[Gary Wassner]

Do any of you really like characters in Epic Fantasy who are neither good nor evil? Do you like the ambivalence? Or do you prefer it when they committ to one path or another?

Good and Evil are thematic in Epic Fantasy more often than not. I personally think that along the way it's interesting if characters are unsure, unclear, wavering, ambivalent, flirtatious, straddling the fence etc. when it comes to which side to fight for. But I also think that by the end of a book or series, the readers want closure, they want a resolution, a committment, a choice to be made. And I think this is in part a function of how we think and how we define things. By virtue of having the words 'good' and 'evil' we have these pure concepts in our minds that help us to understand everything in between. And since they are pure forms, anything that falls in-between must subconsciously be impure forms.

I also believe that this is generally how we deal with most things in life. We want to understand and we want to be clear with regard to where people stand. Most Epic fantasy resolves those issues in the end. Most therefore provides the satisfaction that we desire in most other aspects of our lives as well. Is it a surprise then that Epic Fantasy makes you feel good in the end?

How does anyone really avoid the clash between Good and Evil in the end? The lack of a definitive choice means the lack of committment. Culture teaches us that lack of committment in that regard, in reference to moral issues, is wishy washy, weak, indecisive, impure. We can all appreciate the debauched perspective and we can all appreciate the noble one, but most of us cannot tolerate no perspective at all.

[Prunesquallor]

What about a character who is not intentionally evil, or really bad in any way, who has clear commitments that do not neatly align with "good" and sticks to them? A person who, for example, values loyalty to family or keeping a promise above all else, at the expense of advancing good over evil?

No ambivalence there, and we will have definitive choice, perspective, and closure of a sort.


Apologies if I have led us astray.

[Gary Wassner]

Would you like such a character though? Would he/she be appealing to you and would that type of character be satisfying and memorable?

[Prunesquallor]

I think whether or not a character had those traits would depend upon other things. I certainly might find them compelling, interesting, and so on.

I might identify with them more than someone who was more "black and white" and like them more in that sense.

[Dawnstorm]

Edit: typed this up before Prunesqualler's first reply; said something of the same near the beginning of this monster reply...

Do any of you really like characters in Epic Fantasy who are neither good nor evil?

*Raises hand*

Do you like the ambivalence? Or do you prefer it when they committ to one path or another?

Usually prefer the former. Of course, commitment and ambivalence aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, if what you really believe in is commitment, it doesn't matter what you commit to, as long as you committ to something. You'll find moral strength by standing to your commitment, not by the content of the commitment (lots of Knights; for example Hagen in the Nibelungen Saga - both commitment and ambiguity to the character).

Good and Evil are thematic in Epic Fantasy more often than not. I personally think that along the way it's interesting if characters are unsure, unclear, wavering, ambivalent, flirtatious, straddling the fence etc. when it comes to which side to fight for. But I also think that by the end of a book or series, the readers want closure, they want a resolution, a committment, a choice to be made.

I don't require that at all (but neither do I abhor it). It depends on the book, and on the character.

I've created a character who's philosophy is based on taking chances and ambiguity. He's a gambler. Commiting to a cause would actually be out of character (I haven't written the book, but I've used and developed him in the Loveable Rogue Inc. thread in the Collab-Story sections on this side.)

And I think this is in part a function of how we think and how we define things. By virtue of having the words 'good' and 'evil' we have these pure concepts in our minds that help us to understand everything in between. And since they are pure forms, anything that falls in-between must subconsciously be impure forms.

Good and Evil don't mean much to me at all (not per se, that is). They're context bound for me, whenever somebody uses the words I instinctively look for clues what they mean by that. Inbetween isn't impure, it's the rawmaterial the words are based on. That's how I, for one, work inside.

I also believe that this is generally how we deal with most things in life. We want to understand and we want to be clear with regard to where people stand. Most Epic fantasy resolves those issues in the end. Most therefore provides the satisfaction that we desire in most other aspects of our lives as well. Is it a surprise then that Epic Fantasy makes you feel good in the end?

It's a bit more complicated than that, at least for me. It's a tug of war between curiosity and security.

For example, I have no sense of national pride. Also, family doesn't mean anything to me; they're the people you grow up with (with the exception of the acquired relations via the spouse), or who grow up with you. You either like them or not. (A bit more complicated for kids, as they depend on you...)

How does anyone really avoid the clash between Good and Evil in the end?

Well, if I'd write an epic (haven't ever tried that), I'd make sure that the fight is what's "evil" (but also inevitable). The "evilness" of a person would then be measured by how much they enjoy the fight. There'll be evil people on all sides (definitely more than two factions).

I'd want my readers to dread the outcome of the fight, no matter how it ends. Because they care about people on both sides; and they hate people on both sides.

That said, I'd make sure that what I chose to call "evil" (i.e. the fight) would be presented fairly. So that people could actually love those characters, too, if they so choose.

If there are gods, none of them will care for people very much; they'd probably be playing games with them and be fond of they're favourites (kind of like pets).

I'd make sure in the set-up that no ending can truly be satisfactory. That's the kind of story I'd like to write. I do think your approach is more marketable, but since I write mostly for myself that doesn't matter to me at all.

The lack of a definitive choice means the lack of committment. Culture teaches us that lack of committment in that regard, in reference to moral issues, is wishy washy, weak, indecisive, impure. We can all appreciate the debauched perspective and we can all appreciate the noble one, but most of us cannot tolerate no perspective at all.

