inverarity | Suck it up, snowflake! And Alexandra Quick is too heroic

Entry tags:

Suck it up, snowflake! And Alexandra Quick is too heroic

So, is it the people who say I suck or the people who say I'm awesome who don't know what they're talking about?

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. It's been a long time since I was drawn into fiction the way I was with this chapter.

This is one of the most professional stories I’ve read on ________.

This is top notch stuff. I really had nothing to pick at. I can't tell for sure how the novel is going to work from just the opening chapter (plot-arc and such) but so far this looks like it's ready to go. You ought to be working on your query.

I'm so confuuuuuuuuuused!

Okay,

indigo_mouse says I should stop obsessing. And half of you said I should finish the SF novel and half said I should start on AQ5. Only one dirty rotten bastard said I suck. Oh wait, that was me.

Well, for the record, I am working on the SF novel. And I'm not really obsessing over the bad critiques. Okay, maybe a little tiny bit. Just a bit. But I've found a few good critiquers, so onward!

Let's leave aside the SF novel for now, and get back to Alexandra Quick. I just got a long, long review from MadYak on fanfiction.net. The kind of long, long review I love that are full of praise and criticism. The last couple of people to go on at length about how much they enjoy the AQ series and all the things I am doing wrong were Miles2Go and

tealterror0, and they both wound up as betas. So be careful when eviscerating my writing, I might ask you to read more of it!

Anyway, MadYak's comments went over ff.net's character limits, so he PMed me the rest. I'm going to reproduce some of it here. These are mostly the criticisms, so bear in mind he had a lot of positive things to say beforehand. But there were some specific points I wanted to discuss.

Perhaps more importantly, it's incredibly annoying that she continues to be just as reckless, all the way up and through the fourth book, despite the sometimes brutal consequences that should have taught her caution by now, in spades. You've rehashed enough how she thinks she's in control when she has the slightest grip on a situation and doesn't intend for things to happen differently, but it's starting to get old. Note that she, yet again, somehow comes out alive from two different encounters with John, despite him being a capable and amoral killer.

I have been hearing this a lot, often enough that I'd be taking it seriously even if I hadn't already been moving in that direction. Yes, recklessness is part of Alexandra's nature. ("Troublesome's reckless, ruthless and bold....") But there's a fine line between recklessness and stupidity. Alex will be smarter in book five. Which is not to say she'll stop being reckless. But she's starting to become aware of her limitations. She's had enough painful lessons that she knows being reckless can get people hurt. If not herself, then someone else.

This, however, brings up something of a contradiction. For every reader who grits her teeth when Alex once again pulls some dumb stunt and gets away with it, there's someone who wants to see her continue being indomitable and irrepressible and a little bit dangerous. If Alexandra became really smart and sensible and thought things through before doing them, she'd certainly get in less trouble and danger and she'd probably get more done. But she wouldn't be Alexandra. Also, she wouldn't have succeeded at so many of the things she has accomplished if she'd taken the time to think them through before doing them.

Now, part of MadYak's objection is not just that Alex is reckless, but that she's reckless and then gets away with it, seemingly with the benefit of too much luck. Well, if Alexandra seems to get away with being stupid by virtue of being lucky, that's definitely a failure on my part; writing your heroine out of a corner by fiat is bad writing. I'm not sure I really agree, though. After all, one of the things other readers have pointed out (a common element they like in my AQ stories) is the fact that Alex doesn't get away with everything, and in fact, fails quite often and is severely punished for it. AQATTC is really the last book where she didn't get a hammer dropped on her in the end. At the end of AQATLB, she loses Max. At the end of AQATDR, she sees another girl, a "friend," die, and her own life is forfeit in seven years. And at the end of AQATSA, she was expelled from Charmbridge — which some people said was unfair, but most said was inevitable if not long overdue. So she doesn't exactly get away cleanly.

But, let's talk about heroism.

Also on the menu concerning Alex is her moral attitude. One of the things that I admired most about her in the beginning was that she was surprisingly willing to bulldoze over others objections when she needed to accomplish something. However, it seems more and more that she's destined to become the classic self-sacrificing hero who will commit no moral wrong and find a clever solution where no one but herself is harmed, which I absolutely loathe. I'd absolute prefer a determined protagonist who's willing to make some hard moral choices for something she believes in. I actually wanted to hit my screen in disgust in book 3 when Alex chose to sacrifice herself instead of happily chucking Darla's guilty ass to the Generous Ones. From an adult perspective, Darla is a little girl who makes bad choices in a bad situation while trying to save her sister, and her youth makes us want to spare her. From Alex's perspective though, this is a *peer* who has repeatedly attempted to kill Alex or someone Alex cares about for Darla's own gains. Just because it was all to save Mary does not excuse that. But instead of showing the slightest bit of self-preservation, she decides to be a moral paragon (at 14) because the girl who was trying to kill Alex and her friend doesn't deserve to die. The squeaky clean goodness continues in the fourth book when she steps outside the wards to save Larry Albo, of all people, endangering her own life due to his stupidity and desire to poke his nose where it didn't belong to harass Alex. On the other hand, I thought Alex was right to stand up to Mary and give Mary the chance to curse her, because Alex's reasoning was pretty sound. I don't really mind Alex having some morals - just please give her back some fangs and stop having her be the hero and sacrificial goat for others' problems.

The morality vs practicality issue is probably my biggest problem with the series so far. Abraham and Diana are both good examples of the practical side, both of whom I respect (although I do wonder at the justification behind Abraham's methods, but I'm betting that'll pop up in the future). Alex and her friends are understandably hesitant about causing anyone serious pain due to them being children, but they're leaving the age (mentally) where it fits, in my opinion, since Alex and her friends have been exposed to more than the other students. Alexandra especially has seen the darker side of life and should be realizing that she's not going to accomplish anything big without stepping on some people on the way, sooner or later. Thankfully, you're having her become more capable magically, but she needs some ruthlessness to back that up. To be fair, I'm pretty certain you'll have a lot more reviewers that want to see Alex be that perfect hero than what I'm proposing, but I really just can't stand archtypal hero protagonists.

Okay, so this is probably going to boil down entirely to a matter of taste. While I disagree with you that Alex is a "moral paragon" or "squeaky clean," you are right that she has a heroic nature, with a strong element of self-sacrifice. Underneath the self-centeredness and the recklessness and the arrogance and the occasional fantasies about "Dark Queen Alexandra" in book one, Alex is (right now) basically a good person who loves her friends fiercely, even if she doesn't always treat them well.

This kind of ties back to my SF novel because there are people who will tell you things that are exactly the opposite of each other — and neither of them are necessarily wrong! I gather that MadYak would like to see Alex be more of an anti-hero, or a dark heroine.

I promise, at a later time you will get a hint of what Alex is really capable of if she takes off the gloves and says "The hell with having morals." I definitely would like to show her having fangs. But I won't tell you that you have seen the last of the self-sacrificing hero, because she is self-sacrificing and heroic, as much as she is reckless, ruthless, and bold.

So, about Darla. It certainly would have been ruthless of Alexandra if she had just thrown Darla to the Generous Ones and said, "Take the bitch." And you're right, from a fourteen-year-old's perspective, that might have seemed entirely justifiable. But — while that might have pleased the readers who want to see more of a grimdark heroine, I don't think most people would have liked Alex if she'd done that. I wouldn't have liked her.

I place a heavy weight on moral choices and consequences. I got some flack from

rheymus for saying that killing is serious business and that most people balk at it — even killing someone who deserves to die. This is, it seems, a philosophical difference of opinion. If Alex kills, it will be a big deal. If she becomes someone who can just (lethally) drop bad guys without hesitation, she will be an entirely different person.

I think Alexandra is a long way from doing no moral wrong, but the big wrongs, like murdering people, or letting them die because she doesn't like them? If you loathe heroes who consistently look for clever solutions when presented with a choice of evils, you probably aren't going to find Alexandra's future development any more satisfying.

Like I said, though, different people ding me for different things. MadYak admires Abraham Thorn for his practicality;

rheymus is always on me about how he's a terrorist more evil than the Confederation, no matter what the Confederation is up to.

I like the debate, and the different viewpoints, and of course I wish everyone liked Alexandra just the way I write her, but evidently different readers want different things and I'm not going to satisfy all of them.

(Which is why I am ~~obsessing~~preoccupied with critiques of my SF novel...)

Also, I believe you have a problem with word bloat/filler. While your stories flow very well from scene to scene, it only flows that well because you almost never jump from important scene to important scene, and you tend to add in a lot of extraenous information that isn't always needed, like mentioning a few classes Alex is taking between scenes or something similar. I've already started skimming these bits as a result. I'll admit that it does do a good job of making for a casual pace of school life and it does disguise the important bits and pieces when its something minor that becomes important later. However, it also is sometimes a chore to read. Not sure if you should change it or not, but that's my thoughts on it.

