Conflict:Good Vs Evil

[Raphee]

I was reading Uncle Jim's advice on conflicts. And he said to avoid the Good Vs Evil since the ending is predictable.
In my WIP the Good Vs Evil is a main theme. I was just wondering that even if the end is inevitable that Good shall win out; isn't the route to the result also important.
By the way I am writing a literary novel.

[Inkdaub]

The route is very important. A story that surprises me in it's conclusion is very rare. Good triumphs over evil and etc and so on. Yet exactly HOW good has won the battle can be a surprise.

It goes back to the addage that what's important isn't what you write but rather how you write it.

[cinders23]

It seems to me that there are a lot of very success books and movies out there with the typical good -vs- evil theme. The ending may be predictable, but getting to that point must be enjoyable for many people. Lord of the Rings comes to mind...among many others.

[Andre_Laurent]

I'm doing the good vs evil theme...but technically, even my "good" character would be classed as evil due to what he is...maybe I'm doing the lesser of two evils vs pure evil. :D

[aruna]

I've got a classic good vs evil theme too. And as others have said - it's not the goal, it's the getting there that's interesting - at least, I hope it is!

[Saundra Julian]

In one of my finished novels the "good" becomes evil and the "evil" becomes good! Go figure...

[Meerkat]

What if your novel took the approach that there is no evil....there is only "passion?"

[Jamesaritchie]

I think good versus evil is the basic conflict of life, and certainly the basic conflict in a great many of the best novels I've ever read. Avoid this confoict, and you avoid the world as it is. And any conflict is only as predictable as the writer wants to make it.

At the same time, what's wrong with predictable. In this sense, it isn't a bad thing at all. If it were, you could eliminate thousands of very good novels, and at least three fourths of the best movies I've ever watched.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'd have to see Uncle Jim's actual quote, since I tend to agree with most of what he says, but in this case... good vs. evil? Almost all stories can be boiled down to that. As james said, it's a basic conflict of life.

[Pamster]

The route is very important. A story that surprises me in it's conclusion is very rare. Good triumphs over evil and etc and so on. Yet exactly HOW good has won the battle can be a surprise.

It goes back to the addage that what's important isn't what you write but rather how you write it.

First off Welcome to the AW Cooler Raphee! :welcome:

Good luck with your writing and thanks for posting an interesting thread for us to think about and comment in. :) :D

I agree with Inkdaub, the route is very important, a surprising twist always excited the reader I think. I don't profess to be perfect in any sense of the word, but I do think I have what it takes to make it in this business if I can just get off the ground. You believe in what you've got to say and developing your story so that its able to stand on its own and face the critics. :)

It's not hard to find the right words when the best intentions are behind it, I believe that we can improve our work and get better at the craft of writing, but some basic fundementals remain, like the suspension of belief that the reader often gives the writer. That creative liscense needs to be exercised. It's like a muscle I think, it gets stronger. :Sun:

[PeeDee]

It's fine that the ending is predictable. Doesn't mean it lacks tension. I'd have to see the original quote from Uncle Jim before I'll say anything else (I don't know what quote you mean) but I can still be plenty tense over the ending.

Just because I do KNOW, in the back of my head, that Frodo will destroy the One Ring doesn't mean that while he's standing there over the Crack of Doom, I'm not tense and worried as hell. Of course I am.

[Judg]

Apollo 13 had a highly predictable ending (it was history, we all knew they would get home) but it had me on the edge of my seat the whole time. Sometimes knowing the ending is actually what supplies the tension. Flight 93 would be incredibly boring for the first half of the movie if it weren't for the fact that we know what is coming. Similarly, I read a book (sorry, forget which one) a while back in which the main character was murdered in the prologue. The sense of horror it gave to the entire book was an important part of the story's power.

If I remember correctly, Jim was saying that the more effective conflicts are good vs. good, in which neither side is a bad guy per se, but where you have conflicting visions of the right thing to do driving the story. There's a lot of potential in that kind of setup.

