The Concept of Good and Evil
I find the concept of good and evil overly simplistic.
I'm not going to say I automatically hate it. That would rule out so much great fiction, like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Supernatural.
Oh yeah and that really good season of Constantine that went the way of Firefly.
Anyway, a lot of the good vs evil thing comes from religion, and fiction based on religious mythology is naturally going to incorporate it (such as the aforementioned Constantine or Supernatural, also Stargate SG-1, come to think of it). Some of the really great classics also handle it tactfully, because they're giants and founding fathers of their genre (LOTR and Star Wars). However, in more contemporary, non-Biblical fiction, I think the idea of good vs evil is starting to get stale.
As fiction and literature evolves, we're more and more interested in shades of gray, moral ambiguity, antiheroes, ethical quandaries, and unclear or sympathetic villains. The bad guy who's a bad guy just for the sake of being evil and taking over the world is now considered trite and unimaginative. It was fine when Tolkein did it, because he pretty much established the genre, but to be fair, there were other, more nuanced villains in the story besides Sauron. Even in my above examples, while the plots in those shows have a lot to do with the forces of good battling demons and devils, the heroes themselves are complicated, and far from paragons of good.
Superman is a good example of that paragon of good. And you might have noticed he's not as popular these days. We're a lot more interested in the re-imagined Dark Knight with his moral ambiguity.
I think part of the attraction of these shades of gray is asking questions that we don't know how to answer. It's interesting to watch characters grapple with these dilemmas, and different characters will come up with different solutions, and value certain aspects of "right" to varying degrees. For instance, is it about how many people you save? How compassionate you act towards others? The ends or the means? Watchmen is a fascinating example of a cast of characters who all view the concept of justice in entirely different lights.
Another reason I find straightforward good vs evil too simplistic is the fact that it's not easily applicable to real life. Fiction can shape characters and forces to fit the mold, but honestly, there are very, very few living people who I'd consider "bad" people, and even then, they're not 100% bad. Even the most judgmental, cruel, vicious people I can think of still have families and things that they care about. Real people aren't so one-dimensional.
Just like I was saying above about characters who value different aspects of what is the "right" think, I think real people also vary in what they value. One person might think an open mind and lack of judgment is what makes someone "good," while another might place more importance on hard work and following through on promises. The truth of what makes a "good" person is so broad. Kindness, compassion, fairness, honesty, dedication, modesty, and a hundred other things--and pretty much nobody is going to check all the boxes. Similarly, pretty much nobody will check none of the boxes. Role models might display a large number of these positive traits, while us average schmucks try to remember to be nice every day, but I don't think you can definitively say there's a line on that scale that makes someone good or bad.
Even someone who's malicious and vindictive can still have redeeming qualities. This is a horrible example, but just consider how many abusive families appear outwardly friendly, social, and supportive. That's part of why domestic abuse is so insidious--they always say it's the ones you'd least expect. Considering a violent, cruel abuser can still have many friends and a successful career, that seems like strong evidence that they're not pure evil.
This is why I'm always going on about Babylon 5. A catchphrase in the first season is "no one on Babylon 5 is what they seem." The villains aren't all bad, the allies aren't all good, no character is immune to flaws or poor judgment. I'm using B5 as a specific example because it's exemplary in this department, but tons of my favorite books, movies, and television series work on the same premise. It's something I focus on a lot in my own writing; I prefer to have POVs on both sides, instead of a "good guy" side and a "bad guy" side. In these situations, you find yourself rooting for both sides, and since you know they can't both come out on top, it really adds to the tension.
After all, my all-time favorite fictional character is the poster child for a villain who ends up as a good guy: Prince Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender.
I'm not going to say I automatically hate it. That would rule out so much great fiction, like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Supernatural.
Oh yeah and that really good season of Constantine that went the way of Firefly.
Anyway, a lot of the good vs evil thing comes from religion, and fiction based on religious mythology is naturally going to incorporate it (such as the aforementioned Constantine or Supernatural, also Stargate SG-1, come to think of it). Some of the really great classics also handle it tactfully, because they're giants and founding fathers of their genre (LOTR and Star Wars). However, in more contemporary, non-Biblical fiction, I think the idea of good vs evil is starting to get stale.
As fiction and literature evolves, we're more and more interested in shades of gray, moral ambiguity, antiheroes, ethical quandaries, and unclear or sympathetic villains. The bad guy who's a bad guy just for the sake of being evil and taking over the world is now considered trite and unimaginative. It was fine when Tolkein did it, because he pretty much established the genre, but to be fair, there were other, more nuanced villains in the story besides Sauron. Even in my above examples, while the plots in those shows have a lot to do with the forces of good battling demons and devils, the heroes themselves are complicated, and far from paragons of good.
Superman is a good example of that paragon of good. And you might have noticed he's not as popular these days. We're a lot more interested in the re-imagined Dark Knight with his moral ambiguity.
I think part of the attraction of these shades of gray is asking questions that we don't know how to answer. It's interesting to watch characters grapple with these dilemmas, and different characters will come up with different solutions, and value certain aspects of "right" to varying degrees. For instance, is it about how many people you save? How compassionate you act towards others? The ends or the means? Watchmen is a fascinating example of a cast of characters who all view the concept of justice in entirely different lights.
Another reason I find straightforward good vs evil too simplistic is the fact that it's not easily applicable to real life. Fiction can shape characters and forces to fit the mold, but honestly, there are very, very few living people who I'd consider "bad" people, and even then, they're not 100% bad. Even the most judgmental, cruel, vicious people I can think of still have families and things that they care about. Real people aren't so one-dimensional.
Just like I was saying above about characters who value different aspects of what is the "right" think, I think real people also vary in what they value. One person might think an open mind and lack of judgment is what makes someone "good," while another might place more importance on hard work and following through on promises. The truth of what makes a "good" person is so broad. Kindness, compassion, fairness, honesty, dedication, modesty, and a hundred other things--and pretty much nobody is going to check all the boxes. Similarly, pretty much nobody will check none of the boxes. Role models might display a large number of these positive traits, while us average schmucks try to remember to be nice every day, but I don't think you can definitively say there's a line on that scale that makes someone good or bad.
Even someone who's malicious and vindictive can still have redeeming qualities. This is a horrible example, but just consider how many abusive families appear outwardly friendly, social, and supportive. That's part of why domestic abuse is so insidious--they always say it's the ones you'd least expect. Considering a violent, cruel abuser can still have many friends and a successful career, that seems like strong evidence that they're not pure evil.
This is why I'm always going on about Babylon 5. A catchphrase in the first season is "no one on Babylon 5 is what they seem." The villains aren't all bad, the allies aren't all good, no character is immune to flaws or poor judgment. I'm using B5 as a specific example because it's exemplary in this department, but tons of my favorite books, movies, and television series work on the same premise. It's something I focus on a lot in my own writing; I prefer to have POVs on both sides, instead of a "good guy" side and a "bad guy" side. In these situations, you find yourself rooting for both sides, and since you know they can't both come out on top, it really adds to the tension.
After all, my all-time favorite fictional character is the poster child for a villain who ends up as a good guy: Prince Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender.
 |
| FYI this is a downloadable wallpaper from here. |
Amber -- You're not really objecting to the concept of good or evil; you're objecting to overly simplistic notions of good or evil. Giving up the concept itself would make a story entirely boring; there are no stakes, nothing to hope for or fear. But appreciating the degrees and nuances does add richness to a story.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, degrees for sure. I suppose I'm not against the concept of "good" and degrees of good. But I don't think any such thing as evil or true evil exists.
Delete