What you want to see in Sci-Fi and Fantasy more?

[Doubtless]

Alright, I'm back.

There is one thing, so far as I'm concerned, that makes people want to be married. Humans need to give. We were given so much, and in turn, we need to give. A husband needs someone he can provide for, give comfort to, protect, and love. A wife needs someone (I assume, as I have no experience in the matter, due to the fact that I'm a man ), to love, to care for, to support, to serve, etc. Now, were I to get married, I wouldn't want my wife to go off to war. Why? Two reasons: 1.) She's the woman, it's my job to protect her. 2.) God made man physically stronger than woman (in general). If the enemy has their men out fighting, why on earth would we send our women out? They'd get massacred, unless, of course, they were huge, sickeningly bulky women, in which case, I would not have married her in the first place (If I'd wanted to marry someone who's masculine, I'd be gay).

Would I restrict my wife from pursuing writing? No. As long as she's not gone all the time, she can write her heart out. Would I restrict her from pursuing singing? It depends on the amount of time required of her. If she couldn't be at home with the kids, like every wife should, then no, I wouldn't agree with it. Why? Not because I'm selfish and want to make her watch the kids, but because the man is supposed to provide for his wife, and not the other way around.

As for the thing about women in leading positions because God gave them the ability to lead, I say this: If God gives a woman great knowledge of the Scriptures, and closeness with Him, does that mean she should be a Preacher? No. God says, quite simply:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
~ 1 Timothy 3:2a and 11.

This clearly states that the Preacher should be a man. not a woman, otherwise it would have said "Even so must their husbands be grave..."

I don't think a writer should force characters into his concept of how people should act; rather, if he wishes to make a moral point, he must write his characters honestly, as people really do act...

If you're referring to my writing, then let me say this: I do have a female character in my story, who joins the main characters in their quest, and is not forced into a certain concept to make a point. She is humble, but strong, she accepts the men's leadership, and gives advice in matters that she has advice to give. She is not a warrior, she is a healer, though she does know how to fight, and does fight, though not so vallantly or recklessly as do the men. She is a woman, and as a woman, like you said, she thinks more clearly, and doesn't take the enemy head on as do the men. She stays back, and helps where she can. Does this make her weak? No. It makes her wise. She knows her place in the world, and sticks to it. She knows that it is the men's duty to protect her, not only because she is a woman, but because she is the only one who can heal their wounds.

...I don't think a writer should force characters into his concept of how people should act; rather, if he wishes to make a moral point, he must write his characters honestly, as people really do act, and use situation and plot to let real human nature illustrate his point. If he can't make his point without manipulating the characters against their natures, perhaps his point needs to be reconsidered.

Human nature is sin. If I wanted to stick to human nature, I'd be doing a novel form of Grand Theft Auto, rather than a book that shows valor, honor, might, truth, sincerity, and virtue. If I wrote a realistic book (meaning that my characters sin as much as they would in real life), my book would teach the youth that read it to sin. Youth and children live by the examples they see in books, movies, and real life. Grand Theft Auto has ruined society by encouraging crime, sin, and immoral lifestyles. Even were you to state quite clearly in your book, that what these characters do is wrong, it won't stop young children from aspiring to be like the main characters. If I were to write a book about a man who killed and slaughtered all his life, then was redeemedd at the very end, kids wouldn't care! They would pretend that they're the main character, killing and slaughtering everything in their paths. Would they play redemption? No. The two seconds you spend showing the good in your characters won't have any impact on them, except to excuse the rest of the book by the ending. I'm not in the habit of depicting human nature in its different ways. Do my characters sin? Yes, quite often the main character gets angry with God, or something of the sort. But with good as your base, and sin as secondary, those who read the book will aspire to be like the character in his sinful ways, as much as they would aspire to be like the character in a book about a man who sins all the time, when he is finally redeemed.

I don't mean to be offensive, but what I said is what I believe. I can't stop the world from making a million Grand Theft Autos, but I can stop this writer from doing it. I'll serve God with my books, and encourage virtue, not sin.

~ Eric M. Boellner

EDIT: Alright, so Grand Theft Auto may not have been the best example, but you get my point.

 

[Lessien]

Would I restrict my wife from pursuing writing? No. As long as she's not gone all the time, she can write her heart out. Would I restrict her from pursuing singing? It depends on the amount of time required of her. If she couldn't be at home with the kids, like every wife should, then no, I wouldn't agree with it. Why? Not because I'm selfish and want to make her watch the kids, but because the man is supposed to provide for his wife, and not the other way around.

But what if your wife wanted to pursue a career in politics? Or one as an architect, or the leader of a restaurant chain? In other words, what if she wanted to pursue a career in a less "feminine" job, or one where she would be in a position of leadership--not necessarily over you, but leadership nonetheless? If God had gifted her in one of those areas, would you let her pursue a career in that area?

