Expessing a moral view?

Since this is something I'm trying in my story, I'll share how I'm doing it.

I'm working to make every aspect of their beliefs come across in actions and not words. If words have to be used, they imply the character's belief rather than outright state it.

I do my best to avoid spelling out anything to the reader, lest I insult their intelligence.

Oddsocks said:

I guess my question is this: how can you make your characters' moral and political views, when expressed by the characters in an attempt to convince other characters, obviously something that belongs to the character, rather than something that belongs to you?

Click to expand...

Have them become polar opposites of you...Aston is an alcoholic, and I hold staunch objections to alcohol, for example.

I think what people object to while reading is sermon-like prose.
I just toss in a few random things which Aston experiences because of his alcoholic nature...

Seems to me there is a risk of alienating readers with differing views unless the verbal expression of a character's opinion on a particular issue is restricted to only the degree necessary to push the story forward.

I believe Dickens covered moral issues of his time by moulding his stories around them - showing the creation and resolution of difficulties caused to the characters affected by an issue, instead of solely relating long discussions about that particular issue.

I guess my question is this: how can you make your characters' moral and political views, when expressed by the characters in an attempt to convince other characters, obviously something that belongs to the character, rather than something that belongs to you?

Click to expand...

If one of your other characters pops up and says *tosh and piffle, what about this, oh and this!*

If you are fair to both viewpoints it'll come across.

It's only a problem if said convictions are posited as absolutely right with no argument.

People don't like being preached at. Then again, the choir likes being preached to.

You run the risk of offending readers if you have an overt moral message.

But there's another dynamic that is true, people do love fables and a "moral of the story", which seems more general- love wins in the end, loyalty is rewarded.

In many ancient myths there was a moral to the story, and that was accepted. But it doesn't have to be blunt or spelled out. Tolkien had very pointed beliefs in such things. But he pulls off incorporating what's important in his worldview without ever sounding preachy.

What you're talking about is fine, I think. You're not talking about having a character argue your personal politics for ten pages. You're talking about letting the characters express themselves and that's a fundamental difference. As long as it's relevant to the story and hopefully not a seven page diatribe it should be fine. My characters often espouse their views. Sometimes they're similar to mine and sometimes they're the complete opposite. The point is that I don't sit around thinking "I want to make a statement about this so let me have this character talk about it." But if the character at some natural point in the story happens to have that view and expresses it, I don't see anything wrong with that. As to readers, as long as it seems a natural part of the character there isn't likely to be a problem.

I agree with Bufty. When the actions or words stop adding to the story, you've gone too far.

In my most recent published short story through Ray Gun Revival, "Obedience" I go with the dangers of greed by showing how close to death Aston gets by being greedy (and a computer who tries to figure out his reasoning)...it seemed to work for most folks.

I'd just advise that you keep it short. When I ever defend something I believe (since I'm a coward for standing up for my opinions, and generally try not to offend anyone in real life), I tend to do so with a single, vauge sentence: "I don't think Harry P. Politician has a sound economic plan".

Of course, if I'd have to expound on that economic plan--"I think the government has a duty to provide for its disadvantaged citizens, so I don't think extreme capitalism with no employee rights provided for is a good idea."--there's the risk of falling into a bromide. Like 'duty' there. But again, keep it short.

I think the key to keeping potential hot-button issues from coming off as preachy in any story is to give the characters good, strong reasons for feeling the way they do about the issues. Even though a lot of what I write is fantasy, sometimes potentially controversial issues manage to come up, and sometimes my stupid characters insist on having strong opinions. I just present things as they are and stay true to the characters and world. Really, what else can you do?

If you base the actual story around a controversial issue, I would think it would be pretty hard to stay neutral. I don't see why you couldn't write a story that supported a particular view, though. As long as you made sure to tell a story instead of just preaching opinions, I'd think you'd have a built-in audience of people who agreed with you (and maybe some free publicity from both sides of the issue). I mean, Christian literature doesn't worry about offending atheists, right? I would think that could be expanded to issues beyond religion.

