In one of my previous blogs, I touched on the principle of duality, highlighting the dynamic balance of opposing yet complementary forces. This theory on reflective themes offers a wealth of ideas and opportunities to weave dramatic conflict into your story. This principle of thematic duality is best explored by introducing two opposing ideas that create a thematic dichotomy. But how do you set up this type of narrative? And what’s the best way to write a provocative thematic dichotomy?
To answer those questions, let’s explore the thematic dichotomy in A Few Good Men.
Four Ways To Write A Provocative Thematic Dichotomy:
What Is a Thematic Dichotomy?
Building on the idea of duality and reflective themes, a Thematic Dichotomy centers on the conflict that is naturally created by two opposing ideas or worldviews. The line between these ideas is often blurred, adding complexity as both views are explored throughout the narrative. This presents the audience with the dilemma of having to choose between the two arguments to determine which one they consider the most morally sound. This thematic structure naturally lends itself to the tension inherent in a courtroom drama. This effectively places you in the juror’s seat and presents you with both sides of the argument.
In A Few Good Men, the thematic dichotomy centers on two arguments related to the story’s theme of honor. One argument asks if it is more honorable to do whatever is necessary to ensure a nation’s security. The other asks whether one should honor the sanctity of the individual by doing what is morally right, even if it jeopardizes that nation’s security.
Let’s use this story to explore the key components involved in creating a provoking thematic dichotomy.
Balance Your Cast
A Few Good Men revolves around the death of Private First Class Santiago at the hands of two fellow marines, Lance Corporal Dawson and PFC Downey. The key players representing the two opposing views are skillfully introduced in contrasting scenes.
In the first scene, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee is introduced as an ego-driven attorney who prides himself on his record-breaking ability to plea-bargain every case he has ever had without setting foot in a courtroom. He’s immediately paired with Lieutenant Sam Weinberg, a seasoned officer who is weary of the system and is content to enable Kaffee to do what he does best. However, it is Lieutenant Commander Joanne Galloway who presents Kaffee with his first direct challenge by being incredibly meticulous about following the rules.
In an opposing scene, we learn about the fanatical Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, the man tasked with securing the nation’s interests in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. While he and his subordinate, First Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, conspire to deny PFC Santiago a transfer off the base in favor of “training” him, their efforts are countered by the more compassionate Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Markinson.
Both scenes showcase all the key players who will inevitably come together to present their opposing views. Kaffee initially seeks to do as little as possible to plea-bargain the case. But as the story unfolds, he realizes he was assigned by division for one unsettling purpose: to ensure that this case never sees the inside of a courtroom.
Blur The Lines
While a Thematic Dichotomy presents two opposing views, it’s also important to explore their similarities. Blurring the lines introduces a level of complexity that adds to the uncertainty of what is morally right and wrong.
Wanting to spare Colonel Jessop the embarrassment of a lengthy trial, Captain “Smiley” Jack Ross agrees to Kaffee’s plea bargain. But Kaffee’s news is met with resistance from Dawson, who believes that despite the tragic outcome of his actions, he was actually in the right.
Murder, in any instance, is generally viewed as a morally questionable act. Here, the story blurs morality by presenting a scenario where the murder occurs due to a direct order. Although disgusted with the code of ethics among the Marines, Kaffee comes to believe his clients are innocent of murder. Ross agrees with him, but as the prosecuting attorney, he’s duty-bound to support the government’s case.
The narrative naturally evolves into a complex drama by introducing a morally ambiguous situation. Each character has their own code of ethics and, ultimately, their perspective on ethically right or wrong. This dynamic makes for a truly provocative thematic dichotomy.
Ignite A War Of Ideals
Show the progression of your characters as they move toward an inevitable climax where their convictions and beliefs are pitted against one another in a war of ideals that will ultimately point your audience to your narrative’s central truth.
When PFC Downey crumbles on the stand, Kaffee believes they have lost any chance of winning the case. This is further complicated by Galloway’s suggestion to put Jessup on the stand. While Kaffee admires her suggestion, he knows he will be risking his career and credibility with such a bold move.
The stage is set as Kaffee finally decides to go the distance. While he enters the exchange to win justice for PFC Santiago, the drama explodes into a war of ideals as Jessup sheds light on his concern for a whole nation and its security—ideals that, from his perspective, greatly outweigh the life of a substandard Marine.
A Few Good Men excels at building dramatic tension while ensuring the stakes remain personal to the key players. It’s a masterclass in the intricacies of a thematic dichotomy, using all the resulting arguments to achieve a satisfying resolution.
Perpetuate The Argument
While your story should include a clear resolution, it is okay to leave your audience with questions about the outcome. Those uncertainties present a realistic view of the world while showing how some arguments are never fully resolved.
The brilliance of A Few Good Men is that the resolution isn’t nice and neat. Although found innocent of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, Dawson and Downey are ultimately found guilty of conduct unbecoming of United States Marines. The ruling results in their dishonorable discharge from the Corps.
What’s ironic is that the charges of doing something dishonorable speak directly to the theme of honor. Dawson and Downey are deemed dishonorable by a jury of their peers, while Kaffee believes that their adherence to their own code of ethics is what actually makes them honorable. While the case is resolved and the story reaches its inevitable conclusion, the arguments presented by the narrative linger in the imbalanced fate of Dawson and Downey. This perpetuates the argument beyond the scope of the story, inviting the audience to draw their own conclusions on what is morally right and wrong.
Summing It Up
Understanding how to write a provocative Thematic Dichotomy requires you to explore the duality inherent in your story’s theme. By structuring your characters and plot around two opposing arguments, you establish a basic framework that you can use to infuse your narrative with tension and complexity.
I hope this article has provided you with some insight on how to write a provocative Thematic Dichotomy. I invite you to explore the concept for yourself. Look for ways to incorporate it into your work. And above all, keep writing!
Until next time,
