Thoughts on morality and fiction

[oyceter]

I've been kind of mulling over morality and fiction/fictional worlds lately, not sparked by anything in particular. It's more a combination of old AtPo and LJ posts examining the morality of various Buffy and Angel characters, particularly of the reaction to LMPTM, to Jenny-O's post on misogyny and the Connor arc, and to many previous things.

Sometimes I wonder why it matters to us so much that our characters or shows have a moral theme. I hear stuff about Eowyn abandoning her duty to Rohan, and I have that instant in which I feel I must defend her, or something silly like that. Why does it matter so much to me that Eowyn be in the right? And it obviously does, even though intellectually I can appreciate how having these moral dilemmas for her character makes her a much more dynamic and interesting character. And I hate it when characters are always in the moral right, like the Heralds of Valdemar or something. Except, now that I think about it, that's not what bugs me the most. What annoys me the most is that they are not always in the moral right, and yet, everyone treats them as though they were -- they being any fictional character suffering Mary Sue-itis, or being whitewashed somehow. It's that they are making choices which I find morally grey to say the least, such as killing people (no matter what the cause) and suffering no consequence.

It's like my reaction when I read Reading Lolita in Tehran. I was so angry in parts at the author's description of Lolita that I didn't want to read the book, even though later on, I was mentally cheering as the author defended The Great Gatsby against charges of immorality.

I do not think that fiction has to uphold a certain moral standard. At the same time, I will throw a book against a wall if it violates my own moral standards. Furthermore, my moral standards while reading are very liable to shift -- if the author does a good enough job in painting the mindset of a racist, I may even come to understand. I would not condone or countenance it, but I would have maybe a bit more insight to the why. If the author does a poor job, I chuck the book. I think I also need it so that even if the characters or even the ending of the story does not uphold some sort of moral rightness (bad guy punished, good guy rewarded), I need for the author to somehow pass judgment. I am okay with characters doing horrible or ambiguous things as long as the authorial intent as perceived by myself is that said thing is horrible or ambiguous.

This is how I can enjoy romance novels with coercion fantasies or dark romances in which the hero or heroine is obviously not a good person. I'm fine with the entire thing about falling in love with a murderer and believing that he (mostly he in romances) is redeemable through twu wuv, as long as the author realizes that this is an incredibly insane idea. Hrm, ok, actually sometimes I am so drawn in by the story that I find myself agreeing, and then I wonder what has happened to me. And yet, I get extremely angry at any misogyny I perceive in fiction.

And obviously I am very concerned with the morality of things that I partake of -- I spend tons of time wondering if said movie is exoticizing Asian culture while maintaining a superior moral stance, if it is somehow not being respectful, or if so and so book is in fact subtly homophobic or if a TV show is in fact being misogynistic. Part of my thesis was realizing that for some things, I don't necessarily feel there is a moral message in the fact that Japanese girls enjoy reading about homosexual boys. But if you put in Asian girls and people of other races enjoying looking at that kind of porn, yes, I have a problem with that. Then I wonder if the analogy is in fact correct, if maybe it should be people enjoying narratives about interracial couples or something, back when it was illegal.

Mostly I am confusing myself now. I think maybe I am trying to say that while I do not believe art has to be moral, I personally have big problems when it isn't. And yet, I have the same problems when it is didactic. So I guess the big question is: why is this so important to me, and to other people, it seems, from how much discussion is generated by things like "is the mindwipe right?" "Should Dawn have been killed in the Gift?"

Hrm. The post that never ends, because I just thought, duh, obviously it is important to me because I get to test out moral dilemmas on fiction, where it does not blow up the world if something goes wrong. Well, partly at least. I wonder if other people are like that, and thus, if all the arguments are about indirectly arguing for a certain moral POV.

I really need to go to bed and stop thinking circular thoughts now... Apologies if this made no sense to anyone!!

Comments

[yhlee.livejournal.com]

Nah. I got confused toward the end, although it's 4 AM might have something to do with it. Could you give examples of works that have given you particular issues?

[rahael.livejournal.com]

Since I'm aware of most of the debates that gave rise to your thoughts, I think I understand. Perhaps what's important that while characers doing ambiguous things can make for superb drama, it's clear that they are doing ambiguous things. That the ep or the book isnt' saying "Yay, isn't it great? Isn't this heroic and noble?"

It's also important for me that even if the work does this, that there is enough room for myself as a viewer/reader to say: But I don't agree. And have it acknowledged. This is what separates, I think the greatest works of art that appear to support dubious things, and those books and eps that also do this, but leave no room for the viewers to think differently. And what our individual definition of 'space for disagreement' in the narrative is, is up to us, so different people will find different things objectionable. I don't know whether my response makes any sense though!

