God is Green

Today, I saw a bumper sticker on a mid-sized SUV, which read "God is Green." Aside from the apparent hypocrisy in the context, I couldn't help but judge a few other things about the driver's thinking. First, I recognize that it is wrong to consider my judgements in any way correct. I could not have stopped the driver to ask if he or she was the one who applied the sticker (perhaps it was a son or daughter). I have no way of knowing why that person needed an SUV, perhaps they do have a lot of kids and frequent need to carry equipment for their work. Perhaps they own an organic food store, and judged the SUV as a necessity of business. I don't know.

However, the thoughts that scampered across my mind were as follows. First, "That's true." Second, "Who doesn't agree with that?" Third, "Why do they need to tell me?" Fourth, "Are they suggesting the typical action of government regulation?" I appreciate their sentiments, but the sticker did not send me to a website as is common with statements of an activist nature. If they were trying to do anything but label themselves as green-conscious (which is fine), then they left me with two options in response: pray about it (they invoked the name of God) or go the other "higher power" (the government).

But this article is more self-expository than it is revealing of that driver's intentions. What in my brain left we with those two choices as a knee-jerk response? See, upon further thought, I could look up a green nonprofit with which to get involved, or I could start one. I could also modify my own personal actions and business concerns to reflect my agreement with that statement. All these would collectively have a greater positive impact than that of government meddling, in my opinion.

My understanding is this: if most people believe that God is Green, or to put it another way, green practices are in sync with the nature of the physical world, then wouldn't such bumper stickers have the effect of reminding them to buy green? If so, doesn't that mean that the market favors those businesses that satisfy that demand? If you agree, then why does government need to regulate business into being green? We the people are through our spending habits, we need give no more taxes to the issue.

The answer, of course, is a lack of thinking. Or, more kindly put, a functional blind spot. Big media is the platform of the dominant political parties, both which now continue to "campaign" throughout their terms, rather than settling into non-partisan activities. The result of this is that we are held to believe, by any political discussion in all mainstream media, that our [legitimate] choices are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. I put the word "legitimate" in brackets because they'd rather not suggest there's even a poor third choice, and indeed they rarely do.

Now, I'm not writing this to suggest that you vote for a green party, but at least that's thinking outside the box. It is another choice, but it is still a government solution to a private problem. I submit that mainstream media is often an enforcer of limiting beliefs, if not its primary provider. This is especially true with network television, which relies upon revenue generated through the advertising of mediocre products (not cheap, but not necessarily the best). Subsequently, network television has an interest in hosting ideas that are also middle-of-the-road (not wrong, but also not completely right). They like to stick to big labels and stereotypes that are easy to identify by viewers. They fear if TV is too smart, their audience will dwindle.

Independents are thinking people, and are growing in number to the degree that they become disenchanted with the two party system championed by mainstream media. If God is Green, but God has no place in government, then ought we look elsewhere for the care of our environment?

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information on Independents in modern political times, check out the blog at The Center For Social Leadership.

"LOST: What Kate Does"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"What Kate Does"

It has been pointed out by executive producer, Damen Lindelof, that "like all good mythologies, it ultimately comes down to the battle between good and evil." The unique thing about LOST is the ambiguity with which it has always approached the concepts. For example, time and time again, we find ourselves wondering if we can trust Ben Linus, even though he is a self-confessed liar ("The Incident"). Also, despite their ominous nature, the Others maintain that they are the good-guys.

So let me ask the question that the show implies: how do you define good and evil. It seems to me that Jacob and his nemesis are on opposite sides of that fence. Though, despite the colors they wear, we are not clear what actions are attributed to which character. For example, when Ben was sent to kill Danielle Rousseau, but discovered baby Alex, he was concerned that the baby's death would not have been what Jacob wanted. So who gave the order? Was it Jacob, for the larger service of the Island? Is the Island worth the life of a baby? Is Jacob evil for ordering such a thing, or was it really Nemesis who gave the order? It is unanswerable, therefore, we cannot assume that the man in black is evil and Jacob is good. To make this ruling, one must define evil. Then one must identify its source.

