Balancing Moral Argument with Plot: The Verdict and The Iliad, John Truby, The Anatomy of Story, p. 122–126
The single biggest reason a story comes across as preachy is because there is an imbalance between between moral argument and plot. You can express the moral argument through the story structure, sequence it perfectly, and highlight it with subtle moral dialogue. But if you don’t have enough plot to support the moral argument, it will come crashing down as a sermonizing bore.
Plot, as you will see in Chapter 8, is an intricate choreography of actions by the hero and the opponents designed to surprise the audience. It is this element of surprise, of magic, that floats the moral sequence and gives it its punch.
Let’s look at The Veredict as an example of the basic strategy of moral argument in a story.
THE VERDICT
a) Hero’s Beliefs and Values: At first, Frank values alcohol, money and expediency.
b) Moral Weakness: Addicted to alcohol and with no self-respect or prospects for the future, Frank will do anything for money.
c) Moral Need: To act with justice toward others instead of using them for money.
d) First Immoral Action: Frank invades a funeral, pretending to be a friend of the dead man in order to get business.
e) Desire: To win his legal case at trial and so collect the damages his clients need to start a new life.
f) Drive: Frank takes a number of actions to get an expert doctor to testify for his side.
g) Immoral Action: Frank reassures the victim’s sister, Sally, and circles possible settlement amounts of $200,000 and $250,000 on paper. Frank intends to settle the case so that he can take one third of the money without doing anything.
Criticism: None
Justification: Frank’s an alcoholic who has lost all self-respect along with his sense of justice and morality. He figures, why not get the sure money now instead of gambling on winning at trial?h) Attack by Ally: The main attack by the ally is provided not by fellow attorney Mickey but by Frank’s clients. When they learn he has turned down the settlement without consulting them, they accuse him of being incompetent and immoral.
Justification: Frank tells them he will get them far more by fighting the case in court than by taking the offer. Although he defends himself based on money, the real reason he turns down the settlement is that he wants to see that justice done.i) Obssessive Drive: He is determined to find the nurse who was in the operating room.
j) Immoral Action: Frank tricks a woman into talking about the nurse, who won’t testify for the other side.
Criticism: None.
Justification: Frank feels he must find the nurse in order to win his case.k) Immoral Action: Frank breaks open the woman’s mailbox to find out the phone number of the nurse.
Criticism: None. Frank does this in secret.
Justification: This is Frank’s only chance to win a case he knows is right.l) Immoral Action: Frank punches Laura, his girlfriend, when he finds out she was hired by the other side to feed them information about Frank’s case.
Criticism: Laura offers no criticism because she is so filled with guilt of her own.
Justification: Frank loves this woman and feels she has betrayed him totally.m) Battle: Frank questions Dr Towler about when the patient ate. The nurse, Kaitlin, testifies that the victim ate not at nine but one hour before admittance. She says that Dr Towler failed to read the admittance form and told her to change the 1 to a 9 or he’d fire her. Opposing attorney Concannon reads precedent on the inadmittance of a copy. The judge agrees and also disallows the nurse’s entire testimony.
n) Final Action Against Opponent: Frank does nothing immoral during the trial. He simply presents his case in a strong and crafty way.
o) Moral Self-Revelation: Fairly early in the story, Frank sees his client, the victim, who is in a vegetable state, and he knows he must act with justice or he is lost forever.
p) Moral Decision: Frank risks his share of the money by refusing the bishop’s settlement offer and by taking the case to trail so that justice can be done.
q) Thematic Revelation: Only if we act with justice can our lives be saved.
The Verdict is a textbook example of how to use moral argument in a story, with one notable exception, and that exception is instructive. The hero has a strong moral self-revelation when he realizes what has been done to his client: two doctors put her into a coma, and he was willing to turn his back on her for money. He makes a moral decision when he then turns down the settlement money so that he can fight for justice at trial, even though he may never make a dime.
However, the self-revelation and decision occur only twenty-five minutes into the story. This diminishes the power of the moral argument because from that point on, the hero’s moral jeopardy has been removed. The audience still enjoys the suspence of wether the hero will win the case or not. After all, Frank is a shaky lawyer with an addiction to alcohol. But they know that Frank has learned to act with justice and is doing so.
The moral argument is most powerful when it is most dramatic. That means, among other things, holding off the hero’s moral self-revelation and decision until as close to the end of the story as possible. Keep the question “Will the hero do the right thing, and will he do it in time?” in the back of the audience’s mind for as much of the story as you can.
THE ILIAD
The moral argument of the Iliad uses the basic strategy of the hero’s slow decline and then rise at the self-revelation. But the Iliad makes an important variation by working through this sequence twice.
The first sequence of decline and rise happens over the first three-quarters of the story. The hero, Achilles, starts off justified in his anger at his main opponent, Agamemnon, for taking the woman he has rightfully won. But his excessive pride (his moral weakness) has pushed him to act immorally, going too far in response, by withholding his services in battle. As a result, many of his fellow soldiers die.
Throughout the early and middle parts of the story, Achilles becomes even more unjustified in his anger and more selfish in his actions. Then, realizing his guilt when his friend Patroklos dies, he reconciles with Agamemnon and returns to the fight. This is his first self-revelation and moral decision.
The moral argument is repetead more intensely and in shorter form in the last quarter of the story: Achilles begins justified in his wrath at his secon opponent, Hector, but then declines morally when his anger makes him desecrate Hector’s body by dragging it around the camp. Finally, Hector’s father, Priam, pleads for the return of his son’s body. Achilles has a second, much deeper self-revelation about the need for compassion over vengeance, and he decides to let Priam ake the body so it can receive a proper burial.
