I think the Ziva comparison is a really illustrative one because I would argue that "murder" has a very different definition for those two characters. On a kind of Watsonian level within their respective universes, Ziva is a human being in context of other human beings. But to angels, what differentiates humans from any other species of beast? From their perspective, what makes us any different from wendigos or demons or vampires or whatever? Accepting Ziva and Cas as subjects on their own terms, I'd say Ziva is the character who ought to be held to the higher standard. But then on the Doylist level, where the audience has a stake as "us" which is guided by the narrative, NCIS is set up for us to align ourselves with Ziva as a person with institutional power over those at whom her violence is presumably targeted, while in the SPN-verse the audience gaze is aligned with the humans, and so Cas is The Other with power over "us" - we become the targets so we of course have a higher emotional stake in there being moral sanction for any
( ... )
I hoped you would like being tagged. I didn't expect quite so spectacular a response, but I knew you'd have something interesting to say.
Also, I feel much better about the asshole characters I love now. You're right about needing to tread carefully when talking to someone about a character who means a lot to them. "I think this character sometimes gets an unearned pass because he's (male, pretty, white, funny)," shouldn't just flow into, "The characteristics you identify with don't deserve understanding or sympathy."
loooooool, as if I would ever pass up a chance to yell about this! It's stuff I think about a lot (AS YOU MAY HAVE SURMISED).
Also, I feel much better about the asshole characters I love now.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
You're right about needing to tread carefully when talking to someone about a character who means a lot to them. "I think this character sometimes gets an unearned pass because he's (male, pretty, white, funny)," shouldn't just flow into, "The characteristics you identify with don't deserve understanding or sympathy."I mean, I could get behind "it's a fine line." I SAY it's a fine line. FREQUENTLY. But YES, and that dismissiveness bothers me. If someone's talking about a fictional character in a certain kind of way, yeah, sometimes I do get a ~vibe that this person is doing a thing that I fully admit I do, which is talking out that character's ~stuff because it's a tolerable distance from their own, and a reason someone (again, myself included) might do that is because they've internalized "YOU have no right to feel the
( ... )
It’s apples to pillowcases to former Soviet bloc nations.
Oh my god, this made me laugh so hard.
This post gets two thumbs up from me. Or possibly 10. Fictional characters who Do Bad Things are always more psychologically interesting when there is some context for their behaviour. Explaining and understanding that context is not the same as making excuses.
Plus, FICTION. It's not like all the Loki fans are banding together with letter-writing campaigns to get war criminals out of prison.
Fictional characters who Do Bad Things are always more psychologically interesting when there is some context for their behaviour. Explaining and understanding that context is not the same as making excuses.
THAAAAAAAAAANK YOU. Characters who cannot be explained are not characters, they are forces of nature. And as much as I know no narrative choice is intrinsically invalid, I've gotta say that's a whole lot less interesting to me.
Plus, FICTION. It's not like all the Loki fans are banding together with letter-writing campaigns to get war criminals out of prison.bwahaha! But like...I'm guessing that there are plenty of people who uncritically accept Odin as a good dude without even that ~bad boy~ flagging of someone who kidnapped a baby with the intent of using that baby as a pawn in his colonialist power games, lied to the kid about his own identity for his whole life and let the poor kid build up an inferiority complex a mile wide, and then was shocked! SHOCKED! when some other nasty old warlord benefited from the whole scheme?
( ... )
FER CHRISSAKE IF YOU'RE GOING TO KIDNAP A KID AT LEAST DO IT RIGHT.
LOL. At least when Holtz took Connor, he raised him up to do and be EXACTLY WHAT HOLTZ WANTED. And unlike Odin, there was never any doubt in the narrative that Holtz was the villain of the piece.
That was the thing that bugged me about Thor (the film); Loki is telegraphed as the villain from his very first scene, even before we find out about what Odin did to him. As soon as Laufey says, "The House of Odin is full of traitors," you know that Loki is the "traitor" in question. So Odin's actions become just one more excuse for Loki's Bad Behavior, instead of an explanation for it. I would find his psychology a lot more interesting if he hadn't been written as a "bad seed" from the start.
I would hazard a guess that people aren't under pressure to distance themselves from those thingsNot that I've seen? But I'm only just now getting into Marvel movie fandom, so I can't really say. Plus I don't read the comics, so I'm probably not considered a real fan
( ... )
Maybe it's my personal damage, but I fundamentally don't understand why people... WOULDN'T want to understand why terrible people are terrible??? (Excluding personal triggers, of course). In general, fandom's moratorium on "explaining" morally reprehensible characters seems to defeat the whole point of, you know, discussing shit. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DRINK THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS.
