#making every character trait perfectly morally justifiable is unrealistic and boring

[biosblades]

Something about how society no longer has the media literacy to differentiate portrayal and endorsement

Alright now this pissed me off

What do you MEAN you're going to remove one of the most important aspects of Sokka's character arc in the first season? What do you MEAN you're going to remove Sokka unlearning misogyny, accepting change and embracing his role as a fighter and protector of the Avatar in order to end the war? What do you MEAN???

[rpmemesbyarat]

There are two types of people: good and bad. Good people were born good, have always been good, everything they do is good (no matter what it is or why they do it), and they have no bad traits or bad beliefs. Bad people were born bad, have always been bad, everything they do is bad(no matter what it is or why they do it), and they have no good traits or good beliefs. Good people can do anything they want to bad people, and it’s not only morally justified for good people to belittle, bully, beat up, torture, or kill bad people, it’s actually SUPER AWESOME AND COOL.

That’s a pretty fucked up worldview, isn’t it? But it’s the worldview that I see presented in a shocking amount of progressive fantasy, sci-fi, and fiction in general. Firstly, there’s the moral absolutism. No matter how embroiled the world around her is in sexism, racism, or otherwise fucked-up beliefs, our protagonist always knows from the beginning that it’s WRONG. She’s always been outspoken about it, or at the very least always internally certain. Despite everyone around her her whole life telling her that women are weaker, or that elves are wicked, or whatever else it is that she’s railing against, she has never ever believed that. Is there ever an explanation for where, say, someone living in a setting with downright feudal views on gender got the viewpoint and vocabulary of a women’s studies major? Some kind of turning point in her life? A pile-up of incidents that were incongruent with what she was taught as fact, that grew and grew and nagged at her until, despite everything she knew to be “right” and “true”, she started to feel some dissent from her social and cultural norms? Does she only very slowly shift her views, beginning to have doubts on some points but still believing many incorrect or bigoted things, and have to un-learn her prejudices step by step in a journey to become a better person? Nope! She was just born like that! Because she’s awesome! This is so common, and it’s so harmful. This idea that good people just come out of the womb as fully aware of what’s good and right, no matter WHAT sort of environment they end up raised in, and have always been Picture Perfect PC Progressive, is not only unrealistic, it’s actively dangerous. It basically says that if someone’s beliefs aren’t COMPLETELY correct, and if they haven’t ALWAYS BEEN that way, that they’re evil and worthless and one of those strawmen bigots that the protagonist inevitably shouts down. The depiction of “good people” as something you simply ARE, rather than something you must struggle and work to become and KEEP working at, rather being being a static quality, especially if you were not raised in a society or family that encouraged this, is both cruel and ridiculous. It’s purity culture, plain and simple. It’s also boring as fuck—who wants a protagonist who already believes all the right things, when you could instead have someone who actually grows and develops? But that might mean that she has to start off—gasp!---in the wrong! And she might actually have to—say it isn’t so!---be humbled and make mistakes! Oh, the horror! Secondly, there’s the lack of nuance. Characters are either portrayed as being perfectly enlightened on every point (like our awesome protagonist!) or absolutely lost in the indoctrination sauce. The latter are inevitably weak-minded fools (because intelligent people can NEVER fall for systemic indoctrination!), or evil incarnate with no nuance in the slightest. As with the protagonist who is not only perfectly un-problematic but born this way to boot, this gross oversimplification is harmful as well as inaccurate. While it may be fun to pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that only stupid or evil people can believe bad things (and therefore WE never could), the hard truth is that very intelligent people can wholeheartedly buy into harmful beliefs if that’s all they ever know, and that people can have these beliefs and still have good qualities. Indeed, MOST people have beliefs that prejudiced and harmful in some way, and most people have good qualities, and the overlap between these two is quite large. Reducing them to strawmen isn’t actually helpful to activism for multiple reasons. It’s also just not how most people work. And it’s not interesting or good writing. Another thing that’s not realistic but oh-so-prevalent in these sorts of stories is an utter lack of middle ground. But just as most people are not perfect feminists who know all the precisely correct current terminology and are up to date on every issue, neither are most people incels who listen to Andrew