Comments on: The moral of the story

By: Bookgazing

Bookgazing — Sat, 24 May 2014 20:29:01 +0000

‘If you are being blackmailed to do a murder, the fact that you then do murder doesn’t count.’ – interested in what ‘count’ means here. Does the protag feel no guilt because they’re being blackmailed or does some sort of justice system wave away the crime because of the blackmail or is it that the narrative seems to forgive the character with no thought? There are long running shows built on ‘the circumstances make a difference’ crime logic and it tends to depend how much I like the characters as to how much I’ll let that slide/what the circumstances are. But if the protag is like ‘well, not my fault’ and feels no guilt I would probably have issues with that even if the book used a ‘murdered person was terrible’ type of justification. It would depend on whether I liked them a whole lot though (I’m a terrible person) and again what the circumstances were.

But if it’s an narrative thing, which I’m guessing it is because of the rest of your post then ehhhhhhh – I’m not keen. Giving a character a narrative pass just feel too easy sometimes. Again circumstances are important, but I like a little true narrative moral reflection in stories, even if the narrative ultimately comes down on the side of its characters who have done bad things. There should be some struggle to accommodate/acknowledge the seriousness of taking a life I think because that is kind of a big deal. Everything shouldn’t be a 90s action move you know?

By: Alyce (@AtHomeWithBooks)

Alyce (@AtHomeWithBooks) — Sat, 24 May 2014 01:06:48 +0000

Okay, I’m not going to get all deep here because I’m too tired to be that coherent, but the bit about Twilight caught my eye. I have such a love/hate relationship with that series. The writing is awful, the characters ridiculous and pathetic, the relationships completely unhealthy, etc. and yet when I am super stressed and tired these are my go-to audiobooks of entertainment and ridicule. As in, I listen to them and roll my eyes and laugh at every stupid time that Edward’s eyes smolder and every time Bella is incredulous, and then inwardly tell Bella to get a grip. My husband pretty much knows that if I’m cleaning with my headphones on and laughing then I’m making fun of Bella and Edward. What is this sickness that compels me to do this? I have to admit that I think I’ve had my fill after listening to the series several times through in the past year, but who knows when it will suck me in again. I’m sadly a cornucopia of useless knowledge about the Twilight world. It’s like watching a movie that’s so bad it’s good, except for in this case it’s just really bad.

By: litlove

litlove — Sun, 18 May 2014 17:13:23 +0000

heh, what you are describing is the moral framework of the book. Writers like Michel Houellebecq play with this by hopping in and out of it, sometimes making it feel like the actions of the protagonists are frowned upon, sometimes seeming to endorse them entirely. So you are not alone! It’s known to be one of the most important elements of the book for establishing its morality, or otherwise.

By: stitchesandmarginalia

stitchesandmarginalia — Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:37 +0000

What really gets under my skin is when the protagonist/everyone is horrible and the book seems not to have noticed. I’m not opposed to reading a book full of unsympathetic douchebags but I object if I feel like I’m supposed to be rooting for them.

By: Aonghus Fallon

Aonghus Fallon — Fri, 16 May 2014 14:45:05 +0000

Interesting piece, Jenny. I guess – once one buys into the notion of a three-act structure and a character torn between her good and her bad side, you’re also acknowledging that any book is essentially a morality play. You said you felt you had a certain obligation to recognise values which differed from your own; but I think it could be just as legitimately argued that the author has a reciprocal obligation to acknowledge the prevailing value system and – if her character deviates in a fundamental way from this value system – to explain the context or where she stands in relation to the character’s actions. Sure, this can be tricky – but isn’t that why writing is supposed to be so hard?

Taking ‘Dexter’ as an example: I’ve never seen the series but my understanding is that Dexter is a serial killer whose homicidal impulses were channelled by his father into killing bad guys: as always it’s a matter of context. Dexter is ‘good’ in the sense that he is being as ‘good’ as it is possible for a character like him to be.

By: theliterarylollipop

theliterarylollipop — Thu, 15 May 2014 17:56:03 +0000

Oh, boy. I wonder where a character like Dexter fits into the spectrum of this debate. He’s violent, murderous, and clearly unhinged, and yet the reader/viewer “forgives” his actions because he’s committing his crimes on other criminals…

Thoughts?

By: priscilla

priscilla — Thu, 15 May 2014 15:00:31 +0000

I love this post. I think in some ways this is exactly what I meant when I said, “Book, I am not your reader.” The book might be very well-written, but there is something underlying that gives me difficulty with the premise, and if it’s never sufficiently explained in the book’s context then I feel something between bewildered and miffed. Spot on about Twilight and the author! That’s the exact same problem I have with it (I only read about 15 pages of the first book, thought, so it’s not the *only* problem).

By: Alice

Alice — Thu, 15 May 2014 10:30:34 +0000

I think I feel the same as you, as long as it’s clear the author is not on the morally repugnant side of the character I’m fine. If the author is saying something stupid, hi Stephanie Meyer, I have a problem.

By: helen

helen — Thu, 15 May 2014 08:57:10 +0000

In reply to Teresa.

I completely agree with what Teresa wrote! And I think it’s amazingly difficult to do that, to have a narrator or main character who is beguiling but simultaneously repellent. Perhaps that’s what’s going wrong in some of these other novels (not that I’ve read any of those that you quote in your post Jenny, except Lolita.)

And Robertson Davies, I love your novels but I’m surprised at you for taking that position over Lolita.

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 14 May 2014 23:08:37 +0000

I do prefer it when I think an author understands the potential problems with a character’s behavior, even if the author and I aren’t in total agreement about the morality of the character’s actions. I like at least knowing the author thought about it.

What bothers me more is when the author presents the opposing view in a clumsy, stereotypical, straw-man sort of way. It makes it too easy. One of the reasons Lolita works is that there’s something beguiling about Humbert Humbert and his twisted logic, even if he is a monster. Ditto Tom Ripley and Norton Perina. I want to feel like the moral argument being presented is fair.