The Good, the Bad, and the Literature:
“What is done out of love always
takes place beyond good and evil.”
-Aphorism 153: Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
We live categorically
by two morals, and sometimes meet in-between; those who are good and those who
are evil. We rule, we think, we judge, we swear, we honor, we curse, we desire,
we hate, we love, we interact, we decide, we critique, we use these two words
as our basis for life itself. We also write about it, write in favor, against,
justify, deny, and even half-heartedly advocate for either side. Life and death
are ruled by these concepts in the realm of literature, governing with either
absolutes or ambiguity. Here we shall explore the good, the bad, and the
literature; understanding several aspects of morality from both corners; analyzing counterparts and
arguments; discovering stories with conflicting and contradicting imagery of
these two; and possibly even decipher what is good and evil, in the context of
literature throughout some of history’s greatest masterpieces that tackled
malevolence and benevolence in their themes.
Firstly, one must define the meaning of good or
goodness. In philosophy, being benevolent is to do certain actions that enact
something desirable for others. For example, giving an apple you just found to
a stranger without the desire of needing something in return. It shows
benevolence and how it may bring joy to the other party. It also brings
positive traits like beauty, kindness, decency, and love. Throughout history,
there have been many acts of kindness, either from one being or for humanity.
It could be justified that we humans are good in nature when seen through innocent eye-lens.
Now, what is bad or evil? Philosophy dictates
that it would be the opposite of good, malevolence in humans is the act of
inflicting an undesirable emotion onto others. It shows the dirty, ugly, and
terrible side of humanity. Being evil is to create chaos and wreak havoc and
spread hatred; the most accurate example would be the cardinal sins in the
Judeo-Christian mythos. Acts that show the real, raw, and uncut like, murder,
rape, torture, lying, stealing, etc., the nasty aspects we rarely want to
acknowledge. Several psychological and philosophical authors have composed that
evil is humanity's true nature. Generally, it is the lack of empathy or
compassion for others.
In literature, there are
strict guidelines to follow in order to create a character. These traits could
be made up or played as instructed. Often found in the role-playing game Dungeons
& Dragons, there are alignments in which players decide whether they
are good, evil, or in-between. The alignments are set in a three-by-three grid,
where the top is for the good, the middle layer is for neutral, and the lower layer
is for evil. The first layer consists of Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic
Good. The middle layer consists of Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral.
And the final layer consists of Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil. With
this, we shall base and identify our literary characters, or merely understand
their views by evil and good if possible.
However, we first have
to clarify each alignment. Starting with the first tier: Lawful Good refers to
individuals with a heart of gold, unyielding to anything that is evil, and
righteous; Neutral Good have a slight deviation, but not a noticeable one,
mostly goodness with purpose; Chaotic Good are those that are careless with
their actions yet have good intentions behind them. In the neutral tier:
Neutral Good has no specific leniency, but still prefers good actions above
all; True Neutrals are the centrists without real leniency; Chaotic Neutrals are
the individuals are driven by greed, those that will only do actions that benefit
their cause or self, regardless of anyone outside of them. And the Evil tier:
Lawful Evil are those with the right intentions but with the wrong course of
action, those that take “for the greater good” literally; Neutral Evil are
those slightly fading their humanity and embracing evil with conscious or an
important message to bring; Chaotic Evil are the most heinous individuals,
those that revel in the pain and suffering of others, they are often referred to as
psychopaths.
Deistic Good
and Evil:
“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi
ch'entrate’.”
-Canto 3 of Dante’s Inferno
To begin our journey,
we must commence with the most black and white, bare-bones understanding of
good and evil…Or is it? The Holy Bible hosts some of the most perverse stories,
while also including inspirational words of wisdom. Stories of triumph and
defeat, of loss and gain. To my understanding, the main characters to this
literary work tend to be God (as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
super-being that witnesses over humanity) and Satan (as the ultimate evil that
only wishes to corrupt humanity, God’s creation, for envy and anger towards God).
Of course, there are
theologians and atheists alike that will eternally debate the reality or the
morality of both sides, but from the literary standpoint, there is no clear view
as to who is the good character and who is the evil one. For example, Satan is
tasked with torturing sinner (those who break biblical laws) for eternity, in
essence, working as a good character. On the other hand, we must see why: Satan
was forced to work as the punisher due to him abandoning heaven.
