[Research and Experiment] What do you think is the moral of this story?

So I was planning out the future parts of my story. I plan to add a moral story in my novel and wanted to research and experiment with it.

When I say a moral story, I'm referring to a story that exists solely to impart a certain moral. Like the story about the rabbit and the turtle, or the story about the thirsty crow. I needed something similar.

So I'm going to put the story I created below. Read it, and tell me what you think is the moral of that story.




Story:

A young boy lived in a small town. In that town, people avoided street dogs. Everyone maintained their distance from the street dogs when they passed by. If a Street dog came near someone's house, the house owners would throw rocks at the dog and chase it away. The boy wasn't that different; he was also afraid of street dogs, just like everyone else in the town.

It was because ten years ago, an old lady lived alone in the town. One day, she was bitten by a street dog and died. The people of the town had considered the dogs dangerous ever since.

The young boy grew older and moved to a city to receive a better education. But when he saw that city, the boy was shocked.

Nobody in that city was afraid of the street dogs. In fact, the people even cared for them. Some fed their leftover food to the street dogs, while some went as far as buying dog food for them from the nearby shops.

The boy was very perplexed after seeing all of this. But slowly, he concluded.

'The street dogs haven't bitten anyone in this city, so the people have no reason to be scared of them. If they see the dogs bite someone, then these people will become scared as well.'

A few years passed just like that, until something happened in that city.

A street dog bit a little girl wandering the streets. The little girl cried a lot in pain, and she passed away after a few days.

But contrary to the boy's prediction, the people of the city didn't become scared of the street dogs. All of them said:

"No dog has bitten anyone in this city until now. That dog must have gone mad, losing its mind after enduring the harsh life on the streets."

The people chased away the dog that had bitten that little girl, out of the city. They then began taking even better care of the street dogs to ensure that no other dogs go mad like that dog that bit the little girl.

A year after that, the boy completed his studies and returned to his hometown.





What do you think is the moral of this story?


Side note: I know I could've written that better, I just didn't feel like editing it.

Moral of the story?

Adopt dogs!

Bimbanana said:

Moral of the story?

Adopt dogs!

Click to expand...

That's right everyone, make it today's mission to pet at least one dog.

Bimbanana said:

Moral of the story?

Adopt dogs!

Click to expand...

xizl said:

That's right everyone, make it today's mission to pet at least one dog.

Click to expand...

Adopting street dogs is ill-advised.

Still, please answer a bit seriously. I wanna know if what I wanted to convey came through or not. That is why I didn't state the moral of the story myself.

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

I wanna know if what I wanted to convey came through or not.

Click to expand...

You seem to already get a part of the idea so I'll just mention it aside, the context there is 'meaning' itself makes people more actively jump around with logic to make something stick, so especially for something that has been turned into almost bullet points for progression, it won't be reflective of the actual story communicated.

As it stands though, yes your idea is clear enough, you establish a baseline, you shift the focus of the audience to a different context changing the expectation around that baseline, and as a result with the whole 'frog in the well' establish a potential change in mentality for the character in focus.
You also lack commitment, not in a bad way but that there is no bias or lean in, it is too 'matter of fact' and doesn't press the audience to actually consider the situation, you aren't asking a question in the story itself.

If you wanted to add a bit more emotional weight or something else, it might be worth having a reversal, instead of the city folk just carrying on as before, having a dog actively protect someone to be a reflective dichotomy for what you are trying to achieve and placing weight on the consequence while actively challenging the first belief you present.

Currently your story has two different groups of people, both with an idea, that they reinforce in their own way, the old town isn't having their idea challenged, or the new town doesn't resist the old towns idea when the character moves there, it is observation, not tension or friction which can add more to the idea.

JHarp said:

You seem to already get a part of the idea so I'll just mention it aside, the context there is 'meaning' itself makes people more actively jump around with logic to make something stick, so especially for something that has been turned into almost bullet points for progression, it won't be reflective of the actual story communicated.