Tate. The average person falls somewhere in between; typically, they probably believe that women have the right to an education, to be in the workforce, and shouldn’t be abused, and that sexual assault is wrong, but also probably think that most or all women want to be mothers, that women are more emotional, that being a “slut” is bad, and that you shouldn’t dress a certain way if you don’t want a certain sort of attention. . .as well as holding many stereotypes about men as well, including negative ones. Or someone who supports gay marriage and doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with being LGBT, but who thinks all gay men are good at “feminine” things like fashion and decorating, that rape can make a woman a lesbian, and that kids don’t need to know about things like sexual orientation til they’re older. And so on. And these people? Are often perfectly pleasant, kind human beings. And plenty of people who have all the “right” politics can also be huge jerks, just not in a “problematic” way. And plenty of people who are unpleasant as hell can still have good aspects. And vice versa. People are nuanced. This isn’t to say every single character in your story has to be emphatically nuanced, I don’t think any tale has time for that, but if most of the characters can be neatly divided into “good people who are our protagonists and believe everything right and always have with no exception” vs “mindless sheep and just plain evil people who believe everything bad with no exception” then you may want to consider fleshing a few more of them out on both sides, as well as including those who can’t neatly fit on either side—or make more sides! Finally, there’s a troubling trend in fiction I’ve noticed where it’s often portrayed as morally righteous and just plain cool when the “good” characters enact REALLY fucked up stuff on the “bad” characters. Look, I’m not saying that people who have been oppressed or harmed by others need to be nice to them or “be the better person” or that revenge narratives are bad, or any of that, I actually disagree with all of that, but a lot of stories go waaaay in the opposite direction with truly gruesome actions (sometimes disproportionately so) against the bad guys—sometimes not even true villains but just someone we’re not meant to like. And not in a “morally gray” way where the framing suggests we’re meant to question these actions; it’s treated like a totally unquestionably good and right and downright cool thing. I’m not saying that the good guys need to have a moral crisis in every situation where they take action against someone or else they’re “just as bad” because I hate that mentality too, but if a hero is portrayed as torturing someone and it’s simply framed as cool rather than a pretty fucked-up thing to do or at least of DEBATEABLE morality, you again lose all nuance. The idea that at someone point anything enacted against other humans is fine if they are “bad” and that the people who do it are “good” is just. . .do I need to explain how terrifying an idea that is? Not to mention, it’s pretty unrealistic for most people to just be completely chill about enacting severe sadistic violence on another person, especially in a non-combat situation (such as, again, torture) or if they’ve never done it before. Obviously there are exceptions, but most people are going to have turmoil afterwards, or hesitation during the act, or mixed feelings, or SOMETHING. And if they don’t, the people around them probably will. It isn’t “sympathizing with the enemy” to have this response; doing these kinds of actions to another person will affect most people deeply no matter who the victim was. It’s realistic, at least if this behavior is incongruent with how they usually are and you HAVEN’T just been writing them as a gleeful sadist for the whole book. Not to mention, it provides an opportunity for a lot of good character development and exploration as they wrestle with the morality of their actions, or, even if they do feel it was morally justified, are still viscerally disgusted on a kneejerk level, or any number of complex responses. Indeed, I think it’s a lack of complexity that is at the root of EVERYTHING in this list—when there’s no complexity to anyone or their actions, you get all these issues. And that too can read to interesting development and growth, none of which you will get if you go with the option of all the good guys always feeling just fine about everything they do as long as it’s to the people who “deserve” it. I’m sure a lot of you are now about to go “but what about–” and give me some gruesome hypothetical where someone really deserves the worst, or share your story you’re working on where the heroes torture and murder and It’s Fine Actually and Here’s Why—-please don’t. I’m not talking about every single work; there is no one way fiction needs to be, and if this actually fits what you’re going for, please do. You don’t need to justify anything to me. I’m just some rando commenting on general trends, and why I find them both disturbing and actually bad writing to boot. If you agree or find it helpful, great! If not, hey, your opinion is as valid as mine.