As for the thing about women in leading positions because God gave them the ability to lead, I say this: If God gives a woman great knowledge of the Scriptures, and closeness with Him, does that mean she should be a Preacher? No.

So...women can only be Sunday School teachers, or they can only teach women? That seems unfair. If God gave a woman knowledge in the Scriptures, and that knowledge surpassed that of a man, would you deny her the opportunity to pass that knowledge on to both men and women? Would you deny a woman the right to use the spiritual gifts God gave her, just because she was female?

Galatians 3:28--For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Doubtless]

I didn't say she couldn't use what God gave her, I said she shouldn't use it in a way God didn't intend for her to use it. If she's good with Scriptures and close to God, she should witness not lead a Congregation. If she's a good leader, let her lead her children, not America. If she's a good politician, let her speak out, not run for senator. If she knows how to run a business, let her help her husband manage whatever his job is. If she's good at architecture, let her do it via the internet or a few personal meetings. I don't care much what she does, but how she does it. The woman's responsibility is to care for the children, the man's is to provide for the family. It's been that way since the dawn of time, and that's how it was with every good family in the Bible, so far as I know. I don't remember one wife in the Bible who held a "day job." If you can prove to me that one woman in the Bible, who was married, and wasn't poor and in necessity of a job, had one, I might reconsider my point. But for now, I base my beliefs on what the Bible says, and nothing else.

 

[Lessien]

But what if she had a calling from God to lead a restaurant chain or run for President? Would you say "Sorry, hon. You'll have to ignore God's calling on your life because your job is to stay home with the children"? If she knew it was God calling her, would you tell her she was wrong?

And what if you lost your job and the only thing that could save your family from bankruptcy was your wife getting a full-time job? Say, for the sake of discussion, that she could get a full-time job and you couldn't. Would you let her, or would you let your family slip into financial ruin?

 

[Doubtless]

But what if she had a calling from God to lead a restaurant chain or run for President? Would you say "Sorry, hon. You'll have to ignore God's calling on your life because your job is to stay home with the children"? If she knew it was God calling her, would you tell her she was wrong?

And what if you lost your job and the only thing that could save your family from bankruptcy was your wife getting a full-time job? Say, for the sake of discussion, that she could get a full-time job and you couldn't. Would you let her, or would you let your family slip into financial ruin?

As I said before, I don't believe God calls a woman to up a lead a restaraunt or run for president. I'm not sorry, that's the way I feel.

As for me losing my job, I would let her get a job, unless I could find one, and the moment I found one, I'd have her come back home. However, my mom went to work once at Amazon, when we needed money really badly, but she quit the first day, because she couldn't stand being away from us children. God brought us through, so I debate with myself whether it would be doubting His power, to have the woman work away from home, or whether it's just being smart. Lots of times those two things go against each other.

I'd really rather we didn't debate, though. I've lost too many friends through debating, and I've a tendency to get kicked off a board the moment the mods catch scent. I understand how you feel, and I'm sure I've made it more than clear how I feel P), and it's not like me to drop an argument, but I'd really rather we didn't debate. If you feel like it's unsovled, though, I'll continue it until it is. Deal?

 

[Lessien]

As I said before, I don't believe God calls a woman to up a lead a restaraunt or run for president. I'm not sorry, that's the way I feel.

As for me losing my job, I would let her get a job, unless I could find one, and the moment I found one, I'd have her come back home. However, my mom went to work once at Amazon, when we needed money really badly, but she quit the first day, because she couldn't stand being away from us children. God brought us through, so I debate with myself whether it would be doubting His power, to have the woman work away from home, or whether it's just being smart. Lots of times those two things go against each other.

One last question: What if she liked her job? What if she resented you for making her quit? If she was truly happy working, would you make her quit?

I'd really rather we didn't debate, though. I've lost too many friends through debating, and I've a tendency to get kicked off a board the moment the mods catch scent. I understand how you feel, and I'm sure I've made it more than clear how I feel P), and it's not like me to drop an argument, but I'd really rather we didn't debate. If you feel like it's unsovled, though, I'll continue it until it is. Deal?

If you dont' want to debate, fine. But I've actually made some friends debating. Funny.

 

[MrStaggerLee]

I agree, let's stick to the topic of fiction and writing.

If you're referring to my writing, then let me say this: I do have a female character in my story, who joins the main characters in their quest, and is not forced into a certain concept to make a point. She is humble, but strong, she accepts the men's leadership, and gives advice in matters that she has advice to give. She is not a warrior, she is a healer, though she does know how to fight, and does fight, though not so vallantly or recklessly as do the men. She is a woman, and as a woman, like you said, she thinks more clearly, and doesn't take the enemy head on as do the men. She stays back, and helps where she can. Does this make her weak? No. It makes her wise. She knows her place in the world, and sticks to it. She knows that it is the men's duty to protect her, not only because she is a woman, but because she is the only one who can heal their wounds.

