How can I have a war with no "good" or "evil" side?
I'm conceptualising a story involving two heroes who go on an epic journey and return bitter rivals etc. etc. and form their own forces in a sort of civil war.
My issue is that I want them to both be on the "good" side. How can I write a story in which both sides are "good". I want to somehow make the characters each beleive the other is evil, despite either of them being evil.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/29446. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I would look for a compelling moral conundrum that serves as the climax to the epic journey, and the very core of the schism between the two.
All you really need is an act with no clear right/wrong, and I tend to think that something that can be split according to the logical solution and the emotional solution should resonate.
For example: Hero A meets and falls in love with Love Interest Z. At some point, Love Interest Z becomes a host for Demon/Parasite/Entity Y, which has the power to destroy the world. Both Hero A and Hero B realise this. Being an objective outsider, Hero B acts to kill Love Interest Z, nullifying Entity Y and preventing the destruction of the world. Hero A now hates Hero B, believing their must have been a non-fatal solution.
That's probably too narrow a scale, but it might get you thinking. If Love Interest Z is a beloved public figure, than perhaps that's enough to escalate to a civil war. If not, maybe consider Love Interest Z as an entire city of people - quarantined and annihilated for the greater good. Metrocide (is that a thing?) seems pretty evil, but if it's the alternative to omnicide? Well...
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/29447. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
It's actually not an issue because "history is written by the victors", who often use their dominance to codify the evil of the vanquished. The vanquished may have been evil, but evil is a relative concept based on social mores, (despite what deolators would assert), and so, even engaging in acts that would be considered evil, it's a safe bet that most of the actors did not consider such actions evil.
But the depiction of the vanquished as evil is in no way universal. Certainly this was not the case in the Iliad of Homer.
In the Iliad, the Trojans are not presented as evil. Conversely, they are depicted as noble adversaries, with the subversive element that their dignity is greater than that of the Greeks, certainly Agamemnon, Menelaus and Odysseus. It's not insignificant that the epic ends with the line "And thus was the funeral of Hector, breaker of horses." Hector unquestionably possessed the greatest dignity of all of the heroes of the epic, Greek or Trojan. He neither instigated the war nor desired it, but must fight in it regardless. He is blameless and esteemed, and makes the greatest sacrifice for his country.
I'd say that books where the bad guys are evil is a type of shorthand, a technique that allows the author not to have fully explicate their point of view in simplistic narrative.
Another way to contextualize this is per the advice of skilled actors in portraying villains, and may be condensed into:
Everyone is the hero of their own story
Actors who don't use this technique generally deliver one-dimensional performances.
I'd also use postmodernism in presenting the conflict. The Trojan war is generally held to be a result of the "abduction" of Helen by Paris. The reality is that Troy held an incredibly powerful strategic position, and dominated trade between the Euxine (Black) Sea and the Aegean. If the Trojan war actually occurred, it was almost certainly about economic control of the region.
Even the pretext of Helen is illuminating. WWI has been cast by respected historians as a war fought for no real reason, other than Europe has become a power keg in the wake of the success of Fredrick of Prussia's regimental system. (Critiques of Keegan rely on a romanticized view of warfare as an "extension of politics by other means", but should more properly be cast as an "extension of economic and political hegemony by other means.")
WWI can be viewed as an unfortunate outcome of inciting event in which actors in the war were obligated by treaty to take part.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/29449. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
At a political level, many conflicts are simply contests for resources. For each side it is good that their wives and children should have enough to eat. Since there is not enough food available to feed both tribes, each feels justified in fighting to feed their families. In the age of extraordinary abundance in which we live today, wars for resources seem barbarous, but in the state of perpetual scarcity in which humanity has lived for most of its existence, wars were often a matter of he who wins gets to eat. Indeed, the development of states can be framed essentially as an arrangement for mutual defence of resources.
But in literary terms, this is not really about politics at all. There is a kind of literature which appeals to our inherent tribalism. There are the good guys (with whom we identify) and the bad guys. The story appeals to us by confirming that the good guys (us) are really good, that the bad guys (them) are really bad, and that the good guys (us) always win. This inherent human desire for easy moral justification and assurance of victory is strong and present in people of every political stripe. Donald Trump may not understand much about politics, but he understood this, and that was sufficient to get him elected. That story is extremely powerful and extremely popular, and when you depart from it you make your road to reader acceptance much more difficult.
Nonetheless, there is a branch of literature that does not follow this model. It is the branch that attempts to look at the human condition as it really is. One of the most basic things that writers in this tradition realize is that no one thinks of themselves as being on the side of evil. Everyone believes their cause is just. However selfish and cruel their behavior may appear to the rest of the world, they have fully justified their aims and their methods for themselves. They may, of course, become disillusioned with their country, their leaders, and their friends, but when they do, they feel justified in their decision to abandon them.
And when you step aside from the fray, you will often see that two people competing for the same thing are often much of a muchness. They both feel justified in pursuit of their goal, and neither may be particularly venal or cruel in their pursuit of it. And yet they will certainly take delight in the misfortunes of their rival, and will certainly be tempted, at least, to play dirty tricks on them. Neither is a saint; neither is a devil; both are sinners.
And that is an interesting thing to write and to read about, but it is a very different kind of story from the we-good-them-bad story. It does not simply have a different plot, it is interested in different things and appeals to a different audience.
So, a story of a war does not require a good or an evil side, but the focus of such a book must be different, it must focus not on the justification of Us and the vilification of Them, but on an honest and penetrating examination of what it is really like to be a human being in time of war.
A very fine example of this kind of book is All Quiet on the Western Front. The author, Erich Maria Remarque said of it "This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped (its) shells, were destroyed by the war." (Thanks Wikipedia!)
0 comment threads
0 comment threads