Yeah, guilty as charged. And flow and pacing is a lot more critical when I'm writing something that isn't fan fiction.

Thanks for your comments, MadYak!

[Poll #1864938]

(I assume it goes without saying that poll results will in no way affect what I'm actually going to write...)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

you're never, ever going to not get bad reviews that pick apart your writing. even well-regarded published authors do (and you've been the author of some of those reviews) so...

for me, personally, i would look for source and consensus. if someone who is established as someone whose opinion on the matter of writing i trust said something, i would give that more weight. if someone who seems articulate and reasonably objective, and whose comments seem thoughtful and backed up with examples said something, more weight. conversely, someone with a clear agenda, or whose comments lack in logic, grammar, coherence etc....much less weight given. likewise, if multiple people point out the same flaw or really enjoy a certain aspect...again, more weight given.

I agree with shinygobonkers.

Now to move on to what's really important: arguing about fanfiction.

Point one: Alex getting lucky

I don't think you really address MadYak's concern.

Yes, a lot of bad things to happen to Alex, most as a direct result of her recklessness and stupidity. However, MadYak wasn't saying she was always getting a happy ending; he was saying, effectively, that she should be dead many times over by now if she wasn't really lucky. And, well...he's kind of right.

In the first book, she would've died easily had Journey been even a little more ruthless, or a little less stupid (at the end). In the second book, she somehow manages to escape from hundreds of pissed-off Generous Ones (this is the biggest example of author fiat in the series so far IMO). In the third book, she somehow manages to convince the Deathly Power to let her leave his realm, and then goes back to the Generous Ones and not only survives but gets a 7-year extension. And in the fourth book she wins fights against Dark Wizards and is saved from John by her pet snake.

Now, the fact of the matter is that the AQ series will always be read in the light of the HP series, for better or worse, and Harry also mostly survives through luck (even moreso than Alex really). That's probably why most people, including me, don't mind it very much. But I think it's fair to say that she's quite lucky to have survived up until now.

Point two: Heroism

I'm going to do the arrogant thing here and quote myself, specifically, my ff.net review of the third book:

Alex hates herself. This is hard to see, considering how high of an opinion she seems to have of herself (witness "Why can't I be as good as my father, or even better?"). However, there is an important distinction to make: Alex has a very high, some might say inflated, opinion of her own skills; her intelligence, magical ability, etc. The opposite is true when it comes to her reality [sp; should be "morality"]. Basically, Alex thinks she's a horrible person, who doesn't really deserve to live, and that her friends and family would be much happier if she had never existed.

There are signs of this throughout the series; her encounter with the boggart in Book 2 is probably the biggest clue. I think she feels this way partly because she's always been treated as an outcast, and partly because self-hatred is probably just part of her nature. Mostly, though, it's because of what Darla said: "People seem to have a funny habit of dying around you." It started with Bonnie at the beginning of the first book (although she barely managed to avert her actual death), and it's only gotten worse as time went on. . . .

But consider: Alex's self-hatred also leads to a rather significant death-wish. In every book so far, she's been willing to sacrifice herself at least once. (Emphasis added just now)

Alex's actions are certainly heroic, and individually she manages to justify them (some times more convincingly than others). But the overall pattern is clear. I don't think she's self-sacrificing because she's a Superman-level moral saint. I think she's self-sacrificing because she hates herself and has a death wish. This certainly did not change in Book 4.

Maybe MadYak would like Alex better under this interpretation...?

Edited 2012-09-08 04:29 (UTC)

I did address the concern, here:

Now, part of MadYak's objection is not just that Alex is reckless, but that she's reckless and then gets away with it, seemingly with the benefit of too much luck. Well, if Alexandra seems to get away with being stupid by virtue of being lucky, that's definitely a failure on my part; writing your heroine out of a corner by fiat is bad writing.

Though I realize I then went on to talk about how she gets punished at the end of each book, which wasn't quite on-point.

As for your self-hatred theory, I have never commented on it because if I confirmed or denied it I'd probably be giving too much away, right? But it brings up an interesting question: can that theory be evaluated independently of author intent? ;)

Hmm, this is an interesting debate, one I have dwelt upon for a good amount of time while re-reading AQatSA.

Your reviewer brings up good, valid points, I think, but I don't necessarily agree with them all. To me, Alex is almost an anti-hero. She does things one would classify as heroic, but not always for the right reasons. For example, even though Max likely never would've returned from the Lands Below in the end had he gone by himself, Alex's reasons for going were not so much to help him as she didn't (in my opinion) want to be left out of a big!adventure. That fit for me because she wass 13 and thought she knew best. She was wrong; lesson time for Alex. I think this lesson did actually reflect in AQatDR, because she does stay out of trouble a lot better than before. It's only when she sees both what's going on with Darla AND her opportunity to possibly bring back Max that she fucks up and dabbles in things that ought not be dabbled. And we both know where that leads.

The point I'm trying to make is that Alex DOES grow and learn from her mistakes, but each consequence and nuance of the series presents itself with a unique set of challenges born from things that most people cannot realistically prepare for. Alex got into a lot more trouble in AQatSA, but really, is that so surprising? She already has a penchant for thinking she can do things adults can't do, but throw in the fact that she has a very scarily ticking clock on her lifespan, it is no small wonder she decided to deal with things on her own and not wait around for someone to clean things up. Her past successes, while fuelled by preferential treatment by the adults around her and maybe a little amount of luck, were not accidental; she is sharp and motivated when it suits her, so it's not odd that she does all these things whether she thinks they're a good idea or not. Getting burned, I think she knows, is always a strong possibility, but one she readily faces when the outcome is important.

The thing with giving her life for Darla, to me, was spurred by what happened to Max. I don't think, at the time, that Alex could understand why Max would make that decision for her and not let her die in his stead, which I think she would've preferred. When Darla was standing there, ready to throw herself into the Lands Beyond for the sake of her sister, I think she gained a lot of understanding of both her brother's motivations and those of her rival/nemesis. It was unfair that Alex lost Max for Abraham's selfish mission, so I think it pained Alex to know that Mary being slated for the Deathly Regiment was forcing Darla into this decision. This is probably the first truly selfless thing I've ever seen Alex do, because most of her other 'heroic' actions had a form of personal benefit. This one did not. And I think Alex grew up a lot in that time span. No time to be a child when one has seven years to live.

I guess what all the above ramble says is that I understand others' reservations about Alex's character, but as a reader, I see them as a realistic and intuitive causality when coupled with the things that happen in her life. Fucked up things happen to Alexandra, and she does what she feels she has to do to deal with them, but it's unfair to say she doesn't learn from them when there isn't too much precedent for how one is meant to cope with and handle such events.

As for writing style, I think there might be a little bit of wisdom in the word bloat comment. You yourself, in the AQatTC reread, deem many chapters as 'filler', and you're probably right. However, as a fan of the series, I like having more to read and more to know, but there is usually a good amount of information I could do without and still enjoy the series not being the wiser. There aren't any large events I would personally strike, but in places, there are three or four paragraphs describing something when it could, realistically, be condensed into one, and that does add to the girth of the stories. If I weren't such a shit about reviewing every chapter, I would probably be in a better position to give concrete examples.

I am planning a reread in the near future, though I don't know if I can cope sobbing through the last five chapters of AQatLB like a wailing child again. If I can cowboy up and deal with that angst again, I'll try to review every chapter and maybe point out things that, in retrospect, don't fit as well as they could or might not be necessary. I love AQ as is, but if I can be of any assistance, I would love to contribute in anyway.

Overall, I do feel like you are a superior fanfic author. Moderating has taught me that, while I find storytelling and writing relatively natural and I'm decent at it, most people do not and are not. Few writers I've encountered put as much thought and effort into their stories, both in planning larger story arcs and sticking to a schedule. Your discipline greatly aids your cause, and you choose your betas well, especially as the series — and Alex — have progressed. While no one does things perfectly, the quality of your work allows me to enjoy it rather than fight off niggling annoyances in an effort to do so. As a reader, it's a quality I appreciate.

If you read most or all of this, you are a champ, but I hope, overall, that any of it was of use.

Alex's actions are certainly heroic, and individually she manages to justify them (some times more convincingly than others). But the overall pattern is clear. I don't think she's self-sacrificing because she's a Superman-level moral saint. I think she's self-sacrificing because she hates herself and has a death wish. This certainly did not change in Book 4.

