The Stars My Destination

As a reader, there are things you’re just supposed to do. It’s ingrained. An author gives you a protagonist, you don’t ask questions like “Well, are they a virtuous person justified in their actions? How did they end up in this situation to begin with?” You identify with them. You support them. You agree. After all, you’re reading the story from their perspective, seeing the world as they do, so how could they be wrong? Even if they commit horrific crimes, there must be reason...right?

The fact is, there isn’t always a reason. Sometimes the author presents you with a heinous protagonist and, through the course of the story, forces you to relate to them, perhaps even feel sympathy for them.  But how does one relate to a morally bankrupt protagonist? What does it say about us if we do?

In the novel The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester creates a rather maniacal protagonist named Gully Foyle who, for the majority of the novel, exists with the sole desire of wreaking revenge on those who left him to die on a ruined spaceship. He robs, rapes, blackmails, murders, commits treason, and carries out genocide. Yet, through it all, we understand him and sometimes even make excuses for his actions. This is, in part, due to the narrative techniques employed throughout the novel.

The audience meets Gully at his lowest point: trapped in the wreck of a spaceship surviving only by wits, stamina and sheer stubborn will-to-live. This, in addition to the fact that he is from a lower class, gives the reader reason to sympathize with him, as he comes from a troubled past and has endured much. Moreover, in the case that the reader was born into such a future, it is not too far a stretch to imagine themself in such dire circumstances, making Gully’s situation a relatable one. The author then continues to offer more reason for the audience to want to believe in Gully, as the book is told from his narrative viewpoint. This is not to say that it is told in first person, but most of what is written are things only Gully would know. This puts the reader in his mindset, making it easier to understand his motivations and therefore justify his actions, especially since he receives most of the screen time. In fact, the only other information we receive unbeknownst to Gully is that which places him as the unlucky victim of a complex, intergalactical scheme, thus further absolving him of his crimes. These techniques cumulate in the reader inevitably identifying with Gully, regardless of his often contemptible actions. This personal connection, however, speaks to a bigger problem.

It is known that people are naturally disposed to believe that their side is the correct one. So when reading a novel and presented with a protagonist, it is easy to get tricked into believing what they believe, viewing them almost as a continuation of ourselves. It is also, then, easy to ignore evidence suggesting otherwise, reluctant to renounce a stance already taken. However, while this tendency is capitalized in literature, it applies to people in the real world as well, influencing one’s values and rationales. Furthermore, whether it’s that their argument is the most logically sound and anyone who disagrees is stupid, that their religion is the only real one and anyone who doesn’t believe in it is sinful, or that their country is the most humanitarian and any action they take is justified, it is clear that such thinking goes beyond merely the individual. Thus, a harmless effect in literature reflects a dangerous propensity of society.

Just as Gully Foyle’s actions are inexcusable and should be criticized despite his motivations, so too are many of the actions of the institutions we believe in. This is never more true when it comes to politics, as it is there where lives are often on the line. In today’s society, it is easy to get caught up with identity politics and propaganda and get stuck into believing that our side, be it the democrats, republicans, or America as a whole, is the right side no matter what, just as we get stuck into believing that Gully Foyle, the man who once held no ill will, is justly motivated. Nevertheless, this isn’t always the case. A single entity may not always be correct, and thus it’s actions must always be checked. In a democracy, even a democratic republic like the United States, this is the job of every citizen. So, when our country makes strikes against others, take another look, objectively, at the incentives for such action, and it’s consequences, and know that change starts with us.