Which brings me to the predominant philosophical theme of this episode: guilt. I don't exactly mean the feeling of guilt, but the fact of guilt. Who is responsible for a given action or its results? Jack had already taken responsibility for Sayid's death in "LA X," and maintains his guilt in this episode. The fact that Sayid is now alive, is a subject I will return to momentarily.

The episode centers around Kate, whose story is the very definition of guilt as a matter of fact. This episode, we discover that, like the Kate we know, "sideways" Kate is also under arrest for murder. Interestingly, she has a remorseless demeanor in spite of her guilt. This is another thing they still share. In previous flashbacks, we find that she feels justified in her actions ("What Kate Did"), and is shocked that others do not agree.

Sayid expressed remorse for his actions, when he pondered his impending death last episode. He reminds us of what he has done and asks where he will go in the afterlife. In contrast to Kate, Sayid does not seem to feel justified in his actions, but expects something terrible. We find he is partially right as made manifest by Dogen's "diagnosis," which Sayid considered torture despite the lack of questions asked. This harkens back to "The Brig" where the idea was presented that the Island is like Hell for those who deserve it.

That being said, James "Sawyer" Ford is enduring the emotional agony of having lost the woman he loves, Juliet Burke. He recants Sayid's crimes by way of saying it's not fair that a torturer gets a second chance. Kate tries to reason with Sawyer by saying it's her fault that she got on the sub ("The Incident"), preventing his escape. But Sawyer feels nothing for Kate, and again she seems suprised. Sawyer blames his own selfishness because he talked Juliet into staying on the Island. In a twist of irony, it was because he didn't want to be alone that he talked her into staying, and now he is alone.

We learn that Sayid's hell is possibly owed to the fact that he is "claimed" by some "darkness." It seems apparent that this refers to the Nemesis. This bears a similarity with the way characters are taken by the dark side of the force in the Star Wars Trilogy. However, unlike Star Wars, we learn that Claire has already been claimed. Archetypically, Claire has represented what is good and nurturing, even being a stand-in for an angel or the Virgin Mary in Charlie Pace's vision ("Fire + Water").

In the flashsideways, Kate takes Claire to the hospital, an action that is strange in the context of their recent interactions. It is as though the good nature of Claire awakens something human in the hardcore fugitive that is Kate. Claire helps her escape in return for her help. When Kate suggests she might be innocent of her crime, Claire seems to make a character judgement and replies to the effect that she could believe it. On-Island Claire seems to be the antithesis of what she has always been, unless we simply do not understand the nature of good. Very thought provoking.

Perhaps the Nemesis is the rightful inhabitant of the Island, righteously sworn to protect it by any means. I submit the story of the Ark of the Covenant from the Bible. When God told them not to touch it, He meant it. As the tale goes one of its carriers tried to stop it from falling over, and he was struck dead. Perhaps the Island is that important, and Jacob and all the people he brought are merely intruders.

Or perhaps we can take the Nemesis at face value, perhaps he is over stepping his bounds. Maybe he wishes to control the Island when it is not his place. To reference the Bible again, this is similar to the conflict between Satan and God, where the evil one was the highest of angels, but was cast out because he wanted to be God.

What do you think?

FEATURED MEDIA: Season 6 of LOST!

Media and Monsters

Many of you know that I am the proud father of a bright three and a half year old son (but I'm biased, I know). It is as much for his sake as anyone else's that I do what I do. The influence of media on people's minds starts at around 18 months. My wife and I have tried, to the best of our human abilities, to take the hard road in raising him.

Many people fall into the trap of letting their children watch too much television, because it's easier than perpetual playtime. I'm not condemning, I know how tempting it is to let them sit there quietly.

I've settled on a compromise. Children's movies, if not always perfect (and no subtitute for imaginative play), are often repeated again and again. This gives willing parents the chance to discuss themes with their children and weave lessons into daily life. It is important for this reason that children's programming be suitable for adults as well, and not limited to shapes and colors.

