Read on Twitter
I've noticed that a lot of people think I write morally gray characters. Personally, I've never thought of it that way. I write morally gray *societies.* There's a difference.
(And let's face it, all societies are morally gray, aren't they?)
(And let's face it, all societies are morally gray, aren't they?)
Let me explain. In my mind, a morally gray character is one that pursues relatable and/or noble goals by acting in violation of their society's norms and/or laws. Walter White from Breaking Bad has his reasons for selling meth, but doing so is definitely against society's rules.
In contrast, one of my favorite TV shows, Rome, has characters who carry out crucifixions, torture, rape, and murder. But they do these things within the accepted framework of their society. They're not morally gray in their world. They're celebrated soldiers, senators, nobles.
One of the joys for me as a writer and reader is exploring not just different characters, but different societies. Often people paint characters with the same brush of "morally gray" when judging them in the context of our current time and culture rather than the one in the text.
As a writer, think about whether your characters are acting toward their goals *with* or *against* what their society says they can and should do. Because that dictates the reactions they face, the rewards and costs, the effects on them narratively, practically, psychologically.
As a reader and a writer, when you encounter a character who's "morally gray" i.e. they get an unsettled reaction from the audience, is it because they're breaking society's rules? Or because they're following them?
(P.S. I love the latter. That's totally my creative catnip.)
(P.S. I love the latter. That's totally my creative catnip.)
