Distinguishing Character Alignment
Mar. 1st, 2019 07:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithMy partner Doug watches more entertainment than I do. Often when I walk through the living room, something is playing on the television screen. Fight scenes are pretty common.
It occurred to me that I can't always tell which side the characters are on from a quick glance. That is, the characters assigned as "good guys" and "bad guys" aren't readily distinguishable by fighting style. If they're not flagged as Obviously Evil or Obviously Good with costuming or other features that designate their politics, it's difficult to detect. Even some of the historic trends are fading somewhat -- the costumes used to be much more distinct. Now it's pretty common to have both sides dressed in black urban combat outfits or something similar. Distinctions between fighting styles are long gone in most cases. About the only thing that commonly remains is color-coded blaster fire.
I think it's an effect of the slide toward Grey and Gray Morality. That is, the primary distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is not their ethical framework, goals, methods, or other objectively observable aspects. It's which team the author is rooting for. In which case, you know, they really should use different-colored shirts so viewers can tell the teams apart. I wind up thinking that many contemporary entertainers are lazy, sloppy, ignorant, or all three.
As a consumer of entertainment in any form, I find it unfulfilling when I can't really relate to or sympathize with any of the characters, when they all seem pretty much the same. They're just some jerks I don't know smacking each other around. It's not my idea of fun. Conversely, when both sides are sympathetic but they're too balanced, I don't enjoy that either. It means the only way I'll be satisfied with the ending is if both sides somehow win, and very few writers are creative enough to resolve that kind of conflict without it being obvious from the start and therefore pointless. If a side I really sympathize with loses, I am unhappy with the ending, even if another side I also sympathize with has won.
I do love complexities, though. I like exploring how messed-up people still have things they care about, and how well-meaning people can screw up. Most of life is complicated; few issues have simple solutions. Most people have a mix of positive and negative traits; it's the balance that matters. Figuring out which way someone tilts is vitally important to surviving and thriving in life.
So then, if you're writing characters, think about why they have the ethical framework they do and how they show that. What are their good or evil traits? What will they do, what won't they do, and why? How long do you have to watch them before you can peg their alignment? The closer to the middle of the spectrum, the longer it tends to take. The farther toward either extreme, the faster and easier it gets to clock them as Good or Evil -- or Lawful or Chaotic, or Superhero or Supervillain, or whatever other spectrum you choose. The gray hats may look white or black depending on context, but an Unsullied Hero or Diabolical Villain should pop out pretty quick.
What do you think? How easy is it for you to distinguish characters based on traits and behaviors? How well do you think authors convey alignment through action? What are your preferences in entertainment?
It occurred to me that I can't always tell which side the characters are on from a quick glance. That is, the characters assigned as "good guys" and "bad guys" aren't readily distinguishable by fighting style. If they're not flagged as Obviously Evil or Obviously Good with costuming or other features that designate their politics, it's difficult to detect. Even some of the historic trends are fading somewhat -- the costumes used to be much more distinct. Now it's pretty common to have both sides dressed in black urban combat outfits or something similar. Distinctions between fighting styles are long gone in most cases. About the only thing that commonly remains is color-coded blaster fire.
I think it's an effect of the slide toward Grey and Gray Morality. That is, the primary distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is not their ethical framework, goals, methods, or other objectively observable aspects. It's which team the author is rooting for. In which case, you know, they really should use different-colored shirts so viewers can tell the teams apart. I wind up thinking that many contemporary entertainers are lazy, sloppy, ignorant, or all three.
As a consumer of entertainment in any form, I find it unfulfilling when I can't really relate to or sympathize with any of the characters, when they all seem pretty much the same. They're just some jerks I don't know smacking each other around. It's not my idea of fun. Conversely, when both sides are sympathetic but they're too balanced, I don't enjoy that either. It means the only way I'll be satisfied with the ending is if both sides somehow win, and very few writers are creative enough to resolve that kind of conflict without it being obvious from the start and therefore pointless. If a side I really sympathize with loses, I am unhappy with the ending, even if another side I also sympathize with has won.
I do love complexities, though. I like exploring how messed-up people still have things they care about, and how well-meaning people can screw up. Most of life is complicated; few issues have simple solutions. Most people have a mix of positive and negative traits; it's the balance that matters. Figuring out which way someone tilts is vitally important to surviving and thriving in life.
So then, if you're writing characters, think about why they have the ethical framework they do and how they show that. What are their good or evil traits? What will they do, what won't they do, and why? How long do you have to watch them before you can peg their alignment? The closer to the middle of the spectrum, the longer it tends to take. The farther toward either extreme, the faster and easier it gets to clock them as Good or Evil -- or Lawful or Chaotic, or Superhero or Supervillain, or whatever other spectrum you choose. The gray hats may look white or black depending on context, but an Unsullied Hero or Diabolical Villain should pop out pretty quick.
What do you think? How easy is it for you to distinguish characters based on traits and behaviors? How well do you think authors convey alignment through action? What are your preferences in entertainment?
Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-04 02:28 am (UTC)I always felt sorry for that one Klingon: "How long has this bird been dead?!"
Imagine how horrified a modern American would be by the historic practice of aging fowl until the carcass fell to the ground.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-05 06:56 pm (UTC)I grew up in hunting/fishing culture, but one of the main problems was some deer hunters clearly didn't know how to properly prepare and cook venison. My father, a preacher, would never turn down a free meal, and members of his congregation were always inviting us to venison dinners. We had some very good venison dinners and some truly awful ones. OTOH, most of the fishers knew how to properly prepare fish so there were usually some good fish dinners.
You're right in that most modern Americans would freak out over this information.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-05 11:15 pm (UTC)I've seen various discussions of different ways to handle birds, and aging meat is a running debate in most circles.
>> The only semi-direct knowledge I have about killing and cooking birds was my mother's memories of growing up on a farm. Her Sunday job was to catch and kill and clean and pluck and cook a chicken for Sunday dinner. This was during the Great Depression.<<
When I was 2 and 3, my mother raised chickens. She didn't want to water them through winter so we killed and froze the birds in autumn. I helped catch them, hold the feet, and after they were dead my main job was coring out the guts because my hands were smallest. It was a cool project.
*chuckle* Until I got to kill the rooster that always attacked me. I was juuust big enough to swing the ax, but that left Grandma holding the feet, and she let go too soon. So the headless rooster ran out into the field with Mom chasing him. LOL It's one of my favorite family memories.
>> I grew up in hunting/fishing culture, but one of the main problems was some deer hunters clearly didn't know how to properly prepare and cook venison. <<
Bluntly put, if you treated a prize steer the way some people treat deer, it would taste "gamey" too!
1) Kill cleanly. If you paunch the damn deer and trail it for hours, the stress chemicals impart a taste to the meat that few people enjoy. Stop cocking around trying to hit a heart the size of your hand, because if you miss then you've got hours of trailing. Take a poacher's shot to the head or upper spine. Either you miss completely, or the deer lays down dead.
2) Field-dress the deer immediately. Carry what you need to string it up and process it right there.
3) If you expect to kill the deer more than about an hour from refrigeration, pack ice in your truck so you can chill it promptly.
4) Don't hunt anywhere for food that the regulations lead to unsafe food handling. Only hunt for trophies in those places, if you consider that ethical. Really. Check the regs before you pull the trigger. Some places have laws that can make you sick or kill you if followed.
>> My father, a preacher, would never turn down a free meal, and members of his congregation were always inviting us to venison dinners. We had some very good venison dinners and some truly awful ones. OTOH, most of the fishers knew how to properly prepare fish so there were usually some good fish dinners.<<
Yeah, it all comes down to knowledge and responsibility.
>> You're right in that most modern Americans would freak out over this information.<<
They just don't stop to think of it.