My favorite is "Monsters, Inc." In my opinion this is Pixar's best film to date (though I've yet to see the critically acclaimed "Toy Story"). It is solidly entertaining and well developed at every point, and holds my attention and his attention alike. It has been a spark for imaginative play (with my help) and a reference for concerns.

The basic plot of the movie revolves around a company (Monsters, Inc.), which harvests children's screams as a source of energy (i.e.: instead of coal). "Scarers" travel through portals from the factory floor through the closet doors of human chidren to scare a scream out of them and collect the power.

Ultimately, a child gets loose in the monster world, and it turns out that monsters are more afraid of us than we are of them. Despite their jobs, the main characters are portrayed as good-natured and heroic, in contrast to the antagonists who have compromised their morals to get ahead during the "scream shortage."

In the end, the hero discovers an alternative energy which is ten times more powerful and does not require scaring children. So innovation triumphs over tradition and bureaucracy. And this is a kids' movie!

The reason I thought to do this article was that just tonight, Monsters, Inc. allowed me to talk to my son about monsters in his closet. I was able to comfort him with the thought that most monsters are nice and reasonable. I even "worked out a deal" so they wouldn't come through his closet.

Sure this kind of parental guidance requires imagination on my behalf. Sure it's not always easy, but it will be worth it when he grows up to face his fears with a clear head rather than paranoia.

Media and Marketing

In order to discuss the union of these two concepts, one must first define their differences. Because they are so intertwined in the post-modern world, many definitions simply consider them the same thing. At the very least, I believe they are different branches on the same tree, if not separate and distinct trees altogether. They both possess their own aspects of both science and art, while I think it is their art (and not their science) that creates the greatest divide.

Permit me to save a lengthy discussion of the etymology of the word "media," and just say, for our purposes that media is referring primarily to entertainment mass media such as television, movies, novels, and their digital kin. The content of such media is a creative (if not artistic) endeavor, which by its nature attracts a crowd. The easier such media content is for people to access, the bigger the following will be. Therefore, it is only natural that such media would ideally be free and widely accessible.

Marketing is about getting products and services into people's hands. Because it is, at its core, merely a transfer of information, it requires some form of media to have a mass effect. (As a side bar, it should be noted that the most effective form of marketing, word-of-mouth, does not inherently need any form of media at all—though visual aids help.) The art of marketing is not in convincing people they need the product, but in finding those people who do. Therefore, it is ideal that the products and services being offered are of the highest quality and directed at the individuals who understand that quality.

In the early days of radio, companies like Colgate-Pamolive realized that they could increase sales to their target audience by providing dramatic, serialized programming. These "soap operas" were designed to develop loyal listeners comprised mostly of the company's target audience (housewives, in this case). The company could then market new products or additional services to the audience in the form of mass advertising. Because companies advertised high quality products to individuals who understood that quality, those companies developed enough profits to expand the funding for the production of media.

As companies began to grow in size and new forms of media (like television) were invented, advertising became its own industry—and entertainment media exploded along with it. While the Motion Picture industry kept itself independently funded (until product placements) through ticket sales and the like, television (at least in the US) had always been a free service funded by advertising. The consequence of this was that the entertainment was primarily influenced by commercial interests.

Television, as it became mainstream, became the culture in America. Because of its accessibility, it became the most widespread source of information, and therefore one of the widest influences on people's thinking. As industrial innovation slowed, companies shifted from larger-scale manufacturing to smaller-scale consumer production. This drove them to enlist mass advertising, rather than learn how to market to customers directly. The rising demand for advertising space, in turn, threatened to over-saturate the market, driving demand for larger audiences. "Larger audiences" were not defined by the quality, but by the quantity of viewers.

Therefore, the advertising industry called for media programming which was directed at the lowest common-denominator. Psychologists, and other marketing "experts" were employed to make the process more efficient. The result of which was the realization that media could teach audiences to be emotionally susceptible. An individual with low emotional intelligence, was more likely to impulse-buy, buy on credit, and buy non-essential or luxury items.