But when it really is good vs. evil, and you know good is going to win, the question is more, what kind of victory will it be and what kind of price will be paid. Sure, Frodo saved the world, but it was lost to him. In The Constant Gardener, the MC regains his self-respect and integrity, but pays for it with his life. Of course, one could argue that this a story in which evil conquered good, but the victory was not complete. It can also be argued that the ambiguous endings John Le Carré is so fond of are something few authors can pull off and still sell books. Readers tend to like an emotionally satisfying ending, which usually means they want the good guy to win, perhaps at great cost, but still with a clear-cut victory.

I'm rambling a bit here. Sorry.

[Shadow_Ferret]

There are many successful series out there. They are successful because the stories themselves are well-written and hold your interest, but we all know the outcome... Harry Bosch, Anita Blake, Harry Dresden, Conan, et al are NOT going to die in the end, they are going to be triumphant. That's why many readers enjoy series, they know the hero will be OK in the end, but they want to see HOW he solves the crime, battles the baddie, or reaches the goal.

Predictability isn't a fatal flaw for a novel.

[southern_cross3]

While Good vs. Evil might seem to lead to a predictable ending, I think many readers see that as sort of comforting. If they read through an entire novel on the side of the good hero, and then in the end he was defeated, they would be quite disappointed. What makes the book is how you get there, and sometimes convincing the reader that there's no way possible for Good to win--but then it finds a way before the end.

[vrabinec]

I generally don't like books that are not good versus evil on some level. I like to have someone to root for. If I don't have that then I may as well be reading a travel brochure, pretty pictures, nice description, no plot.

[Raphee]

I'll have to find Uncle Jim's actual thread; but I hope you'll forgive me for the moment as I am only an Esteemed New Member and am finding my way around the block. Examples of Good Vs. Good that Uncle Jim gave were
Faith Vs Reason,
Love of Country Vs Love of Home etc.

Once I thought about these I could see the potential of a great theme in Good Vs Good. But even then I felt the need for evil in a novel.[ use the word in as broad a sense as you want from meaning Darth Vader to your-favourite-politician-you-want-to-murder]

My problem is that in my WIP the protagonist is just too blatantly evil. He is going to commit the ultimate sins like mass murder or try to.
Now my second problem is that the narrator, also the MC, is a boy of 10. He narrates in the first voice. That limits his access to the protagonist. He is as such unable to tell anything good about the Evil guy. Though in the early part of the novel the MC himself is fairly impressed by the power and wealth of the Evil guy as young boys are.

Any advice on how to develop the evil guy as a realistic character. I have him evil to the bone already.
And thanks folks for all the wonderful feedback to my first question on AW. You guys are awesome.:)

[PeeDee]

I like that you don't have detailed access to your bad guy. I particularly like that we're only seeing him from a 10-year-old's point of view. That's a great and interesting idea.

Which case, don't try to develop him TOO deeply. Just let the kid sees what he sees. I think it's much more effective for the kid to be viewing events and thinking about them as a ten year old, but the adult reader is in mild horror going "But my god, he's just murdered twenty people in cold blood!" or something.

[maestrowork]

A "predictable" ending is not always a bad thing. Readers come to expect something. Romance must have a "happily ever after." Mysteries should have the murder solved at the end. The hero should save the world in a thriller. But that doesn't mean it has to be uninteresting or cliched -- a show we've seen five million times. How you get there (the plot) is important, and you can have as many fine twists as you want. Characters are also important. If you make us care about your characters, then you've won half the battle. The conflicts have to be real, and not put on. Don't manufacture some superficial conflicts so your hero gets to beat up your villain or vice versa. That's just trite.

[maestrowork]

I generally don't like books that are not good versus evil on some level. I like to have someone to root for. If I don't have that then I may as well be reading a travel brochure, pretty pictures, nice description, no plot.

?? You don't need to have an "evil" villain to have a great plot. You don't need evil to root for the good. There are plenty of great stories out there that is not good vs. evil.

[PeeDee]

A definable "evil," such as Darth Vader or Sauron can be interesting....but only to an extant. Ultimately, they're not as potentially exciting as jes' folk versus jes' folk.