Actually, I was referring to writing in general. And that's why I brought your age into it; again, I apologize if that's too personal, but I get the impression from a number of things you've said that you're speaking from stereotype or secondhand knowledge on several topics.

For instance, about female soldiers being -- what was it, 'sickeningly muscular'? That tells me you've never met any. According to the Census Bureau, there were 212,000 women serving in the US armed forces in 2003, and with recent recruitment drives there are many more now. A quick Google search on 'women in the military' will give you even more information. It shouldn't be hard for you to find out what they're like, find their blogs and forums and letters home from the front. Just a warning, though -- be sure to turn on safe-search. Apparently enough guys find them plenty hot enough that there are some rather raunchy sites devoted to them.

In one of my stories, I have a character like the healer you describe. Sister Magda is no fighter. She's a scholar and a healer, and the other characters protect her. One of the characters who protects Sister Magda is a female soldier. Sergeant Tanner is a bluff, good-natured trooper, married to an officer in another division, who treats Magda as a little sister. A lot of people have told me that Tanner reminds them of some of their friends in the armed forces, or of female police officers they know. That's what tells me I'm doing it right. I'm mirroring the real world, depicting people as they really are. That's something a writer can be proud of.

If you're writing for kids, certainly you don't want to focus on the dark side of human nature. Kids can handle more moral complexity than adults tend to think they can, but something like GTA sure isn't for the sprogs, and I reckon we all know that.

If you're writing for adults, though, I very much advise against whitewashing humanity or limiting your characters to the roles you think appropriate for them. Your book will feel dishonest, and your message will be ignored.

 

[Lessien]

If you're writing for kids, certainly you don't want to focus on the dark side of human nature. Kids can handle more moral complexity than adults tend to think they can, but something like GTA sure isn't for the sprogs, and I reckon we all know that.

If you're writing for adults, though, I very much advise against whitewashing humanity or limiting your characters to the roles you think appropriate for them. Your book will feel dishonest, and your message will be ignored.

Exactly. Know who you're writing for (or, if you don't when you start, go back when you're finished and figure it out. ). Kids don't like to be talked down to any more than adults do, and adults can smell a book where characters are forced into limited roles a mile away. Write to mirror real life in the way your characters act. If your female characters are expected to be housewives and little more, realize that not all women would be happy with that fate. Some would, sure, but some would want to become soldiers or carpenters or some other "masculine" job. At the same time, there are women in the middle of the spectrum--those who don't want to be housewives but don't want to be soldiers, either; who maybe want to be lawyers or guides or town leaders. They can succeed in fulfilling those wants or not, but if they fail, don't expect them to be happy.

 

[MrStaggerLee]

Exactly. Know who you're writing for (or, if you don't when you start, go back when you're finished and figure it out. ). Kids don't like to be talked down to any more than adults do, and adults can smell a book where characters are forced into limited roles a mile away. Write to mirror real life in the way your characters act. If your female characters are expected to be housewives and little more, realize that not all women would be happy with that fate. Some would, sure, but some would want to become soldiers or carpenters or some other "masculine" job. At the same time, there are women in the middle of the spectrum--those who don't want to be housewives but don't want to be soldiers, either; who maybe want to be lawyers or guides or town leaders. They can succeed in fulfilling those wants or not, but if they fail, don't expect them to be happy.

And of course, depending on the tech level and the society's mores, it may be very rare that a woman even realizes these possibilities exist. It may be, for instance, that only noblewomen have enough freedom from household duties and childbearing to educate themselves. Throughout much of history, that was the case, so writing a world like that is honest and won't make the reader feel he's being talked down to.

In the book with the female soldier, I realized that the level of magic that was pervasive in that world would've had much the same effect as modern medicine, which would make it possible for working-class women to pursue careers. There's a graphic novel script I'm working on, though, where the technology level is roughly bronze-age, and the magic is rare and strange. In that world, the vast majority of women spend their lives in childbirth and child-rearing, and the leadership roles they assume are along the family-matriarch, wise-grandmother line. Only the most priveleged of women have the opportunity to become magicians or priestesses, and female soldiers are unheard-of (among humans; the dragon races are another story ). That, too, is honest, because it follows naturally from the setting.

 

[Doubtless]

One last question: What if she liked her job? What if she resented you for making her quit? If she was truly happy working, would you make her quit?



If you dont' want to debate, fine. But I've actually made some friends debating. Funny.

I don't know. Most likely. Of course, I probably wouldn't marry a woman who wanted to work in the first place. It would be hard, and I wouldn't like it, but yes, for her own sake, I'd want her to quit.

I've made some friends in debating too, but...the feeling never seemed mutual.

I agree, let's stick to the topic of fiction and writing.



Actually, I was referring to writing in general. And that's why I brought your age into it; again, I apologize if that's too personal, but I get the impression from a number of things you've said that you're speaking from stereotype or secondhand knowledge on several topics.