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Long ago, Aristotle, maybe, said that art should delight and instruct. And I think that's what we want from it. That's it's nature. If it's only delightful, it just touches us on the surface, like a decoration. To hold our complete attention, it has to do more than just entertain. That's why wrestling and video games have good guys and bad guys, and why even sitcoms actually have something going on on some kind of primitive moral level. Sot of like we have "moral muscles" and need to keep them exercised all the time, but in an imaginary way--and the better the art, the more we enjoy. , Catharsis, Dulce utile, etc.

I understand what you mean by books that give you issues. When I look back at some of the books I read as a child, I see them as propganda, not entertainment.

It's dishonest books that really infuriate me. The Fountainhead would be the book I'd burn, if I had a match right now. It "kills reason in the eye," as Milton says of censorship. Tom Clancy is kind of there for me also, and Dan Brown, but not Nabokov.

I thought Nafisi did a wonderful job of helping me think about why I still agree with that Lolita is worth reading, although the characters in it belong in jail. I did NOT think that either Nafisi or Nabokov meant us to like Humbert or his behavior. And I think they attempted to be honest in portraying his evil. As you put it so well: I am okay with characters doing horrible or ambiguous things as long as the authorial intent as perceived by myself is that said thing is horrible or ambiguous.

But some writing I can't read even though it's well done. Stephen King's horror--it's not schlock to me. I think he writes well. I just can't stand the focus on those horrible things. I can't watch movies, however well-done, that disturb me in certain ways (Like that movie that the Icelandic actress did, about the woman who was going blind and trying to hide it). And I believe there are some moral monstrosities that would upset me in the same way. I find it hard to read Shakespeare sometimes, and have never read Medea--the horror of killing one's own children even in imagination overrides whatever I'd gain from the artistic handling of the symbolic themes.

I was sort of thinking--maybe misreading entirely--that you're saying that some things are particularly and specifically upsetting to you, like the things I mention above are to me. Perhaps they're not always the same for all of us, but I suspect we're all like you. We just respond to different things.

Forgive if I totally misunderstood.

[oyceter]

Hrm. For works that I have chucked against a wall because they offend me -- Mary Jo Putney's The China Bride and Patricia Gaffney's Crooked Hearts, because of the Orientalism and the horrible Asian stereotyping.

I think much of this is particularly sparked by Buffy because so many people have favorite characters (i.e. Spike or Willow) and giant arguments have sprung up about the morality of their actions. I just find that interesting in contrast to Wesley, who has gone extremely dark, but doesn't seem to spark these arguments to the same extent. I think a lot of the debate is that the authors of the show don't seem to agree that some of Spike or Willow's latter actions were quite as morally wrong or ambiguous as Wesley's.

From Hell might be something I'd find artistically valuable but morally repugnant, but I don't have as much of an issue with it because Alan Moore quite obviously is not vouching for mass murder.

Mercedes Lackey very often has characters who are morally right (all the time!) and ones who are Villains, and that annoys me just as much.

I'm not sure if this is helping at all, I'm sorry! My brain paths are pretty circuitous and strange.

[oyceter]

*nods* I think you are right! Much of my problem is when the author is making what looks like a problematic moral judgment. But with that in mind, I still in no way want black and white morality in my fiction, because then it becomes too didactic. I mostly want the room for interpretation and the ability to understand morally grey or outright bad characters without condoning their actions. Does that make sense?

I've always found the debates on certain characters' morality on AtPO interesting because in general, I find watching the greyer characters more interesting. I think the real problem is in the perceived authorial intent -- watching grey characters is much less fun if one is not supposed to see them as grey. Maybe that's why there are the giant debates over Spike (and Willow to a lesser extent).

[oyceter]

*nods* I definitely have authors I cannot read, not because the moral aspect is off, but because I just can't bring myself to -- Alan Moore most notably falls into this category.

No, you haven't misunderstood ;). I'm not quite sure if I understand all my thoughts to begin with!

My problem with art's purpose being to delight and to instruct is that too often the instruction becomes heavy-handed (I still don't like The Scarlet Letter). I wonder if great art is great because it lets us figure out the answers. *ponders*

[rahael.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree. I too love ambiguity and greyness - I think, in itself, this is a very 'moral' thing to show and depict. Because it forces you to think hard about what you are seeing. It makes you question yourself. It makes you think about the book/show you are reading/watching. Didactic books simply make assumptions, and do that very thing I dislike - leave no room for the viewer to engage. The viewer is simply instructed...

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Yeah! Actually, I did my linguistics thesis on that idea--that we prefer to figure it out! That's the delight part, I think.

[oyceter]

Yes, exactly! Ah, the joys of wiggle room for the viewer/reader and the joys of connecting your own dots.

[oyceter]

Oh really? Wow! How'd that work with linguistics? Now I'm curious.