Avoiding Mary Suetopia Implications

Soooooooo, the thing is. I am writing a story set in a world where the entire world is composed of two nearly perfectly-functioning, self-sufficient empires. Everybody is born genetically optimal, overpopulation isn't a problem because people are infertile and humanity is continued from a set number of test tube babies, pollution is nonexistent as cities are set above the landscape, and they're at an excellent rate of technological advancement. The only catch is that the two have been at war for centuries- however, as it's revealed, this is a cover anyway to keep societal dissent aimed across the ocean rather than towards their own nation, and the rulers of these empires collaborate to compose every major battle.

Then I discovered the Mary Suetopia trope, and it worries me that this setting might be prone to that.

Thing is, the protagonist is someone who feels they've been wronged by one of these nations, and sees fit to judge them and the world they've made, aiming to exterminate both sides. This is presented as a wrong cause, though, because their society is functioning so well that the "hero" is selfish and petty to think that her hatred takes priority over the necessities of humanity, and that her sacrificing her happiness is the right thing to do for the sake of everyone else. And that seems like it could easily be an accidental strawman thing: "Look, here's this society you might not agree with at first, but anyone who opposes it is a petty bastard and we should all strive to this". That's not what I'm trying to go for, but I can definitely see how it could be taken that way.

So how could I avoid this setting falling under that trope? Is it just an inevitable thing should a protagonist be incriminated for wishing harm upon a utopia? Am I reading into the "Mary Sue" part of it too much and the trope is not inherently a bad thing to take at face value? Or is it a specific thing that I'm not getting?

Why do you fight? Why do you exist?

Well, honestly, the trope description is somewhat silly, a utopia is by definition unreal and perfect. Doesn't justify author preaching, but that's because preaching is bad, not because utopiae are. Your story could be one of a utopia or dystopia, depending mostly on how it's handled. Most important is what expression a reader gets of the author's opinion. It's a lot less interesting to read a character preaching the virtues of a society if you get the impression the character's just acting as a stand-in for the author (*cough* Atlas Shrugged *cough*) than it is if it just comes off as the opinion of this one character. At best even contrasted by other characters preaching their ideologies, not only showing it's not the author pontificating on his favourite topic, but also immediately establishing conflict between characters. As long as it's handled evenly. If several characters opine, but all but one come off as bad strawmen, we're back at the first case again.

I fully agree with .

The potential problem with perfect societies (and perfect anything-elses) is twofold: For one thing, they are boring, and for another, they are unnatural to a degree which erodes suspension of disbelief. Your premise, however, avoids both of those very neatly. There's plenty of dramatic tension in the way in which the societies relate to each other and to outsiders, and their unnaturalness is made explicit and explained as the product of deliberate social manipulation. So there's no actual problem in those regards at all here, that I can see.

The preachiness trap exists regardless, of course, and statements like

suggest that there's some danger of falling into that one. Personally, I'd try to present this and every other cause as neither right nor wrong but simply the ones the characters have chosen for themselves - for certain reasons, with certain effects, and in accord with certain traits. Leaving any and all judgement to the readers. But that is, as I already qualified, partly a matter of personal preference, and a clearer kind of message doesn't automatically affect a work for the worse, as long as it's not handled obnoxiously.

Soon the Cold One took flight, yielded Goddess and field to the victor: The Lord of the Light.

Yeah, I think you have two main priorities here. First, as above, you need to show opposing viewpoints in a convincing way. Make both sides sympathetic.

Secondly, make sure you consider all the implications of your societies. The main problem I have with suetopias is that they haven't been thought through enough. The writer's clearly just thinking 'well of course everything is perfect because everyone follows my favoured political ideal', and anything that would upset that shiny image is conveniently ignored or glossed over with a smug 'oh, we fixed that'.

As long as you're fleshing out your societies in your mind and being open-minded about realistic problems they might face I don't think there should be a problem.

gloamingbrood.tumblr.com MSPA: The Superpower Lottery

I'm actually a little leery about your message. It almost sounds like you're saying rights of the individual don't matter as long as the majority is happy, and that's not something I agree with. A moral system that conflates justice with popularity is not for me.

