fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3359 ]

[ SECRET POST #3359 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3359 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 047 secrets from Secret Submission Post #480.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've been hearing a lot that shows can have characters do shitty things but the narration shouldn't condone it.

And I don't really get that. People do shitty things and get rewarded for it and something you just wanna read about a shitty thing without some disclaimer that incest is bad or whatever.

Am I missing something here?

Some people think (their idea of acceptable) morality and ethics should be spoonfed to the masses. I mean, what if something doesn't explicitly spell out that bad things are bad, and instead relies on the viewer to draw their own conclusions?!! Think of the children who won't know any better!

Yeah I don't get it either. Like, if it's entirely conceivable for someone to get away with something, why does the narrative need to baby the audience and explain that what they've done is a Bad Thing.

People do bad things. People get away with bad things. It happens.

Because people are moralizing dumbasses with no concept of the purpose of entertainment.

This, so much this. The point of fiction is to entertain, not to moralize. If you cannot pick your morals up on your own then you are in real trouble. Not to mention that a lot of the time the fiction does flag up the views and people are not to the good, but it is done through showing and not telling and the consumer is expected to understand that on their own. Too many tumblrites and Markreaders are too fucking thick to understand something without it being spoonfed by their camp overlord.

Yeeeaah. It sounds a lot like people who got way too used to kid's media going to great lengths to spell out obvious morals, so when faced with something that doesn't feel the need to do that (something that believes fans can think for themselves), they assume it MUST condone what random, prejudiced characters are saying (even though there are other characters saying the opposite).

I think it's ridiculous!

If you can't guess the moral of the episode before Adam and Teela break it down for you at the credits then you need to move onto something less demanding.

I think it has to do with context. Also with characterization - the way a narrative treats a character's actions really affect how the character is written and perceived by the audience

Would you mind elaborating or giving some examples?

(no subject)

diet_poison - 2016-03-16 00:13 (UTC) - Expand

Anna Karenina is an example. While on one hand, Anna's behavior is understandable to some extent and she is a complex character, it's clear that she's "bad", and that's why her story ends badly. She is juxtaposed with Kitty, the "good" moral woman, whose story ends positively.
While the book itself doesn't proselytize, looking at the characters' behavior and how they are treated by the narrative gives a hint what we're supposed to take from it.

See also, any story where the villain comes to a bad end.

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 04:03 (UTC) - Expand

To further this discussion, at what point does a narrative go from merely portraying protagonists doing bad deeds to actually implying that these deeds are good and the audience should root for the shitty protags?

Because people are moronic and think because the narration doesn't mention it, it means the behavior is condoned. These people tend to get upset if people point out they're wrong or if someone dares disagree with them it seems from my experience though.

I suppose the extremist alternative would be to have a moralizing message tacked on the end of the story like children's cartoons used to have during the late 70's and 80's. The very idea of that sort of thing applied to stories for adults is ludicrous.

murder is bad

don't do drugs

don't share personal info or internet creeps will kill you

I actually kind of agree with this, though. Like, if a villain told someone who hates them "sleep with me or I kill your family," and the next scene is the villain fucking their victim but there's a beautiful swelling violin crescendo and soft romantic lighting and both parties are totally into it, it's played straight with no twist, and the official promos are about how romantic it is, I'd cringe and find something else to watch. There has to be some indication that it's meant to be gross, somewhere. Like, Lolita is from the perspective of a rapist child-molester, but only people I'd cross the street to avoid think it's a romance. Nabokov wasn't cheering Humbert on.

This comment reminds me of the American Psycho scene where Christian Bale murders Jared Leto to Huey Lewis and the News. And yet - miraculously! - no one needed to be told, "Now, children, murder is actually bad, and this character is unhinged."

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 01:43 (UTC) - Expand

I cannot give enough love for this comment. I completely agree, and I particularly love your use of Lolita as an example.

