Fiction

A few years ago at a panel discussion on Iraq or some such thing, I was intrigued by one of the speakers, who mentioned the need for more progressive standpoint in the media. This is, of course, a dead horse, but he further pointed out the need for an emphasis on non-violent conflict resolution, not only in the the factual media (and I use that term loosely), but in entertainment as well. Far too many TV shows, movies and video games emphasize violent solutions to problems, even if and when they target "the right problems." This is, of course, when they even bother to address the problems in the first place. Video game companies, movie studios and so on typically respond that they make what sells. And if you think about it, what sells is conflict. Without conflict, there is not much of a story to tell. From when I used to play Dungeons and Dragons, I remember thinking about how to come up with different conflicts for the players. I came up with four major categories of problems for heroes to overcome. These were:

1. Environmental chalenges. A mountain to climb, an earthquake, a flood, these are all challenges whose source is totally external to the heroes and generally not subject to much in the way of manipulation. The challenge pretty much must be met or avoided.

2. Logistical issues. Boring as this sounds, these are a major meat-and-potato standby of a lot of role-playing and adventure games, including the infamous "fetch and carry" quests. There is too much of something or not enough of something or things are in the wrong places and need to be moved around. A lot of real life seems to be related to this type of issue.

3. Inter-group conflicts. Countries at war, companies competing or even species fighting over resources. These conflicts give much more room for nuance because they have underlying causes that can be targeted as well as effects that can be addressed.

4. Interpersonal conflicts. Arguments, fights and the like between individuals where groups are not typically involved. In this category you also might include conflicts between an individual and a group of which he is a member.

To these five, you might also add

5. Internal or psychological problems.

In any case, I think that most interesting stories can be seen as addressing one or more conflicts that fits into one or more of these categories. In this framework, I would argue that there are really three problems with most forms of popular entertainment. The first problem is that most of it tends to focus on type 3 and 4 conflicts while paying minimal if any attention to types 1, 2 and 5. The second is that a narrow range of usually violent solutions to these conflicts are presented as the only options. The third is that realistic outcomes and concequences are glossed over.

Take, for example, your standard action movie. This is usually presented as an un-vs.-them type 3 conflict. There are terrorists attacking the White House, we need to kill them or they will kill us. This type 3 conflict is not only very unlikely compared to others, but it is oversimplified to a very black and white type of conflict, a zero-sum game if you will. The possibility of intranecine disagreement, the origins of the group dynamics and the underlying causes of the conflict are all given short shrift. Because of this very topical treatment of the causes of the problem, it is unsurprising that only one solution (kill the terrorists) really occurs to the heros and that minimal concequences are portrayed.

So what is the solution? It is three-fold. First, we need more games, movies and shows that address environmental and logistical problems in a way that is interesting. There have been some notable sucesses, but they are notable more for being the exception than the rule: The Day After Tomorrow potrayed unlikely but exciting heroism in the face of abrupt climate change rather than unlikely but exciting heroism in the face of terrorists, the cult hit series of Harvest Moon video games challenged players to make a farm run instead of killing anonymous monsters. The second step is to provide more options for alternative (i.e. non-violent) solutions to the problems presented in many video games and to show these options in TV shows and movies. This should ideally go a step beyond the vigelante hero arresting the baddies instead of killing them. For this second step to be sucessful, what is really needed is a more complex view of the causes and effects. Some producers seem to think that kids are unable to handle anything but the most simplistic of story-lines, but the sucess of some pretty good shows, movies and games seems to indicate the contrary. There seems to be a positive trend in this respect:

Batman Begins is a little more complex, albeit a bit heavy-handed, in dealing with the causes of crime than many previous Batman movies, and it was a much better film as a result (well, and also because Christian Bale is a much more convincing Batman than Val Kilmer, let alone George Clooney)

Bully is a surprisingly complex treatment of the complexities of adolescent life. While the game does include its fair share of punching out rival gangs, its really a narrative about fitting in and helping kids. Certainly a step in the right direction from the producers of Vice City, a very, very entertaining game whose focus is the violent takeover of a drug empire. The fact that Bully is almost as fun as that blockbuster hit (and one of its biggest shortcomings is the lack of such a thrilling 80s soundtrack) is a good thing. Now they have started showing more complexity in their treatment of the causes of problems, they do need a little more realism in the outcomes.

On TV, my favorite show right now is Avatar. Its meticulously reserached pan-Asian feel reminds me a lot of Initiate Brother: the four (or five) elements are based on Hindu cosmogony by way of Buddhism; they have a kung-fu master on hand to help them choreograph the four different styles (based rather convincingly on Tai Chi, Ba Gua, Shaolin Kungfu and Hung Gar); the costumes (I use the word loosely for an animated show) of the four nations are very reminicent of Tibetan or Mongolian, Northern Chinese and Korean, Japanese and Inuit clothing; they have a caligripher to do the seal-script for them and so on. It also presents a more balanced view of group conflict (the prince of the Fire nation comes to disagree with his warmongering family) and of conflict resolution, which is often non-violent. And the animation is pretty nice.

Of course for every good show like Avatar, there is a steaming pile of crap like this one that couldn't even bother to use the proper English spelling of Shaolin. (Although even in this case, there are those who are convinced that this show is a clever spoof). But this really shows the difficulty in creating better programing. I am not at a point where I am willing to censor violent games like Grand Theft Auto (although in this case, I tend to love how well done the games are and consider them almost art), or even total drivel like Xiaolin Showdown. But there is only so much good progrmaing out there. It takes a lot more effort to create something original and showing depth of thought than it does to make a cheap knockoff. Perhaps the point that I'm trying to make, which it seems is already being made by others, is that complex, meaningful work can sell, especially when it is packaged as a kung-fu adventure romp.

And we definately can create more that addresses environmental issues and the like. I've mentioned before the idea of a national-defense push for sustainable energy. I'm sure that the space race fueled a lot of sixties-wave science fiction, and computers definately inspired cyber-punk, so it's not hard to imagine that a major national energy intiative might impress the next generation of science fiction writers.