How has your character been wronged, and why is she wrong to seek to rectify that wrong? There must be others who are unhappy with the status quo but have to sacrifice their own happiness for the happiness of the majority. What's unique about them that makes them less happy with the way things are than the majority? Without knowing the answers to these questions, I have to say it sounds like Strawman Has a Point, in my personal opinion.

It actually does sound like an interesting dilemma that's worth exploring. I agree with what some others have said. The best way to avoid Mary Suetopia is to stay neutral in the story's conflict. Portray both sides as sympathetic. While you may have your own opinion, try not to let it show in your writing, and let the reader make up their own mind.

edited 5th Dec '12 11:31:35 PM by Topazan

And the best way to do that is to have a story that you as the writer care about more than the socio-political viewpoints that are involved in it. Also, my opinion is that if a writer cannot maintain a level of emotional distance from the viewpoints of the characters, than they should A: write about something else or B: go to barber college.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

What's your goal in the story? Are the nations supposed to be seen as utopias or dystopias? Because that could effect how you portray the protagonists motivations. Right now it sounds like there's shades of Brave New World and {{1984}}.

edited 6th Dec '12 9:39:57 PM by stingerbrg

Hmm...These are all very useful insights, thank you.

I think a big issue with it is the dynamic I have. So, presenting the methods by which these societies operate as being limiting and a bit oppressive regardless of how good they are would work well. Thing is, neither of them are really all that extremist: one is structured to be more comfortable to individualism, one is structured to work better for those who prefer to have something to conform to. They're not very Dystopia-ey at all, really, and in fact, there are easily-found contacts should you wish to move from one to the other. In that case, I should probably present the whole "you have no choice but to choose one" thing, and show inflexibility and diminishing of true over-arching choice, right?

As for the protagonist, in a nutshell, she was a perfectly happy girl and then all the sudden she was implanted with an experimental thingit and cloned for a superweapon project. The focus in question is said clone, who more or less is a physically inept and slightly mentally off nigh-immortal girl who vaguely remembers what it was like to live a normal life and gets to watch her original self go on living that way and growing up while she stays a half-dead-looking little child that everyone treats like an emotionless, malfunctioning shell. Circumstances lead to her escaping with a really powerful weapon, and once she figures out how it works and as she's continually nearly-captured, she's more or less unduly pissed at anything and everything and gets a complex about things she can't control. Basically put, she's in the same situation as a Jew would be if he suddenly had Hitler at gunpoint. There's pretty much only one outcome in that situation unless you're like, the most forgiving son of a bitch on the planet, which our hero is not.

It's also a situation that pretty clearly shows itself to slowly drain sympathy from the protagonist, which...I wonder if that should be the case. I mean, at first, the intent is that your heart goes out for the girl once you find out everything she's been through, and then slowly but surely she goes from questionable but understandable acts to outright depraved and awful means to further her own ends, mostly out of veritably having the power to exterminate everything that exists if she plays it smart enough. This is definitely the thing I'm going for, heroic decay of sorts, but I wonder if that makes everything too preachy.

And...I guess what I'm going for is a demonstration of...basically "just because you've been wronged doesn't mean you're in the right". And the inverse as well. Just because the hero's had everything taken away from her and is reduced to a processor doesn't mean that the specific actions she takes against the ones responsible are automatically justifiable. An action that seems indisputably morally right isn't always the right thing, no matter how much your instincts say. It's a tricky subject matter to go on, because it results in instances in which justice seems to be served and delivered in exactly the right way, but in context it's made disquieting and questionable. More or less, one can see it as the scale of black and white morality being reversed, and everything still being in the gray area.

I'm also going for "sex is a meaningless vice of humanity that we put on a pedestal", but that's an entirely irrelevant matter. ^^;

Why do you fight? Why do you exist?

Honestly, if that's your primary message, you can IMO ignore pretty much all the cautions we gave you upthread.

