Interesting concept - I've never heard of misaimed fandom, either, and find the concept that liking the wrong characters is a *major problem* quite mindboggling.
For a long, long time, I was used to liking the antagonists as a matter of course, because the portrayal of the "heroes" in pretty much every movie and series to come out of Hollywood at that time annoyed me immensely. This has started to change a bit in recent years, because some protagonists are now portrayed in a way that doesn't immediately get my hackles up; all the same, I am still pleasantly surprised when a pop media character intended to be a protagonist actually appeals to me.
Personally, I can't help but see it as the fault of the author when readers are unable to sympathize with the characters the authors intend them to. They have clearly failed to portray the protagonist in a sympathetic fashion, and the antagonist in a believably villanous one. The reaction of blaming the readers for "not getting it" is nothing more than an angry sulk attack a la Anne Rice's "you are interrogating the text from the wrong perspective"; "you're just too stupid to understand my genius!" In effect, blaming someone else for your failure.
I see it as a very different thing when a group of viewers with what we would term wrong or immoral ideals takes to a character whose own ideals are compatible with their own - say, skinheads liking the racist villain. That's not a fannish problem at all, that's just people being hateful idiots, as people will be. On the level of fiction or fandom, there's nothing to be done about the fact that some people have such ideals. This is a problem that has to be addressed by other means.
(As a sidenote: I was always convinced that Sonny Steelgrave is intended to be a violently ambivalent character for the viewers, just as he is for the hero. That Vinnie *can't* not like Sonny, despite knowing full well that he is a violent, dangerous criminal with a plethora of horrible characteristics - that Vinnie is so torn, and that Sonny is *both* a cruel, vicious murderer and a charismatic, likable guy -, that's what provides the story with most of its dramatic tension.)
Also, I agree with you entirely on the appeal of the villain as such - well-written villains can be very engaging and powerful characters, and *should* be. Enjoying them for what they are is not a bad thing; liking them as characters is not the same as agreeing with their actions and/or their goals. Most authors do seem to understand that, fortunately...
It's as though because some people get their inspirations to do horrible things from books and movies, we're all suspect. Because I like Sonny, I might garrote a business rival. Because I like Merricat, I might poison my family.
It's assuming that we're all mentally unbalanced in one particular way, and as though people who are violent really need someone to show them how to kill people.
There are so many reasons for readers to prefer the villain to the hero, the idea that it's some kind of pathology seems ridiculous to me. People who go to franchise slasher movies like Halloween are going to prefer Michael Myers to the victims if for no other reason than he's the constant, and they know only one of the victims will survive. And they're going to see the bloodshed, so of course they'd prefer the one causing it.
And you're right about skinheads liking the racist villain--it's because that character mirrors their opinions.
I agree with you about Sonny. I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of Frank and Sonny. Frank was the good guy, but in the beginning he was cold and sarcastic and did nothing to make Vinnie feel cared about. Sonny was the bad guy, but he was so warm and caring, Vinnie couldn't resist him (whether in a romantic way or not). And with Vinnie's own family cutting him off, that left only the badguy to be his friend. I love Frank, but he played that whole situation all wrong.
Since Stephen Cannell and Frank Lupo decided the relationship of the arc would be between Vinnie and Sonny, I'd say they had to have known that Sonny would have to be likable guy. (And Cannell cast Ray personally, so he knew just what he could bring to the role.)
I know how frustrating it can be for readers to focus on something other than what I consider the main point of the story. But that's entirely their right!
For a long, long time, I was used to liking the antagonists as a matter of course, because the portrayal of the "heroes" in pretty much every movie and series to come out of Hollywood at that time annoyed me immensely. This has started to change a bit in recent years, because some protagonists are now portrayed in a way that doesn't immediately get my hackles up; all the same, I am still pleasantly surprised when a pop media character intended to be a protagonist actually appeals to me.
Personally, I can't help but see it as the fault of the author when readers are unable to sympathize with the characters the authors intend them to. They have clearly failed to portray the protagonist in a sympathetic fashion, and the antagonist in a believably villanous one. The reaction of blaming the readers for "not getting it" is nothing more than an angry sulk attack a la Anne Rice's "you are interrogating the text from the wrong perspective"; "you're just too stupid to understand my genius!" In effect, blaming someone else for your failure.
I see it as a very different thing when a group of viewers with what we would term wrong or immoral ideals takes to a character whose own ideals are compatible with their own - say, skinheads liking the racist villain. That's not a fannish problem at all, that's just people being hateful idiots, as people will be. On the level of fiction or fandom, there's nothing to be done about the fact that some people have such ideals. This is a problem that has to be addressed by other means.
(As a sidenote: I was always convinced that Sonny Steelgrave is intended to be a violently ambivalent character for the viewers, just as he is for the hero. That Vinnie *can't* not like Sonny, despite knowing full well that he is a violent, dangerous criminal with a plethora of horrible characteristics - that Vinnie is so torn, and that Sonny is *both* a cruel, vicious murderer and a charismatic, likable guy -, that's what provides the story with most of its dramatic tension.)
Reply
Reply
It's assuming that we're all mentally unbalanced in one particular way, and as though people who are violent really need someone to show them how to kill people.
Reply
And you're right about skinheads liking the racist villain--it's because that character mirrors their opinions.
I agree with you about Sonny. I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of Frank and Sonny. Frank was the good guy, but in the beginning he was cold and sarcastic and did nothing to make Vinnie feel cared about. Sonny was the bad guy, but he was so warm and caring, Vinnie couldn't resist him (whether in a romantic way or not). And with Vinnie's own family cutting him off, that left only the badguy to be his friend. I love Frank, but he played that whole situation all wrong.
Reply
I know how frustrating it can be for readers to focus on something other than what I consider the main point of the story. But that's entirely their right!
Reply
Leave a comment