How to accurately portray morality and moral dilemmas in writing

[Graeme]

(In response to a question posed to me by Dalton Cortner)

Hi Dalton, you pose an excellent question, which I will treat in two parts.

[1] Portraying morality accurately.

Morality, like any other characteristic of a character's personality will be portrayed by their choices and actions under stress.

As in real life, our own characters are not on display in any real sense when we are at rest in a safe place.

The circumstances surrounding the character's choices must be filled with personal risk and high stakes. Then their choices and actions become rich in meaning and provide explicit information about who the character is.

Note that personal risk and high stakes are two different things. Putting your life at risk to rescue your wallet from a mugger is vastly different from putting your life at risk to rescue a child from a burning house. Both have personal risk, the second has much higher stakes for failure.

[1.a] Demonstrate moral character by displaying character choices and actions in the presence of personal risk for high stakes.

Repetition of response displays depth of character and allows for emotional (can be positive or negative) engagement by the reader. If the responses are inconsistent than we do not know who the character is. He lies one minute, tells the truth the next, and then lies again - who is he?

[1.b] Establish and maintain moral character through consistent responses.

As in real life, people are mostly not all good/evil or all good/evil all the time. So we need to add nuance, and add it consistently. For example, a character (such as a spy) may typically use deception as a weapon, and yet never lie to one trusted person. A pacifist may eschew all forms of violence, and yet act with great and sudden violence when their child is under extreme threat. This creates nuance and is more like real life.

[1.c] Portray a nuanced moral character by setting clear boundaries around specific moral choices and maintain those boundaries consistently.

As in real life, people undergo moral evolution for the better and for the worse. The way this is done, is by breeching previously defined boundaries. The key here is that once breeched, they will forever be breeched. There is no going back. (But there is going forward - see next point)

[1.d] Evolve a moral character by breaking boundaries. Once broken there is no going back. (Think Anakin Skywalker, even though he is redeemed at the end of Return of the Jedi, there is no undoing of the murder of the Padawans.)

Leading on from the previous example. The evolution of a moral character can be in both directions. If someone has risen, they can fall, if someone has fallen they can rise.

This is handled in the same was as for point 1.d via breaking and setting boundaries for behaviour. This has to be used carefully. For a character like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, there are only two transistions in his life. The first is the fall, cemented with the murder of the innocent Padawans, and the second is the rise (redemption) when he defies and kills the emperor to save his son. If such major turns are more frequent, we end violating point 1.b and have an inconsistent moral character who no (or very few) readers will engage with.

[1.e] Nuance the evolution of moral character with a small number of major shifts.

Given that moral character is only forcefully and comprehensively displayed in moments of personal risk for high stakes, it follows that moral evolutions, when they do occur, will occur under these circumstances.

To summarise, accurately portray the moral character of your characters by setting defined boundaries that are consistently maintained and displayed in moments of personal risk for high stakes. Evolve the moral character of your characters over time by a small number of specific and well motivated shifts or outright destruction of the previous boundaries in moments of personal risk for high stakes.

[2] Portraying moral dilemmas.

Take everything written under point [1] above as a given.

There are two types of moral dilemma. Choosing between competing goods (the greater of two goods) and choosing between competing evils (the lesser of two evils).

This is a very exciting question, as it directly impacts narrative structure. For example, you could place a powerful moral dilemma as the inciting incident of a story, where the protagonist makes the wrong choice and then must redeem that choice - and there is immediately gifted to the author, the powerful motivation driving the protagonist to the end of the story.

(But I digress...)

Put your moral dilemmas at the center of the high personal risk, high stakes circumstances that are driving the characters choices.

The characters choice in the dilemma than strongly reveals their moral character.

I hope that is worthy of some discussion.

[Nik]

Graeme, thanks for bringing this topic in such an organized way.
Even if I have intuitively understood some of the points, it's great to see all (or at least most) of them together with explanation of purpose and mechanics.
I also believe in multi-dimensional characters, not just good or evil, for credibility, as well as in the need to demonstrate morality or lack thereof through actions and choices in extreme situations. And in dynamics, i.e. evolution of characters, like that of Michael Corleone, starting from someone opposed to organized crime and developing into a mafia boss himself.
I have my own moral dillemma - focusing mostly on anti-heroes with their own vices and virtues, whether the message is more exposing than supportive. Whether people reading about Michael Corleone or seeing a movie, would say, hey I understand why he shot that cop, but still reject such a moral choice. Maybe it's too hyperbolized an example, but when you describe a drug influence, for instance, I worry that some might think - hey, that's a cool thing to try and attempt to neutralize that impression.