If media, however, is set up as the driving force of the media-marketing continuum, then the results might be quite different. Markets fluctuate—that is just a fact of economics and people—but what people never need less of is good information. If media takes the lead, then the leading media would be that which possessed the best information or the most truth. The very best entertainment, valuable for the mind and spirit; the very best news and documentaries, definitely truthful; and the demand for the very best products as sponsors, once again.

How would media "take the lead"? Well, if the best media imparts the most truth, then simply by refusing to be dependent upon any entity whose purpose is not truth. This is a decision that requires emotional maturity. There is no reason that media cannot be provided for free, but the costs have to be covered by a source that has no control over what the media creators decide to do. Ideally, the media creators would own the marketing concerns (more on this later).

The interesting thing is that if media takes the lead, but maintains funding from marketing, its growth is restrained by the markets. There are many examples in the history of free enterprise to indicate that those who have a passion for their business will figure out how to adapt. Basically, this will give media creators the incentive to understand the marketing process and fix the problems, further informing their creation of compelling and wise media.

What I Say When I Talk to Myself

Doing things wrong is a temporary byproduct of doing things different. When we want different results, we need to put in different actions. Different actions are naturally foreign to us and must be honed through experience. The byproduct of the hands-on training required for experience is that you will likely mess some things up. That's OK.

Albert Einstein apparently said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. For a scientist, this is obvious. To even test a theory requires changing a variable in the experiment and looking for changes in the result. This is true in our lives as well. If you continue to operate at the same level of performance in your job, can you likely expect a bonus or raise? If you and your spouse are growing apart emotionally, wouldn't it be wise to try turning off the TV, quitting a sports league, and/or setting up a date night to rekindle the flame? If you continue to watch the same kinds of shows and read the same kinds of books, doesn't it follow that you'll get the same kinds of information? And if you find yourself feeling frustrated and hopeless, shouldn't you look for different information?

Sure changes can be scary, they're out of your comfort zone! That's the point. Our distraction-laden modern lives can have the effect of shrinking our comfort zones. We have so many options for pleasure, that we forget about chasing true happiness. Happiness, which only comes from doing what we were built to do, requires constantly pushing our comfort zones and trying new things. This process can look foolhardy at first, especially when we're new.

Imagine if a world-class runner decided to race a world-class wheelchair racer...in a wheelchair. Who would win? The wheelchair racer, of course, because he has experience that the runner (though fit and strong) does not have. Would the runner look like a fool? To the unknowing audience, probably. Could he learn to beat the wheelchair champion with training? Certainly. Would it make him a more well-rounded athlete? Absolutely.

So what about the failures and laughter of the audience? First, failure is a part of learning to be a success. Second, the audience likely does not understand what they are witnessing. Finally, who cares what other people think? Don't be so selfish. Let the ignorant have the pleasure of their laughter, while you chase the happiness of your dreams.

FEATURED MEDIA

What to Say When You Talk to Yourself: By learning how to talk to yourself in new ways, you will notice a dramatic improvement in all areas of your life.

"LOST: LA X, pt. 1 & 2"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"LA X, parts 1 & 2"

As a perfect preface to any discussion which might contain spoilers, I refer you to an article from THR.com, entitled "Surprise fan reaction to leaked 'Lost' hour". Apparently, the prescreening in Hawaii of the Season 6 premiere had some pirates in attendance. The entire first part of "LA X" was made available on YouTube via cellphone bootlegs. However, much to the credit of LOST fans, many refused to watch the episode until it aired. Now tell me there isn't something magical about a story that inspires that kind of loyalty!

And tell me there aren't principles in the show to emulate as we move forward. In my recent post, I discuss two concepts of "truth of events" and "truth of existence." I believe that existence—that is, the philosophical realm of man—must of necessity be accurately captured in any story to elicit the type of loyalty that LOST has earned. One can earn superficial loyalty through truthful events like sexual themes or compelling murders, but if the motives behind these actions are not accurate, eventually the stories will fall flat. Truth of existence liberates the author to take the viewer on a fantastical journey of mystery and imagination. And that is precisely what makes this show so good.

So what about this season?

