In media created for the 15-19 age group, especially dystopian and urban fantasy narratives, there is a trend of presenting the protagonist with two (or as many as six) virtues or ideals which are pitted against each other, due to circumstances which force those values to be expressed in their unhealthy extremes, to the exclusion of each other. Sometimes the young reader is railroaded by the narrative into agreeing with whichever side the protagonist ultimately takes, due to the author treating the "opposite virtue" as innately flawed or prone to extreme black-and-white thinking. Other times, the choice is agonised over by the character at first, but later it is revealed to be a false choice, under a hegemonic authority which pits various sides of society against each other as a mechanism of control.
Truth versus Beauty
Practicality versus Ambition, Realism versus Idealism, these are the oppositional virtues which clash due to being unequal in scale, urgency, or availability of resources. The protagonist and reader are challenged by the idea that "perfect" can be the enemy of "good," and "good" can be the enemy of "done." The protagonist may be torn between two friends and allies, one of them an absolutist in their thinking, with romantic high-minded ideals that lend themselves easily to the extremist belief that society must be completely overturned and reduced to anarchy, in order for an uncompromising ideal future to be achieved; the other might be a pragmatist who focuses on what can be done immediately with available resources, and likely cares about the majority of marginalised people whose
entirely real lives would be destroyed if society were overturned in the name of someone else's "ideals." The idealist sees the realist as bending unforgivably on matters of integrity. The realist sees the idealist as a fanatical madman who doesn't care how many people die to make his future happen.
At a more personal scale, this is also the opposition between Love and Hope, such as is depicted in the anime Puella Magi Madoka Magica. Love could be interpreted as embracing the entire truth and reality of a person, valuing them not just despite their flaws, but even because of those flaws. Hope could be interpreted as seeing someone's potential, and loving the person they could become, if only given the right opportunities to grow in that direction. The realist sees the idealist's "hope" as tampering with the object of one's affections, trying to coerce or control them and force them into a desired artificial shape, rather than loving them as they are. The idealist sees the realist's "love" as too insecure to hold their loved one accountable for their errors, afraid that they may be abandoned if they don't simply take what they can get.
Freedom versus Peace
Liberty versus Security, Rights versus Protections, Individuality versus Collectivism, these are the oppositional virtues which clash over how much control a society should exert over its citizens, through their laws and through the
social contract. In
The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. LeGuin, this duality is explored in terms of asking how much of
somebody else's freedom one is willing to sacrifice, in order to protect one's
own peace and prosperity. As such, this is a duality of Integrity versus Complicity, from the perspective of a character who opts for "freedom," but because it's also a discussion about the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, it is also a duality of
Deontology versus
Utilitarianism, from the perspective of a character who opts for "peace."
Zombie apocalypse narratives and stories which heavily feature
quarantine or other "needs of the many" type decisions, tend very often to side in favour of "peace" over "freedom," contrasting an urgently deadly scenario with all of the benefits of civilisation that one may attain by sacrificing some personal freedoms. Totalitarian dystopia narratives tend to side with "freedom" over "peace," contrasting modern representative democracies with whatever dictatorship or bureaucratic nightmare is depicted in the story.
Knowledge versus Trust
Does a character's curiosity drive them to self-destruction through the relentless pursuit of forbidden knowledge, resulting in eldritch horrors being unleashed upon the world through mad science or arcane ritual? Or does a character
dance through their comfortable life, convinced that
ignorance is bliss, and trusting that those who hold power have every right to monopolise information and filter what gets reported to the public? What role do censorship and disinformation play in the narrative? This pair of opposing virtues is closely aligned with the previous two sets, because truth and knowledge are shades of a similar idea, while peace and comfort likewise amount to the same thing, and the freedom to learn
is certainly a form of freedom in general. This theme has its own distinct presence, separate from the others, however, because YA fiction overwhelmingly takes the side of Knowledge, over Trust, every chance it gets, and this is the rare instance of YA authors consistently appearing to believe there is one truly correct answer to the problem, even when that does not appear to align with most real-world societies' actual
demonstrable values.
