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

[inverarity]

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 obsessingpreoccupied 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...)

Comments

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

Empathy and selfishness

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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).

Re: Empathy and selfishness

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Empathy and selfishness

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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).

Re: Empathy and selfishness

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

[kith-koby.livejournal.com]

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.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

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

Innocence of children

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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.

[kith-koby.livejournal.com]

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.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

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.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

Sociopaths

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Sociopaths

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Sociopaths

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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 :).

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

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.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

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.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

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.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.

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

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Umm, no.

Also, empathy and morality are not the same thing.

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

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

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...

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

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.

[madyak2.livejournal.com]

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.