Terry Pratchett's "Night Watch" is a good example. There are some right bastards in the book (and some of them are the good guys) and there's death, fighting and riots....but mostly, it's all just people. I appreciate that, and I really prefer it than our Brave Hero fights against THe Dark Army of Evil

[aruna]

I have a really evil villain in my novel - the suicide cult leader Jim Jones. But how many people know that he started out as a really, really good guy? When he started out as a preacher, he invited blacks into his church whisn such a thing was unheard of, and when the church authorities forbade it, he left the church and started his own rather than leave out blacks. He was one of the first preachers to really do anything about racial equality in America. He helped the poor in all sorts of ways - that's why he had so many black followers. I have spoken to people who knew him before he turned crazy and they say with one word that he used to be a great and genuinely caring person, and that People's Temple was at first a wonderful group.
So the stregth of my depiction of an evil character is - what caused the change? How did someone changed from good to evil?
That helps me to break away from the stereotypical evil overlord.
Also, at the height of his evilness I also show how needy he is, how broken. This not to evoke sympathy, but to show that in this case at least the evil was not just solid black.

[RJLeahy]

I'm not sure good vs evil is a bad plot. In fact, I'd go as far as saying the majority of novels, and film could be classified as such. When you lose that basic premise, more often than not, you're talking about literary fiction.

But evil has to have a reason for being evil. Even Darth Vader and Sauron, the Nazis and Charles Manson, all had pathos behind the evil. If you can't explain the pathos, the driving force behind the mayhem, then you miss a great opprotunity to engage the reader.

But good vs evil? It's still a hot seller. Just look at the abundance of slasher movies.

[PeeDee]

But evil has to have a reason for being evil. Even Darth Vader and Sauron, the Nazis and Charles Manson, all had pathos behind the evil. If you can't explain the pathos, the driving force behind the mayhem, then you miss a great opprotunity to engage the reader.


I agree entirely. Exactly right.

[Raphee]

I like that you don't have detailed access to your bad guy. I particularly like that we're only seeing him from a 10-year-old's point of view. That's a great and interesting idea.Which case, don't try to develop him TOO deeply. Just let the kid sees what he sees.
Interesting to read your comment. I have been disturbed about the character development in my novel. Now let me think about what you said and see how it impacts my WIP.

[PeeDee]

I shamelessly hope you pursue it, because it sounds like something really interesting and cool to read. A small boy's perspective on events that are much too big for him can be really, really interesting to read.

Witness: Gene Wolfe's The Wizard Knight duo of books. A magnificant read, and the perspective is a young boy who is transformed into a grown man...but is still a boy. He has to deal with this whole fantasy world and all the problems in it, but he's just a boy. It's a magnificant book.

[Simon Woodhouse]

What if your novel took the approach that there is no evil....there is only "passion?"

I try to use this idea.

[Raphee]

One of the most interesting works that I have seen where the conflict is not really Good Vs Evil is William Golding's "Lord of The Flies."
It's really a great read on how to develop conflcts. Golding uses schoolboys, who are marooned on anisland to illustrate the problems or conflicts of ego, pride, power, etc that even adults manifest.

Peedee, I am about to become totally and outright shameless; if I am not already. [How much more do I have to degenerate to become a writer.;)]

[Jamesaritchie]

I have a really evil villain in my novel - the suicide cult leader Jim Jones. But how many people know that he started out as a really, really good guy? When he started out as a preacher, he invited blacks into his church whisn such a thing was unheard of, and when the church authorities forbade it, he left the church and started his own rather than leave out blacks. He was one of the first preachers to really do anything about racial equality in America. He helped the poor in all sorts of ways - that's why he had so many black followers. I have spoken to people who knew him before he turned crazy and they say with one word that he used to be a great and genuinely caring person, and that People's Temple was at first a wonderful group.
So the stregth of my depiction of an evil character is - what caused the change? How did someone changed from good to evil?
That helps me to break away from the stereotypical evil overlord.
Also, at the height of his evilness I also show how needy he is, how broken. This not to evoke sympathy, but to show that in this case at least the evil was not just solid black.

Jim Jones grew up right across the street from an aunt of mine, and only a few miles from where I lived at the time. We all knew him well when he was young. You couldn't find a finer person. I don't know what made him change, but it sure seems a good subject for a novel.