For instance, about female soldiers being -- what was it, 'sickeningly muscular'? That tells me you've never met any. According to the Census Bureau, there were 212,000 women serving in the US armed forces in 2003, and with recent recruitment drives there are many more now. A quick Google search on 'women in the military' will give you even more information. It shouldn't be hard for you to find out what they're like, find their blogs and forums and letters home from the front. Just a warning, though -- be sure to turn on safe-search. Apparently enough guys find them plenty hot enough that there are some rather raunchy sites devoted to them.

In one of my stories, I have a character like the healer you describe. Sister Magda is no fighter. She's a scholar and a healer, and the other characters protect her. One of the characters who protects Sister Magda is a female soldier. Sergeant Tanner is a bluff, good-natured trooper, married to an officer in another division, who treats Magda as a little sister. A lot of people have told me that Tanner reminds them of some of their friends in the armed forces, or of female police officers they know. That's what tells me I'm doing it right. I'm mirroring the real world, depicting people as they really are. That's something a writer can be proud of.

If you're writing for kids, certainly you don't want to focus on the dark side of human nature. Kids can handle more moral complexity than adults tend to think they can, but something like GTA sure isn't for the sprogs, and I reckon we all know that.

If you're writing for adults, though, I very much advise against whitewashing humanity or limiting your characters to the roles you think appropriate for them. Your book will feel dishonest, and your message will be ignored.

No need to apologize. I believe that an apology should only be given if you're truly sorry for what you did (I don't mean that in an accusing way. I'm just saying that you had a right to say what you believe, and I'm glad you did.)

Actually, though, I wasn't really speaking of women-soldiers in general. I was mostly referring to warrior-women, which, in order to prevail in a battle of blades, would have to be somewhat more muscular than the average...Jospehine? And no, I've never met a woman-soldier.

I could write a book with a guy in it who does drugs, and people could tell me that reminds them of their second cousin on their mother's side, but that doesn't mean I'd feel right about portraying the addict as a decent fellow. Strong comparison, again, but truthful. I believe that women shouldn't be warriors, though they could know how to fight to protect themselves or their friends, just not as a chosen profession or path for life. Thus, I will not portray a woman who has a longing to be a warrior or a leader as a decent lady in my story. She may long for some small time to do so, just to be able to help more, but she'll learn better sooner or later, no matter how hard it has to hit her.

I'm neither writing for kids nor adults, I'm writing for myself and God, and whoever else out there wants to read my story. My story is of the type that young people may like it (not young as in kids, but young as in Young Adults), and young people are influenced by books as much as they are by their parents (well, maybe not quite so much).

Exactly. Know who you're writing for (or, if you don't when you start, go back when you're finished and figure it out. ). Kids don't like to be talked down to any more than adults do, and adults can smell a book where characters are forced into limited roles a mile away. Write to mirror real life in the way your characters act. If your female characters are expected to be housewives and little more, realize that not all women would be happy with that fate. Some would, sure, but some would want to become soldiers or carpenters or some other "masculine" job. At the same time, there are women in the middle of the spectrum--those who don't want to be housewives but don't want to be soldiers, either; who maybe want to be lawyers or guides or town leaders. They can succeed in fulfilling those wants or not, but if they fail, don't expect them to be happy.

Alright, I think I should make it clear to everyone. My story is about humanity as it could and should be. Not a fairytale full of flowers and castles, but a realistic tale of how humans could and should face obstacles (including themselves), and triumph through and for God. It's not whitewashing humanity, it's not bringing characters miles away from themselves, its depicting a journey fraught with obstacles and challenges, deaths and failures, traitors and devils; but the people overcome (not everything, but overall, they do overcome). That is humanity as it should be, not how it is. In essence, my book is a depiction of us as God could help us to be: not sinless, but triumphant in Him. And that's a tale worth telling.

And of course, depending on the tech level and the society's mores, it may be very rare that a woman even realizes these possibilities exist. It may be, for instance, that only noblewomen have enough freedom from household duties and childbearing to educate themselves. Throughout much of history, that was the case, so writing a world like that is honest and won't make the reader feel he's being talked down to.

In the book with the female soldier, I realized that the level of magic that was pervasive in that world would've had much the same effect as modern medicine, which would make it possible for working-class women to pursue careers. There's a graphic novel script I'm working on, though, where the technology level is roughly bronze-age, and the magic is rare and strange. In that world, the vast majority of women spend their lives in childbirth and child-rearing, and the leadership roles they assume are along the family-matriarch, wise-grandmother line. Only the most priveleged of women have the opportunity to become magicians or priestesses, and female soldiers are unheard-of (among humans; the dragon races are another story). That, too, is honest, because it follows naturally from the setting.

Yes, I agree with the matriarchic position of elderly women, insofar as the men don't have to listen, but do out of respect, so far as they see right. However, I can't say I believe in priestesses (look at my previous arguments about women preachers), though I'm not so opposed to women magicians.

