Fantasy Thesis vs Antithesis vs Synthesis

[Metalhead33]

Thesis: There is a clearly defined Good vs Evil, with the good guys - who are usually (but not always) depicted as the underdogs - fighting against the Evil Empire to save the mankind from enslavement.
Examples include Lord of the Rings, most classic High Fantasy, and the average brainwashed normie's pop culture-tier understanding of WW2.

Antithesis: There is no clearly defined Good or Evil, it's just two or more morally gray sides fighting against one another. Everyone is depicted as morally gray in some way: the closest people we have to heroes are still extremely flawed, the closest people we have to villains are given redeeming qualities, etc. in the name of forced complexity. Both sides are depicted committing war crimes, among other things.
Examples include chiefly Game of Thrones and other more recent fantasy works, as well as the average normie's understanding of WW1.

Synthesis: ???

____________

Personally, I think the best model for the synthesis could be the Spanish Reconquista from a Christian point of view: there is a clearly defined Good and Evil (Christian vs Muslim), but neither side is united, both fight wars among each other, make strange alliances across the isles (e.g. Andalusian Muslims viewing their North African cousins are interlopers and allying with the Christians to keep them out) that are exemplified by the likes of El Cid.
The Synthesis would be a Fantasy equivalent of that.

[Humbaba]

I think the best model for the synthesis could be the Spanish Reconquista from a Christian point of view: there is a clearly defined Good and Evil (Christian vs Muslim),

[Acrux]

This guy (and topic) is ignominious. But he made Humbaba seethe so he went up a little in my estimation just now.

[A Chinese opium den]

Thesis: There is a clearly defined Good vs Evil, with the good guys - who are usually (but not always) depicted as the underdogs - fighting against the Evil Empire to save the mankind from enslavement.
Examples include Lord of the Rings, most classic High Fantasy, and the average brainwashed normie's pop culture-tier understanding of WW2.

Antithesis: There is no clearly defined Good or Evil, it's just two or more morally gray sides fighting against one another. Everyone is depicted as morally gray in some way: the closest people we have to heroes are still extremely flawed, the closest people we have to villains are given redeeming qualities, etc. in the name of forced complexity. Both sides are depicted committing war crimes, among other things.
Examples include chiefly Game of Thrones and other more recent fantasy works, as well as the average normie's understanding of WW1.

Synthesis: Just be yourself

[Metalhead33]

Synthesis: Just be yourself

Just pee yourself.

[Tweed]

Megaten: Just kill God and your friends over your ideological differences and everything will be okay.

[Anon]

Not everything has a dialectic conclusion, and I don't think it's really such case. Both your "thesis" and "antithesis" can be correctly applied according to context. And the synthesis you presented is just a reworded version of the antithesis "there is no true good or evil, it's all perspective".

[TKVNC]

Not everything has a dialectic conclusion, and I don't think it's really such case. Both your "thesis" and "antithesis" can be correctly applied according to context. And the synthesis you presented is just a reworded version of the antithesis "there is no true good or evil, it's all perspective".

I think ultimately it is just a case of, do you believe in Moral Relativism or not. Traditional stories do not believe in Relativism, for the most part. There are clear cut lines on what is Evil, and what is Good.

You do not need 'shades of grey'. This is a poor trope to add backstory to characters whose motives are inconsequential, or irrelevant, as the writer does not know what is Good, or what is Evil (in most cases, often just Evil, and they masquerade it as 'morally grey').

The Heroes of LotR do not do Evil that Good may come of it, they do Good, that Good may come of it. Ultimately, there is no synthesis, Evil begets Evil.

[Emphyrio]

[Metalhead33]

And the synthesis you presented is just a reworded version of the antithesis "there is no true good or evil, it's all perspective".

I disagree. I think there is a fine line between "all heroes are completely flawless" and "there is no good or evil, it's all just perspective" - the good guys ultimately save the world, defeat the villains, and are celebrated as heroes.

Maybe a real-life conflict like the Reconquista wasn't a good example, so here's a better one: a realistic feudal society vs demonic invaders (unambiguously evil).

[TKVNC]

And the synthesis you presented is just a reworded version of the antithesis "there is no true good or evil, it's all perspective".

I disagree. I think there is a fine line between "all heroes are completely flawless" and "there is no good or evil, it's all just perspective" - the good guys ultimately save the world, defeat the villains, and are celebrated as heroes.

Maybe a real-life conflict like the Reconquista wasn't a good example, so here's a better one: a realistic feudal society vs demonic invaders (unambiguously evil).

I think the thing is, because earlier stories have clear moral boundaries - their flaws do not need to be some sordid vices - but they can be actual flaws.

Aragorn for example, his flaw is his doubt about his destiny, and his trepidation at pursuing it.

Contrast this to modern writing: I am John Dungeon and I am a Tiefling Warlock whose flaw is that I wear leather gimp suits and have people piss on me, I also love to torture people to death?

I know I'm being facetious, but that's effectively what we're dealing with.

[Anon]

And the synthesis you presented is just a reworded version of the antithesis "there is no true good or evil, it's all perspective".

I disagree. I think there is a fine line between "all heroes are completely flawless" and "there is no good or evil, it's all just perspective" - the good guys ultimately save the world, defeat the villains, and are celebrated as heroes.

That's your thesis, not your antithesis. I said your synthesis is similar to your antithesis.

[Metalhead33]

I'll argue, that in the Reconquista, the Christian side was the objectively moral side - they were the native inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, and unlike the Muslim invaders, they did not practice slavery and the various evil institutions that Islam created, they did not cross any deserts to bring back castrated male slaves or female sex slaves. Unless you're a Muslim or an anti-Christian libtard, there is no debating this, it is not "a matter of perspective".
That, however, did not stop politics from being complicated, Christians from infighting among each other (they were only human after all, with all the human flaws), or from occasionally making weird alliances with the one weird Muslim fiefdom that wanted to protect its independence from the North African interlopers (even though said Muslim fiefdom owed its existence to similar North African interlopers, just a couple of centuries earlier).

The Muslims in Iberia were a foreign ruling class that practiced slavery and all sorts of morally dubious things. Their Christian enemies, while not exactly morally flawless, were still very much heroic in contrast. Their only flaw was being human.

[Acrux]

a realistic feudal society vs demonic invaders (unambiguously evil).

That's still good vs evil.

[Metalhead33]

a realistic feudal society vs demonic invaders (unambiguously evil).

That's still good vs evil.

Yes, but it's not flawless good vs fantastically evil.
It's flawed good / realistic good vs fantastically evil.
Especially if there is infighting among the good guys.
If they commit war crimes and aren't completely flawless angels, then it's not 100% good vs evil.