This is a very valid and, I think, astute observation. Not many people do the things Alex tries to do who have a deep-seated desire to grow old. It's one of the things that separate her from Harry. Harry wants a normal life and to be an old man and have kids, but he's willing to give that up for the greater good; Alex barely puts thought into the future because I don't think she cares where she ends up enough to aspire to much beyond the present and near-future. And being given seven years by the Generous Ones to get things in order gives her little reason to stop acting that way. She knows, I think, that her father could help her, but she cuts him off at the end of AQatSA; (stupidly) travels all the way across the country to piss in John Manuelito's cornflakes because she thinks he's trying to kill her; and even tries to save Larry from himself, even though I personally would let the Nemesis have him for a snack. All of these are dangerous things that not many sane people would do willingly, but knowing the consequences will all be the same in the end gives her carte blanche to keep on doing them.

Overall, it makes me sad, though, because even though she seems to support the Alexandra Committee, I think she just wants them to feel like they are doing something to help. I doubt Alex really believes they will figure it out, as she seems more interested in curing Hecate's memory illness than figuring out how to not die, but she loves them all and doesn't want to die with them resenting her. As you pointed out, that was her boggart, everyone hating her and thinking she was a blight, and maybe guilt in involving them all might have driven her to do several of the slew of dangerous things she did in AQatSA.

And wow. I am in a rambling mood tonight.

Edited 2012-09-08 05:15 (UTC)

In regards to the filler note, Rowling did it all the time. It was more than just filler, it amounted to some degree as notes on progression--of the students, of the school year, of the plot, whatever. The mundane activities and classes and whatnot help ground the story so that it isn't just action scene to action scene (like the reviewer commented). And, quite often, the supposed minutiae of everyday life in the magical world is very interesting to me.

Good point, I forgot about that part. What can I say, it's late... Anyway, as I said previously, I think the only time you really save Alex through author fiat is the end of Book 2.

Lol, I'm not asking you to confirm or deny the theory, for precisely the reason you state. And I think even the staunchest of intentionalists would admit it's possible to evaluate a theory independent of author intent. Or did you mean is it possible for the author themselves to do so...?

Yeah, I think Alex's self-hatred causes her nothing but problems. Later on in the review I say that her character development should lead her to learning to actually like herself and recognize that she can have a positive influence on the world. We'll see I suppose.

You're right, Alex is more humoring her friends than anything else as regards the Alexandra Committee. She never even really took the Stars Above seriously until she actually talked to them. That's another tendency she needs to get over--she loves her friends, yes, but she also hates to let them...well...do anything.

"What kind of heroine should Alex be?"

The kind you want her to be. - But definitely let her screw up sometimes. Everybody makes mistakes.

On point 1, you are entirely correct in what I meant. Couldn't have said it better myself and chose not to due to length limitations.

Point 2: 'Liking her better' isn't exactly how I would describe it. I would certainly find it more believable, however. Although I've never really felt guided by subconcious impulses in my adult life, I'm well aware that there are many people who are and it's fairly predominant in teens, including when I was one myself. The reason I would have difficulty relating to it is because I'm very introverted and make a point to figure out my own motivations when I feel that inner nudge towards something, and I've followed that pattern for years. As a result, I'd probably feel quite a bit of frustration with a protagonist following subconcious motivations no matter how believable it is.

I suppose I really should go into more depth on what I meant by Alex's morality, so here goes:

Upon rereading, I came off a little heavyhanded in how I'd like Alex to behave. My essential point is not that I necessarily hate self-sacrificial behavior - it has its place. I respected Darla's choices (concerning AQatDR) almost to a T simply because they make perfect sense. Someone had to die. She couldn't realistically change the bargain, revoke it, or get the adults to solve the problem. Which meant she could let her sister die or put someone else in her sister's place by force or deception, or volunteer herself.

First, let's address putting someone else in Mary's place. Anyone with an empathic nature (which is most people to one degree or another, imo) is going to want to flinch away from knowingly causing someone else great harm. But the cold, practical truth that it is far better for Darla, Darla's sister, and Darla's family if Alex or Innocence had died in Mary's place. It comes down to the value you place on a stranger/acquaintance's life against someone you love. If you're forced to make a hypothetical choice between the life of your wife/husband and the President (or some other powerful force for greater good of your choosing), which would you choose? If you choose the President, you'd have a much greater effect on the world and save far more lives in the end and would be a morally great person. I'd also call you a terrible spouse.

Now let's assume Darla had chosen up front to go the self-sacrificial route. In my opinion, this is a question of degree of self worth. Choosing to sacrifice yourself over a stranger (or an aquaintance, since we're talking about Alex/Innocence here) is an aberration in self-esteem. It means that you value a stranger's life more than your own. If any friend, spouse, or loved one of yours thought this way, I imagine you'd hate it and devote your will towards changing it. I certainly would. It is not nobility, but stupidity. Darla only sacrifices herself when the only other option she has is it to let Mary die. I respect Darla more as a person than Alex because Darla had the strength to push aside her empathic objections to harming someone else because she knew it was the best choice for herself, her sister, and her family. Alex and Innocence are both just aquaintances and cannot compare to that.

I respect Abraham and Diana for the same reasons. They are willing to push aside that kneejerk reaction inside us all against harming someone else to accomplish a goal greater than themselves or the persons in their way. Alex is simply afraid to pull the trigger. She's even horrified with Diana kills John, despite John pretty much being the most villainous person in the series so far and a person who's quite happy to kill Alex and any of her loved ones who happen to be nearby. Or puppies. Just for the hell of it.

That is why I don't like Alex's moral choices and why I don't like archtypal heroes. They are not realistic. Self-sacrifice for your loved ones, for your comrades, for a greater cause in spite of self-preservation are all part of the nobility found in human history. Self-sacrifice for a stranger or group of strangers that you don't have any real attachment to just means you believe others are better than yourself. That is a flaw in your character to be corrected.

P.S. I struggled a bit with the last half to make the point I wanted, but it finally clicked and just felt like an eloquent flow to me when I finished. I'm curious if the rest of you felt the same. Also, Inverarity, I stand by my earlier comment that you will have far more happy readers if you stick to the archtypal hero - I'm well aware than I'm not in the majority here. But just because it's the majority does not mean it makes for the best story about human nature.

Edited 2012-09-08 15:01 (UTC)

I had some trouble deciding just how I wanted to respond to your post. I guess I'll start with this:

I respect Darla more as a person than Alex because Darla had the strength to push aside her empathic objections to harming someone else because she knew it was the best choice for herself, her sister, and her family.

That isn't strength, it's weakness.

I think plenty of people have the attitude that empathy and respect for human life are weaknesses that can ultimately get in the way when Important Work is to be done. Not saying your view is as extreme as that, but it's along the same continuum. You did basically explicitly say that being adverse to killing and caring about strangers, to the extent that it interferes with personal self-interest, is weak.

I really can't strongly enough express my disagreement with that viewpoint. Empathy is not just some vestigial organism, some independent to the True Goal of human life (protecting oneself and one's loved ones). It is the foundation of social life and is what makes living with others and having loved ones possible at all. Moreover, I would even argue that empathy is what gives life its meaning in the first place. Going through your life being willing to crap on strangers and acquaintances as soon as they get in the way of you or your loved ones may be pleasurable, but it's ultimately empty.

It's much easier to ignore your empathy than you seem to think it is. Almost everyone does, constantly. Harming others because "it's the best choice for [your]self" and your loved ones isn't an act of great courage; it's human nature. Courage lies in listening to your empathy, even when it, yes, requires some self-sacrifice. Weakness lies in giving in to your base self-interest.

Self-sacrifice for a stranger or group of strangers that you don't have any real attachment to just means you believe others are better than yourself. That is a flaw in your character to be corrected.

This part I also can't express my disagreement with enough. Extreme self-sacrifice usually comes from that kind of source, sure. But regular self-sacrifice doesn't mean you believe others are better than you, it means you don't believe that you are better than others.

I'll use the example of Darla. If she cares so much about herself that she'd rather kill a 12-year-old girl, that doesn't show healthy self-respect. That shows that she believes that she is more important than Innocence is; that she deserves to live more than Innocence does. Whether she consciously believes that or not is irrelevant. And this kind of attitude, ignoring the fact that it's led to some of the greatest evils in human history, is just false.

Humans may be tall or short, rich or poor, smart or dumb, hell even moral or immoral, but with rare exception they are not better or worse, or more important or less. Self-sacrifice to help someone else out, yes even a stranger, recognizes this fact; recognizes that there's no actual reason to prefer yourself over anyone else. (The kind of self-hatred that IMO motivates Alex's self-sacrifice is much different.) It's certainly not a "flaw in your character," unless you're an economist. (*rimshot*)

Edited 2012-09-08 15:05 (UTC)

Preface: I'm not attacking you specifically or your views. Much of the use of the word 'you' is meant towards a generic reader. Opinion, not fact.

In terms of achieving a goal, empathy is a weakness. Flat out. No matter the goal, from saving a life to doing the greatest good for all, empathy is a weakness limiting your options. Period. Empathy is also a requirement for happiness, because human beings are social creatures and we generally need SOMEONE else in our lives to be happy. It's a valuable trait to ensure a functional, mutually beneficial aka happy relationship between people, as both sides understand what the other wants/needs.