Another one would be the moral contradiction that some have encountered when viewing God under the
microscope. Some equate these to logical fallacies, while others just see them
as inconsistencies in the overall literary work. God being all-knowing should
know what is the fate of a human, then why create evil in the first place? I do
not claim to be a theologian, nor do I fully understand the entirety of the
Bible, but when creating a character (remember, from the point of view of a
writer) there have to be some consistencies with who they are, what they are,
and what they believe in. The traditional understanding of Jesus and the Devil
has been fought well over several centuries and finding who is who will not
yield worthy results in the grand scheme of things.
Now, in the same vein
of religious literature, we have the Divine Comedy. I am aware that there are
two more chants aside from Inferno (Purgatorio and Paradiso), but for this
analysis, it will only focus on Inferno. Dante Alighieri was an Italian Catholic
poet from the 13th century.
Inferno, or Hell,
according to Dante Alighieri, is his perspective of what hell would be like to
those that sin. His depiction consists of nine concentric circles, each
harboring a specific group of sinners that died and Dante viewed as evil. Most
of these people were Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristoteles, while
others were more obscure catholic characters he knew about. In the end, he
encounters the biggest sinners: Satan (described as a three-headed beast), the
betrayer of Jesus (Judas Iscariots), and the two men that conspired to betray
Julius Cesar (Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus). Each sinner was
being chewed by one of the heads of Satan as his mid-section was frozen.
This is an example of
how one person perceives evil incarnate and decides to write about it. There is
no validity or societal rationale to his view, but more of a personal belief of
the inherent nature of some and their actions. Evil in this literary story has
no real effect on the overall narrative and poses as a means to his end. Evil
is merely a step to understand his journey into heaven or Paradiso. Dante was
only writing from the perspective of a catholic poet describing his version of
hell, purgatory, and heaven.
Great
Depression Good and Evil:
“Guy don't need no sense to be a
nice fella. Seems to me sometimes it jus' works the other way around. Take a
real smart guy and he ain't hardly ever a nice fella.”
-Of Mice and Men
Let’s switch it up and
talk about more ambiguous topics in human culture. To kill a Mockingbird has a
different approach to goodness and the deceitful nature of humanity. Published
in 1960 by the American author Harper Lee.
Taking place in the
early thirties, Jean Louis “Scout” Finch, a young girl born and raised in rural
Alabama must learn the differences between being a decent person and a horrible
person. There are several characters that fit the alignment previously stated,
for example, Atticus Finch, father to Scout, is often described as a good man
with good intentions, a Neutral Good person. On the other side, we can include Robert E.
Lee Ewell, a white poor man with racist ideologies, a Chaotic Evil individual,
hated by the town. And in the middle, we can find Dolphus Raymond as the Chaotic
Neutral individual that only works for his own well-being or whatever suits him
at the moment.
Each character found in
To Kill a Mockingbird can be categorized in the nine aforementioned slots, with
behavior and actions included. However, the story as a whole has is filled with
ambiguity, making Scout question her youthfulness as naivete and ignorance. Innocence
is generally viewed as a good trait and oftentimes used as puppets by others
with malintent. Aspects like racism can be seen as generally bad to some, yet
this story shows how some will stick to their beliefs, even if wrong, and ride
it until they die. The concept of good in this story only stems from
humanitarian good to “respect thy neighbor”, and the bad comes from a
superiority complex. It is the give and takes of ambiguity and straight-forward
understanding between good and evil.
In the same literary
ambiance of racism, the Great Depression, and opaque depictions of good and
evil we have the masterpiece “Of Mice and Men”. Published in 1937 by the
American author John Steinbeck.
The story follows two
men in search of work smack dab in the middle of the economic crisis of the
1930s. Lennie and George come upon a farm with a decent payment and work
galore. What makes this story so relevant to the good vs. bad thesis is how it
blurs the line. We have Lennie, an intellectually challenged man with the dream
of having his own farm filled with many cuddly animals; yet he is constantly
kicked from his job due to his incompetence. Incompetence would be the wrong
word once we get to the ending of the story where Lennie accidentally (SPOILERS)
kills the wife of the farm-owner. He was remorseful, yes, but still ignorant of
why his actions were bad in the grand scheme of things. He was always confused
when George sculled him every time he killed a puppy or a small bunny with his
ginormous hands.