This is also the duality of implicit trust in someone's rationale or fundamental goodness, versus explicit certainty about mutually aligned goals. A character may place a great deal of trust in another character, or in their society, counting on them to simply be good and make good choices. Alternately, a character may strategise and make certain direct assumptions about how someone with goals in common will act, without any need for the object of their strategy to actually be an ally, or likable, or a good person. On a more Doylist level of analysis, an inquisitive protagonist just keeps the plot moving more effectively than one who doesn't care, and who is uncurious, so very few protagonists are trusting to the point of indifference.
Justice versus Mercy
Atonement versus Forgiveness, Wisdom versus Compassion, these are the oppositional virtues which clash over the letter and spirit of the law, and how much power a society should have to punish its citizens, and what human rights remain inviolable even for someone who has transgressed against the law. It is a question of how cruel or permissive a society can get away with being, and also how much a private citizen should apply a similar principle to the people they encounter and clash with. The question of justice versus mercy also comes up in the context of whether a dangerous foe should be allowed to remain alive, when he may return later to be a threat again. While the protagonist may have the means and might to defend themselves, and thus the
privilege of choice, not needing to confront their foe from a position of helpless desperation, the same is
not true of other innocent parties who could be taken unawares. This moral conflict is typical of
Batman versus
Superman rhetoric, and it also comes up a great deal in
high fantasy novels, such as when
Gandalf advises
Frodo that it were better that he left
Gollum alive, sooner than slay him, because some beneficial or useful event may yet result from Gollum's actions.
J.R.R. Tolkien held to the
Boethian view (at least within his stories) that evil inherently undermines and sabotages itself, because it is merely an absence of good, which good is always straining to fill, as though it were a vacuum, and force it to good ends despite its malign purposes. When a narrative subscribes to more
Manichaean perception of good and evil, however, the author will tend to default to justice as a preferred outcome over mercy, interpreting atonement and
redemption arcs as more emotionally satisfying than arcs of grace and forgiveness.
The animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender spends hours of screen time exploring both sides of this question deeply; Prince Zuko has a clearly Manichaean redemption arc, while his father Fire Lord Ozai is the beneficiary of the protagonist Aang's Boethian views about mercy. Of the two, Ozai has more personal error and viciousness to answer for, and at no point in the narrative does he perform even one solitary benevolent action - indeed, he does not even perform any action which is merely morally neutral. Every last word out of his mouth is an act of cruelty, and so is every work he performs, and every occurrence that takes place under his orders. Nowhere in the narrative does Ozai earn anything short of death, but Aang refuses to scar his own conscience by murdering Ozai once he has defeated him. Zuko's redemption arc is as much a coming-of-age plot as a process of achieving moral rectitude, to such an extent that the narrative treats "growing up" and "becoming a better person" as synonymous for Zuko, but it also functions as a secondhand atonement for his uncle Iroh, who could have spared thousands of lives by seizing the throne from Ozai when they were younger, and who treats Zuko as his second chance at fatherhood after the death of his own son. The story takes both perspectives - justice and mercy - equally seriously, and explicitly debates them through direct verbal confrontations between characters with wildly varying experiences and beliefs, such that the series functions well as a comprehensive age-appropriate treatise on the subject.
Duty versus Honour
Considering we have just gone over the role of Zuko in
Avatar, we can hardly leave aside this duality! Obligation versus Reputation, Results versus Credit, Loyalty versus Pride, these virtues clash over whether merit is even worth having when it's unacknowledged or hidden, and whether a great reputation is worth having when it comes at the cost of one's ethics or conscience. They also clash over the nature of obedience and loyalty: what makes a good follower? What makes a good representative on behalf of a group? Is it someone who will give up everything of themselves for the cause, or is it someone who will not
bend the knee at all in the face of unjust oppression or illegitimate authority? A protagonist who - in the course of saving lives or loyally serving a beloved leader - is willing to sacrifice their reputation to the hostile
court of public opinion, over a situation that will be interpreted wrongly by everyone with no chance at public redemption, will likely consider their own sacrifice to be noble and faithful. A protagonist might instead believe that no amount of lives saved is worth impugning his own honour or compromising his own integrity (such as by using "dirty" means to save those lives, or by allowing himself to be abased and humiliated, and by extension tarnishing the "
face" of others whom he represents), and so might functionally be throwing many innocent people under the bus.