One of my secondary characters is an annoying, moral do-gooder. The other characters make fun of him.

I ask because I love playing with my characters' moralities and beliefs, and my stories often involve them considering moral issues and acting on their conclusions. Characters who disagree will argue over the points on which they disagree, and so will be expressing their views, but I don't want it to feel like author inserted moralising.

Click to expand...

Oddsocks,

that's the best kind of conflict you could have, in my opinion. Readers like "deep" and "3D" characters, and what can make them more human than standing for what they believe?

Don't worry about going over-the-top. You can always tweak it until you get it right. I say go for it, mate.

I think the most important thing is that you not be angry when you write it. Okay, that sounds strange, but I've read parts of a couple of books and tossed them, where the author was clearlly furious - I could feel it through the book. Never once did he/she say anything of the so-so is a monster, a fool. No, it is a sublte thing that we're not aware of when we right. If somethng infurates you there is a good chance that will seep into the writing and you won't notice it. This alienates more than direct arguements between characters IMHO. A beta should be able to tell you.

Just be aware that if you are writing about something that infurates you, it will be hard to keep the anger from seeping through the pages.

S

Oddsocks said:

I'm wondering, is it possible to have characters do this sort of thing with their moral or political views, not because they're the same views as yours and you want to convince the reader that you're right, but because it's a part of the characer?

Click to expand...

Of course! You can't write spyfi for instance, without weaving in some political or ideological views. Most crime and detective fiction present views about justice and 'proper' social order. Most high fantasy contains deep moral positions, and a great deal of science fiction does too. Name me a romance that doesn't reflect on the main characters' morals. And let's not talk even mention religious fiction.

It makes me very distressed to see authors afraid to write with passion on topics of conscience, conviction and faith. There's this pseudoliberal postmodern notion that to express any position is to disenfranchise someone else -- when in fact it's that notion itself that is the most disenfranchising because it prohibits discussion, dissent and the development of ideas.

Our best art has something to say. The only worthwhile things to say are those that we care about. How can you produce good art without passion? How can you produce passion without intimacy? How can you offer intimacy without candour?

if a range of characters have differing views and the ending isn't nearly so clear, would this be more acceptable?

Click to expand...

Odds, do not bleed the life out of your story! Make the ending as clear and as sharp as you yourself feel that it warrants. If it's clear to you, make it clear to the reader. If it's fuzzy to you, make it fuzzy. Why dumb down your material, or deny readers your own insights? Make your story mean something. If it offends someone, too bad. Reading literature is voluntary and you need to be big enough to cop criticism or you'll never dare publish.

But yes - I think that there are ethics in story-design, and for me they are three:

Focus: address the questions that you raise; don't raise them and then wuss out or drift into another issue
Appropriateness: ensure that your material is relevant to those questions; don't link unconnected material the way that (say) advertisers do
Balance: show multiple sides of the question

I guess my question is this: how can you make your characters' moral and political views, when expressed by the characters in an attempt to convince other characters, obviously something that belongs to the character, rather than something that belongs to you?

Click to expand...

You can't. You can only provide balance -- and in that case both sides still belong to you. After all, you wrote them!

Oddsocks said:

If the MC has these views, the plot revolves around the relevant issues, the bad guys have the opposing views, and the good guys win, it might come off like a moral-of-the-story. But if a range of characters have differing views and the ending isn't nearly so clear, would this be more acceptable?

Click to expand...

No, not more acceptable. Just different. People love a good morality play and they love a good polyphonic composition of different ethical viewpoints.

In either case, I'd advice against letting your characters get on the soapbox. Let their convictions show through their actions. Test them. Complicate them. And what's most-important, absolutely essential: no paid fights! The opposing view must be a reasonable one – something a normal, smart person could stand by in some reasonable circumstances. Otherwise you'll have a hard time building up meaningful tension between them, and this a hard one to fix afterwards.