 

[mike1515]

i think the ninja turtles have got to go deep space ninja style

 

[Doubtless]

The who should do what?

 

[mike1515]

they can use there shells as space pods lol

 

[Lessien]

I don't know. Most likely. Of course, I probably wouldn't marry a woman who wanted to work in the first place. It would be hard, and I wouldn't like it, but yes, for her own sake, I'd want her to quit.

Sorry, I have to answer that one.

For her own sake?! You make it sound like she'll be testing shark-proof suits or making sure the NASA space suits don't leak oxygen!

No need to apologize. I believe that an apology should only be given if you're truly sorry for what you did (I don't mean that in an accusing way. I'm just saying that you had a right to say what you believe, and I'm glad you did.)

Actually, though, I wasn't really speaking of women-soldiers in general. I was mostly referring to warrior-women, which, in order to prevail in a battle of blades, would have to be somewhat more muscular than the average...Jospehine? And no, I've never met a woman-soldier.

I could write a book with a guy in it who does drugs, and people could tell me that reminds them of their second cousin on their mother's side, but that doesn't mean I'd feel right about portraying the addict as a decent fellow. Strong comparison, again, but truthful. I believe that women shouldn't be warriors, though they could know how to fight to protect themselves or their friends, just not as a chosen profession or path for life. Thus, I will not portray a woman who has a longing to be a warrior or a leader as a decent lady in my story. She may long for some small time to do so, just to be able to help more, but she'll learn better sooner or later, no matter how hard it has to hit her.

If you want to portray warrior women that way, fine. It's your story, and I can't stop you. But I'd advise you to think twice.

First of all, your comparison of a woman longing to be a soldier to a drug addict was anything but truthful. Drugs are highly addictive and destructive. While you may argue that a woman could be seriously hurt on the battlefeild and could become addicted to the thrill of it, comparing that to drugs was irresponsible. Drugs cost quite a bit of money that could have been used for a higher purpose; joining the army pays fairly well. Drugs destroy the family and friends of the addict, but joining the army wouldn't necessarily do that. Her family could be mad at her, but they'd survive. The worst they could do is disown her, and while that would be horrible and heart-wrenching for her, it would NOT be the same as her always calling them for money, making them see her with her eyes all glassy, forcing them to watch her self-destruct and one day find her dead. She could die on the battlefield, but she would die serving her country or protecting someone, not searching for a high. Comparing the two is irresponsible and dangerous.

 

[MrStaggerLee]

If you're only writing for yourself, of course you can write people the way you wish they were.

If you're writing for other people, though, that's just not going to fly. To tackle your example of a drug addict being a decent guy -- some are. I know that must seem very strange to you, since you've never met any. But I have, and I can tell you that for the most part they're confused and hurting, but they're not bad people. So if you can only write a drug addict as Evil Junkie Man who isn't really human, you're better off not writing the character at all.

Consider the movie 'Trainspotting'. It follows a young man's struggles with heroin; the culture of addiction he fell into, the horrific difficulty of kicking the drug, and his sense of liberation when he left the whole thing behind. He was a decent guy all along, but his addiction made him do things he regretted. That may make you uncomfortable, but it's good writing. 'Trainspotting' may have helped some people gain the resolve to fight addiction. A story where addicts are faceless villains never will.

My point that I keep coming back to is, when you impose wishful thinking on your characters, forcing them to behave in the ways you think they ought, you cripple your writing. I advise any serious writer to avoid doing so. Understanding people who aren't 'nice' or 'right' and writing them honestly is hard work, and it can be very uncomfortable, but it's the only way to write well.

 

[Doubtless]

Sorry, I have to answer that one.

For her own sake?! You make it sound like she'll be testing shark-proof suits or making sure the NASA space suits don't leak oxygen!

Spiritual, not physical. Just like I wouldn't want to see someone curse God, so I wouldn't want my own wife to work when I believe that it's wrong. Did you know that around half if not more of all affairs occur between men and women in the workplace? Isn't it kind of stupid then, to put men and women together in a business, without their spouses being there? Sure, I mean you could say, I trust him/her, but that's just ignorant. You'd be blinding yourself to the truth of what could happen. Now I'm not saying that this is the reason it's wrong for women to work without need, but I am saying that this is another reason why it shouldn't be acceptable.

First of all, your comparison of a woman longing to be a soldier to a drug addict was anything but truthful. Drugs are highly addictive and destructive. While you may argue that a woman could be seriously hurt on the battlefeild and could become addicted to the thrill of it, comparing that to drugs was irresponsible. Drugs cost quite a bit of money that could have been used for a higher purpose; joining the army pays fairly well. Drugs destroy the family and friends of the addict, but joining the army wouldn't necessarily do that. Her family could be mad at her, but they'd survive. The worst they could do is disown her, and while that would be horrible and heart-wrenching for her, it would NOT be the same as her always calling them for money, making them see her with her eyes all glassy, forcing them to watch her self-destruct and one day find her dead. She could die on the battlefield, but she would die serving her country or protecting someone, not searching for a high. Comparing the two is irresponsible and dangerous.