Understand, I'm not advocating a complete lack of empathy. But complete empathy/morality is just as bad. You advocate that giving into self-interest is weakness; I argue that it is realism. You watch the news and see a tsunami has killed thousands in Asia. You feel bad. But 30 minutes later, you're focusing on your workday ahead and thinking about what to have for dinner tonight. You instead could have sat down and calculated how much of your time and income you needed to survive comfortably and then donated the rest to charity. Rinse and repeat for other causes. This would have achieved the greatest good, but I'm pretty certain you didn't do it. Human nature.

This is human nature not because we are horrible, miserable little creatures or anything so pessimistic. This is human nature because we are simply limited to our own perspective by biology. Oh, we can understand things outside our viewpoint...to a degree. When you're married or have a kid or achieve a lifelong goal, you'll be floating on cloud nine for weeks. When your close friend does the same thing, you'll feel joy and be in a good mood due to it for about a week probably. And when it's a stranger you overhear on the subway, you'll smile and forget it within about a minute. The times I gave are arbitrary, but my point is there. You simply don't feel others' joys/pains as intensely as your own. It is self-delusion to believe that a stranger's pain or life is equal to your own. It's a sliding measure of how much care depending on how close they are to you.

And actually, an individual IS better or worse, more or less important depending on why you want them in your life. If they are your friend, it is because they have qualities that add something to your life - that is why you seek them out, either consciously or subconsciously. As a boss, a subordinate, a spouse, a father, whatever they are to you, you would find yourself liking them and wanting them more if you could add/subtract qualities to them. Is it selfish? Certainly. It's also true. You don't marry someone because they are your perfect mate and you couldn't find better. You marry them because they're the first that mostly make you happy. It's a cold reality, yes, but it makes marriage or friendship or brotherhood all the more special *because* it is imperfect and you're both striving for it anyway to make your lives better. It is correct that no one person is more important than others, from the point of view that experiences everyone's joys and pains. But none of us actually live in that perspective, do we?

Tealterror, I admire your willingness to believe that humanity is greater than it's base nature. And I probably could've written your exact argument for you about 8 years ago when I felt very similar to you (Not an attempt to pretend I'm older and wiser, merely that I once agreed with you). Eventually, though, I realized that selfishness is a perfectly acceptable, and desirable, trait in a person. You want a story about people who rise above their humanity. I want a story ABOUT humanity. In all its glory and sorrow, selfishness and sacrifice included and present in all characters. Darla and Anna are good examples. Alex is not.

Edited 2012-09-08 16:45 (UTC)

So, I pretty much lean more towards

tealterror0's way of thinking than yours.

It seems to me that you basically accept human nature as some sort of utilitarian evolutionary greater good, therefore justifying selfishness as more "human" than selflessness. I strongly disagree, and by disagreeing, I do not mean that I am selfless or that selfish people are automatically wrong and bad or that I have any reasonable expectation that any significant portion of the population ever will give up all of their luxuries in order to alleviate the misery of the less fortunate. Or that if given a choice between saving my spouse or a random stranger, I would make a careful logical decision based on whether my spouse or the random stranger was more likely to provide a greater net good to humanity.

But. I think it would more moral for me to do all those things. Maybe not realistic. But we should try to do what is moral, even if we know we will fall short. Utilitarian arguments fail for me because they can always be reduced to might makes right: "I have the power to make this decision, therefore I must be inherently more entitled to make it for my own benefit."

You seem to be saying that anyone who even tries to elevate empathy above self-interest is basically weak and probably self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. I really, really don't agree.

So in that sense, to say that Darla's decision was admirable because it's "wrong" to value someone else's life above your own or to choose a stranger over a loved one (or rather, to decide that sacrificing a stranger to save a loved one is not a morally respectable choice) just doesn't resonate with me. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with it.

Alexandra really, really wanted to give Darla the obol. She couldn't do it because she knew she'd be committing murder, and that would have been wrong even if she could have come up with a hundred reasons why Max deserved to live more than Darla. I like to think, if I had a choice of saving a loved one if I were willing to kill some person I don't know, or even someone I don't like, that I would not do that because it would be wrong. (Obviously, I am not talking about self-defense situations, like where I have to kill someone who is threatening a loved one in order to save them.)

On a broader, evolutionary level, taking your argument to an extreme, empathy is a negative survival characteristic and therefore it should eventually be bred out of the human race. Besides how much that makes me shudder on a visceral level, I think it's scientifically wrong. There are a lot of benefits to empathy, not just in terms of personal enjoyment, but in terms of improved cooperation, ability to interact positively with other members of your species, etc. Yes, in specific situations empathy might not be an asset in improving your personal survival odds, but I think there's a strong argument that a more empathetic person has a greater chance of living longer and spreading his/her genes than a sociopath (which is what you wind up with when empathy is completely taken out of the equation).

Wow, I really don't know where to reply... this is the best place, since I want to address a few things to you and to tealterror.

You're rehashing a large number of arguments he and I had over Alexandra's (and Abraham's) morality and practicality. But I feel I have a few points to add to the discussion.

In regards to why Alexandra is not as practical as she can be, I feel there are several reasons. The primary one is that she is the protagonist; Diana and Abraham are obviously set up as individuals who are similar to her yet fundamentally different, because they use methods she won't. In fact, Alexandra herself agrees with her father as tot he goals, and disagrees with the methods. And it's not just a question of readership; as you can see below, Inverarity agrees with Tealterror. The moral inclinations of the heroine reflect those of the writer. No doubt if you or I were writing her character, she would care less about morality and more for her goals.

That is the meta one, of course. But there are several story ones as well: the most obvious being Alexandra's lack of experience. Again, as you note, this goal-oriented attitude is something that develops over time, often after moral concerns cause you to fail badly. An in-story example is Abraham Thorn - at first trying to change the injustice from the inside, and then, when hit by it personally, moving to the more goal-oriented approach, no matter the cost. For all of Alexandra's travails, she hasn't been hit by it hard enough. Ben's attacks were personally motivated, as were Darla's; Max's death could be blamed on Alexandra and Abaraham (and is, by Alexandra, for some time). Adherence to certain morals has not hurt Alexandra enough to make her change her attitude. In fact, it helps her personality - how much worse would her guilt over Darla's death had been (and we saw how great it was) if she had abandoned her to her fate?

Of course, in the end, the reason for this reason is also meta; as written below, Inverarity obviously believes in a more moral human nature, so he won't let Alexandra turn to a more goal-oriented attitude. But in the end it's a good explanation in the story. Children are relatively innocent, and Alexandra just hasn't suffered enough for her moral choices (or gained enough from amoral choices) to make her base personality different.

As for her self-sacrificing attitude, I think your problem is legitimate. But I don't have it, because I interpret it differently. You yourself admit in the end that "Self-sacrifice for a stranger or group of strangers that you don't have any real attachment to just means you believe others are better than yourself". I think it is true, but so much more powerful than that. Alexandra doesn't lack self-esteem - we see she's very arrogant, but that's in her ability. In her personality, she has a huge well of self-loathing. She's actually a very sensitive person - while she may hurt people unthinkingly in a moment of unthinking emotion, she feels very guilty afterwards - so much that Anna's 'betrayal' makes her feel just as guilty as Anna. This is exacerbated by Max's death to a huge degree, so that she gets to the level that she deserves to die for causing his death, if it will save some other human being. Especially when that being is Darla, who is doing everything to save her sister, which Alexandra couldn't do. Her self-sacrifice is not so much a function of her heroicness as it is of her self loathing. And yes that is a flaw to be overcome - which I think is exactly part of the arc that Inverarity is trying to lead Alex through, giving her greater self worth by growing as a person.

OK, so Inverarity and Kith_Koby have already written article-length responses to you. I guess I might as well add to the scholarship. :p

I think there are three major points here: the usefulness (or lack thereof) of empathy, "human nature," and what we want stories to be about. So I'll address them in that order.

Point one: In terms of achieving a goal, empathy is a weakness. Flat out.

First of all, this isn't true. But let's assume that it is. The main point of empathy isn't to help you achieve a goal, and it certainly isn't to make you happy. It's to inform you of what your goals should be in the first place.

You toss out goals like "saving a life" or "doing the greatest good for all" as if they're obvious. But they're not. Why should you save a life? What does it mean to say "doing the greatest good"? IMO, empathy is the main way we decide these. More importantly, empathy works as a "safety valve" to make sure the goals we choose are actually appropriate ones.

To put it bluntly, if our empathy is telling us "Hey! Don't do this! It's bad!", it's probably a good idea to seriously consider whether what you're trying to accomplish is actually a good thing. Not to go all (variant of) Godwin's Law here, but Soviet Russia is a perfect example of ditching your empathy to accomplish a goal you think is right, and I think we can agree it didn't turn out well in the end.