I've just finished reading Peony in Love by Lisa See. The main character's mother is very traditional. It's told in first person. The main character states this early on, when explaining why she could not venture further than the family's grounds (it's set in 17th Century China), and then we see how traditional she is through her actions: foot binding; restricting her daughter's access further; disapproving of the education of her daughter and arguing about it with her husband in front of her daughter.

All these things flowed with the story, but they've obviously used to fit that purpose. I think it was very effective.

Universal morality is fine...honesty, integrity, kindness, etc. If you hear it on the news, or if it's a plank in any political party's platform, forget it.

All writers come at their material with a perspective, and deeply held belief system, even those who write nihilistic characters place those attributes in their writing for a reason. I don't think you can separate what an author has to say, from his or her beliefs. I've always thought of fiction writing as "personifying" with a story some set of beliefs and their obstacles or the things that conspire to shape those beliefs. A character's main function is to chose between one path or another. No plot works without choice, often difficult by the main character. Categories of novels (genres) are often set up around the specific type of choices that are possible. Moral issues make for compelling novels, but you are right that if you "tell" instead of "show" (which is the reason for the story and plot) it can become annoying and preachy-- look at "the Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand-- do we really want to listen to speeches? The best writing-- literary or genre-- has been about tough questions. Usually you don't think in those terms. Even silly entertainment is about choices-- look at the "Pirates of the Carribean" franchise, which asked in various ways whether there is something higher than swag worth living, fighting, and dying for (arrrr!). I think at the core of every good novel is a moral issue. I think it wouldn't be interesting without it. Some are more advanced, or obvious than others, but there is always going to be some kind of a moral force in a story.

Oddsocks said:

A lot of people have expressed the opinion, and I agree, that it isn't a good thing when characters in a novel spout the political or moral views of the author in speech-like format, and they're right. It's as annoying as when people preach to you in real life, and it also pulls you out of the book.

But I'm wondering, is it possible to have characters do this sort of thing with their moral or political views, not because they're the same views as yours and you want to convince the reader that you're right, but because it's a part of the characer? If, for example, your MC has strong views on some contentious subject - abortion or the death penalty or something - how far can the character go in expressing those views before they appear to be a representation of your own views?

Then I'm wondering if it's in how it's done. If the MC has these views, the plot revolves around the relevant issues, the bad guys have the opposing views, and the good guys win, it might come off like a moral-of-the-story. But if a range of characters have differing views and the ending isn't nearly so clear, would this be more acceptable?

I ask because I love playing with my characters' moralities and beliefs, and my stories often involve them considering moral issues and acting on their conclusions. Characters who disagree will argue over the points on which they disagree, and so will be expressing their views, but I don't want it to feel like author inserted moralising.

I guess my question is this: how can you make your characters' moral and political views, when expressed by the characters in an attempt to convince other characters, obviously something that belongs to the character, rather than something that belongs to you?

Click to expand...

To make a speech work, you pretty much need to make the morality of the character central to the story, and a long winded speech needs to be more than just a way to show what the character believes. It needs to surprise and engage the reader, show the character arc, and it needs to not sound like you're talking to the reader.

It can sometimes be more powerful to tell (as opposed to showing) the reader that a character gave such a diatribe, because then you can have your narrative voice comment on it, which is potentially more powerful. If you're writing from Omniscient third person, your narrator can point out a subtle irony, or a change in character. If you're in close third or first person, the character can make comments to the reader that his listeners won't hear.

If you insist on showing the reader the character's actual dialogue, it helps if your character sits is either extremely eloquent, or extremely ineloquent. These two character traits offer better potential dialogue, and thus a better chance that the reader won't think you're preaching at him.

Just remember that your character can come to a moral conclusion you find logical, while the reader may very well find the same conclusion amoral.

Hard questions to answer. Moral issues of all sorts pop up regularly in my writing, but I don't think I tend to come across as preachy, because 1. my characters have all sorts of different views; 2. I try to get into their heads to understand where they're coming from, even if they're the polar opposite of me; and probably best, 3. my characters aren't really prone to giving speeches regarding their beliefs. They just bring up issues as they happen to relate to the current plot point.

