NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/writing/3538

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 6.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!yamauchi
From: [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Moral Context? (was Re: Theme ~ Moral)
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:46:42
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 117
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:08:21 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Alan Gardner) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>On the other hand, not all authors try to "convert" readers to their
>>own views of right and wrong.  To take three very different examples,
>>consider Camus' _The_Stranger_, William Gibson's _Neuromancer_, and
>>Dave Sim's _Cerebus_.  Would you say that these works project a "moral
>>stance", and if so, what?

>A writer may or may not intend to convert readers, but the fall-out
>still occurs.  I blush to say I haven't read "The Stranger", but a
>number of my friends have and it affected them powerfully.

>Neuromancer also has a moral context: we're all pawns.

I agree that this is one of the main themes of Neuromancer, and it's
certainly a major element in the story context, but I don't see this
as a moral stance.  Other cyberpunk authors have written fiction with
clearly "good" heroes fighting against clearly "evil" corporations,
and it those cases, I would agree that the "pawn" context was a moral
statement, but in Gibson's Sprawl, the power of the zaibatsu is a
given -- part of the background.  His stories aren't about whether
corporate power is good or evil; his stories are about how people deal
with a world that is spinning out of control in a storm of
exhilarating chaos -- how they play their games, how they win, how
they lose, and how once in a while, they can find something that makes
life worth living.

I suppose you could call this a "moral stance", but that seems to be
defining the term so loosely as to encompass any statement about life
and the human experience.  Or is that your point -- that any statement
about life is a moral statement?

>Many people
>also take the message (whether Gibson intended this or not) that
>because we're all pawns of the system, there's justice in kicking
>back.  Gibson certainly didn't invent the hacking/cracking
>mentality, but Neuromancer certainly helped to popularize it and
>give it concrete expression.  A lot of hackers have cheered the
>book as a validation of their lifestyle.

I wouldn't use the words "justice" or "validation", because it implies
a moralistic tone that isn't present, but I do agree with the rest of
your statement.  I'd put it a little differently though -- Gibson's
deck jockeys made hacking cool -- not "moral" or "just" or "right" --
but cool, hip, stylish -- matte black icebreakers wearing mirrorshades
over Zeiss-Ikon eyes.

>Who are the admirable characters in Cerebus?  Cerebus
>himself.  Maybe Astoria (a Machiavellian schemer).  Maybe Lord
>Julius (a lunatic schemer, an Erisian).  Maybe the elf (an airhead,
>but innocent).  Jaka certainly (a woman who maintains her strength
>no matter how often she's victimized).  Is there a pattern?  Maybe.
>But the point is, Sim clearly presents some people as admirable
>and presents others as wimps or butchers.  We can't help but
>get the impression that behaving in some ways makes you admirable,
>while behaving in others makes you detestable.

True, but the difference between likable and unlikable characters in
Cerebus seems less a matter of morality than one of personality.

Morally, there's very little difference between Cerebus, Astoria, and
Weisshaupt -- all of them are power-seekers who will do whatever it
takes to win.  Cerebus is an attractive character because he's daring
and resourceful -- Weisshaupt is unattractive because he's effete and
pompous -- but these distinctions are more aesthetic and emotional
than moral or ethical.

I suppose there is one pattern...  The characters who are most
obsessed by morality and "good and evil" are either reprehensible (the
Cirinists) or laughable (The Roach, Elrod).  I suppose this is a "moral
stance" of a sort, perhaps an "amoral stance"? :-)

>And that's one of the major factors making up a book's moral stance.
>What are we led to believe about various actions in the book?
>If X tricks Y, does the book suggest that X is scum to do it?
>Does it suggest that Y is stupid and deserves whatever happens?
>Is X clever or treacherous?

I agree with much of what you say -- an author's worldview is an
integral part of his storytelling, and his views on what is admirable
and what is contemptible will come through.  I just disagree that this
is always a matter of morality.

Some authors clearly view the world in "moral" terms -- in their
fiction, the character to be admired is the one who makes the "right"
decision.  Orson Scott Card and Piers Anthony are clear examples of
this type of writer.

Other authors view the world in other ways.  Steven Brust's Vlad
Taltos is admirable because he's clever, daring, and "a nice guy, for
an assassin" -- not because he's more moral than the people he's hired
to kill.  Larry Niven's heroes are admirable not so much because they
are more moral than their adversaries, but because they are more
intelligent or more resourceful.

Consider "Convergent Series" -- a moralistic author (and most horror
authors are very moralistic) would probably kill the protagonist as
punishment for his "arrogance" in summoning a demon.  In contrast,
Niven's hero is admirable because he's clever enough to outsmart the
demon and find a way out of his predicament.  This attitude is
reflected in Niven's slogans, "stupidity has always been a capital
crime" and "think of it as evolution in action".  However, I don't
think Niven is saying that stupidity is immoral or that stupid people
are evil -- just that they tend to be selected out of the gene pool
(and that it's no great loss).

So I agree -- the types of behavior an author finds admirable will
determine how characters are portrayed, and how they are perceived by
the reader -- but "admirable behavior" isn't limited to "moral
behavior"...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi            Case Western Reserve University
[e-mail]    Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________