I wasn't comparing the two. He said "A lot of people have told me that Tanner reminds them of some of their friends in the armed forces, or of female police officers they know. That's what tells me I'm doing it right. I'm mirroring the real world, depicting people as they really are. That's something a writer can be proud of." I was saying that I could write about a drug addict as a decent fellow, and people could say they remind them of someone, but that doesn't make my portrayal of him right. I could portray any sin as right, and people would like it, but that doesn't mean it's right. "What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right."

To tackle your example of a drug addict being a decent guy -- some are. I know that must seem very strange to you, since you've never met any.

Just to let you know, my brother is a drug addict, who has nearly killed himself by overdose, and once came over to our house, while my parents were gone, with his shotgun in hand, and he even pointed it at me in jest. This wasn't the effect of drugs but alcohol, but they're pretty much the same. I had called my parents earlier, to tell them that he was drunk, and they said they'd come home. When they got there, knowing only that my bro had been drunk and not knowing about him having a shotgun (I'd called before he brought it), they saw him stumbling out of the house, gun in hand. My mom burst into tears, thinking he had killed us, and we nearly kicked him out of the aparment we were letting him live in. However, we didn't. He stayed with us for a few more months, before he got his friend arrested for DUI, and we sent him back to his old home.

I love my brother dearly, but that doesn't mean I consider his actions decent. I have sympathy for him, I understand him more than anyone in our family, but that doesn't mean I'd write a book about him, and portray his actions as righteous.

But I have, and I can tell you that for the most part they're confused and hurting, but they're not bad people. So if you can only write a drug addict as Evil Junkie Man who isn't really human, you're better off not writing the character at all.

I might as well portray the main "bad guy" in my story as a guy who's father never hugged him, and thus he hated everything good, and only needs to be shown love to make him a perfect saint who helps everyone, and loves teddy bears. Disney cliche. That probably falls under the "Evil Overlord List" of do's and don't's. Some bad guys need to be portrayed as bad. Otherwise, you're fighting a good guy who just needs a hug.

Consider the movie 'Trainspotting'. It follows a young man's struggles with heroin; the culture of addiction he fell into, the horrific difficulty of kicking the drug, and his sense of liberation when he left the whole thing behind. He was a decent guy all along, but his addiction made him do things he regretted. That may make you uncomfortable, but it's good writing. 'Trainspotting' may have helped some people gain the resolve to fight addiction. A story where addicts are faceless villains never will.

Consider the movie "Walk the Line." It sucked. The entire movie was about a guy getting high and breaking things. In the end, he was kind of redeemed (I think). Still, it sucked. I'd sooner watch the afore said Disney cliche movie.

My point that I keep coming back to is, when you impose wishful thinking on your characters, forcing them to behave in the ways you think they ought, you cripple your writing. I advise any serious writer to avoid doing so. Understanding people who aren't 'nice' or 'right' and writing them honestly is hard work, and it can be very uncomfortable, but it's the only way to write well.

Like I said before, they don't always behave like saints. There is sin, but it's not portrayed as good. You believe that women should work, be warriors, and be leaders. I believe none of these things, so I won't write them as good things, like you do. I'm not in the habit of crowd pleasing.

 

[Lessien]

Spiritual, not physical. Just like I wouldn't want to see someone curse God, so I wouldn't want my own wife to work when I believe that it's wrong. Did you know that around half if not more of all affairs occur between men and women in the workplace? Isn't it kind of stupid then, to put men and women together in a business, without their spouses being there? Sure, I mean you could say, I trust him/her, but that's just ignorant. You'd be blinding yourself to the truth of what could happen. Now I'm not saying that this is the reason it's wrong for women to work without need, but I am saying that this is another reason why it shouldn't be acceptable.

Do you realize that what you said is incredibly insulting to women in general? Yes, affairs do occur in the workplace. And it's good to want your wife to be faithful. But not letting her work because there's a chance she might have an affair shows that you don't trust her. She'd feel like you didn't trust her enough to let her work around men--even if you did trust her in other matters. Not letting your wife hold a job outside the home because she might have an affair is unfair and insulting.

How would you like it if your wife wouldn't let you work because you might have an affair? Or if she demanded you call her every five minutes to make sure you weren't doing anything questionable? I know you want her to be moral, but there's a double standard here that is insulting and hypocritical.

 

[Lessien]

I wasn't comparing the two. He said "A lot of people have told me that Tanner reminds them of some of their friends in the armed forces, or of female police officers they know. That's what tells me I'm doing it right. I'm mirroring the real world, depicting people as they really are. That's something a writer can be proud of." I was saying that I could write about a drug addict as a decent fellow, and people could say they remind them of someone, but that doesn't make my portrayal of him right. I could portray any sin as right, and people would like it, but that doesn't mean it's right. "What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right."