[Graeme]

Hi Nik,

Thanks for that.

If I hear you correctly, what you are saying is that it is sometimes difficult to write about what you are drawn to write (especially where there is a narrative logic to it) about for fear of the potential negative influence that it may have on your readers.

I have no wish to "push" any idea on any other author about what they should or should not write, or how they write it. Such questions must be answered by each author for themselves.

In my own writing, my boundaries are not driven by my readers, who I'm sure can handle what I write, but by the potential impact on myself.

When I write an emotionally rich scene - I feel the emotion in full that I am communicating.

For that reason, there are topics I will not touch, such as, the torture of the innocent.

My Metaframe War series deals with a crypto-feudalistic society dominated by vampires. I could write a story that was far darker than the one that I am writing - which is still quite dark and scary.

But the problem would remain - I would be the one writing it, I would be the one imagining it, I would be the one feeling it.

It enough for me to go where I'm going in my stories and no further.

[Mehreen]

People have always debated round characters over flat characters. This means obviously characters that change dramatically over the length of a novel as opposed to no change in character. On the issue of portraying morality though, if we tied characters to serve the purpose of roundedness making them bad initially and then changing into good by the time the novel ends as opposed to bad remaining bad and good remaining good, doesn't really work because good and bad exist in nuances in most people. Therefore a hero is also an anti-hero with his/her tragic flaws and tragic consequences moral/immoral both reside. It is those nuances which makes a person good and bad. Only situation will reveal to the degree people exercise such virtues and vices

[Nik]

Graeme wrote: " it is sometimes difficult to write about what you are drawn to write (especially where there is a narrative logic to it) about for fear of the potential negative influence that it may have on your readers. ..."

Exactly!

Graeme wrote: " my readers, who I'm sure can handle what I write, but by the potential impact on myself. ..."

That's where I'm less sure about. It's like the argument, whether violence on the screens of action movies transforms into violence on the streets, because some less discerning folks take it literally and think they are super-heroes. It is assumed that literature influences people and I can't possibly know what impact a book would have on each individual. I'd hate if reading about some scam or corruption I describe even 1 out of 100 (if I have this amount of readership -:)) would say, "Hey that's a wonderful shortcut to enrichment. Let's do it "

[Graeme]

Hi Mehreen,

For me, a character that does not change in any way does not have a story arc.

My series has a maturation plot for the main character, so of necessity - they have to change.

I have multiple secondary characters and the main Antagonist also undergo changes as they evolve over the story.

The concept of rounded, nuanced characters vs flat characters is one of depth and dimesionality of the characters and speaks of multiple purposes, possibly contradictory purposes and characteristics in the one character.

Which is fine, as I'm sure we all know people who have contradictions in their personalities.

[Mehreen]

Graeme wrote: "Hi Mehreen,

For me, a character that does not change in any way does not have a story arc.

My series has a maturation plot for the main character, so of necessity - they have to change.

That's true. We all have anger jealousy, hatred. Even though we might not commit a crime. It is a matter of degree. What does flat character mean after all?

I have ..."

[Graeme]

For me a "Flat Character" is 2-dimensional. A cardboard cutout. Just a prop. Part of the scenery.

[Mehreen]

Graeme wrote: "For me a "Flat Character" is 2-dimensional. A cardboard cutout. Just a prop. Part of the scenery."

In real terms who is or should I say what is a flat character? Am I a flat character are you? In my view there is no such thing as a flat character. That was such a literary invention.

[[deleted user]]

Graeme wrote: "In my own writing, my boundaries are not driven by my readers, who I'm sure can handle what I write, but by the potential impact on myself. ..."

I am actually not sure that all readers can handle logically or in a tolerant manner what we authors write. I have hit quite a few readers' comments that condemned some of my writing on religious, political or morality grounds (all totally unjustified in my humble opinion). Morality is a very subjective term for many and is often gauged by the level of tolerance or religious rigidity of the readers. For example, if you write a novel about a heroic but fun-loving female main character, would she be judged the same way in terms of acceptable morality by, say, a Bible-thumping evangelist from the Deep South compared to a New York liberal atheist? What the Bible-thumpers may consider moral and justifiable could in turn repulse the New York liberal atheist. In this day and age of 'political correctness' and too common religious bigotry, the morality of a book character may well be judged (or misjudged) according to vastly varying standards, putting pressure on writers on how they portray their characters. I realizes that this point diverges a bit from this thread, but we as writers should not naively believe that all readers will accept our points of views about the morality of a book character. Remember Joseph McCarthy and his witchhunts of the 1950s, or the times when homosexuality was considered a heinous crime? (Hell, some places in the U.S.A. still think so!)