Season 6, as you are likely aware, is the final season of LOST. Basically, this is the writer's most challenging season yet. The show is driven by dynamics between characters—and I include the Island as one of the characters—with most of them being in the dark about what is happening to them. Given that the show has a hidden mythology and that revealing secrets (slowly) is the basis of its plot, this season becomes a question of how they are going to reveal the remaining secrets while keeping us fans guessing until the last second.

As it stands, the show has deftly explored the concepts of "science" and "faith," (see "Man of Science, Man of Faith" [spoilers]). Essentially, these words embody the epic philosophical struggle between "thinking" and "feeling," or what could be called "Reason" vs. "Passion." Jack Shepard, the main protagonist, has been the champion for the concrete, refusing to believe in miracles and their kin—at least until Season 4. John Locke, Jack's antagonist by default, has been the champion of destiny, believing that the Island is "a place where miracles happen" ("There's No Place Like Home" [spoilers]).

Toward the end of Season 4, when a certain major "Earth-moving" event transpires, this philosophical train is brought to a close. Season 5 opens with a new direction, driven by a mysterious conflict between a man named Jacob and his unnamed nemesis. Jacob seems to represent the concept of free will, having told at least one character that he has "a choice." Despite this undercurrent, Jacob has been represented as a meddler in history, if for no other reason than to bring people to the Island. By contrast, Jacob's nemesis, who I will refer to as "Nemesis," seems do be a manifestation of force. In conversation with Jacob, Nemesis reveals his opinion that people are always corrupted and cannot change this basic nature, while Jacob asserts that progress is being made long-term.

So what about "LA X"?

[SPOILER WARNING]

LOST have been defined by its non-linear narrative structure, which has featured both flashbacks and flashforwards. Due to time traveling introduced in Season 5, it even featured two different times (1977 and 2007) running concurrently. In Season 6, this narrative structure is being called "flashsideways." As "The Incident" has apparently created two parallel time streams. The story now flashes back and forth between the characters who safely landed in LA X (hence the episode's title), and the same characters who continue to exist on the Island (though they've jumped from '77 to '07). [Good luck following this season, Dad.]

In "LA X," we learn more about the nature of Nemesis and his presence in previous seasons, as it is confirmed that he is the "Smoke Monster." We also learn more about his relationship to the confused character of John Locke, who he has apparently been manipulating since Season 1 ("Walkabout"). Nemesis describes Locke as pathetic and "shouting at the world" not to tell him his limitations, "even though they were right." I personally find it a bit disturbing that we, the audience, invested so much time in the story of Locke's struggle, just to have him end up dead as a pawn. This is where an element of faith is required by the fans. True, he is still alive in LA X, but if that Locke never switches places with the dead Locke, then his story is in vain and the Nemesis was right to kill Jacob. But if Jacob is right, it seems that Locke must also be more "special" than Nemesis thinks. Which is why I think the two streams will overlap (or something along those lines), and dead Locke will resurrect. It is this sort of reasoning that is [hopefully] possible because of the writers' integrity to the truth of existence.

More importantly however, we learn that Nemesis wants to go home, which presents the underlying motive power to his actions. It also suggests that Jacob and his disciples, "The Others,"are not as innocent as they make themselves out to be. Nemesis's home—presumably the Temple—seems to have been stolen from him by Jacob and/or his people. This opens the question of who has the greater right of ownership—something I'm certain we will be discussing again.

This brings us back to the question of free will vs. pre-destiny. We get a unique glimpse into the consequences of different choices, which seems to indicate a trend toward free will. The show has, in past episodes, demonstrated the theme of an unchanging universe. In Season 3 ("Flashes Before Your Eyes"), Desmond Hume learns of the universe's ability to "course correct," meaning that small things can be changed, but the large ends are still the same. In "LA X," Charlie Pace nearly dies choking on a bag of heroin. When Jack saves him, Charlie says he was supposed to die—a theme that was dominant in Season 3, ending with his drowning in the Looking Glass station ("Through the Looking Glass").