He wasn't talking about portraying the sin as right; he was talking about portraying the sinner as a nice guy. You can show drugs as a horrible, ugly thing while showing a drug addict as a nice guy caught up in sin. "Love the sinner, not the sin." For example, my uncle is a drug addict, but does that mean I don't love him? No. He has some character flaws and yes, drugs are a major problem for him. But the fact that he uses drugs doesn't make him evil. The drugs themselves are bad; the person who uses them isn't neccessarily evil. You can show the good qualities of a drug addict without glamorizing drugs.

Just to let you know, my brother is a drug addict, who has nearly killed himself by overdose, and once came over to our house, while my parents were gone, with his shotgun in hand, and he even pointed it at me in jest. This wasn't the effect of drugs but alcohol, but they're pretty much the same. I had called my parents earlier, to tell them that he was drunk, and they said they'd come home. When they got there, knowing only that my bro had been drunk and not knowing about him having a shotgun (I'd called before he brought it), they saw him stumbling out of the house, gun in hand. My mom burst into tears, thinking he had killed us, and we nearly kicked him out of the aparment we were letting him live in. However, we didn't. He stayed with us for a few more months, before he got his friend arrested for DUI, and we sent him back to his old home.

I love my brother dearly, but that doesn't mean I consider his actions decent. I have sympathy for him, I understand him more than anyone in our family, but that doesn't mean I'd write a book about him, and portray his actions as righteous.

See above.

I might as well portray the main "bad guy" in my story as a guy who's father never hugged him, and thus he hated everything good, and only needs to be shown love to make him a perfect saint who helps everyone, and loves teddy bears. Disney cliche. That probably falls under the "Evil Overlord List" of do's and don't's. Some bad guys need to be portrayed as bad. Otherwise, you're fighting a good guy who just needs a hug.

You and I both know that life is more complicated than that. Evil overlords need more than hugs to help them; even therapy may not be enough. But every bad guy has a reason for being bad.. Here's an example of a "good" villain:

Magneto from the X-Men movies is, in one sense, evil, but in another, he just has a skewed set of morals. A survivor of the Jewish Holocaust, he now sees mutants persecuted for something out of their control, he wants to prevent mutants from suffering a similar fate. He often resorts to terrorism to accomplish his goals, the most obvious example being when he planned to turn prominent world leaders into mutants, although there was a big chance they would die and Rogue would be killed in the process. Do his benevolent motives make his actions right? No, but they do explain his actions, and they're part of what makes Magneto one of my all-time favorite characters.

Consider the movie "Walk the Line." It sucked. The entire movie was about a guy getting high and breaking things. In the end, he was kind of redeemed (I think). Still, it sucked. I'd sooner watch the afore said Disney cliche movie.

I loved that movie! The guy was Johnny Cash, and although they only showed his being redeemed by June Carter, he became a better man with God's help. I happened to love that movie, not because Johnny was perfect or near-perfect, but because he was a decent man underneath it all and because he eventually let his better qualities shine through. It's about redemption, not a near-perfect man in an imperfect world.

 

[Doubtless]

Do you realize that what you said is incredibly insulting to women in general? Yes, affairs do occur in the workplace. And it's good to want your wife to be faithful. But not letting her work because there's a chance she might have an affair shows that you don't trust her. She'd feel like you didn't trust her enough to let her work around men--even if you did trust her in other matters. Not letting your wife hold a job outside the home because she might have an affair is unfair and insulting.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said that. However, you missed the point above that, and selected only what you wanted to reply to.

How would you like it if your wife wouldn't let you work because you might have an affair? Or if she demanded you call her every five minutes to make sure you weren't doing anything questionable? I know you want her to be moral, but there's a double standard here that is insulting and hypocritical.

Every five minutes would be a bit excessive, but if she really didn't want me working on a job with women, I'd have no problem quitting. I'd find work somewhere else. I'll eat off the plate I serve, eh?

He wasn't talking about portraying the sin as right; he was talking about portraying the sinner as a nice guy. You can show drugs as a horrible, ugly thing while showing a drug addict as a nice guy caught up in sin. "Love the sinner, not the sin." For example, my uncle is a drug addict, but does that mean I don't love him? No. He has some character flaws and yes, drugs are a major problem for him. But the fact that he uses drugs doesn't make him evil. The drugs themselves are bad; the person who uses them isn't neccessarily evil. You can show the good qualities of a drug addict without glamorizing drugs.

One of the characters who protects Sister Magda is a female soldier. Sergeant Tanner is a bluff, good-natured trooper, married to an officer in another division, who treats Magda as a little sister. A lot of people have told me that Tanner reminds them of some of their friends in the armed forces, or of female police officers they know. That's what tells me I'm doing it right. I'm mirroring the real world, depicting people as they really are. That's something a writer can be proud of.

