to explain why someone would be upset over theft, slavery, or murder. But more ambiguous ideals, where there's no physical harm or infringement of rights, are more culturally determined. As an example, if character 3 was presented as extremely upset at character 4 for writing a poem, and the only explanation was an assumption that poem-writing is understood to be evil, I'd be very confused. If character 3 had some personal stake in it, like a poem killed his mother, I can at least understand where he's coming from. Otherwise, I'm sitting here thinking, "Uh, what's the issue?"
A nonfiction example comes from the Theory of Everything. I don't claim to know the reality of the situation, only how it was presented: Stephen Hawking's wife developed feelings for their mutual friend, Jonathan, who helped around the house and in their life a great deal. The movie presented him as loved by everyone in the household, and Wikipedia says, According to Jane, her husband was accepting of the situation, stating 'he would not object so long as I continued to love him.'" So to me, the fact that this became a point of contention felt extremely arbitrary. It was assumed "obvious" that she must choose one or the other, and can't continue to love both. Well, why not? The arrangement worked, the help was needed, the feelings were positive all around. It felt like fake, society-imposed tension. Which, I suppose, it is.
I can't think of too many fiction examples that were especially egregious to me, but the topic gave me pause. It's worth considering what assumptions are being made, and that not everyone shares the same views on what's acceptable or not.
This made me realize... I didn't have sympathy for character 1, because I felt character 2 was in the right. The author seems to have assumed the reader would be on-board, and so the "just cuz" explanation would suffice.
Assuming that isn't necessarily wrong; I don't think an author needs to go out of their way to explain why someone would be upset over theft, slavery, or murder. But more ambiguous ideals, where there's no physical harm or infringement of rights, are more culturally determined. As an example, if character 3 was presented as extremely upset at character 4 for writing a poem, and the only explanation was an assumption that poem-writing is understood to be evil, I'd be very confused. If character 3 had some personal stake in it, like a poem killed his mother, I can at least understand where he's coming from. Otherwise, I'm sitting here thinking, "Uh, what's the issue?"
A nonfiction example comes from the Theory of Everything. I don't claim to know the reality of the situation, only how it was presented: Stephen Hawking's wife developed feelings for their mutual friend, Jonathan, who helped around the house and in their life a great deal. The movie presented him as loved by everyone in the household, and Wikipedia says, According to Jane, her husband was accepting of the situation, stating 'he would not object so long as I continued to love him.'" So to me, the fact that this became a point of contention felt extremely arbitrary. It was assumed "obvious" that she must choose one or the other, and can't continue to love both. Well, why not? The arrangement worked, the help was needed, the feelings were positive all around. It felt like fake, society-imposed tension. Which, I suppose, it is.
I can't think of too many fiction examples that were especially egregious to me, but the topic gave me pause. It's worth considering what assumptions are being made, and that not everyone shares the same views on what's acceptable or not.
Don't give up. Write more!
ReplyDelete