Two Dimensions of Argument
In the previous two parts, I first argued that you can divide arguments in stories up according to whether they try to argue a specific point or whether they try to explore the facets of an argument without coming to a conclusion. I then argued that you could look at the arguments in terms of who is making them: whether the points of the argument are borne entirely by the characters, or whether by the elements of the world (setting, things that are true in that story about human nature, physics, magic, etc).
Having sliced up the field crudely along two dimensions, and if I assume that these dimensions are actually orthogonal (that is, describing independent aspects) then we have four kinds of stories:
I. Exploratory stories where the characters make the arguments.
II. Exploratory stories where the world makes the arguments.
III. Persuasive stories where the characters make the arguments.
IV. Persuasive stories where the world makes the arguments.
The question naturally arises of whether these two axes really are independent. That is, is there something about the nature of making your arguments through characters vs. through the world that makes the story inherently exploratory or persuasive? Are arguments made by characters inherently exploratory, and arguments made by the world inherently persuasive? I want to say “No” and move on, but there’s this matter of authorial intent and distance that I’m having a hard time getting past.
When the argument is made purely with characters, there’s a certain distance between the author and the arguments. Hannibal Lecter can sound very intelligent, but due to the content of his character, I doubt readers think that Thomas Harris himself believes anything Lecter says. The context instead causes villains’ arguments to become a sort of challenge: “These claims can’t be true… but can you disprove them?” It adds tension at a meta-level, tension between the reader and the book.
Because of that distance, though, I think that there’s a sense that arguments made purely through what the characters say and do (even in 1st person perspective stories) are more inherently exploratory, that it’s harder to divine what the author really thinks from this sort of presentation. Call it plausible deniability, or the fictional equivalent of constantly saying “One could argue that…” Conversely, I think there’s a sense of Freudian slip to world-building, that the author is somehow making more subconscious decisions there, and so arguments made in that way are more visceral.
I think, though, that this is only tendency, and doesn’t actually reflect a deeper connection between the axes. Back in To Build A Fire, London is making the opposite argument that the character is. The character thinks he’s just fine out there, that all he needs to do is be prudent, and he acts accordingly. In fact, if you were to go through that story and strip out the lines with the character talking to himself, you’d still be left with London’s argument — but it would be less clear for lack of the contrast. It would basically just be some dude in the woods. That might be an interesting writing exercise, actually. (In some ways, that story contains not so much an argument as a counter-argument: The character explains one point of view, and the story demonstrates that it is wrong.)
Still, I’m not entirely sure that I can back up that statement that this is tendency only, so I’m going to punt the question for now. Do you have any thoughts on the subject, dear reader?
Having established what I hope will be a useful vocabulary for discussing the kinds of arguments found in stories, I now want to get into the arguments themselves. In the next part, I’m going to talk about the concept of stasis, the point of disagreement where an argument lies. (I’m not sure yet whether that post will be in one part or two)