Point two: This is human nature not because we are horrible, miserable little creatures or anything so pessimistic. This is human nature because we are simply limited to our own perspective by biology.

"Human nature," eh? You seem to assume that human nature, if there is such a thing, consists in only caring about oneself and one's loved ones. I see no evidence to support this hypothesis and plenty of evidence that goes against it. There are plenty of people who have risked their lives for a stranger. There are plenty of people who have lost their lives for a stranger. Saying that humans are selfish by nature is not being cynically realistic, it's being hopelessly idealistic (don't have the room here to explain why) and in any event makes you just as wrong as people who believe humans are inherently altruistic.

Human nature is not selfish, selfless, or anything else. Human nature is to change. It's to make oneself better, or perhaps worse, but definitely not to remain the same as every other human who has ever lived, pseudo-scientific evolutionary psychological claptrap notwithstanding.

You say you "eventually realized" that selfishness is acceptable and desirable. I have no problem with healthy self-love (indeed, I think you have to love yourself to have healthy relationships with others). I have a huge problem with people who think they are worth more than other people. They are not; they're just deluded.

Point three: You want a story about people who rise above their humanity. I want a story ABOUT humanity. In all its glory and sorrow, selfishness and sacrifice included and present in all characters.

First of all, please don't tell me what kind of stories I want. This may surprise you, but I actually prefer cynical, "gritty," and "realistic" stories full of extremely flawed anti-heroes. And I almost always dislike the kinds of stories where the main character becomes a Christ-like figure.

Second, being empathetic is not "rising above [your] humanity." Not being empathetic is falling below your humanity.

So since this was at least half-addressed to me, I guess I can respond...

Again, as you note, this goal-oriented attitude is something that develops over time, often after moral concerns cause you to fail badly.

I'm going to have to disagree. I think having goals and trying to accomplish them develops first, and empathy develops later.

Children are relatively innocent

Again, since most children haven't developed empathy yet, most children are actually kind of sociopaths.

I would also like to point out that I think everyone should be moral instead of amoral. Partly by definition, partly because I actually think it'll be better for them in the long run, however much an amoral decision might help them in the short-term.

And your last paragraph is just cribbing from my theory. :p

So I finally get around to responding to this...

I am also introverted, and try my best to ferret out my subconscious motivations. However, I know I will inevitably fail; we simply aren't as in control of ourselves as we might like to think. Perhaps you are an exception. However, the vast majorities of stories (rightly) feature protagonists acting out of subconscious motivations, so I have to assume you get frustrated with almost every protagonist...

Yeah, children are only "innocent" in the most literal sense: they are innocent of morals or ethics or the knowledge that other people are real. They have to learn those things.

I think having goals and trying to accomplish them develops first, and empathy develops later.
Wow. Isn't it amazing that even when we're trying to get to the same point, we disagree? ;) But I don't think so. I believe we're created with Empathy. And man is a social creature. A child has very few goals in life, and is inclined towards empathy. Empathy is developed, yes, but the basic roots of it are in us when we're born. Otherwise, toddlers wouldn't share or do other empathic acts.
Then again, I'm no psychologist... In any case, by the age of 10, I think children have developed more empathy than goals, and don't have enough experience in how morality may prevent them from attaining these goals to be near amorality. I don't think amorality truly becomes part of our important choices until we're in our middle teens, or even later. There are just not enough choices that have it truly clashing.

I would also like to point out that I think everyone should be moral instead of amoral
Yes, but this goes into our previous discussion and is more general rather than specifically relating to the story, so I thought this wasn't the place to go into it.

But, since I mentioned going off topic, and we've made a habit of it anyway.. thoughts on the US Open? In Men, I was not surprised by Federer's loss - he has a weakness against Berdych, and it was clear from the start, especially when he didn't manage to slice his serve as he usually does. My money's on Djokovic, obviously. Meanwhile, the Women's was excellent - I got to see Maria defeating Bartoli in an excellent game, and it was just as good with Azarenka. It really could have gone either way, but Sharapova's serve and return are still somewhat erratic, which is problematic (this could also be seen against Bartoli). Doesn't really matter, in any case - Maria had her chance to be crushed by Serena in the Olympics, now it's Vika's turn.

Wow. Isn't it amazing that even when we're trying to get to the same point, we disagree? ;)

*insert joke about Jews and arguing here*

Anyway. We're certainly created (or born) with the capacity to develop empathy. But I think psychological research has consistently shown that empathy itself is learned over many years. It's a gradual process; an 8-year-old may have some ability to recognize others as having emotions and to feel bad when they do, but her empathic abilities will not be nearly as developed as a 12-year-old's (who in turn will be worse off than a 16-year-old, etc).

Toddlers usually do empathic acts because they've been taught to, and/or to gain a reward, IMO.

Yes, but this goes into our previous discussion and is more general rather than specifically relating to the story, so I thought this wasn't the place to go into it.

Like that's ever stopped us before. :p

[T]houghts on the US Open?

Rafa's loss is really felt, isn't it? Even if we get a Djokovic/Murray final (and if Djokovic keeps playing like crap there's a distinct possibility Ferrer will win), it isn't going to be nearly as exciting as Djokovic/Nadal was last year. Well, almost everything is breaking Murray's way now; honestly, if he can't win now, I'm going back to doubting he'll ever win a Major. He can't count on facing none of the Big 3 to win one. And Fed lost to Berdych in a Major QF once before, so yeah that wasn't super surprising.

(Just imagine if Ferrer manages to win the whole thing? It's not going to happen obviously, but man would that make the whole tournament worthwhile.)

Azarenka has been engaged in some real good matches, hasn't she? Same with Sharapova. Serena has been just crushing her competition of course, and while I expect Vika'll give her a challenge Serena will only lose if she plays at less than 100%. Which is always a risk for her, but I think she really wants this one, almost as much as she wanted the Olympics.

Well, I actually agree with you about Alex always being reckless on some level. After all, She IS Alexandra Quick, not David Xanatos.

However, while I actually think she has already overcome the worst of her recklessness, I think her biggest problem now, is that she lacks RUTHLESSNESS. She truely want's to protect her friends from the psycopaths that are after her, but she's too squeemish to do what is truely neccessary. Which means (To use the Sheepdog analogy) she's all bark and no bite, her threats essentially boil down too:

"Don't you DARE threaten my loved one's or I'll give you a stern warning and wag my finger at you! That'll teach you."

Just look at her plan to deal with John Manueleto (I KNOW I've spelt that wrong.): Find out where he lives and...

Call in the adults to help her.

Not only is this really quite pathetic and childish ("I need mommy and daddy to deal with the big scary man"). It's also rather inconsistent for her character. At first her attitude is "I'm sick of this! Manuelito has threatened my friends and he needs to pay! I'm going to take him down myself and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me!" That's great, bold, independant and ruthless.

But then...

"When I find him, I'm going to call the adults to help"

Um... what.

Didn't you just spend the last FIFTEEN CHAPTERS rejecting adult help because you realised (Rightly so) that the only person you can rely on is yourself? But now, NOW at the moment of truth, you call for help? If you wanted the adults to fix the problem, then why didn't you just leave it to them in the first place? Alex's biggest problem right now, is that she lacks the conviction necessary to stay on the paths that her independant nature leads her down. She's all bark and no bite.

And Alexandra needs to get some bite, because if there's one thing that the climax to book four confirmed,is that Alexandra does not belong with normal people. She is a warrior at heart, and thus her place is on the battlefield. But no matter how talented a warrior is, If she just stands there waving a plastic sword and making Idle threats, She doesn't look like a warrior, she looks like an idiot.

You see, Alex is clearly trying to become a player in this game that the adults are playing, but the fact is that nobody is scared of her, and in the game of war, fear is paramount. Right now, opinion of Alexandra varies between:

"She could be quite successful if she ever focused."

"Oh God, what has she done THIS time?"

"That meddlesome brat is starting to get on my nerves."

Right now, Alexandra is not a player, she is a piece. A child to be manipulated and used. But if she's serious about joining the battle (And I REALLY don't think you intend for Alexandra to just turn her back from the war and settle down in the hils to live a quiet life, that's just not her style.) Alex needs to establish herself as a genuine threat, she needs to make people say:

"Holy crap! This girl is actually DANGEROUS".

And to do that, she needs to be prepared to use lethal or crippling force against those who threaten her and her friends, because half measures just aren't going to cut it.

She needs to stop being a piece, and become a player.

Now, before I leave, I should probably clarify, I actually agree with Alexandra's selflessness. I think that the decision not to kill Darla was the right one, and I don't think her killing someone should be taken lightly, even if I think she's going to have to kill at some point. Despite the impression I may have given, I DO understand the difference between being ruthless, and being a sociopath. It's just that the half measures that Alezandra is using, aren't going to cut it.