George on the other
hand has a terrible demeanor but means well, as all he wants to do is make
Lennie’s dream come true. Their friendship is solely based on George speaking
and Lennie keeping quiet. George, at the end, has to come to an unthinkable
choice of (SPOILERS) either killing his friend, setting him free from any
repercussion he may get after the accidental murder, or see as his only friend
gets captured and murdered in revenge.
Neither of these
characters had an inkling of evil desires or intents yet the end demonstrates
that some actions are necessary even if considered wrong. George shot Lennie,
claiming justice on the woman killed and liberating him from any further
suffering as their dream was never going to come true. Lennie did no wrong for
his capacity to understand death or consequences was that of a ten-year-old
boy partially unaware of what he does to others with his bumbling strength of a
giant.
Japanese Good
and Evil:
“In a world of darkness, you’ll only
sink further in; aim for the light.”
-Monster, chapter 66, Kenzo Tenma
Let’s take a break from
occidental literature and focus on how the Japanese view moral ambiguity, good,
and evil in modern times. We first have to look at the most cut and dry
understanding of what is good and evil with Monster, a manga (it is a black and white, illustrated comic often read from right to left) created by Naoki Urasawa in
1994.
The story follows
Doctor Kenzo Tenma in his vengeful search for a sociopathic murderer, Johan Liebert
(or at least the name we only get to know), he incidentally brought back to
life. Tenma throughout the story shows compassion and the drive to help, even
to those with terrible views like Neo-Nazism and terrorism, partially because
he views others as above himself, as a neurosurgeon. His core beliefs crumble
once he encounters his mortal enemy and wants the conviction to actually go
through with his attempt at murder to that one person he wishes to end.
Fortunately, he never got to break that moral.
Johan, our antagonist,
has the drive to kill those who wronged him in his childhood, forcing him to
become the perfect being: smart, beautiful, and charismatic. He used his
strengths to meticulously kill them all. He had no remorse for his actions and
even went as far as to contract Neo-Nazi to burn an entire street of
immigrants. You may ask if his actions were justified, but the brutality in
which he finds his victims, camouflages himself, and disappears as if he never existed
in the first place show a level of dedication to his work and no desire to ask
for forgiveness. He was willing to die for his cause.
Tenma never got to kill
anyone in the entire series, while Johan lived to kill those who had
experimented on him. On the surface, it’s cut and dry, but we have to understand
the underlying context of both. Johan only wanted to avenge the children that
were experimented with, taking justice into his own hands since no one was
willing to take that step. As for Tenma, his core values were constantly stunted
yet he persevered through every trial, always with the belief that all life has
value, no matter what.
Our second Japanese
manga is Death Note by Tsugumi Ōba in 2003, often cited as one of the best
serialized stories revolving around the subjects of good and evil.
The story follows a
young protagonist, Light Yagami, with a god complex as he grows tired of school
due to how smart he is compared to the rest of his class. He suddenly comes
across a notebook with strict instructions inside of it and a non-explicit
intent on how to utilize it. These instructions were sent by the God of Death,
Ryuk, to entertain himself. Light finds it extremely intriguing and tries to
use it. The notebook, aptly named Death Note, has the capability of killing
anyone with the name written on it.
This is one of the most
interesting stories so far, since we have a protagonist that acts as an
antagonist and the antagonist, a special investigator known as L and the
Japanese police system, trying their best to save Japan from an unknown killer,
named Kira by the people of Japan (Kira comes from how the Japanese pronounce
the word Killer).
Light uses this newfound ability to befall retribution on inmates and people he deems to have done
horrible things. He feels like he is doing justice, he often refers to himself as
Justice, to justify his delusional killings. And the working people support
him, aware that the killings were only targeted at people in prison, not
innocent individuals. Light/Kira would be characterized as Lawful Evil,
according to alignments, thus solidifying his role as a motivated protagonist
with antagonistic ideals.
On the other hand, we
have the police and the private investigator trying their best to find this
maniacal “hero” serving his own understanding of justice while breaking the
rules stipulated by society at the same time. The chief understands how they
are antagonized for stopping the killer yet keeps going as his moral dictates.
And the Investigator, although serving his own need to surpass the genius with
his own genius, finds himself fighting an intellectual battle with Kira
constantly one-upping each other on moral grounds, philosophizing who is the
most right, who is the most good to a damaged society.
