![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fiercelydreamedSo I've been watching with interest as some of you on my dual flists weigh in on the SPN misogyny debates. Having seen next to none of SPN S3, I have no informed opinion to offer on the specifics of the arguments for and against, and I'm not going to try.
What I'm mulling over is a more general conundrum:
1. Promoting hateful and biased opinions is not something I'm in favor of, but
2. limiting your major characters' viewpoints to the political beliefs you want to promote limits the range of characters you get to write about, period, and
3. structuring your stories to ensure they directly address those political beliefs can get old and preachy really, really fast.
I've written main characters who were, among other things, elitist snobs, highly amoral, excessively violent, capable of deep cruelty, and (on at least one notable occasion) completely insane. All of those are traits I'd consider flaws in a friend, but in a character, they give me the potential to tell different, interesting, sometimes deeply unsettling stories. I'd like to think that I, as a writer, would be willing to write a story about a misogynist, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted protagonist.
That said, I have no interest in writing a misogynist, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted text -- a text whose ultimate effect is to promote those views. And I don't want to have to rely on pedantic, borderline OOC or after-school special monologues by more enlightened characters to make sure the reader understands that I'm not in favor of the views my protagonist holds.
So what's the solution? So far, I've come up with three possible mechanisms, but I think they're pretty good ones:
1. Let the character be wrong because of those views.
2. Engage with those views in a context where they have the potential to make the reader uncomfortable.
3. Let the character change.
1. Let the character be wrong because of those views. As I understand it, part of the point of writing flawed characters is that those flaws lead them to make choices that in turn make their lives more complicated. This is what makes a story interesting. You can do that with bigoted viewpoints, and without having to issue lectures. Simply having your character piss off the wrong person, or refuse help from the right one, or minorly but systematically shy away from the solution because they're personally opposed to it will do that just fine.
2. Engage with those views in a context where they have the potential to make the reader uncomfortable. This is the problem with, say, having a protagonist spit bigoted insults in defiance at the villian -- in that moment, we're right there with the protagonist, rooting for them all the way. Ditto if the character makes an offensive wisecrack in a moment where cracking the joke means scoring a point we want them to score. Even if we really object to those remarks under all other circumstances, you're pitting our personal beliefs against our investment with the character (and if you've done your job well, our investment in the character should have a good shot at winning). So instead, have them make those remarks or think those thoughts in a situation where the reader's got enough perspective to feel uncomfortable about it (or where the other characters do, too). Make us really grapple with both liking and not liking that character at the same time.
3. Let the character change. Don't force this, or make the story all about it, but ... in general, when the plot hinges on a character's flaws or weak points (as most plots do, in one way or another), the character has to push their own limits to get things to work out right. That's what it means for characterization to be essential to the plot -- otherwise, you could swap in a completely different character and it wouldn't matter. So you don't have to have them renounce those views at the end of the story (come on, honestly: when's the last time you completely renounced your classism/raceism/ableism and it meant you'd actually purged yourself of those views?), but at least make them act in spite of them and have the situation come out better for it.
I may not be able to reply to comments any time in the next day or two, due to school eating me, but I'm really interested to hear what your thoughts are -- whether you think these solutions would work, whether you can think of other ways to tackle this, if you'd ever create a sympathetic character whose views you found abhorrent, what you think your ethical obligations as a writer/artist/etc. are in terms of using what you make to further the beliefs you hold dear. Please weigh in if you've got the time.
What I'm mulling over is a more general conundrum:
1. Promoting hateful and biased opinions is not something I'm in favor of, but
2. limiting your major characters' viewpoints to the political beliefs you want to promote limits the range of characters you get to write about, period, and
3. structuring your stories to ensure they directly address those political beliefs can get old and preachy really, really fast.
I've written main characters who were, among other things, elitist snobs, highly amoral, excessively violent, capable of deep cruelty, and (on at least one notable occasion) completely insane. All of those are traits I'd consider flaws in a friend, but in a character, they give me the potential to tell different, interesting, sometimes deeply unsettling stories. I'd like to think that I, as a writer, would be willing to write a story about a misogynist, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted protagonist.
That said, I have no interest in writing a misogynist, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted text -- a text whose ultimate effect is to promote those views. And I don't want to have to rely on pedantic, borderline OOC or after-school special monologues by more enlightened characters to make sure the reader understands that I'm not in favor of the views my protagonist holds.
So what's the solution? So far, I've come up with three possible mechanisms, but I think they're pretty good ones:
1. Let the character be wrong because of those views.
2. Engage with those views in a context where they have the potential to make the reader uncomfortable.
3. Let the character change.
1. Let the character be wrong because of those views. As I understand it, part of the point of writing flawed characters is that those flaws lead them to make choices that in turn make their lives more complicated. This is what makes a story interesting. You can do that with bigoted viewpoints, and without having to issue lectures. Simply having your character piss off the wrong person, or refuse help from the right one, or minorly but systematically shy away from the solution because they're personally opposed to it will do that just fine.
2. Engage with those views in a context where they have the potential to make the reader uncomfortable. This is the problem with, say, having a protagonist spit bigoted insults in defiance at the villian -- in that moment, we're right there with the protagonist, rooting for them all the way. Ditto if the character makes an offensive wisecrack in a moment where cracking the joke means scoring a point we want them to score. Even if we really object to those remarks under all other circumstances, you're pitting our personal beliefs against our investment with the character (and if you've done your job well, our investment in the character should have a good shot at winning). So instead, have them make those remarks or think those thoughts in a situation where the reader's got enough perspective to feel uncomfortable about it (or where the other characters do, too). Make us really grapple with both liking and not liking that character at the same time.
3. Let the character change. Don't force this, or make the story all about it, but ... in general, when the plot hinges on a character's flaws or weak points (as most plots do, in one way or another), the character has to push their own limits to get things to work out right. That's what it means for characterization to be essential to the plot -- otherwise, you could swap in a completely different character and it wouldn't matter. So you don't have to have them renounce those views at the end of the story (come on, honestly: when's the last time you completely renounced your classism/raceism/ableism and it meant you'd actually purged yourself of those views?), but at least make them act in spite of them and have the situation come out better for it.
I may not be able to reply to comments any time in the next day or two, due to school eating me, but I'm really interested to hear what your thoughts are -- whether you think these solutions would work, whether you can think of other ways to tackle this, if you'd ever create a sympathetic character whose views you found abhorrent, what you think your ethical obligations as a writer/artist/etc. are in terms of using what you make to further the beliefs you hold dear. Please weigh in if you've got the time.