: Re: How to write negative events without laying blame in an insulting way My current project is historical fiction, fifteenth century. There were quite a few bad things happening all over the world,

@Debbie451

Vote Up Vote Down

In addition to the answer by Mela Eckenfels: Do not lay blame unless it is actually warranted.

The following is not something you can generally write in a book that gets published. It comes pretty close to moral relativism and that makes some people deeply uncomfortable. It is however something that anyone writing historical fiction should understand.

What people do is limited by the the resources they have available. The moral codes followed by the society then adapt to those actions. It is fine to believe in absolute morality and reflect that in your writing, but you should remember that the morals societies actually follow are a compromise between that absolute morality and the constraints of the real world.

For example, torturing suspected criminals until they confess (often despite being innocent) is both morally wrong and inefficient. It would be better to find the actual culprits and forced false confessions do not help. So why did nearly all past societies use torture and why was it considered morally acceptable?

Instead of torture modern police use a wide variety of investigative and interrogation techniques that are much more efficient. And yes, more moral too. Most of those techniques were invented after first professional police forces were found. Certainly they were not widely available before that. First really professional detective force was probably Sûreté. It was founded 1812 by Eugène François Vidocq.

The key point here is the year: 1812. If your story is set before that, effective methods of criminal investigation were not available. There were still good investigators and an organization, parts of the catholic church investigating heresy or the secret agents of a state for example, could be quite competent. They would interrogate people and inspect evidence properly. But that was not the norm and certainly not something that the laws or moral codes could assume. Often "Make them talk" was the best solution available.

Under such circumstances the moral question becomes "Is it okay to torture possibly innocent prisoners or should I just do nothing while murders and robberies are committed?"

For an individual that is deep in the grey area. Is there really nothing else I could do? Should I cut slack when I am almost certain this person is innocent? Is my prejudice of his background influencing me? There is really no correct answer that always applies.

For a government making the laws the question is simpler. The state must be seen as effective in dealing with crime or the laws become meaningless. Including the laws that sustain the state. The state must have some credible method of enforcing its laws. If the only method that is certain to be available is brutal and by itself amoral then the state must authorize its agents to use brutal methods. And the church must advise the people that the state is morally correct in doing so. The actual explanation of why such compromise of morality is necessary and correct is probably omitted as confusing to laymen. So as far as most people are concerned torture then becomes morally acceptable.

And following the morals of your society, does not make the individual evil. The best you can do is the best you can do. Good people try to do their best to follow a stricter moral code. Evil people don't. And the same person can be either depending on the subject. An otherwise good person that fanatically hates Muslims is not that good when dealing with Muslims. Such strong prejudices were common at the period you mention. It is also common for people to be much better when dealing with people they love. Your totally evil villain can be loving husband and father. His funeral might be full of grieving family and friends swapping stories about how good he was. Humans are complicated and can't be reduced to being "good" or "evil".

Further not following the moral codes of a future with quite different material constraints does not make the society evil, either. Moral codes actually do evolve over time. Modern understanding of human rights is nearly incomprehensible to people in older periods. For that matter even the Islamic countries of the modern period have reservations of large parts of what we often consider correct. This is not because one or the other is right or wrong. It is because while there may be absolute morality our understanding is incomplete and fragmentary. And thus subject to perspective errors, modern western understanding of the relationship between the people and the state is quite different from other periods or cultures, so interpretations of what it is proper for the state to do will be different.

So you should always try to interpret what the people do by the standards of their of time and culture. Not to excuse their actions, that really pisses of the moral absolutists who thanks to Abrahamic religions are very common, but because otherwise it is impossible to understand correctly the reasons they do what they do. And unless the author understands the readers won't either. And it is very difficult to relate to a person doing awful things for reasons you do not understand. Which kind of hurts immersion and all that. Comedy probably is a practical workaround.

(0)

Login to post a comment!