Lunacorva

PS: On a related note, she needs to change her attitude to the manipulations going on around her, if she ever want's to be a player. Right now, her attitude to being manipulated is:

"How dare you keep secrets from me!"

Newsflash Alex: Everyone keepsecrets, that's part of life.

Instead she should be thinking.

"Who's keeping secrets, and how can I EXTRACT that information from them?".

There is a lot of truth in what you say. Anna even said as much:

“You're crazy,” Anna said. “This is seriously insane. Do you realize that? This is just like you going to the Lands Below, or stealing a Time-Turner, or trying to summon Death. You're planning to do something really dangerous that you're not even a little bit prepared for. And what good will it do you? Suppose you do find John Manuelito. What will you do then? Duel him? Kill him?”

What I have been getting at, though, is that even if Alex realized on some level that John would stop being a threat only when he was dead, a normal 14-year-old does not easily set out to kill someone.

Now, you could argue that I let Alex off the hook by having Diana kill John. (Some people have argued that.) But the fact is, Alexandra just wasn't ready to be a killer yet. Yes, sooner or later she'll have to not just show her fangs, but use them.

It is a very common theme in anything with a teenage protagonist, so yes I tend to get annoyed. HP fandom included. With literature involving adult protagonists, I tend to see it much less often.

It would be more moral to do as you said at the end of the first paragraph, yes. The crux of this issue is that you try to force yourself to conform to a higher standard than you really live by because you believe it is right. And you just admitted yourself that it's not realistic.

And it's not so much that empathy cannot override your self-interest, just that it should only override it to a certain point. Last night at work (temp job as a motel desk clerk), I had to serve an angry, aggressive man who was rude from the moment I laid eyes on him and looked about 10 seconds away from getting into a fight with me. While filling out his paperwork, I overheard him threaten to 'slap the shit' out of the woman he was with, who returned quickly to their vehicle. Right afterwards, a younger, attractive young girl (compared to myself and Angry Man) came in, and Angry Man was suddenly sweet and charming, both to her and myself. Once Angry Man left, I made a point of warning Sweet Young Girl that she should probably keep her distance, explained why, and she thanked me and left.

While I thought about warning her, it occurred to me that I had no reason to do so for myself. In fact, it could backfire quite badly if Angry Man finds out, as it could endanger my job or cause Angry Man to pick a fight with me as revenge. But I realistically weighed the likelihood of that happening (pretty unlikely) vs. the odds of this girl ending up raped or something similar (not unlikely, given Angry Man and the fact that its happened before at that workplace). My empathic reaction against that girl possibly getting raped was much greater than the small risk to myself, so I tried to help her. But if I had walked by an alley later and saw her getting raped by that man, I wouldn't have charged in to save her. He outweighed me by a good 40 pounds and had at least 4 inches in height advantage. He also had that wiry, mean look to him that told me I really didn't want to get into a fight with him. I was unarmed, and he looked the type to possibly be carrying a gun or a knife, while I am out of shape. If he did have a gun or knife, I'd likely be dead very quickly. So I would not charge down that hypothetical alley to save her. I do not consider that cowardice, just healthy self-preservation. And I would not consider anyone who did in the same circumstances brave, I would consider them stupid. I would, however, call the cops. I'd also shout and at least pretend to head towards him, just to try to scare him off. But that's it.

This is what I'm talking about when I'm emphasizing the importance of selfishness. Pretty much all of your characters except Alex fall into the acceptable range of selfishness/empathy for me. Only Alex falls into that extreme empathic range which makes her a moral paragon (imo), because you set the bar for her into something you think she *should* strive to be due to her being the hero, unrealistic by your own admission. I find that just as abhorrent as the sociopath, who has a complete lack of empathy.

That said, by this point I feel we've all probably said all there is to say on the topic, so this'll be my last mini-blog about it that doesn't address anything specific. But cheers for a interesting, civil debate everyone.

Edited 2012-09-10 06:44 (UTC)

I do find Alexandra's current character to be believeable in the context of her still being a child and not having acquired ruthlessness yet. My posts are directed more towards where her character is going to go from here, which I think we both disagree with where Teal and Inverarity want her to go.

It is very nice to see that I am not alone in my views here though :).

Children are sociopaths at an early age, yes. But social conditioning has a pretty massive effect by the time they reach their teens. So if said children live in a society where morality and selflessness are emphasized, then it'll be imprinted on them by their teenage years. Thus, ruthlessness and pursuing self-interest over morality are traits that have to be relearned. In effect, you're both right about children being innocent and sociopathic, depending on which stage of development they're in. First they're sociopathic, then more innocent as they conform to their soceity/parents beliefs on morals, and then (possibly) relearning that ruthlessness and self-interest later. Or at least that's how I view it in this case.

Edited 2012-09-10 10:11 (UTC)

Soviet Russia is a pretty broad topic, so I'm not sure what specifically you're preferring to.

As for human nature, I was arguing about one aspect of it that I find is true. Obviously, what is human nature is a highly debatable topic and I doubt any two people will come to an agreement on everything within that scope. I certainly agree that to change is another aspect of human nature that is true, although how we are capable of change is debatable.

Point Three: Well, I'm not sure what to say here. To me, this part of your post contradicts almost everything else I've seen you write on this topic. We've gone back and forth, and I feel pretty certain that your stance is about the importance of morality guiding your choices against my selfish practicality, but then you say you prefer anti-heroes.

From wikipedia "Antihero": "Unlike traditional heroes...They may do bad things but are not evil. They may fight villains, but not for the reason of justice, or if it is for the cause of justice will take an "ends justify the means" stance. Their actions are motivated by their own personal desires, such as revenge. For example, an antihero may steal, vandalize, and perform other "bad" acts but may do so for a good cause or even an unexamined motivation."

Granted, this is wikipedia, but I checked a few different definitions and all support a flexible and somewhat ruthless moral code like I've been driving for. I've been arguing for Alex to be an anti-hero this entire time. Hell, Inverarity said as much in the main post. I suppose it was wrong of me to assume you prefer the protagonist that corresponds to your beliefs, but I honestly thought it was a given.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious at this point that we fundamentally disagree on what a person should strive to be. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I believe you are utterly wrong just as much as you believe I am, and I doubt we're going to reach a consensus. By now, we've both made our stances about as clear as possible and there isn't much more to be said without going off-topic. However, I thank you for an interesting and civil discussion.

Edited 2012-09-10 07:56 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that empathy is purely an artifact of social conditioning. Most people will learn it, even in an environment that doesn't encourage it, because it's natural (I would argue, hardwired) to develop some capacity for empathy. Sociopathy isn't just a different set of morals, it's a mental disability.

Please note that, while of course my personal morals and ethics will influence what I write (how could they not?), I don't necessarily write my protagonists to reflect all my personal beliefs. So what I might like Alexandra to do and become (if she were a real person) is not necessarily what she will do and become in my story.

Without going down the rabbit-hole of arguing about specific hypothetical situations ("What if the woman in the dark alley was your daughter? What if the guy was smaller than you and you think you could take him, but you don't know if he's armed? Isn't calling the police a degree of selflessness too, since the guy might get out on bail and then come after you?") I'll point out that there is a difference between saying "This is moral and therefore you should do it all the time" (which is unrealistic) and "This is moral and therefore it should be your goal" (which is not). So if I value selflessness over selfishness, that doesn't mean I think it's reasonable or realistic for anyone to be selfless all the time. Just like most of us value honesty over dishonesty, but hardly anyone expects everyone (or even themselves) to always be completely and utterly honest.

You admit yourself it's a matter of degree, but seem to think I am taking a binary approach.

Also, selflessness and empathy aren't just Judeo-Christian values. Pretty much every society has encouraged them, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Even Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and the Mongols and other notoriously warlike cultures espoused them, just carving out exceptions and rationalizations for why it didn't apply to "enemies" (and in practice creating societies where actually conforming to any kind of humane standard of behavior was a negative survival trait).

Because I can't help having the last word...

Soviet Russia is a pretty broad topic, so I'm not sure what specifically you're preferring to.

The Soviets--or at least some of them--honestly believed that they were bringing on the worker's paradise. A totalitarian regime that oppressed hundreds of millions of people was regrettable, but necessary. If they had listened to their empathy more, maybe that wouldn't have happened.

I'm just saying that when empathy is warning you against an action, it's a sign that what you're trying to accomplish is probably wrong (morally).

As for human nature, I was arguing about one aspect of it that I find is true.

Of course humans are selfish. They are also selfless, and both, and neither. Humans are complex, which is why I find it pointless to debate what human nature "actually is." Either there is no human nature, or human nature is a bunch of contradictory things.

I suppose it was wrong of me to assume you prefer the protagonist that corresponds to your beliefs, but I honestly thought it was a given.

Obviously it's not a given. Actually, I usually find it more boring the more a protagonist corresponds to my beliefs. Why?