To have a malevolent
protagonist while having a benevolent antagonist juxtaposing them and
intermingling them in order to question our perception of good and evil is
nothing less than the closest thing humanity can get to define our sense of
these two terms.
Ambivalent
Good and Evil:
“Beware; for I am fearless, and
therefore powerful.”
-Frankenstein, Mary Shelley
We have seen several
stands on what is good and evil, as well as questionable sides of each, but now
we look at the genre-defining book that is Frankenstein. Published in 1817 by
American author Mary Shelley.
The story mostly
follows Victor Frankenstein, a young Italian man with the desire to attain as
much knowledge as possible. He was willing to ignore any ethical or moral
dilemmas in order to satiate his hunger for information, even go against God
himself in order to build a human. Frankenstein begins his attempt and fails
several times but eventually revives an entire being. He never got to name the
being for he was too afraid of his creation and fled, escaping his responsibility.
The other part of the
story follows the being as it starts to rationalize and understand the world
around it, later wanting to find its creator, who neglected it. In a fit of
rage, the being searches and finds relatives to Victor and swearing that he
would kill them. He shows no desire to willingly hurt or inflict malice upon
Victor, all it wants is for the doctor to take responsibility for his actions
and kill his creation.
This literary work falls
into ambivalent good and evil since the being Victor created was only confused
while Victor himself was actively avoiding any relation with facing a
horrifying creature that he made, afraid that it would come to haunt him, which
it eventually did. There are many ethical rules Victor broke in order to satisfy
his curious nature and grew to regret that decision imperatively. While the
being roamed the earth, searching for meaning to his existence far beyond that
of a simple unethical experiment bound to this mortal realm with no purpose
but to exist.
Is Evil Real?
“He who does not punish Evil commands it.”
-William Shakespeare
We have always assumed evil was inherent in our
nature, born in our psyche, and nurtured through life events, but true evil can
only be spoken of and described. What this is getting at is that psychologically speaking, nothing is actually evil but chemicals in our brains
telling us to do malevolent actions. Morally speaking, yes, there are actions
that reflect our desire to inflict pain onto others for the mere desire of
pleasure, but that could be our need to fit with the crowd, ulterior motive that does not correlate with that need to feel pleasure when inflicting
misgivings onto others. On other occasions, it is the lack of self-control. We
do not consciously decide on being evil from one second to the other. There is
a gene that can cause antisocial behaviors creatively known as the “Killer
Gene” (Monoamine oxidase A) but it devolves once again to uncontrolled chemical
aspects in our brain.
We can only convey
these concepts in paper and words for in real life we are rarely to encounter
them. True evil—Chaotic Evil from the Dungeons & Dragons alignment
chart—is merely a concept of the human ideal we fear could come to fruition with
how the political, global, economical, societal, and ecological systems we have
constructed have become unstable due to our own sins.
This separation of life
from fiction is how we can come to understand ourselves as humans, knowing
when evil is committed is to obstruct the progress of goodness for the simple
pleasure of it. Evil for the sake of Evil is only a concept, like many other
ideas, we actively try to make true to ease ourselves. The existence or
non-existence can be debated, no doubt, but it will sprout no fruitful answer
anyone would need.
Conclusion:
Diversity, equality, hate, love, disturbance,
harmony, plenty more contradictions with which humans thrive to achieve, but
get caught up in themselves with their selfish personalities, ungraspable
desires, and their desperate attempts to perfection; and do not consider the
far beyond, that with which they base the hope. Striving for absolute is common
since we have yet to find meaning to our existence and therefore no limit
to the imagination and possibilities. Nevertheless, finding the answer is
purposeful and essential to understanding why we do and act as such. Easy
enough, what we desire is to grasp the concept of what is good and evil. Our
desire to categorize forces us to find that answer, yet there will always be
discrepancies as to if it is the right opinion or the wrong one.
To conclude, although there is an
over-abundance of literary material to be read and analyzed, it cannot convey
the true meaning of malevolence and benevolence as a singularity, or as a
collective, for our understanding as individuals vary extensively. Finding an
answer that is imperative in human behavior, extracted from books, stories,
essays, or scripts is nigh impossible. Literature will only give one side of
the author’s perspective on the matter, showing and describing their
understanding of right and wrong. Nihilist as it may sound, there is no
definitive answer. However, we can come up with one on our own.
"Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it."
-Mark Twain