The interesting thing to ponder as we go through this season is: what net effect have the little changes made, despite the large course corrections? After all, Charlie not dying at any one of several moments when he could have, ultimately let to major movements in Season 4, despite the fact that he did die as he was "supposed to."

I look forward to digging into this season, and hope to hear your comments!

FEATURED MEDIA:

The Final Season of LOST!

The Manifesto of Truth in Fiction

"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction...for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it."
- G. K. Chesterton

Truth & Fiction

I have heard the comment that "Truth in Fiction" is an oxymoron—a statement which I usually take to be dismissive of the concept. Upon further consideration, I realized that it is an oxymoron, and that's the point. An oxymoron is when "...two words with opposing meanings are used together intentionally for effect," like "jumbo shrimp."

Truth in Fiction is possible for the same reason that "jumbo shrimp" is possible. Namely, the fact that there are multiple meanings to words in the English language. A shrimp is an animal which is known for being small, but since they are used for food, the larger the better. Hence the special addition of the word, "jumbo."

Truth in Fiction is not referring to the truth of events, but the truth of existence. Fiction allows the author to orchestrate the events and characters in a universe of his or her own design. Because it is not bound by the truth of events, fiction authors can forget that it must be bound by the truth of existence. To forget this is to produce works which are at best, unrelatible to the audience, and at worst, poisonous to the unsophisticated mind. When I say "unsophisticated," I am referring to those of us who are not familiar with the classics (of whatever medium), and therefore have no cultural reference for truth or its absense.

In my mind, any creator of media content has a profound duty to his audience to adhere to the truth of existence. Today's audiences tend to exhibit what Samuel Taylor Coleridge termed a "willing suspension of disbelief," which he presented as desirable. However, the consequence of building upon this tendency is that of a lowering of media standards. If the audience agrees to believe an author's tale, then the pressure is off to make it believable. And if the audience is willing to believe, then they are open to suggestion. Whether it is an effect achieved by the author, or a decision made by the audience for entertaiment's sake, the result is the same. The degree to which an individual suspends his disbelief is the degree to which he loses his defense against propaganda.

That being said, I feel I must clarify my criticism of suspending disbeliefs. First, the willing suspension of disbelief requires a decision to be willing, which means the individual is in control as long as he is aware and thinking. Next, there are at least two levels to any fictional story: the explicit narrative and the implicit meaning. I applaud anyone's ability to create and sell an explicit narrative that captivates, thrills, and intrigues the audience, even if that audience must suspend its disbelief to compensate for limitations in budget, medium, casting, and even technical acting or writing ability. Finally by contrast, I do not extend my approval of suspension to the depth of the implicit. Because the implicit is connected to the unconsious, a work of fiction which is not informed by the truth of existence can open a doorway past a person's rational disbelief. And that is the disbelief that keeps a person's sense of right and wrong safe from the corruption of outside interests.

Truth in Fiction requires the integrity of the author; his hunger to educate himself in the truth of existence, and his courage to stand by that truth as he understands it. It also requires the strength of character to admit where and when his understanding of the truth was flawed, and rectify his philosophy accordingly. Because this process builds a timeless foundation for the development of characters, the author can populate any world he chooses to imagine with said characters. The resulting story will transcend all its superficial flaws to become a classic.

Character & Characters

What makes you fall in love with a fictional person? What punches you in the gut when he suffers a great loss? What makes you want to get to your feet when he stands—blood dripping down his face, arrows protruding from his chest? What makes you shed a tear when he is cut down for the last time, having accomplished his mission? What makes the silence deafening as he chokes out his last words? Is it your suspended disbelief? No, it is "character."

Not a character, which is a collection of dialog and actions in a certain setting or circumstance, but the quality of "character" which is universal, belonging to all individuals real or imagined. Have you ever considered the relationship you have with the characters you love? Many of us would be ashamed to admit that some of our most reliable friends are imaginary. What have we learned from these characters? How have we become like them? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The only people we are more intimate with than our loved ones, is our loved authors and their characters.