Several people in this thread are acting like the only options are "the narrative does not weigh in at all" or "the narrative spoon feeds you the moral of the story," and that's just such nonsense. So much of what makes excellent writing excellent is the subtlety, deftness, and complexity with which the narrative can influence the reader's perspective - causing you to understand something in a new way, or view it from a particular perspective, or feel a particular way about something.

Re: Mad love for this comment.

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 17:41 (UTC) - Expand

Your example kinda reminded me of "The Other Boleyn Girl". I'm totally into romanticised problematic relationships, foes to lovers, arranged marriage and all that stuff, but everytime I watch that movie I'm like "you can't seriously play that relationship off as romantic ffs!" (Even if Henry does turn out to be the ultimate douchebag in the end, the narrative totally makes them the super romantic couple of the movie for 1/3 of the time.)

Think of it like that Supernatural Secret discussion the other day (pick one). A lot of people were annoyed that while Sam and Dean both make bad decisions and do shitty things sometimes, the world hates Dean and Sam is always on the side of angels (metaphorically). And it's not that people are asking for a crawler on the bottom of the screen that says "Murder is bad. Don't do drugs." It's that, as far as the writers are concerned, Sam can never truly be wrong, he can only be wronged.

Now, let's say that instead of your show being about Sam Winchester, it's about a guy who fucks chickens. He's unabashedly enthusiastic about chicken fucking. He's the president of his chicken fucking club, and he and the other members have wacky hijinks and solve crimes. There doesn't need to be a disclaimer at the front of the show saying that fucking chickens is wrong. (You probably will need a "No actual chickens were harmed" disclaimer.) It's when the writers spend all their time sincerely trying to convince you that chicken fucking is beautiful and pure, and anyone who disagrees is an evil bigot that you've got the problem.

What if it's aimed at chicken fuckers who want some legal fap fodder with their wacky hijinks and crime solving?

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 01:28 (UTC) - Expand

Next week, on "Flockin' Hot:" The Finger Lickin' Good-Time Crew are hired by a local orchard owner to find his best fig plucker's son. After an unlikely series of misunderstandings, Robin accidentally fucks a duck.

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 06:54 (UTC) - Expand

I think Breaking Bad does a good job of walking this line. Walt does horrible things, and we see him profiting and enjoying it and looking cool, and it's possible to watch and simply enjoy the shitty badassness without worrying about it being Problematic--hell, there are some moments when it's impossible *not* to enjoy the Bad Stuff, even if you know it's bad. But if you watch the whole series and come away really thinking that he's a good person and his actions are justified, you're probably either a really lazy reader or you're willfully ignoring some stuff.

I don't think it's so much "narration" as the way characters are portrayed, with the real consequences and *roots* of shitty actions. It's not that someone has to *say* "oh gee Walter, that was a problematic thing to do" or that he Must Be Punished: he did the bad stuff because he was a shitty person in certain ways, and both good and bad came of it.

This is really rambly, but I think my point is that realistic writing won't isolate problematic stuff from the context that makes it problematic.

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 09:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 10:41 (UTC) - Expand

It is about personal taste. I don't think a show has to. But I personally am not interested in shows where everyone is unlikeable and there is no one to root for.

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 04:28 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 08:13 (UTC) - Expand

It's not that I necessarily want my characters judged. In fact, I have a fondness for media that never judges the characters. But for better or worse, most media is spun in such a way as to frame someone as a "good person" or a "bad person" who does "good things" or "bad things." If I disagree with that judgment, that's one of the things I talk about when discussing and analyzing the story's themes.

Honestly, I think the objections to this relate back to the Thermian Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk Some people are locked into approaching fiction like it's a rock formation or a seashell on the beach, something that simply exists without an intelligent creator and must be evaluated exactly as it is. Any attempt to talk about themes and messages leaves them baffled, and I'm baffled that they're baffled. Even if that's not your style, can't you at least acknowledge those are things that exist and can be discussed?

Re: Why should the narration acknowledge that story events are problematic?

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-16 08:25 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only