The anthology we are using in my ethics and fiction class has an essay by Card called “The Problem of Evil in Fiction”. This essay was originally published in Card’s collection of essays, A Storyteller in Zion (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1993) and has been reprinted with Card’s permission. A quick Google found the article online, under the title, “A Mormon Writer Looks at the Problem of Evil in Fiction“. The basis of the article is Card’s Sesquicentennial Lecture on Mormon Arts, Letters and Sciences, given in 1980.
I have never read Card, but over the years many students have recommended Ender’s Game, his best known science fiction novel, along with Ender’s Shadow. He has won both the Hugo and Nebula awards. He writes scifi (The Memory of Earth; Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus), biblical novels (Stone Tables; Rachel & Leah), fantasy (Magic Street; Enchantment; Lost Boys), reflections on writing (Characters and Viewpoint; How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy).
A conservative political activist, he opposes legalizing same sex marriage and believes that homosexuality is morally and socially unacceptable. This stance made his receipt of an award for young adult fiction in 2008 controversial.
The textbook version of this essay is much shorter omits all of the Mormon stuff. The longer essay is much better.
What follows is a quick summary with some comments.
Card begins with, “Some people regard it as their life’s work to drive pornography, the ultimate artistic expression of evil, completely out of their community.” I think some pornography can be evil, but it depends.
I would also like to know what he means by “evil” and how it differs from, for example “suffering”. he says later that natural disasters cause suffering but it would be boring to only write about that. I personally think people can cause each other suffering without being evil, and that’s an interesting thing to write and read about.
Card then responds to the question of why he writes “such depressing stuff”. He begins his answer by asking, “Well, why indeed? After all, fiction isn’t fact. Fiction is lies.” This is problem #2. A lie implies an intent to deceive. Later Card amends this odd statement, saying a story must “ring true”.
Then he writes,
He who writes about happy people being happy in a happy world ain’t gonna last long as a writer. Nobody cares about that happy stuff. Evil is intrinsically more interesting. More entertaining. Evil sells.
The brisk sales of romance in the recession suggest otherwise. Then again, plenty of bad stuff happens in a romance novel. I agree with Card that a 100% sunshine and puppies novel is not going to work for adults, but not because they want “entertainment” but because such a novel wouldn’t have even the “illusion of truth.”
While readers of fiction know perfectly well that what they’re reading is made up, they also insist on the illusion of truth and on truth itself. First, the illusion of truth, because while the reader surrenders himself to the writer’s controlled tour of the life experiences of some interesting characters, the reader insists on some correspondence between the surface details of the story and the reality that the reader knows in his own life. It must ring true. And second, the substance of truth, because no matter how many deliberate lies a writer tells, his own most deeply held beliefs about good and evil will inevitably appear in his work. It is impossible to write a morally neutral work of fiction.
Card says it is impossible for a writer to avoid evil in his book, both because there is evil in the world, and because there is evil in the writer.
He then says there are 3 types of evil in fiction:
Evil depicted in fiction.
Evil advocated in fiction.
Evil enacted in fiction.
All fiction depicts evil, and that’s not morally problematic.
It’s the enacting of evil, as in pornography that is wrong. Why? Because it “teaches the viewer or reader to seek more such instant pleasure, eventually drawing the consumer into a fantasy world where women love to be treated cruelly and where the only good is self-gratification.” Card says this isn’t even really fiction, but “a masquerade of fiction” because its purpose is not aesthetic but orgasmic.
I do think sexual pleasure is a kind of pleasure that, often, the more one has, the more one wants, and the further one pushes for new experiences. This makes it slightly more dangerous than some other things. I sometimes wonder if we can see this happening in erotica. First it’s m/m, then it’s BDSM, then it’s menage, then its sex with beasts. Does this reflect that natural broadening of a subgenre, or a core of readers who keep seeking that new sexual experience?
We all know when we are consuming porn, says Card, but what about explicit material in other books, such as a John Irving novel? Card says, sensibly enough, that some ignorant readers might read these as porn, because they do not understand the author’s point. This is a problem for ignorant readers, not for the books themselves.
What about fiction that advocates evil? It’s hard to figure out what he says here. He doesn’t give any examples of fiction that advocates evil, and I honestly have no idea how he defines it.
Card does say that “It is impossible for a writer to convincingly violate his own conscience in his fiction.” In short, who the writer is will out in the writing, no matter what he or she actually writes.
I have a problem with this. I think we need to distinguish between the person and the writer, and I further think that who we are is not 100% transparent to any of us. Our “conscience” is our conscious image of our best self. But there is a lot more to us, and we can be strangers to ourselves.
Card then says that he must be “a lover of goodness and a student of evil”. He cites Tolkien, who was a decent man yet wrote characters like — not the simplistic Sauron, or the orcs — but Frodo wrestles with temptation, who is overwhelmed by evil at the end. I mentioned in a recent post that it is unusual in an essay or book that treats ethics and fiction to see references to genre fiction, so it is nice to see the Tolkien references.
He adds, in a passage I like,
You’ve all heard of escapist fiction, I’m sure. It’s a myth, and one with little foundation in fact. The standard image is of a twenty-three-year-old housewife, three small children biting at her ankles, ironing with one hand as with the other hand she holds in front of her face a paperback book. On the cover is a picture of a girl about her age, running from a dark and sinister building that has one lighted window, as the sky looms and threatens a storm-and worse. Of course, say the believers in the stereotype. She’s escaping from her humdrum life into a much more interesting fictional existence.
Escaping? I think not. Do you know what goes on in those gothic novels? If you actually identify with the main character, something that I am only occasionally capable of doing, you are put through terrible tension, an ordeal of fear and uncertainty, mistrust, pain, betrayal. The inevitably happy ending comes as a blessed relief, because along the way the poor reader has been through a grueling experience.
Card thinks fiction is cathartic, and he writes approvingly of the various emotions the author can arouse in the reader. But there are limits. He says “I have never written a scene in which I believed either sex or violence was provocative, though I have written scenes in which sex and violence take place.”
romance writers write provocative scenes, as do thriller or mystery or horror writers. these scenes are sometimes meant to bring the reader into the sexually aroused, frightened, or murderous state of the character. One question I have is why it is ok to engage all of the reader’s responses except for those?