Well, this is something I think of in terms of "attitude vs. opinion". An attitude is something you acquire by living. It's something you can't escape having. You see someone being beat up by bullies: you want to go help him (but daren't and think of yourself a coward), you think "serves him right" (and feel guilty because you've learned that it's mean to beat people up), you're mad at all of them for being there and sarcastically tip your hat to them as you walk past leisurely (and have no conscience response whatsoever). No matter what you'll do, there's always an attitude.

Opinions only come in if someone else watches you and confronts you about your actions. Then you formulate an opinion, which is designed either to defend your actions or to display remorse. (Of course, you will also have acquired an attitude towards opinions, which may lead you to formulate one as you stand there, imagining someone watching you, or perhaps not even that, anymore...)

So: Attitudes are the real thing. They are what make up a person. I feel the best strategy is to find out what yours are and then act according to them, or try to change them if they get you into trouble.

But: if a culture asks commitment of you, they won't ask you to commit to your mutable attitudes. They'll ask you to comit to a cause, an institution, an idea, or a person. With the exception of the person, all of this intersects with your opinions, rather than your attitude.

I suspect that opinions are more stable than the attitudes they're based on (that's certainly the case with me - I can argue an opinion and find out midsentence that I don't really buy it any more - frustrating for my listeners, as the opinions are weird in the first place). So, attitudes are the living you, whereas opinions are the static you.

Viewed like that, a cultures insistence on commitment goes against life. Sure, you can change you're opinions, but that's combating one set of cancer cells with another.

Often, when people complain about a lack of perspective, they're not looking hard enough. They compare against a stable list of items worth commiting to, and - not finding them - they assign a lack of perspective. And the ones thus labeled often tend to agree.

This is my attitude on right/wrong type of oppositions: If there is a right and a wrong than making a decision is a mere formality. The meaning of life would be filling out forms. This is why a triumph of good over evil doesn't mean anything to me in itself.

Nowadays, hearing the words good or evil often scares me. This is because the people who seem to profit most from them these days are warmongers. Not that I think that this determines the meaning of the terms in any way, but it's my rationalisation for an instinctive reaction. And that's why I have to make an effort to find meaning in these terms. And that's why - instinctively - I prefer ambiguity and feel more at home in ambiguous works.

[Gary Wassner]

That is going to take some time to respond to. But, I can say unequivocally that I would be very interested to read chapter 1 of your unwritten book! You raise some interesting ideas, which is why I asked the question to begin with.

[Dawnstorm]

Which book?

The epic fantasy I outlined on the spot? There's nothing there, and I doubt I'll ever write it. Holbrook's Llafn Meistr comes close, though, come to think of it...

Or the one which spawned the gambler character who made it into the LRI thread? I have several false starts with this one (I don't want linear narration and I can't find my way in). Two alternate beginnings survive on disk (a few must flutter around the house on sheets, I'll find them by chance in a year or so ;) ); they won't make it into the final product, I think (if there ever will be a final product, I'm more of a short stories SF writer guy...). I could send those via e-mail, but I doubt they're very telling. On the other hand, who knows...

[Hereford Eye]

Must concur with DS that right and wrong are context driven. Must diverge with DS on the point about people and characters. It may be cultural as our Guru implies, but my experience with people indicates that a person not committed to something is an undesirable. Commitment requires a person look outside themselves and engage the world, something I think a complete human being cannot avoid. For example, am acquainted with a young lady who has been diagnosed as schizo-affective. She is totally ego-centric. The entire world exists in terms of advantage or disadvantage to her and what has it done for her lately. She is not any fun to be around.

While ego-centricism seems rampant in these days, I don't think that any normal human being can maintain the pose. Sooner or later events force consideration of other human beings. Once the person sees other persons as worthwhile, commitment soon follows, even if the commitment is nothing more than to do no harm to those considered worthwhile.
Semantics, perhaps, but even sociopaths are committed to something.

[Holbrook]

Which book?

The epic fantasy I outlined on the spot? There's nothing there, and I doubt I'll ever write it. Holbrook's Llafn Meistr comes close, though, come to think of it...

...

Whoa!

I did try to show both sides and show that we become "evil" or "good" depending on our choices and how those choices affect others. I tried to show each character as a "whole" rather than a cardboard cut out. Even Martin Emery, could have been different, been "good"


The main villian for want of another word, Del Mark, made a choice at one point in his life, the rest of his choices moved him further from one path and onto another but even then he was still himself, if that makes sense. All the qualities he had always had were still there.

Stephen's choices killed so many, in fact he nearly destroyed a whole city on one choice. He in his own way was "evil"

Apologies for the ramble, but Dawnstorm touched on what I was trying to do in that story.

[Gary Wassner]

Most of my characters know what they want to do. They know what path they would like to take. It's the environment that becomes the problem. The circumstances change so much around my characters, and all of their assumptions are challenged. That precipitates the test of character as the books progress. Many of their presupposed values are undermined by the developments in their world, and they are forced to question those values, to re-examine their choices, and what once seemed the epitome of good, under the altered light of change, may no longer appear to be quite the same. So although my main characters may appear at first sight, in the first book particularly, to be black and white with regard to good and evil, the very definitions that comforted them and provided them with the clarity of thought and decision early on, change so much that nothing is certain after a while.

I have been told that I write very interesting and unique evil characters. I hope so. There are so many sides to evil, and so many reasons for choosing that path, if in fact it even involves choice. But there is always something compelling about their outlook, their perspective and the way that they justify it that blurs the lines as well, though it always remains dark and troubled....and often so incredibly seductive.