[M.L.]

About 'change' in a character, it can also be interesting to show circumstances that should change a person/MC--but there is no change at all -- the reader wants the person to change but it does not happen -- therefore the conflict is created in the reader for not getting the result he or she is looking for. What do you think?

[Graeme]

Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "For me a "Flat Character" is 2-dimensional. A cardboard cutout. Just a prop. Part of the scenery."

In real terms who is or should I say what is a flat character? Am I a flat charact..."

Hi Mehreen, we are both human, hence not 'flat characters'.

A flat character is simply there as part of the scenary for the major, developed, characters to briefly interact with.

The major characters get the "time on page" and can (and I would suggest must be) more fully developed.

[Graeme]

Michel wrote: "Graeme wrote: "In my own writing, my boundaries are not driven by my readers, who I'm sure can handle what I write, but by the potential impact on myself. ..."

I am actually not sure that all read..."

Hi Michel, you make some great points. Perhaps I am being naive about reader impact.

[Graeme]

M.L. wrote: "About 'change' in a character, it can also be interesting to show circumstances that should change a person/MC--but there is no change at all -- the reader wants the person to change but it does no..."

Hi M.L. That is an interesting thought. The "Refusal to change." I typically position characters to react to pressing circumstances that evoke a powerful response that they may never have done before.

In my stories, a refusal to respond will get the character dead...

[Graeme]

Tim wrote: "Interesting discussion. One word wraps around what we are all doing (fiction writers) as we construct story and characters. That word is drama. To create drama we need to stage a conflict of some k..."

Hi Tim, that is precisely my experience. I'm finding that my characters develop their own voices and choices and they surprise me with what they do.

It's a fascinating experience to write thrilling drama.

[Ian]

I disagree with the concept that a character that does not change, at least in his morality, is a flat character. If you were writing about a concentration camp commander, his morality would never change, but that would not make him flat. Extremely unlikeable, yes, but a sudden conversion to seeing the evil of his ways would simply not make sense.. I think characters should be consistent throughout, EXCEPT when some circumstance makes them revise their thinking, but the intensity of what they do may change. A young character can evolve, and should evolve, but an elderly character should mainly remain constant, unless something really dramatic happens, because the older you are, the more likely you are to have come to your life's defining characteristics.

[Graeme]

Hi Ian.

All good points.

My POV on character dimensionality is broader than their moral character.

For example, a concentration camp commander who was a keen gardener would have at least two dimensions to their personality.

[Mehreen]

Graeme wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "For me a "Flat Character" is 2-dimensional. A cardboard cutout. Just a prop. Part of the scenery."

In real terms who is or should I say what is a flat character? Am ..."
Which brings me to my next question Graeme. If we were to portray life in our writings, how were we to distinguish between major and minor characters. Characters are characters - heroes, anti-heroes, humans with full potential of intelligence that there is. There are only humans. I'm not not aware of any "Sub-humans".

[Ian]

Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "For me a "Flat Character" is 2-dimensional. A cardboard cutout. Just a prop. Part of the scenery."

In real terms who is or should I say what is a flat..."

Minor characters have only a minor part to play in the total, but they can be some of the more distinctly drawn characters. You have "the fool" in Shakespeare, and on a somewhat lesser level, in my "Miranda's Demons" I had the character Karl Groza who was there for one reason only, and that was to make periodic caustic comments that would be discarded, except there was a penetrating truth underneath them. And then, the detested Groza managed to do one thing that everyone thought was heroic, but as he was to point out, it was perfectly safe because the opposition leaders were even less competent than theirs. That sort of thing, I like to think, adds colour to the story, but it does not take up much space.

[Mehreen]

Ian wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Graeme wrote: "For me a "Flat Character" is 2-dimensional. A cardboard cutout. Just a prop. Part of the scenery."

In real terms who is or should I sa..."

agreed that all characters won't make for leaders. Not everyone can be Obama, lol. However, "the fool" is the wisest character in Shakespeare's plays. A playful paradox that the genius devised.