[Jamesaritchie]

The route is very important. A story that surprises me in it's conclusion is very rare. Good triumphs over evil and etc and so on. Yet exactly HOW good has won the battle can be a surprise.

It goes back to the addage that what's important isn't what you write but rather how you write it.

I think this is almost always true, especially in genre novel. When I pick up a mystery, I can be pretty certain the protagonist will solve the crime. When I pick up an adventure novel of any kind, I can be pretty certain teh good guy will overcome all obstacles and win out in teh end. When I pick up a romance, I can nearly guarantee that in the end boy and girl will be together.

Same with movies. I knew darned well how the LOTR movies were going to end, but they were wonderful movies. I like the Indiana Jones mopvies, even though I know darned well Indy is going to be victorious.

None of this has anythng to do with predictability. It's the journey that matters, how the good guy wins, what he learns along the way, and the price he may have to pay, that matters.

A novel is not automatically predictable, even if you know good is probably going to win out over evil. It's the journey that matters. It's how good wins, it's the obstacles good must overcome, the lessons learned along the way, and the price to be paid, that make a novel worth reading.

[Jamesaritchie]

What if your novel took the approach that there is no evil....there is only "passion?"

I think this is an excellent way to write, IF it's what you believe.

[vrabinec]

?? You don't need to have an "evil" villain to have a great plot. You don't need evil to root for the good. There are plenty of great stories out there that is not good vs. evil.

Well, I'm not talking about villains, so I'll agree that you don't need an evil villain. But even a book about a climber going at Everest has an element of evil to it, whether it's the climber's fear, overconfidence, or the sleep that wants to overtake him when he's above the death plateau; relative to his quest, that is evil. Evil doesn't have to be morally reprehensible.

Even romance novels will have to have some element of evil to be interesting. A story about two perfect people meeting with a handful of minor obstacles to overcome will be dull. If it's simply a matter of matched wits or physical skills, that's something I'd rather watch than read about. I will not read the blow-by-blow account of a chess match or a football game; no evil on either side, but I'll watch it.

I don't know of any good books I've read that don't have an evil to them. Maybe a comedy book of some sort, but I don't read much (if any) of that sort of thing.

[maestrowork]

I think you're mistaking antagonistic elements with "evil." There's nothing evil about Mt. Everest. Imperfect people with obstacles and personality flaws are not "evil." Hardship, diseases, etc. are not "evil." They're antagonistic, yes, and that's what conflicts are all about -- but it has nothing to do with evilness. It seems to me your definition of "evil" is extremely broad.

[Shadow_Ferret]

A little anthropomorphosizing never hurt anyone.

Mt. Everest is evil. It's cold. Impassionate. And wants to destroy lives.

[aruna]

Jim Jones grew up right across the street from an aunt of mine, and only a few miles from where I lived at the time. We all knew him well when he was young. You couldn't find a finer person. I don't know what made him change, but it sure seems a good subject for a novel.

Wow! If I'd known that I'd have interviewed you!
Kust kidding; I got some good interviewees, an dthey all agree that he started out right and ended up wrong. I think it's a fascinating subject, and indeed exploring it for a novel was great fun - though I'm not sure if fun is the right word.

[vrabinec]

I think you're mistaking antagonistic elements with "evil." There's nothing evil about Mt. Everest. Imperfect people with obstacles and personality flaws are not "evil." Hardship, diseases, etc. are not "evil." They're antagonistic, yes, and that's what conflicts are all about -- but it has nothing to do with evilness. It seems to me your definition of "evil" is extremely broad.

We may be debating minor points here, but when I think of an antagonist or antagonistic elements, I tend to think of the classic "one that contends with or opposes another". Hence, in the example I gave, one chess player is the antagonist of the other, but is not evil in any way. Evil, while it may be used to describe some sort of lack of morality, is also often used to depict that which can bring harm or distress. I believe that is one of the definitions of evil. So, when I say I prefer to read books which have an "evil element", I'm saying I like the threat of some harm, whether physical or emotional.

So, yes, the mountain itself is not evil, but the pride that pushes a climber to keep going when he is being told to turn back is evil. Both are antagonistic elements.