Is Moral or Immoral the easiest.?

[Nephylim]

This was a thought I was sitting here thinking to myself, as I do, and I thought that you might like to join in the thinking about the thought.

 

Do you think that it would be easier

 

 

For a writer who is immoral to write a character who was very moral OR

 

For a writer who is moral to write a charcater who was very immoral.

 

I am leaning towards the thought that it is easier for a moral person to write an immoral character because is it easier for someone with morals to imagine what it would be like to not have them that for someone without morals to understand what it would be like to have them.

 

In other words... it is easier for a good person to think bad thoughts than for a bad person to think good thoughts... kind of

[JensenC]

This was a thought I was sitting here thinking to myself, as I do, and I thought that you might like to join in the thinking about the thought.

 

Do you think that it would be easier

 

 

For a writer who is immoral to write a character who was very moral OR

 

For a writer who is moral to write a charcater who was very immoral.

 

I am leaning towards the thought that it is easier for a moral person to write an immoral character because is it easier for someone with morals to imagine what it would be like to not have them that for someone without morals to understand what it would be like to have them.

 

In other words... it is easier for a good person to think bad thoughts than for a bad person to think good thoughts... kind of

 

If we are looking at people with more bad than good and people with more good than bad I think it can be more challenging and fun to write oposite to themselves. I think when writers write characters too close to themselves they find it difficult or get bored so they attempt to make them interesting in a way that conflicts with everything we have seen of their personality so far.

 

I think acting is the same, in interviews actors will often say they prefer playing someone completely ulike themselves so they can completely take on that role and become that person so the can react the way the chracter does not the way they would. I think that is what a writer does in a way they take on the character and act them out and when it is someone different they have to follow the thought process of why their character in doing or saying this and is it really them or the character. I just think it makes it more believable and interesting.

 

So on that theory I guess both would find it equally challenging but i don't know if one would be easier, just because someone is 'bad' it doesn't mean they don't know good just like good know bad, its all down to choice so I honestly don't think either would be easier.

 

That said It depends how bad the person is and if they have never known any good then i really think they would struggle to connect to good thoughts and actions and they are probably serial killers in the making. Most people with good thoughts have plenty of bad thoughts and can connect with anger and hate and jealousy but people who have really never known much good will probably not have known real love friendships, honesty, truth, ect ect so how can they ever identify wth it unless they knew it at some point and then they are probably in the first category and mostly bad with some good thoughts.

Edited March 1, 2010 by JensenC

[JamesSavik]

People are innately evil so the concept of morality is merely an illusion that people use to justify what they were going to do anyway.

[Tiger]

I'm not quite that cynical. However, I think morality is subjective, so how are you to say who's immoral or immoral? What one person may see as moral may be immoral to another and vice versa. So you can only really compare characters to your own morals and see if they pass the litmus test. I can write either kind. Then again, there's also societal and social views on morality. So if that's your measurement for morality versus immorality, it would probably be more difficult for an immoral person to write a moral character without overdoing it a bit, or in other words, creating a character that is so moral that it would make the average person sick. I don't see a moral person would have too much trouble writing an immoral character. They're normally the bad guys.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Tiger

[thatboyChase]

Honestly, the best kind of person is an evil person.

[Toast]

A monster that is a hero, a saint that is a killer. Much more interesting, I think. I am not a fixed point, moral or immoral, why would I fix my characters as points as moral or immoral.

[Graeme]

I don't think it has anything to do with whether the author is moral or immoral. It's how good their imagination is

 

Personally, I have a lot of trouble writing 'bad' characters. My first novel was supposed to be about a homophobic teenager. I couldn't do it. He started off superficially as being homophobic, but I couldn't maintain it because to do so would require me to justify his homophobia to himself. Similarly, in my latest novel, the nominated 'villain' turned out to be a fairly nice guy who had made a huge mistake. That's just the way he turned out.

 

For me, a character has to be internally consistent. That means they have to have reasons for what they do and why they do it. The reasons don't have to make sense, but the character has to be believe them. The result, for me, is that I have a great deal of trouble writing about a character who is immoral, because they all tend to come out as flawed, rather than immoral.

[Nephylim]

Hehe awesome. I knew you guys would come up with something off the wall I LOVE writing evi (if evil exists) l characters, especially those who are superficially sweet and lovely hiding a heart of pure evil.... hehehe.

[Jamie de Valen]

So much about morality and immorality is subjective.

 

For some reason (often only known to ourselves) we often feel strongly that something is moral or immoral, but that ends up being our own personal standard. It's why evil sometimes seems intriguing.

 

It kinda goes back to the 'selfish gene' discussion that has come out of Darwin's theories.

 

Religions of course rush in and 'set' morality... funny thing is they set it according to their beliefs, which I guess makes sense if your out there evangelizing. Suicide in some religions is considered a sin instead of a cry for help, or the consequence of a trouble mind. But to me (and many others) me the idea of someone going to a place called hell because out of desperation, depression, persecution, or fear they surrendered to their personal demons is a crock.

 

Personally I can write a character that is so good that pure butter wouldn't melt in their mouth... and I can write one that is so evil that readers truly hate them. What does that say about me??? Maybe I'm a good person with an evil streak or an evil person with a good streak... probably the later if you ask my friends.

[MalicSign]

People are innately evil so the concept of morality is merely an illusion that people use to justify what they were going to do anyway.

 

Morality is a code by which people adhere to, and therefore isn't an illusion unless there really are no people that adhere to this code. Whether or not a person is naturally evil, external influence and fear can and often do lead to a moral existence. This fear causes people to think in ways that are socially 'safe', or otherwise moral behavior in most cases.

Edited March 3, 2010 by MalicSign

[Rick]

I don't know if I would say that a person can be moral or immoral. Their actions and thoughts can be moral, but the person him/herself cannot be moral or immoral, they can only be a moral agent. Morality, or ethics, is a standard of behavior - principles of right action - based on reasoning and choices. Something can at the same time be subjectively moral and objectively immoral. We all make moral and immoral decisions, however, these individual decisions do not make us a good or bad person. So, can a good person create a "bad/evil" character? Sure. Can a bad/evil person create a "good" character? Absolutely.

[Former Member]

"Cui peccare licet peccat minus" - He who is allowed to sin, sins less.

 

Ovid's statement may not apply so much here, but one can adapt it. An immoral man is 'allowed to sin' thus he will not act immorally as often as a moral man would.

[Nephylim]

"Cui peccare licet peccat minus" - He who is allowed to sin, sins less.

 

Ovid's statement may not apply so much here, but one can adapt it. An immoral man is 'allowed to sin' thus he will not act immorally as often as a moral man would.

 

Taking this, we can argue that it would be easier for an immoral writer to write a moral character because they would not feel that sense that 'to be moral I have to choose the right path every time' because they know from experience that they do not act immorally as often as a moral writer would believe them to, and can thus assume that the reverse is true.

 

Cause I think I just talked myself around in circles I'll restate:

 

 

Immoral people can write moral characters easier because they know moral people aren't really that moral

 

 

 

 

 

Now that's an intersting concept. Nicely put.

[Mark Arbour]

Morality is a code by which people adhere to, and therefore isn't an illusion unless there really are no people that adhere to this code. Whether or not a person is naturally evil, external influence and fear can and often do lead to a moral existence. This fear causes people to think in ways that are socially 'safe', or otherwise moral behavior in most cases.

 

A code by which people adhere to? More like a code to which A person adheres to. Morals are subjective, not objective.