The above quote tells me that MrStaggerLee isn't saying that "Sergeant Tanner" is doing any wrong. I believe that as a soldier she would be doing wrong. Everybody, so far, has been telling me nothing but to go against what I believe, and portray what I believe to be a sin as a fine thing to do. Nobody said anything about portraying a woman's longing to be a soldier as a sin, and still portraying her as a good woman. I said that, but you and MrStaggerLee, so far, have said nothing but to write true to human nature. All that tells me is that I'm to forsake my beliefs. I will not.

See above.

I'm sorry about your uncle. I'll try to remember to pray for him as often as I can.

You and I both know that life is more complicated than that. Evil overlords need more than hugs to help them; even therapy may not be enough. But every bad guy has a reason for being bad.. Here's an example of a "good" villain:

Magneto from the X-Men movies is, in one sense, evil, but in another, he just has a skewed set of morals. A survivor of the Jewish Holocaust, he now sees mutants persecuted for something out of their control, he wants to prevent mutants from suffering a similar fate. He often resorts to terrorism to accomplish his goals, the most obvious example being when he planned to turn prominent world leaders into mutants, although there was a big chance they would die and Rogue would be killed in the process. Do his benevolent motives make his actions right? No, but they do explain his actions, and they're part of what makes Magneto one of my all-time favorite characters.

Sometimes, you need a "bad" bad guy. Not just someone who is misunderstood. Even if they are misunderstood, sometimes they need to be fought, not reasoned with. People could say all they want to that Saddam Hussein was just misunderstood, but that doesn't negate the fact that he deliberately killed thousands of humans for no reason. If I were to go and shoot a hundred people, killing every one of them, would you say that, because of my "reasons" for being bad, I should be portrayed as a fine chap who just happens to be a mass-murderer? No! I'd be portrayed as a vile, wicked man, who knew he was murdering a hundred innocent people, and should be shot on sight.

I loved that movie! The guy was Johnny Cash, and although they only showed his being redeemed by June Carter, he became a better man with God's help. I happened to love that movie, not because Johnny was perfect or near-perfect, but because he was a decent man underneath it all and because he eventually let his better qualities shine through. It's about redemption, not a near-perfect man in an imperfect world.

I had a feeling you'd probably have liked it. I didn't. The whole movie seemed pointless, like the director just really wanted to show off his knowledge of drug addiction, or something.

 

[Lessien]

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said that. However, you missed the point above that, and selected only what you wanted to reply to.

The point I got was that you believe women shouldn't work because they might have affairs. If that wasn't what I should have taken away from that, I'm sorry. What exactly were you getting at?

The above quote tells me that MrStaggerLee isn't saying that "Sergeant Tanner" is doing any wrong. I believe that as a soldier she would be doing wrong. Everybody, so far, has been telling me nothing but to go against what I believe, and portray what I believe to be a sin as a fine thing to do. Nobody said anything about portraying a woman's longing to be a soldier as a sin, and still portraying her as a good woman. I said that, but you and MrStaggerLee, so far, have said nothing but to write true to human nature. All that tells me is that I'm to forsake my beliefs. I will not.

I'm sorry if it seemed that way. What I was trying to do is get you to see my side of the issue. Times have changed. Women have more opportunites open to them, and it's hypocritical to expect women to do nothing but care for the kids or hold a "feminine" job while men have the entire world open to them. I'm working hard to become a journalist, and I'll keep my job whether I get married and have kids or not. In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with having a female soldier or politician. The Bible has no references to female politicians because it was a different time period. Women had different roles then, but as I've said before, times have changed and thank goodness they have. I've looked for a verse that says women can't be soldiers or politicians, and I can't find it.

I'm sorry about your uncle. I'll try to remember to pray for him as often as I can.

Thanks.

Sometimes, you need a "bad" bad guy. Not just someone who is misunderstood. Even if they are misunderstood, sometimes they need to be fought, not reasoned with. People could say all they want to that Saddam Hussein was just misunderstood, but that doesn't negate the fact that he deliberately killed thousands of humans for no reason. If I were to go and shoot a hundred people, killing every one of them, would you say that, because of my "reasons" for being bad, I should be portrayed as a fine chap who just happens to be a mass-murderer? No! I'd be portrayed as a vile, wicked man, who knew he was murdering a hundred innocent people, and should be shot on sight.

Yes, sometimes you do need a "bad" bad guy. But my point was this: It's not immoral to have a "good" bad guy. Some bad guys are evil; some are just misunderstood. I prefer the misunderstood type, but sometimes the evil type suits the story better.

I had a feeling you'd probably have liked it. I didn't. The whole movie seemed pointless, like the director just really wanted to show off his knowledge of drug addiction, or something.

And it's fine that you didn't like it. The movie wasn't intended to glamorize drug addiction or show off the director's knowledge of it; it was meant as a biopic of Johnny Cash. I thought it was a bit long, but overall, a great movie.