Courage versus Friendship
Independence versus Interdependence, Altruism versus Solidarity, these virtues are closely related to the previous set, but they clash over whether or not it is better to rely on the support of one's allies, or to be self-sufficient. They also clash over whether it's better to sacrifice your own interests bravely and altruistically on behalf of the collective of people whom you wish to protect, or better to solve problems as a team, even if it means the entire team goes down fighting together, leaving no survivors. This specific dualism is abundantly present in
shounen anime, as rugged individualist characters attempt to take on the burden of danger on behalf of everyone else, but everyone else rejects that sacrifice and insists on stepping in to support the protagonist. Much like the freedom versus peace duality, this is a question of the needs of the many versus the needs of one, but the posture one takes to the question is from the perspective of the "one" who would suffer
willingly for others' sake, and not as a member of the "many," inflicting it upon an
unwilling few. An overlap shared with the duty versus honour duality is the question of how conciliatory or sincere one should be with one's friends: is it better to tell it to them straight, when they are in the wrong, and risk them disappointing you by responding defensively, or is it better to evade confronting them in their errors, but to strive through subtler manipulations to guide them to the right answer? Friendship and courage can be the same value, when the friendship between you fosters your courage to treat each other with honesty and authenticity, but there are still situations where even a friend who is very honest with himself will prefer that you support him when he's wrong, at least for a time.
Adaptation versus Preservation
Assimilation versus Tradition, Integration versus Pluralism, Future versus Past, Progress versus Memory, these virtues clash over what features of culture are allowed to survive into the next generation, and what customs are allowed to die out. While it's easy to read "Conservatism versus Liberalism" into this duality, in any instance of two population groups confronting each other (especially immigrants and refugees entering an established empire, or colonisers entering a land with an ancient indigenous culture), both sides will see their own side's cultural preservation as the "conservative" element, and both will see the other side's
competition (real or imagined) with their culture as a "liberal" element. This duality is also a question about who gets to write the history books, and as such, it closely relates to the "knowledge versus comfort" and "truth versus beauty" dichotomies.
Diligence versus Cleverness
Working hard versus working smart, dependability versus brilliance, efficiency versus expedience, training versus talent, steady progress versus spontaneous breakthrough, these virtues clash over what method or approach is best for learning, building, gaining wealth, growing a reputation, and advancing within hierarchy. This is the logic of the
persistence hunter versus the ambush predator, the marathon versus the sprint. We see it in fairy tales and fables, with favour given to both sides by various depictions:
Isengrim the Wolf is unsympathetic and dull of wit compared to clever
Reynard the Fox... but the hare is unsympathetic and lazy compared to the diligent tortoise. This is also a dichotomy of preparedness and planning versus resourcefulness and flexibility, and in YA novels like
Ender's Game and its sequels by
Orson Scott Card, various characters are brilliant in one or another context, either because they foresaw a situation and outmaneuvered their opponent through sheer over-preparedness and superior training efforts, or else they improvised a solution on the spot to
shock and awe a foe who was acting from a stronger position, with advantage of resources, numbers, and information. Often these are even the
same character, in different situations.
When this dichotomy is presented in the context of a challenging moral decision, the reader is prompted to decide which they consider more meritorious: the person who overcomes their own disadvantages through raw relentless effort, or the person who never found the situation difficult in the first place, and "got it right" on their very first try? Is it better to overcome hardship and earn your successes, or is it better to avoid hardship in the first place, through natural proficiency and playing exclusively to your strengths? Ambition to the point of outright cheating against competition, and noblesse oblige, are not actually exclusionary of one another, and usually what makes a character's methods sympathetic or alienating to the reader, is simply whether or not they are directed at an already-conquered foe: teen readers hate bullies, and will despise any protagonist who "punches down."
This is hardly a comprehensive list of ways these ideas manifest in YA media, but these are the approaches I have seen used most often and most compellingly. The banal simplicity of a two-dimensional villain who is simply greedy just doesn't land well with teen readers, and that simplicity does not benefit the personal development of a young person who is methodically building up their own ideas and values system. There is more than enough time for them later, in their adult life, to see just how stupid and reductive evil really can be, and how difficult it is to overcome. For now, while they are still figuring themselves out, it's a far better thing to nurture their critical thinking by encouraging them to leap first to the assumption that the world is deep and complicated, and "right or wrong" is a matter of nuanced perspective.
Iron Noder 2024, 29/30