Because one of the things I find most valuable in fiction is trying to understand and, well, empathize with, people much different from myself. Understanding someone who corresponds to my beliefs is easy and thus boring. Understanding someone whose beliefs are much different from mine is harder, and thus more interesting.

Well, that's my attempt to psychoanalyze myself at least. Probably the truth is something else.

By now, we've both made our stances about as clear as possible and there isn't much more to be said without going off-topic.

Honestly, I'm still not 100% sure what your position is.

At this point you seem to be claiming that people shouldn't be entirely selfless. But, um...almost everyone believes that, including me. You also say that we should sometimes ignore our empathy in order to achieve important goals, but I even agree with that (though as I said, you shouldn't turn it off completely to make sure you stop from going completely off the rails). So it seems our disagreement is one of degree, not kind, but I don't know how much that degree is, if that makes sense.

If it had been my daughter, I would have gotten involved. Risk vs reward to me, basically. There are things worse than death, and knowing that I stood aside while my hypothetical daughter was raped is one of them. Standing aside while its a hypothetical stranger? Not so much. By the way, I tend to find specific hypothetical situations very useful in a discussion like this, simply because it cuts out most of the ambiguity present in any discussion due to word perception when you're discussing complex, general concepts like this. See our my response about what is a sociopath as an example of my point.

I wasn't saying that selflessness and empathy are only Judeo-Christian values, only that they are heavily emphasized in Judeo-Christian cultures, which are pretty much all English-speaking countries. Thus, it applies to pretty much everyone in this thread and yourself, which influences the writing of the story.

I disagree that "every society encourages them." While technically true, it's the degree a society promotes them that matters. In Judeo-Christian cultures, selflessness and empathy are pretty exclusively seen as a positive and there's really no trait that's emphasized as much, except perhaps faith. In other cultures, things like bravery, viciousness, rigid politeness, etc. are prized more.

I don't think you wrote Alex to be perfectly moral, it's just that I think she is moving more and more towards the extremely selfless end of the scale. As I said before, I find extreme selflessness as repulsive as extreme selfishness. That said, I'm well aware that this is your story and that our views on this differ. I just had to attempt to sway you to my views since I want my enjoyment of the rest of the series to continue.

Edited 2012-09-11 06:34 (UTC)

Hmm. I might would agree that it's natural in the sense that children end up learning it anyway because their interactions with others force them to. If a child wrongs someone else, that someone else is going to snap back somehow, which will cause the child to try to understand why.

But I can't really agree that it's hardwired into our brains. How do you explain spoilt children then? I think it's widely accepted that if you protect a child from the consequences of their actions too fanatically, you end up with a vicious and completely self-centered brat.

As for sociopathy broadly being a mental disability, I couldn't disagree more. I wrote quite a long paragraph on this before I realized it was going to branch us way off-topic. Suffice to say, I consider complete amorality to be perfectly viable in a person. I wouldn't live that way myself, but I can see the benefits and the downsides. I consider it more viable than perfect morality as well. The negative attitude towards sociopaths, psycopaths, or whatever you want to call an amoral person is just a reaction by society towards a state of mind that is a threat to them. It's bad for us as a group, therefore we don't like it.

Edited 2012-09-11 04:06 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certain she doesn't match up to what you believe perfectly. But I also believe that people want their protagonist (as a writer or reader) to match up to their moral code and essentially do what they would do, at least on a broad level. The closer the match, the happier the writer/reader tends to be.

Granted, sometimes a story is written differently on purpose. But as a general rule, I've found that the protagonist almost always reflects the author's views to some degree.

Off-topic? Hah - did you see

tealterror0 and

kith_koby talking about freakin' tennis?

There's a big difference between a child who's a self-centered brat and one who is completely lacking in empathy. Empathy is not an elaborate set of Pavlovian conditioning. It's not, "If I'm mean to people, they'll be mean to me, and if I'm nice, they'll be nice to me, so I'll figure out how to get people to be nice to me the same way a rat figures out how to make a food pellet drop into its tray..." Self-centered brats can grow up and get better. People who are truly lacking in empathy, for the most part, cannot.

I'm not sure you actually understand what sociopathy is. If you reduce humans to survival machines, then yes, being utterly amoral is arguably viable and advantageous, since enjoying human relationships and appreciating the value of other members of your species would be completely irrelevant to your existence. But you're basically arguing that being a viable and effective human doesn't require humanity.

In a real sense, sociopaths are rather alien. We don't just dislike sociopathy because it's bad for us as a group (though it obviously is) but because it's a disability in the same way that being incapable of love or lacking a sense of taste and smell is a disability. And yes, not just because it would be a bummer not to love anyone, but because amorality really doesn't work out well for most people. Because we are a social species. Sociopaths are generally not at all successful in their professional and social lives. For every "genius sociopath" who's a ruthless CEO or powerful politician who got where he is by being willing to do anything to get there, there are many more who are bitter unemployable losers quietly sitting in their homes, angry at the world. Or they just die young, since sociopaths are often likely to do stupid things before they learn enough control and cunning to avoid consequences.

Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door (http://inverarity.livejournal.com/93942.html) is an interesting read, though it's kind of light, being pop science.

I'm just saying that when empathy is warning you against an action, it's a sign that what you're trying to accomplish is probably wrong (morally).

We agree on that completely. My point was that this is a kneejerk reaction and does not mean your action is the wrong choice for your or your goals. Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself. I regard pushing it aside when you need to as a strength. You see it as a weakness, given what you've said before. That is the crux of our argument as I understand it. You place a much higher value on morality in a person than I.

Obviously it's not a given. Actually, I usually find it more boring the more a protagonist corresponds to my beliefs.

It was probably arrogant of me to assume you read for the same reasons I do. And I admit I also enjoy reading from a different POV than my own when it is well done and broadens my mind. Frankly, it's very rare that I find a protagonist that matches with my beliefs to a significant degree and I've only found it about three times in all the fanfiction I've read. Perhaps this rarity explains the difference in our reading motivations and I might eventually covert to the same motivation you have.

Edited 2012-09-11 04:31 (UTC)

I think many more readers and writers than you think enjoy protagonists whose moral code differs dramatically from theirs.

A protagonist will usually reflect the author's views to some degree, but that degree can vary by a very large margin. Not everyone is Ayn Rand.

Umm, no.

Also, empathy and morality are not the same thing.

My point was that this is a kneejerk reaction and does not mean your action is the wrong choice for your or your goals.

OK, quick question here. Where do you attain your goals, if not from empathy? And don't say "biology," or I'm going to have to break out the is/ought gap.

Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume you're right. So what?

I regard pushing [morality] aside when you need to as a strength. You see it as a weakness, given what you've said before. That is the crux of our argument as I understand it. You place a much higher value on morality in a person than I.

There's a difference between "is pushing morality/empathy aside a strength or a weakness?" and "how much value 'should' one place on morality?" In the latter case, I doubt we can come to any kind of accord. But the former claim, that pushing aside morality is a strength, honestly confuses me.

There's a reason most ethical theories and religions try so hard to convince you to do the right thing. It's because it's often really hard to do the right thing. I mean, it often involves putting oneself at great risk for a stranger; it's always much easier just to walk away. How is saying, in effect, "Screw you, I've got mine" strong in the least?

Frankly, it's very rare that I find a protagonist that matches with my beliefs to a significant degree and I've only found it about three times in all the fanfiction I've read. Perhaps this rarity explains the difference in our reading motivations and I might eventually covert to the same motivation you have.

There are a very large number of antihero fanfics in the Harry Potter fandom; turning Harry into a Dark Lord, after all, is one of the major time-honored tropes in the fandom. (Not to mention the "Harry gets sent to Azkaban, becomes the Count of Monte Cristo, and kills everyone" stories, but those tend to be quite bad needles to say.) I can give you some suggestions if you want.

Edited 2012-09-11 05:12 (UTC)

Empathy and morality may not be the same thing, but they are very closely connected IMO. However, this is heading into "stuff I might write my dissertation on" territory, so it might be best to stop here...

I wasn't talking about the consequences causing the child to pursue behavior to modify others. I was talking about the consequences causing the child to pursue understanding of why it happened. I'll remind you of our PMs on FFN were I pointed out the immorality of moving my comments to a more public sphere without permission and you conceded the point. My reaction made you re-examine your own actions and conclude they were wrong from my perspective. That is how a child learns empathy.

I'm not sure you actually understand what sociopathy is.