Character is developed chiefly through association and interaction, and in reality, stories which are driven by difficult moral questions are interactive. A thinking person has a form of discussion with the authors by way of the characters' character. If you are thinking through your fiction, then you are making decisions as to which character traits to "side with"—a process that shapes your own self-awareness. If fiction is to force you to think for yourself, it must necessarily present you with alternatives that are in conflict with one another. Not only does that drive a dynamic "truthful" plot, but it challenges your beliefs in a way that requires you to know what you believe in order to defend it. A thinking person cannot defend against two opposing thoughts without realizing where he stands, even if he agrees with neither.

Heroes & Villains

The role of heroes and villains is to act as anchors or philosophical bookends. The contrast between these two types of characters is indicative of the philosophical spectrum of the narrative. As manifested in whole characters, the heroes and villains embody what we understand to be good and evil, respectively. In a truthful story, heroes are the type of people which embody the quality of character to which we aspire, and should be considered models to emulate. Villains embody the lack of character and the moral depravity which we abhor, and should serve as a reminder.

Heroes and villains are not to be confused with the roles of protagonists and antagonists, respectively. Depending on the perspective of the story, the author may choose to follow a villainous character as the main character (protagonist), while the heroes play a secondary opposing role (antagonist). The most noted manifestations of this are mobsters like Tony Soprano ("The Sopranos") whose family and childhood friends don't approve of what he does. In most other cases, the philosophical spectrum is narrowed to a focus on degrees of evil (good bad guys vs. bad bad guys). This perspective is merely a superficial twist of narrative convention, rather than a distortion of philosophy. Truth in Fiction is not concerned with this twist, it is only concerned with accuracy in the depiction of heroism, villainy, and their respective degrees. It is then up to the viewer to determine whether a character is a hero or villain through personal experience and prediction of that character's results.

Rarely, in my opinion, is there fiction which does not make this choice for the audience. Most fiction I have experienced makes a statement of introducing the hero. "Here he or she is! This person is who you should respect." The hero is cobbled together from an array of safe character traits which are manufactured to meet the current audience's approval. The villian is, by default, the person who is the antithesis to the hero. Often, this is a person characterized by superficially offensive traits (like smoking), or a penchant for antagonizing the hero (the bureaucrat).

Rare is the story that has the audacity to depict the details of true good and evil. Petty bickering and rank-pulling may drive moment to moment tension, but to be used as the only means of building long-term tension is lazy. Such practices either reveal the author's lack of regard for the audience's intelligence, or reveal a desire to alienate intelligent individuals. Moreover, the tendency for some viewers to accept the protagonist as the hero by default, has led to a third category—the anti-hero.

As I said, a story can follow a villain as its protagonist, but it must eventually become evident to the viewer (through truthful analysis) that the character is a villain. If the story shrouds the realistic consequences of the character's actions, making him look heroic when emulation of him in real life would lead to tragedy, then the story is a philosophical lie. This is how media creates anti-heroes in culture. It has been said that one can tell a culture by the heroes it keeps. If we use fiction to pose an ideology as a heroic character, then the viewers can be snowed into believing the ideology. But what ideology must be snuck past the viewers' conscious awareness? Only one that is knowingly false.

That being said, the basis of Truth in Fiction is to pose as heroic in fiction that which is heroic in reality. This can only be done through free association and open discussion. Ideas must compete for the highest level of truth, not the highest level of ideological pull. It is vital to the fitness of our thoughts and passions that fiction not be simply congenial to the human mind, as G.K. Chesterton said, but also be challenging to it. The strangeness of truth, I believe, is the very distinction that makes a story great. And when media creators realize that creating a classic is more lucrative in the long-run, less minds will be wasted on tired congeniality.

For more information on this topic see "The Origin [of Truth in Fiction]."

FEATURED MEDIA

"Samuel Taylor Coleridge - The Major Works" : Poems and other works, including Biographia Literaria.

"Stranger than Fiction" : A film about a reclusive author whose gimmick is killing her main characters. What happens when she finds out her newest character is a real person?

"The Sopranos" : The story of mobster torn between one "family" and the other.