From: jim@thinkage.on.ca (James Alan Gardner)
Subject: Re: Moral Context? (was Re: Theme ~ Moral)
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:08:21 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Nov10233951@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>On the other hand, not all authors try to "convert" readers to their
>own views of right and wrong.  To take three very different examples,
>consider Camus' _The_Stranger_, William Gibson's _Neuromancer_, and
>Dave Sim's _Cerebus_.  Would you say that these works project a "moral
>stance", and if so, what?

A writer may or may not intend to convert readers, but the fall-out
still occurs.  I blush to say I haven't read "The Stranger", but a
number of my friends have and it affected them powerfully.  It seems
to have left them feeling bleak and depressed, and the phrase
"existential despair" comes naturally to mind.  On the other hand,
I have read "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Camus, and the essay unquestionably
deals with a clear moral outlook.  Camus implies that the world is
hell and all of us damned, but we can find a sort of peace of mind
and even a kind of triumph if we are strong enough to face our
damnation.  That is a moral stance, and I would expect to see it
reflected in his fiction.

Neuromancer also has a moral context: we're all pawns.  Many people
also take the message (whether Gibson intended this or not) that
because we're all pawns of the system, there's justice in kicking
back.  Gibson certainly didn't invent the hacking/cracking
mentality, but Neuromancer certainly helped to popularize it and
give it concrete expression.  A lot of hackers have cheered the
book as a validation of their lifestyle.  I doubt if Gibson
intended such a thing to happen, but that's part of the fall-out.
People saw it as glamorizing the Computer Cowboy -- yes, I know
that no one's life was glamorous in Neuromancer, and certainly
not the hacker's, but many readers still got off on the image and
a few tried to emulate it.

As for Cerebus...one of the most widely remembered scenes is, of
course, Most Holy giving a moral lesson to the people.  At a parent's
request, he blesses a baby then smashes it against a wall.  Says
Most Holy, "That was a free lesson.  You can get what you want and
still not be very happy.  You're welcome."  This is a good
illustration of the difference between explicit "morals" and
underlying moral stance.  Sim probably expected us to laugh at
the scene.  Many people did.  I did myself.  But look at the
underlying moral assumptions of that scene.  Cerebus comes across
as the coolest guy in Iest because he has no compunction about
killing babies if it persuades people to give him gold.  Yeah,
yeah, we know Cerebus isn't "heroic" and he can be a real little
prick; but Sim's presentation of Most Holy suggests that Cerebus
is stronger and more admirable on many levels than the schmucks
around him.  Who are the admirable characters in Cerebus?  Cerebus
himself.  Maybe Astoria (a Machiavellian schemer).  Maybe Lord
Julius (a lunatic schemer, an Erisian).  Maybe the elf (an airhead,
but innocent).  Jaka certainly (a woman who maintains her strength
no matter how often she's victimized).  Is there a pattern?  Maybe.
But the point is, Sim clearly presents some people as admirable
and presents others as wimps or butchers.  We can't help but
get the impression that behaving in some ways makes you admirable,
while behaving in others makes you detestable.

And that's one of the major factors making up a book's moral stance.
What are we led to believe about various actions in the book?
If X tricks Y, does the book suggest that X is scum to do it?
Does it suggest that Y is stupid and deserves whatever happens?
Is X clever or treacherous?  Naturally, there can be a lot of
shades of grey between black and white, but even depicting everything
as a shade of grey is a choice that reflects a moral outlook.

		Jim Gardner, Thinkage Ltd.