Those apply mostly to the trite kinds of value systems in which some actions and agents are considered pristinely good and others utterly evil, because a work which adopts those pretty much automatically comes across as trying to dictate to the audience where they should bestow their sympathies - that's that oft-mentioned preachiness to be wary of. With something as murky as what you are describing, there is no danger of that, so you can be pretty much as blatant about it as you like.

In other words, to quote my earlier post, a "message doesn't automatically affect a work for the worse, as long as it's not handled obnoxiously" - and to be obnoxious with a message like that, you'd pretty much have to make a deliberate and substantial effort to make it so, as far as I'm concerned.

Soon the Cold One took flight, yielded Goddess and field to the victor: The Lord of the Light.

Yeah, the mere fact you're putting thought into this is probably enough to exempt you in this case. Certainly it doesn't sound like Mary Suetopia is any risk, that's where laws of logic are broken so the society can be perfect, and a perfect society generally doesn't produce tortured PhlebotinumRebels.

Also may be picking at straws here but the Jew thing is kind of a bad analogy. Hitler was directly and individually responsible for the deaths of millions. Most people would applaud anyone who killed him on principle, let alone someone with a personal grievance against him. In contrast, in your thing an individual is targeting an entire people for a personal wrong, most of whom aren't in any way complicit in the mistreatment.

In fact as it happens your scenario is a LOT closer to the situation Hitler would be in if he suddenly had six million Jews at gunpoint, so uh, be careful about any unwanted implications.

edited 10th Dec '12 5:05:39 PM by Kesteven

gloamingbrood.tumblr.com MSPA: The Superpower Lottery

...yeah sorry about that x_x

Why do you fight? Why do you exist?

On the "unsympathetic protagonist" front, it is okay for her to evolve into one. There are engaging stories with deliberately unlikeable protagonists, though if you're worried about losing readers you could try for something of a Greek Tragedy vibe. In those stories you go in knowing the hero (in the classic Greek sense where heroes are great people, not necessarily good people) will suffer a horrible fate by the end, so in your case you can somehow make it plain that her increasing dislikeability is both intentional and will negatively affect her at some point.

Maybe it's because it's Christmas time, but I'm reminded of Ebeneezer Scrooge. He's in some ways the mirror of your protagonist, he starts out unlikeable and wronging people, but ends sympathetic and helping others.

edited 11th Dec '12 3:46:51 PM by Earnest

Why is everyone infertile? And what is considered "genetically optimal"?

Was Once Zolnier Also a cowboy, and a Doctor.

Population regulating. Basically the population is kept at a certain limit to ensure optimal conditions, and erasing the ability to reproduce naturally would ensure that innate human horniness doesn't fuck everything up. And genetically optimal just means "no malformed things, inherited diseases, mental disorders, greater average mental and physical capabilities, basically everyone comes into the world healthy and of greatest working performance".

Why do you fight? Why do you exist?

Just a note, but when I see the words "genetically optimal" I think "eugenics." The general opinion of the world today is that eugenics is BAD. How did they decide what traits get filtered out? Is there still variety in appearance, or does everyone have the same hair & skin colors? It might be easier for the leaders to let everyone breed as much as they want and then just kill off the surplus in the war. Also, if the two nations are at constant war, then it seems impractical that individuals switching between them at will would work. Among other things, it would ruin the illusion that the leaders have been working so hard to set up. The main way to avoid a Suetopia is to avoid breaking logic. As long as everything makes sense and is self-consistent, you should be okay. Avoiding the story showing obvious favoritism would be a good idea as well. The primary way you should treat your protagonist to avoid a Suetopia is to avoid saying "She is wrong because she rebels against the system." Instead say that "She is wrong because she wants to punish an entire country for the actions of a few leaders." or "She is justified but she's going too far by wanting to destroy these civilizations." Stuff like that.

Sounds like this could easily be a Crapsaccharine World . The society uses eugenics, mass sterilization, and fraud. You might throw in brainwashing just for kicks. However, despite these horrible things, the average man on the street thinks life is great.