Characters In Debate: How to Effectively Communicate Ideas in a Story
The world is noisy with ideas. It has been argued that my generation has exchanged ideas for meaningless din, like in an endless scrolling through social media. But even a tasteless, dumb idea still represents an ideology. And now, they are more present than ever.
So, what is the job of the artist to transmit a well-thought idea? What is the role of the storyteller to communicate an ideology?
The story will communicate one whether the author likes it or not. The process of artful discovery demands it. But what should its process be?
Though this is not the topic of this blog, I would argue the author should not have an ideological agenda at all lest their story devolve into propaganda. A true artist lets the story work on them. They give freedom to the process to let the themes and ideas journey at a natural guided progression.
The artist might have something to say, sure. But the artistic process of ideological discovery must be protected in order to be honest.
The best way to traverse the mountainous terrain of ideological themes within a story is with character. Characters that debate ideas with each other.
WHO ARE THE GOOD GUYS?
I come by it honesty – I love the classic Disney fairytale. There has probably been no other piece of pop culture I have researched more on than the Disney animated films. Fairytales are so helpful to the maturation of a young mind and it is no secret that Disney has ushered those stories in anew into the twentieth century.
The shared conflict in almost all of these stories is between good and evil. But the movies do a great job to give texture to this conflict. The villains all have their own selfishness as a guiding principle.
In Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, the evil queen wants to thwart the goodness within Snow White in a rage of jealousy.
In The Little Mermaid, Ursula the sea witch wants dominion over the sea in a fight toward power.
In Tangled, Rapunzel’s mother captures Rapunzel for the avarice of youth.
The villain as the hero’s antagonist always tries to snuff out the hero’s goal as a means of their own selfishness. Thus, the ideology is clear.
The bad guys are the ones who are selfish for their own benefit and the heroes are the ones who exhibit selflessness for the sake of the community.
The ideology is simpler. It is clearly understood. There is less of a debate of ideas because the villain is vain in their motivations. They are not trying to make an ideological claim that others should be motivated to adopt.
Now, these are all wonderful stories. But less effective when trying to explore the truth of a complicated idea. The heroes are clearly the good guys. The villains are clearly the bad guys.
But what if the conflict comes from two people who are trying to do the right thing and their tension comes from two ideological angles? What if the ideological conflict comes from two of the good guys and the lines of “good and evil” are a little less clear?
This is where the artist has room to explore.
THE GREY AREA
Dostoevsky is one of the greatest author’s to ever live and is known to pit two protagonists against one another in their ideological claims. He pushed his main characters to the furthest extent of their principles; to become the best representation of the idea claim to let the audience process for themselves.
In pop culture, we’re seeing this time and time again.
The television show that got me into writing in the first place is ABC Television’s LOST. It comprised of a cast of multiple nationalities and cultural backgrounds all on a flight from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles. Though, midway through the flight, their plan crashes onto a mysterious and mystical island where the characters are forced to reckon with one another on their differing views of good and evil.
The show centers on a doctor named Jack Shepherd and an elderly hunter named John Locke (yes, like the philosopher).
Through the course of the series, the two differ on many views but the theme that comes to the forefront is the battle between faith and science. Jack sees the world through a reasonable, medical lens while John interprets his experiences with the filter of faith and spiritual determination.
They both vie for the influence of the rest of the castaways and the television viewing audience is torn. There is so much to connect with in both men. At certain parts of the series, the audience sides with Jack and at other times with John.
Isn’t this just like real life? Our families, friends and coworkers all somehow have to work together to accomplish a goal or maintain a relationship. But, all the while, our influence rubs off on each other.
This is place where great ideas are shared and refined within a story.
HERO AGAINST HERO
We are just now experiencing the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Avengers: Endgame. It brings significant closure to the franchise’s central characters Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Steve Rogers (Captain America).
They start out the franchise at very different worldviews. Stark is this arrogant billionaire who creates this super suit to solve problems. Rogers is this selfless soldier who serves the greater good.
Over the course of the story their worldview ebbs and flows. They develop different opinions on government control, personal responsibility, and leadership. But (SPOILER ALERT) the series ends with both of them in opposite places. Steve Rogers decides to live a life he never allowed himself to have and be with one he loves – a calculated, selfish act. Tony Stark sacrifices his life for the entire world. The two’s ideologies rubbed off on one another making each other more well rounded.
The audience is able to interpret the ideologies for themselves, but we also see how these characters standing up for their beliefs helped the other grow.
This is fine storytelling.
Now, it isn’t a necessity for characters to redeem each other in this way to communicate ideologies within the story. It’s effective for the final act of the story, but it isn’t a necessity. The real point is how characters debate with each over their principles to arrive a deeper conclusion of the story’s theme.
For instance, you won’t come to a very profound conclusion on the idea of suicide if you only hear from an individual’s family members who have been hurt from the effects of suicide. It would go even deeper if you delved into the suicidal individual to try to understand why he or she would attempt that kind of act. It gives the theme more weight and more gravitas. By letting multiple viewpoints enter a story, it doesn’t lessen the weight of any individual view, it just lets it become more grounded and honest.
Well-thought ideas are so important to exchange in today’s world, especially if the storyteller would deem the idea as truth. It is shameful when the idea is given less weight when it is not allowed to exist on this complicated world stage.
The truth needs to be told. But it needs to be told with all of the facts.