As it stands though, yes your idea is clear enough, you establish a baseline, you shift the focus of the audience to a different context changing the expectation around that baseline, and as a result with the whole 'frog in the well' establish a potential change in mentality for the character in focus.
You also lack commitment, not in a bad way but that there is no bias or lean in, it is too 'matter of fact' and doesn't press the audience to actually consider the situation, you aren't asking a question in the story itself.

If you wanted to add a bit more emotional weight or something else, it might be worth having a reversal, instead of the city folk just carrying on as before, having a dog actively protect someone to be a reflective dichotomy for what you are trying to achieve and placing weight on the consequence while actively challenging the first belief you present.

Currently your story has two different groups of people, both with an idea, that they reinforce in their own way, the old town isn't having their idea challenged, or the new town doesn't resist the old towns idea when the character moves there, it is observation, not tension or friction which can add more to the idea.

Click to expand...

I know, that's just the rough idea of my story that was in my mind. I just wanna know what comes to someone's mind when they hear this story. I will then edit it accordingly.

Still, you didn't state what you thought was the moral of the story.

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

Still, you didn't state what you thought was the moral of the story.

Click to expand...

Without any changes it reads as people maintain beliefs by how they understand an event instead of updating them.

Which for a 'moral of the story' is weak, as negative as that might be to say.

The implied moral you might be trying to indicate is about having beliefs being challenged, but there was no significantly different event, the dog attacking a girl and the city reacting differently at best could be a method of coping, that antagonising the dogs just leads to more attacks, so in self interest it is preventative, not that the second city is 'doing better'.

That is why I call it weaker, there are numerous options that it could be, because it isn't challenging the audience, it isn't making a point, it is too matter of fact.

JHarp said:

Without any changes it reads as people maintain beliefs by how they understand an event instead of updating them.

Which for a 'moral of the story' is weak, as negative as that might be to say.

The implied moral you might be trying to indicate is about having beliefs being challenged, but there was no significantly different event, the dog attacking a girl and the city reacting differently at best could be a method of coping, that antagonising the dogs just leads to more attacks, so in self interest it is preventative, not that the second city is 'doing better'.

That is why I call it weaker, there are numerous options that it could be, because it isn't challenging the audience, it isn't making a point, it is too matter of fact.

Click to expand...

No, that isn't the intended moral of the story.

I guess it didn't come through, after all.

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

No, that isn't the intended moral of the story.

I guess it didn't come through, after all.

Click to expand...

Well without having anything else to work on, those two ideas are basically the main ones.

Theres numerous minor paths we could go down that I'll just list a bunch:
Belief persistence/reinterpretation
Nature/nurture - Environment shapes attitudes
Human rationalization under uncertainty - Maintaining social stability
Treatment influences outcomes - The attack was an 'anomaly'
Majority consensus overrides individual reasoning - The moving to a new city who didn't agree or change to the character belief

Overall you didn't add enough weight to anything, as I said, it reads like bullet points. There is no challenge, no conflict that involves the main character in the focus, even their beliefs being different got a very passive line.

Him being 'perplexed' and 'concluding' has immediately removed all tension from differing beliefs, the kid is just open minded and non confrontational. There is nothing to take from that at all.

And the ending is a cliff hanger, no point is established or made, the main character doesn't plan to improve the hometown, there is no goal.

Instead of a moral of the story, you have a character observing a few outcomes in their travels. No pressure on the character or the idea to produce a conclusion.

JHarp said:

Well without having anything else to work on, those two ideas are basically the main ones.

Theres numerous minor paths we could go down that I'll just list a bunch:
Belief persistence/reinterpretation
Nature/nurture - Environment shapes attitudes
Human rationalization under uncertainty - Maintaining social stability
Treatment influences outcomes - The attack was an 'anomaly'
Majority consensus overrides individual reasoning - The moving to a new city who didn't agree or change to the character belief

Overall you didn't add enough weight to anything, as I said, it reads like bullet points. There is no challenge, no conflict that involves the main character in the focus, even their beliefs being different got a very passive line.