[Mehreen]

Graeme wrote: "Hi Ian.

All good points.

My POV on character dimensionality is broader than their moral character.

For example, a concentration camp commander who was a keen gardener would have at least two d..."

Without a third dimension can we deem a character broad enough?

[Graeme]

Mehreen wrote: Which brings me to my next question Graeme. If we were to portray life in our writings, how were we to distinguish between major and minor characters. Characters are characters - heroes, anti-heroes, humans with full potential of intelligence that there is. There are only humans. I'm not not aware of any "Sub-humans"..."

I'm also not aware of any Sub-humans. (It's not clear to me how you got to that idea.)

I'm talking about fictional characters and how they are portrayed, not real humans living real lives in the real world.

[Graeme]

Ian wrote: ...That sort of thing, I like to think, adds colour to the story, but it does not take up much space...."

Hi Ian, an excellent point, just because a character is minor, does not mean that they can't be finely drawn and nuanced.

From my POV, such authorial decisions as to depth and breadth of the nuancing would be driven by the needs of the narrative.

[Mehreen]

Graeme wrote: "Mehreen wrote: Which brings me to my next question Graeme. If we were to portray life in our writings, how were we to distinguish between major and minor characters. Characters are characters - her..."

Fictional characters are based on real characters. Are they not?

[Graeme]

Mehreen wrote: Without a third dimension can we deem a character broad enough?..."

Hi Mehreen, from my perspective, the dimensionality of the character will be driven by the needs of the narrative.

I think that the key point is to have a match between a given characters dimensionality and their role in the narrative.

For example, a main character in a novel is likely (I would think) to be drawn with multiple dimensions, to give them depth, range, contradiction, etc where as a very minor character who is on scene for half a page with a couple of lines of dialogue may only express a single dimension.

To make this concrete, the MC is driving home and gets pulled over by a police officer and given a speeding ticket. The officer displays a single dimension of "Authority in action." Nothing personal is displayed, the officer is never seen again.

However, the MC's response to the speeding ticket will begin to display dimensionality, does he swear and carry on about the 'injustice of the world", or immediately pay the ticket or pin it on a notice board of other unpaid and overdue minor infringements...

[Mehreen]

Graeme wrote: "Mehreen wrote: Without a third dimension can we deem a character broad enough?..."

Hi Mehreen, from my perspective, the dimensionality of the character will be driven by the needs of the narrative..."

Ah that explains it !Thank you!

[Graeme]

Mehreen wrote: "Fictional characters are based on real characters. Are they not? ..."

Certainly, at the very least drawn from real life examples to the limit of an authors imagination.

My own stories are filled with vampires, but their personal characteristics of ambition, greed, & violence are typically human.

[Mehreen]

Would you catagorize them as sub-humans?

[Mehreen]

Tim wrote: "Mehreen wrote: Fictional characters are based on real characters. Are they not?

No, not for me. They generally walk into my imagination complete with a name and I meet them in exactly the same wa..."

Reality triggers imagination. Or does it not? "Emotion recollected in tranquility." Wordsworth.

[Graeme]

Hi Tim,

My characters surprise me too - and when they do I always accomodate them.

I haven't been disappointed with what "they" make up.

[Mehreen]

Tim wrote: "Mehreen wrote: Reality triggers imagination. Or does it not? "Emotion recollected in tranquility." Wordsworth.

For me reality isn't necessary, although my novels are set in potential reality. I a..."

There have been legends of human children being raised by eagles in jungles and legends of human children raised as lion cubs in a den. One such person has allegedly became a doctor later and an animal rights activist. So Tarzan's story- Hmm don't know where it might have come from.

[Mehreen]

Yep. You got it. People cannot write in a vacuum.

[Mehreen]

Tim wrote: "Sorry, still wiping sleep from my eye... :D"

Haha my time to go to bed.

[[deleted user]]

One particular challenge for authors is when they write a SF story and have to develop an alien intelligent being. Using normal human psychology won't work then, as it could appear cheesy that some non-humanoid alien could think and feel the way we do. You have to write a completely new slate and make it plausible rather than caricatural. Not a small feat.

[Nik]

In SF 4-5 dimensional characters can come to the fore -:)

[Graeme]

Nik wrote: "In SF 4-5 dimensional characters can come to the fore -:)"

LOL.