Sociopathy is a popular and misused term. I'm certain there's an accepted definition of it in the psycology field. I'm equally certain that the mass public has no idea what that definition is and many would disagree that that's what it means. I consider a sociopath to commonly mean a person with consistent intentions that pursue complete self-interest with an amoral lack of concern for any others. I think even with the small group of people we have posting here, we could have a debate about what the term sociopath means with several different viewpoints.

but because it's a disability in the same way that being incapable of love

You're assuming a sociopath is incapable of understanding empathy. Being judged amoral doesn't mean you don't understand what the moral thing to do is or that you don't feel empathy. Merely that you push it aside, much like you would push aside anger when you feel it's not appropriate or is irrational. Which brings me to my next point.

because amorality really doesn't work out well for most people. Because we are a social species. Sociopaths are generally not at all successful in their professional and social lives.

I really don't think anyone's qualified to make that judgement. First of all, the most successful sociopaths we probably don't even know about. Only the sociopaths who are stupid, made mistakes, or deliberately exposed themselves for fame are the ones we know about. Take H. H. Holmes for example. The man was a genius who neatly avoided incriminating himself for dozens or even hundreds of murders and managed to make himself rather rich in the process. He wasn't caught or even pursued until he left one loose end and got arrested for horse theft, of all things.

Quoting from wikipedia: Until the moment of his death, Holmes remained calm and amiable, showing very few signs of fear, anxiety or depression.

Wikipedia does list a source, which I don't have access to. Even if it is just an author making up something to make it more chilling, it still underlines my point. We can't really know for certain whether Holmes was happy with his life. But it sure as hell doesn't look like he regretted it. Same thing for Ted Bundy, who was caught because he got arrested for a stolen car. Intelligent sociopaths are perfectly capable of blending in with society, having functioning marriages, and raising children. Perhaps it was just a cover. Perhaps they did actually care for them (in some cases). Either way, the broad statement that sociopaths are usually failures and are unhappy is not something you can really prove with any reliability unless you have a way to actually get inside a massive amount of peoples thoughts and feelings. Given that many of them don't stop their amoral actions for decades and only do so once they have no other choice actually implies they're quite happy with themselves.

P.S. Damnit, I keep wanting to leave this discussion and getting sucked right back in.

Edited 2012-09-11 05:27 (UTC)

Where do you attain your goals, if not from empathy?

This is a quick question?! But I'll give it a shot. My goal in any given situation is usually predefined based on past experience and the conclusions I've drawn from that. For instance, I went to college to become an engineer because I concluded that while money is not the only requirement for happiness, it helps. Therefore, I chose a profession that gives me financial comfort in my (American) society, as well as because I'm very good at math. My highest goal in life is to find a woman who makes me happy enough to spend decades with her. The reason I chose this goal is because I'm selfish enough to spend my life pursuing my own happiness. Happiness in itself is a huge topic, but I concluded that one part of it is from being interested by outside input from other people or concepts. Since I tend to find the majority of people stupid and boring, any large scale group function is out. I could pursue a close circle of friends (and probably will), but American society is pretty predisposed towards marriage in the first place, so I chose that. For argument's sake, if I believed strongly in morality and placing the good of others above my own, I would've chosen to dedicate my life towards science or government service or charity, since I consider myself among the more intelligent and capable (I'm aware that I am not genius-level however). The concept of empathy setting my goals pretty alien, perhaps you could elaborate?

There's a reason most ethical theories and religions try so hard to convince you to do the right thing. It's because it's often really hard to do the right thing.

If a person strongly believes that putting their interest above another's is evil and strongly believes that they do not want to be evil, doesn't that effectively make it hard for them to commit a consciously evil action?

There are a very large number of antihero fanfics in the Harry Potter fandom; turning Harry into a Dark Lord, after all, is one of the major time-honored tropes in the fandom.

I don't really want a protagonist that becomes a Dark Lord, and anti-hero is a pretty broad term. I like some anti-heroes and hate others. In regards to power specifically, I think it's appropriate for Harry to pursue power because he is born with it and cannot remove it from himself (either in magical ability, wealth, or fame, depending on the fic). He logically has to pursue power because he has to defend himself against powerful individuals. The only real way for him to avoid that is to fake his own death. I like Alexandra's base circumstances for the same reasons - she has reason for pursuing that power for her own self-defence and happiness. Most fanfic authors eventually screw this up (for me) by either having the protagonist in these circumstances eschew power (which is stupid and self-harmful in these cases) or the protagonist deciding to use that power for the fluffy goodness of all or just to subjugate everyone, which is a lot of work for what purpose? As a result, I end up only happy with a narrow range of fics with a powerful, intelligent, somewhat selfish protagonist pursuing their happiness. To date, probably only jbern's works or Chris Widger's Grey Maiden series has met those narrow confines of a work that I find truly delightful, although a few dozen others have earned a spot in my favorites for various reasons. AQ has the potential too, depending on how Alex goes (thus my reason for being here).

If you've got any recommendations that fit that, I'd be happy to hear them, although after several years of reading HP fanfiction, it's somewhat unlikely that I haven't found them by now. The Dresden Files and Song of Fire and Ice (although bloated) series are some non-fanfic examples of what I enjoy. Even though Harry Dresden violates that rule a bit by pursuing the use of power for greater good initially rather than for self defense of him and his.

If you have any another specific questions regarding my views that you felt were unclear, ask away. I don't mind explaining it. We've certainly touched on more than a few very broad topics, and much of that was spent explaining the contradictions between my views and others rather than specifically detailing my own.

Edited 2012-09-11 07:03 (UTC)

My reaction made you re-examine your own actions and conclude they were wrong from my perspective. That is how a child learns empathy.

No, I already knew empathy and already agreed with the principle involved. I apologized because I simply acted precipitously without really thinking it through - the equivalent of grabbing something because you're in a hurry, then realizing that you snatched it out from in front of another person, and apologizing. It's not that you didn't know before you did it that grabbing things isn't nice, just that sometimes people act hastily when not fully engaged.

I consider a sociopath to commonly mean a person with consistent intentions that pursue complete self-interest with an amoral lack of concern for any others.

That's reasonably close - the key to the psychological definition is that sociopaths literally possess no capacity for empathy. They couldn't act out of anything other than self-interest even if they wanted to (which, since they possess no capacity for empathy, they wouldn't want to since they perceive those who do have empathy rather the way you do, as chumps who willingly suborn their own self-interest for the greater good).

You're assuming a sociopath is incapable of understanding empathy. Being judged amoral doesn't mean you don't understand what the moral thing to do is or that you don't feel empathy. Merely that you push it aside, much like you would push aside anger when you feel it's not appropriate or is irrational.

This is, I think, the key thing that you're missing. Someone who feels empathy, even if they push it aside when they feel like it, is by definition not a sociopath.

A sociopath might understand what empathy is, intellectually, but in the same way that a person blind from birth might understand what colors are. You can explain it to them, they can figure out how the concept fits into the world, but they will never really experience it. And in the sociopath's case, that means they are pretty much incapable of seeing how empathy is anything other than a voluntary handicap that stupid people put on themselves.

I really don't think anyone's qualified to make that judgement. First of all, the most successful sociopaths we probably don't even know about. Only the sociopaths who are stupid, made mistakes, or deliberately exposed themselves for fame are the ones we know about.

Not entirely true. You're right that we don't have comprehensive census data on all sociopaths, because most sociopaths do not become serial killers, and since obviously it's not actually illegal to be a sociopath, and a sociopath is very unlikely to consider himself in need of "help," we can only infer a lot of sociopathic cases. Nonetheless, psychologists have done a lot of studies and dealt with quite a few sociopaths, even if second or third hand (such as by dealing with their victims), enough to know that there are plenty of sociopaths out there who are not powerful, wealthy, or successful.

You seem to assume that sociopaths tend to be more successful and more pleased with themselves than the average person, because they are unfettered by moral restraints that hold other people back. The problem is, as I said, non-sociopaths are not stupid and can usually perceive when someone is seriously wrong in the head (even if they can't diagnose him as a sociopath), and this tends to lead to problems in interactions with people and society.

Sociopaths also don't necessarily possess any more drive or ambition or talent than anyone else. A sociopath might want to be rich and powerful, but is no more likely to succeed at it than anyone else. So it's not just "clever" sociopaths who remain undetected because they're so smart. It's also the ones who just never really get anywhere, and their sociopathy remains unknown to anyone except those who've had the misfortune of dealing with them and may only know that that person is very unpleasant and bad to be associated with.

Edited 2012-09-11 12:09 (UTC)

I really do hope that Alex goes through some massive character development and gets some sense in her head by the end of the series - by which I mean that she learns the hard way to STOP AND THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES of what she's doing, not just for her, but for OTHERS as well.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Suck it up, snowflake! And Alexandra Quick is too heroic

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Empathy and selfishness

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Innocence of children

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Empathy and selfishness

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Empathy and selfishness

no subject

Re: Empathy and selfishness

no subject

no subject

Sociopaths

no subject

no subject

"Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself"

no subject

Re: "Morality is usually what is best for everyone but yourself"

Re: Sociopaths

no subject

Re: Sociopaths

no subject