And... I'm just gonna come out and say it: I find it super problematic that formative trauma is a thing that is virtually always handwaved in these discourses ("sure, X was abused as a child, BUT X IS A BAD PERSON"). Apologia may be the worse of two evils, but frankly, not by much
( ... )
Maybe it's my personal damage, but I fundamentally don't understand why people... WOULDN'T want to understand why terrible people are terrible??? (Excluding personal triggers, of course).
Yeah, exactly. "I don't want to get into this asshole's/type of asshole's head" is totally fair, but trying to putting a taboo on attempts to understand assholes generally is pretty creepy.
BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DRINK THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS.
WELL DARLING, HOW ELSE DOES ONE STAY BEAUTIFUL ENOUGH TO KEEP THE PEASANTS ENSORCELED AND THE KNIGHTS CRAVING THE DEATHS OF ONE'S ENEMIES? HONESTLY.
I find it super problematic that formative trauma is a thing that is virtually always handwaved in these discourses ("sure, X was abused as a child, BUT X IS A BAD PERSON")
Yeah, it squicks the shit out of me too.
I'm also just confused about HOW MUCH VILIFYING is ENOUGH?lol, this would be quite the helpful guideline, though going by Standard Disapproval Protocols, at least enough that you're apologizing as much as you're opinionating,
( ... )
idk, I think that fandom tends to conflate interpreting certain characters as indulging in apologia. Like, there is nothing wrong with using markers given by a show to create a coherent narrative for a character rather than being all "THIS PERSON IS BAD AND IF YOU TRY TO BRING UP THEIR HISTORY THEN YOU ARE AN APOLOGIST". For some reason people assume that a bad past/childhood etc. necessarily excuses all future actions of an individual, which, of course, is ridiculous. Understanding why someone does something is not the same as excusing why someone does something. You can understanding a victim of childhood abuse perpetuating a cycle of abuse, but that in no way implies that their abuse is any less condemnable. ONE DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER. And to pass value judgments on "types" of characters w/o paying attention to individual presentation/narrative is just as limited a viewpoint and apologizing for these types would be
( ... )
Hello! It's been long, I feel like I haven't LJ-ed in ages! Btw happy new year!!! (Poco, this goes for you too :P)
Like, for one thing sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, and for another, I get why so many people have been frustrated by apologia in the past that they're hyper-sensitive to the possibility of it.THIS I completely get. I remember reading a general post about rape culture on tumblr and the author had said that when people say the same kind of misogynistic stuff in real life that they do on tumblr, she's far more understanding about it because she knows the people and she knows where they're coming from, regardless of whether she believes they're right or wrong. And it's completely true for me too, because the yardstick of judging reality/internet is completely different. I won't judge or side-eye my own friends for buying into the same fallacies that people on tumblr do. Also, I think the anonymity guarantee is a huge help, because you can rage to an extent that you simply CAN'T IRL because of various
( ... )
Comments 43
Reply
Reply
Also, I feel much better about the asshole characters I love now. You're right about needing to tread carefully when talking to someone about a character who means a lot to them. "I think this character sometimes gets an unearned pass because he's (male, pretty, white, funny)," shouldn't just flow into, "The characteristics you identify with don't deserve understanding or sympathy."
Reply
Also, I feel much better about the asshole characters I love now.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
You're right about needing to tread carefully when talking to someone about a character who means a lot to them. "I think this character sometimes gets an unearned pass because he's (male, pretty, white, funny)," shouldn't just flow into, "The characteristics you identify with don't deserve understanding or sympathy."I mean, I could get behind "it's a fine line." I SAY it's a fine line. FREQUENTLY. But YES, and that dismissiveness bothers me. If someone's talking about a fictional character in a certain kind of way, yeah, sometimes I do get a ~vibe that this person is doing a thing that I fully admit I do, which is talking out that character's ~stuff because it's a tolerable distance from their own, and a reason someone (again, myself included) might do that is because they've internalized "YOU have no right to feel the ( ... )
Reply
Oh my god, this made me laugh so hard.
This post gets two thumbs up from me. Or possibly 10. Fictional characters who Do Bad Things are always more psychologically interesting when there is some context for their behaviour. Explaining and understanding that context is not the same as making excuses.
Plus, FICTION. It's not like all the Loki fans are banding together with letter-writing campaigns to get war criminals out of prison.
Reply
THAAAAAAAAAANK YOU. Characters who cannot be explained are not characters, they are forces of nature. And as much as I know no narrative choice is intrinsically invalid, I've gotta say that's a whole lot less interesting to me.