Maybe that's one of the keys to not preaching in one's work (even if it isn't your viewpoint doing the preaching)? Most people really don't speechify when sharing their beliefs (or even when trying to convince others of their correctness). They just talk like normal people, sharing what's important to them. For example say I want to talk to you about one of my interests. Am I going to sit here and spout off what sounds like an encyclopedia entry on the subject or am I going to put it all into my own words, with my own emotions and emphasis (or lack thereof) and spin on things?

Granted, there will occasionally be speechy characters, but for the most part that's not how people talk or think or share. I think a writer can convey strong moral beliefs of any sort properly if they avoid speechifying it all. Just try to sound natural, and bring the issues up as they come, as the characters themselves would sound. Most of us really don't sit around talking about the rightness or wrongness of something all the time, unless something happens to trigger such a reaction, and even then we don't often go on about it at length. (A few characters do speechify, just as there really are preachy people in the world, but most of them don't/shouldn't communicate like this.)

Aside from that it's really subjective and I wouldn't be able to advise how to do it aside from just doing it and seeing how it turns out. But I've always found it really easy to understand another person's POV (even if I vehemently disagree with and loathe that POV with every fiber of my being), and easy as well to get into characters' heads and think like I'm them.

Ruv Draba said:

It makes me very distressed to see authors afraid to write with passion on topics of conscience, conviction and faith. There's this pseudoliberal postmodern notion that to express any position is to disenfranchise someone else -- when in fact it's that notion itself that is the most disenfranchising because it prohibits discussion, dissent and the development of ideas.

Our best art has something to say. The only worthwhile things to say are those that we care about. How can you produce good art without passion? How can you produce passion without intimacy? How can you offer intimacy without candour?

Click to expand...

I thank you, and all those who love novels of ideas thank you.

As for Ayn Rand, Howard Roark's self-defense in The Fountainhead isn't all that long. John Galt's three hour speech in Atlas Shrugged could definitely use some tightening -- gimme my blue pencil, please. Or maybe two or three of them However, the central statement of the book, as inscribed on the Galt's Gulch powerhouse, could hardly be more succinct:

"I vow, by my life and my love for it, to live my life for no man, and to ask no man to live his life for me."

Too bad most of Rand's critics forget the last part of that statement.

When you have ideas and are passionate about them, you're going to piss off both those who are passionately opposed to your ideas and those who are passionately opposed to passion. However, you may find an audience who will care enough about your work to keep it in print long after your death. Tell a good story, care about the heart of it, make your characters as passionate as you are -- take a chance.

Preachiness is dull. Acting out of belief can be riveting. In Chris Bohjalian's novel, Before You Know Kindness, he explores a number of issues, including the workers for animal rights. He creates magnificently complex characters whose beliefs and lives are tested throughout the book.

Any issue can be explored as long as it is integral to the plot, as long as there is conflict and a real testing of the belief, and as long as some sort of balance is maintained. It is not so much the belief as how it affects the lives of the characters. What happens when a good person does bad things? It is not some abstract moral order being violated but a disturbance in lives. It is what the best fiction has always been about. People make choices, either out of belief or subverting their beliefs. Chaos rises. A new order emerges.

I've been thinking about this since yesterday, because my MC must express his political views in a presentation. They're not my political views either; I didn't have any political views about this subject before I started writing my WIP. I developed them because I needed a motivation for my MC. He wants to work on a project, but this project must be approved by a committee and he needs to convince the committee his project is worthwhile and good for society. I can't just summarise the scene, 'MC presented his views, but the committee rejected the project'. That would be even more boring than having my MC discuss his views, in my opinion. And it's part of the story, isn't it? Is there any other way to do this? I can't show his beliefs through actions; he's got to convince the committee with a speech.

I can't show his beliefs through actions; he's got to convince the committee with a speech.

Click to expand...

That makes his speech an action he takes to reach his goal.
Don't be afraid