Him being 'perplexed' and 'concluding' has immediately removed all tension from differing beliefs, the kid is just open minded and non confrontational. There is nothing to take from that at all.

And the ending is a cliff hanger, no point is established or made, the main character doesn't plan to improve the hometown, there is no goal.

Instead of a moral of the story, you have a character observing a few outcomes in their travels. No pressure on the character or the idea to produce a conclusion.

Click to expand...

The intended moral of the story isn't any of the above.

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

The intended moral of the story is none of the above.

Click to expand...

Well thats that I suppose, without you trying to break down what elements convey what parts of your moral, I highly doubt anyone could naturally infer the moral from what you have provided.
I might chip in again if that changes, but good luck if you have a second go at it.

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

The intended moral of the story isn't any of the above.

Click to expand...

Is the intended message something like 'people are so curious/interesting/different'?

I'm assuming because, the main character is too out of it, no agency or anything, that, the main point of the story seems to be the observation of two ends of events itself rather than a deeper interpretation of the events.

JHarp said:

Well thats that I suppose, without you trying to break down what elements convey what parts of your moral, I highly doubt anyone could naturally infer the moral from what you have provided.
I might chip in again if that changes, but good luck if you have a second go at it.

Click to expand...

Well, thanks for your feedback.

I actually came to realise that moral through a real-world incident. I wanted to create a story that conveyed it, but it seems I did a shitty job at that.

The story needs to pose a question.

Are the street dogs dangerous, or are they safe?

This question simply doesn't have an answer. The dogs may be dangerous, or it may be that the dogs were safe, and the dogs that bit people were actually mad, like the people in the city had said.

In the end, there was no way for anyone to know.

The dogs weren't dangerous, they weren't safe either. They were simply dogs.

But if that was the case then did the danger exist? Did safety exist?

This question actually does have an answer. The danger existed, safety existed as well. People could feel them and that was proof enough.

In truth, danger and safety were illusions, made real through belief. The moment people stopped believing, it ceased to exist, becoming no more than an illusion.

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

I wanted to create a story that conveyed it, but it seems I did a shitty job at that.

Click to expand...

The main issue is the focus of everything.
A dog killing a child isn't a question, it is a statement.
The cities believing one thing or another, this fact doesn't change, the child still dies.

Belief and questioning that, doesn't solve that issue.
Danger is shown to exist and then rationalises it in multiple ways, that is why it is the default to assume the comparison is in perspective, not risk.

Thats the difference between more philosophical claims and psychological patterns.


If you wanted to ask a question about dogs, it would probably be better related through having wild dogs kill a sheepdog defending some sheep or other mutual conflicting payoffs.
Are dogs dangerous if a sheepdog saves it's owner from a pack who killed the neighbour yesterday?

Is a child bitten by a dog when they kept pulling it's ears proof of dogs being unstable and dangerous animals, while other dogs have dragged owners out of burning buildings.

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

Well, thanks for your feedback.

I actually came to realise that moral through a real-world incident. I wanted to create a story that conveyed it, but it seems I did a shitty job at that.

The story needs to pose a question.

Are the street dogs dangerous, or are they safe?

Click to expand...

No, that's the MC's question, not the story's question.

It seems like you're trying to do an extended parable about fear and education, but the specific vehicle used may not be ideal.

It seems that the MESSAGE is "Some dogs might be dangerous, but not all are - but country hicks assume one bad apple spoils the bunch, while the educated elite blame themselves when something goes wrong and strive to fix it"
(And yes, I am intentionally mixing metaphors there).

Avarice_Of_The_Seven said:

This question simply doesn't have an answer. The dogs may be dangerous, or it may be that the dogs were safe, and the dogs that bit people were actually mad, like the people in the city had said.

Click to expand...

But why are the dogs mad? Is there a virus? Were they mistreated? Or are some just "born that way"?

Truth doesn’t matter. What matters is one’s (or in this case, the majority’s) feelings over a subject matter.