Plus, FICTION. It's not like all the Loki fans are banding together with letter-writing campaigns to get war criminals out of prison.bwahaha! But like...I'm guessing that there are plenty of people who uncritically accept Odin as a good dude without even that ~bad boy~ flagging of someone who kidnapped a baby with the intent of using that baby as a pawn in his colonialist power games, lied to the kid about his own identity for his whole life and let the poor kid build up an inferiority complex a mile wide, and then was shocked! SHOCKED! when some other nasty old warlord benefited from the whole scheme? ( ... )
Reply
LOL. At least when Holtz took Connor, he raised him up to do and be EXACTLY WHAT HOLTZ WANTED. And unlike Odin, there was never any doubt in the narrative that Holtz was the villain of the piece.
That was the thing that bugged me about Thor (the film); Loki is telegraphed as the villain from his very first scene, even before we find out about what Odin did to him. As soon as Laufey says, "The House of Odin is full of traitors," you know that Loki is the "traitor" in question. So Odin's actions become just one more excuse for Loki's Bad Behavior, instead of an explanation for it. I would find his psychology a lot more interesting if he hadn't been written as a "bad seed" from the start.
I would hazard a guess that people aren't under pressure to distance themselves from those thingsNot that I've seen? But I'm only just now getting into Marvel movie fandom, so I can't really say. Plus I don't read the comics, so I'm probably not considered a real fan ( ... )
Reply
Maybe it's my personal damage, but I fundamentally don't understand why people... WOULDN'T want to understand why terrible people are terrible??? (Excluding personal triggers, of course). In general, fandom's moratorium on "explaining" morally reprehensible characters seems to defeat the whole point of, you know, discussing shit. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DRINK THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS.
And... I'm just gonna come out and say it: I find it super problematic that formative trauma is a thing that is virtually always handwaved in these discourses ("sure, X was abused as a child, BUT X IS A BAD PERSON"). Apologia may be the worse of two evils, but frankly, not by much ( ... )
Reply
Maybe it's my personal damage, but I fundamentally don't understand why people... WOULDN'T want to understand why terrible people are terrible??? (Excluding personal triggers, of course).
Yeah, exactly. "I don't want to get into this asshole's/type of asshole's head" is totally fair, but trying to putting a taboo on attempts to understand assholes generally is pretty creepy.
BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DRINK THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS.
WELL DARLING, HOW ELSE DOES ONE STAY BEAUTIFUL ENOUGH TO KEEP THE PEASANTS ENSORCELED AND THE KNIGHTS CRAVING THE DEATHS OF ONE'S ENEMIES? HONESTLY.
I find it super problematic that formative trauma is a thing that is virtually always handwaved in these discourses ("sure, X was abused as a child, BUT X IS A BAD PERSON")
Yeah, it squicks the shit out of me too.
I'm also just confused about HOW MUCH VILIFYING is ENOUGH?lol, this would be quite the helpful guideline, though going by Standard Disapproval Protocols, at least enough that you're apologizing as much as you're opinionating, ( ... )
Reply
I hear there's a patch for that now. The secret ingredient is otter.
Reply
Reply
idk, I think that fandom tends to conflate interpreting certain characters as indulging in apologia. Like, there is nothing wrong with using markers given by a show to create a coherent narrative for a character rather than being all "THIS PERSON IS BAD AND IF YOU TRY TO BRING UP THEIR HISTORY THEN YOU ARE AN APOLOGIST". For some reason people assume that a bad past/childhood etc. necessarily excuses all future actions of an individual, which, of course, is ridiculous. Understanding why someone does something is not the same as excusing why someone does something. You can understanding a victim of childhood abuse perpetuating a cycle of abuse, but that in no way implies that their abuse is any less condemnable. ONE DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER. And to pass value judgments on "types" of characters w/o paying attention to individual presentation/narrative is just as limited a viewpoint and apologizing for these types would be ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Like, for one thing sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, and for another, I get why so many people have been frustrated by apologia in the past that they're hyper-sensitive to the possibility of it.THIS I completely get. I remember reading a general post about rape culture on tumblr and the author had said that when people say the same kind of misogynistic stuff in real life that they do on tumblr, she's far more understanding about it because she knows the people and she knows where they're coming from, regardless of whether she believes they're right or wrong. And it's completely true for me too, because the yardstick of judging reality/internet is completely different. I won't judge or side-eye my own friends for buying into the same fallacies that people on tumblr do. Also, I think the anonymity guarantee is a huge help, because you can rage to an extent that you simply CAN'T IRL because of various ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment