Victor’s Justice and Victor’s History

Lynda Williams at Reality Skimming continues her Ethics in Speculative Fiction series of essays and interviews by interviewing internationally published author Alma Alexander. Ms. Alexander is interest in what happens after “happily ever after”, especially to those who lose the climactic battle. What happens to the losers in a conflict? Is their story ever told?

If the story of those who lose in a conflict is ever told, it is certainly not by those who won the battle. History is written by the victors, and they tend to cast themselves as the good guys in a confrontation between Good and Evil. The vanquished in such conflicts become the bad guys, servants of evil, and they must be eradicated so that they can never again rise and threaten Goodness and Light. Then again, each side saw itself as on the side of righteousness, and its opposition as servants of iniquity, while the conflict still raged.

Why do the victors in a conflict treat a whitewashed history that portrays them as being on the side of the angels as objective fact? Why do the victors inflict upon the vanquished a heartless victor’s justice that designed to further humiliate their defeated enemies?

I think it comes down to our tendency as human beings to dehumanize our enemies so that we can fight them without reservation, using every weapon and stratagem at our disposal. But when the fighting’s done, and we see what we have done, cognitive dissonance sets in. We condemn our enemies as monsters, but we ourselves became monsters in order to defeat our enemies. We cannot acknowledge this lest we find ourselves forced to admit that our cause, however just it might have been, is irredeemably blackened by our methods.

This places us in a dilemma. We cannot admit that we are no better than our enemies or that our enemies were no worse than we were without throwing away our justifications for war. So we continue to dehumanize our enemies in the histories we write to explain the conflict to our children, and their children, and so on. All the while, any of the enemy who survived continue to tell their children the story as they understand it.

This tendency to dehumanize also affects us when we write. We instinctively root for some of our characters to win over the others, especially when writing the sort of fantasy that Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings exemplifies. By not giving the characters we’ve cast as bad guys or villains the same characterization and moral ambiguity we lavish on our protagonists or heroes, we dehumanize them.

Posted in Writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

It’s time to say goodnight to the bad guy.

The fantasy genre as a whole is in dire need of a steel-toed boot in the ass. I am tired of fantasy in which the antagonists are villains or monsters who want to either rule the world or destroy it. I’m tired of Dark Lords watching the world from the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie. I’m tired of the villains having no time on stage, no scenes from their viewpoint, and no dialogue that isn’t about how they like to relieve the stress of plotting to rule the world by punching kittens and punting puppies.

Sauron is a joke. I’ve seen final bosses in Japanese RPGs from the SNES era that were more menacing. At least Zeromus from Squaresoft’s Final Fantasy IV was allowed to introduce himself: “I am the absolute dark substance… product of Zemus’ hatred… My name is Zeromus, and I am… the hatred… Suffer…and…perish… my hatred will last until I destroy all things. NOW it’s your turn… come into my Darkness!” That alone is more characterization through action than Sauron was ever given.

In fairness to Tolkien, Saruman was a better villain, and should be considered the real villain of The Lord of the Rings. Unlike Sauron, you get to see Saruman in action, first as he tries and fails to persuade King Theoden from the top of Orthanc, and then as the broken Sharkey, when Frodo and the others return to the Shire. Of course, Tolkien being Tolkien, you still don’t get to see things from Saruman’s viewpoint. He’s the bad guy, and that’s that.

Well, it’s time to stop settling for fantasy in which the author tells you who the bad guys are, and who the good guys are. It’s time for fantasy in which you, the reader, are expected to decide for yourself who’s right. Maybe both sides are right. Maybe both sides are wrong. Maybe one side is wrong for reasons you didn’t expect. Maybe one side is right for the wrong reasons.

If the fantasy genre is to continue to grow and evolve, it can’t just feed off itself. It needs to take what it can from other forms of literature. Fantasy has the potential to be more than just modern fairy stories or a revival of the epic tradition. Fantasy doesn’t have to keep mindlessly rehashing the Campbellian hero’s journey or tell coming-of-age stories. And fantasy sure as Chaos doesn’t have to keep justifying old ways of social organization that place the few in power over the many.

Eighteenth and nineteenth century European literature has a rich tradition of the Gothic and of Romanticism that can be mined by fantasists of the twenty-first century. Michael Moorcock showed us the way, as did M. John Harrison in his Viriconium novels, and Gene Wolfe in The Book of the New Sun.

Let’s have fantasy without good guys and bad guys, without heroes and villains. Let’s have fantasy where the protagonist and antagonist both think they’re doing the right thing, and both have good reason to think so. Let’s have fantasy about adults, for adults.

Let’s say goodnight to the bad guy. He’s had his day.

Posted in Writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off