Writing the Other
Writing my thoughts about the truly depressing event that recently took place in Washington DC will change nothing about it, upset the conservatives on my list and just depress the liberals further, so I won't bother.
Hopefully more interestingly, and on a bi-partisan level: recent discussion with karabair about Angels in America has reminded me how rare it is if a writer manages to (deliberately) make a character with a different ethical or political belief system to his/her own sympathetic and layered. I'm not talking about the Draco effect, otherwise known as "fandom picks a character the author wrote as a one-dimensional horrid prat and rewrites him into a new creation". I mean characters whom their writers definitely wanted to make endearing and/or understandable, despite the fact said characters represent a world view the writer either does not share or is even opposed to. It's possible, though.
Let's see: over at Babylon 5, we've got two, arguably three of them. I remember back when the first season was originally broadcast, some fans here in Germany took the episode Quality of Mercy and specifically Garibaldi's views expressed therein as being JMS' views on the death penalty (especially since Garibaldi was a sympathetic and important main character) and were appalled. Come Passing through Gethsemane in season 3, this particular fear was laid at rest for good. Not because Garibaldi's pov had changed, but because the episode, among other things, revisited the question from a very different angle. So, anyway, Garibaldi: loved by his writer, not representing his writer's political viewpoints. And let's look at the two characters which JMS he "heard" most clearly, whom it was the easiest for him to write for. Sheridan or Sinclair, those two gents with whom he shares initials and who are the leading men, fighting for democracy? Nah. Delenn or G'Kar, wise (well, for G'Kar post-epiphany, of course) and spiritual people who inspire their followers? No, not them, either. The two characters he named as his two most talkative muses, with whom he most easily connects, were Londo Mollari and Alfred Bester.
Londo: tragic imperialist. Responsible for a war that cost millions of lives. Bester: ruthless Psi Cop, belongs to an organisation which the show's hero calls "fascists r us". In conclusion: definitely not the guys whose world view their creator shares. And I dare say he finds their politics appalling.
But okay, this is sci-fi. No matter how well one likes Londo or Bester, there is no way viewers are going to want to have an empire of their very own or conduct aggressive wars or, arguing that there will be a war in the future anyway and everyone is after them, are going to take liberties away and do pre-emptive… never mind. You know what I mean. Okay, how about contemporary drama? I only saw the first season of West Wing (not because I didn't like it, but because I have limited time and not a limitless budget and many other shows), and I don't recall Republicans written with the same level of layers and interest etc. like the Democrats. When Louis in Angels in America says "you're nice, I can't believe you voted for Reagan" to Joe, we're meant to laugh at him, but I'm afraid I can't think of a contemporary arch-conservative character, written by a liberal author, whom one is expected to love, which would imply we're all Louises.
I can't think of a liberal character written by an arch-conservative author whom the author wants one to love, either, for that matter; please correct me if I'm wrong. And keep in mind that the character has to be contemporary. Any incarnation of Spartacus written by a conservative or of, say, Queen Victoria, written by a liberal does not count. Books, tv-shows, movies - is there anyone?
Trying to think of some of my own, I'm thrown back to the fantasy or sci-fi genre again and again. The Mayor of Sunnydale in BTVS' third season, for example, is on one level a satire of a Reaganite politician and the villain of the season, but he's also endowed with endearing ideosyncracies and one major sympathetic trait, his genuine affection for Faith. But again, fantasy.
Now in genre fanfic, too, we're able to write any number of characters with world views completely different of our own. (I very much doubt, for example, that the majority of Slytherin fans in HP fandom would identify themselves as being on the right end of the political spectrum.) It's fantasy, or Sci-Fi, and so we can. Why is this identification with the other so absolutely impossible if the other actually lives in the same world, or in a reasonable close fictional representation thereof?
Hopefully more interestingly, and on a bi-partisan level: recent discussion with karabair about Angels in America has reminded me how rare it is if a writer manages to (deliberately) make a character with a different ethical or political belief system to his/her own sympathetic and layered. I'm not talking about the Draco effect, otherwise known as "fandom picks a character the author wrote as a one-dimensional horrid prat and rewrites him into a new creation". I mean characters whom their writers definitely wanted to make endearing and/or understandable, despite the fact said characters represent a world view the writer either does not share or is even opposed to. It's possible, though.
Let's see: over at Babylon 5, we've got two, arguably three of them. I remember back when the first season was originally broadcast, some fans here in Germany took the episode Quality of Mercy and specifically Garibaldi's views expressed therein as being JMS' views on the death penalty (especially since Garibaldi was a sympathetic and important main character) and were appalled. Come Passing through Gethsemane in season 3, this particular fear was laid at rest for good. Not because Garibaldi's pov had changed, but because the episode, among other things, revisited the question from a very different angle. So, anyway, Garibaldi: loved by his writer, not representing his writer's political viewpoints. And let's look at the two characters which JMS he "heard" most clearly, whom it was the easiest for him to write for. Sheridan or Sinclair, those two gents with whom he shares initials and who are the leading men, fighting for democracy? Nah. Delenn or G'Kar, wise (well, for G'Kar post-epiphany, of course) and spiritual people who inspire their followers? No, not them, either. The two characters he named as his two most talkative muses, with whom he most easily connects, were Londo Mollari and Alfred Bester.
Londo: tragic imperialist. Responsible for a war that cost millions of lives. Bester: ruthless Psi Cop, belongs to an organisation which the show's hero calls "fascists r us". In conclusion: definitely not the guys whose world view their creator shares. And I dare say he finds their politics appalling.
But okay, this is sci-fi. No matter how well one likes Londo or Bester, there is no way viewers are going to want to have an empire of their very own or conduct aggressive wars or, arguing that there will be a war in the future anyway and everyone is after them, are going to take liberties away and do pre-emptive… never mind. You know what I mean. Okay, how about contemporary drama? I only saw the first season of West Wing (not because I didn't like it, but because I have limited time and not a limitless budget and many other shows), and I don't recall Republicans written with the same level of layers and interest etc. like the Democrats. When Louis in Angels in America says "you're nice, I can't believe you voted for Reagan" to Joe, we're meant to laugh at him, but I'm afraid I can't think of a contemporary arch-conservative character, written by a liberal author, whom one is expected to love, which would imply we're all Louises.
I can't think of a liberal character written by an arch-conservative author whom the author wants one to love, either, for that matter; please correct me if I'm wrong. And keep in mind that the character has to be contemporary. Any incarnation of Spartacus written by a conservative or of, say, Queen Victoria, written by a liberal does not count. Books, tv-shows, movies - is there anyone?
Trying to think of some of my own, I'm thrown back to the fantasy or sci-fi genre again and again. The Mayor of Sunnydale in BTVS' third season, for example, is on one level a satire of a Reaganite politician and the villain of the season, but he's also endowed with endearing ideosyncracies and one major sympathetic trait, his genuine affection for Faith. But again, fantasy.
Now in genre fanfic, too, we're able to write any number of characters with world views completely different of our own. (I very much doubt, for example, that the majority of Slytherin fans in HP fandom would identify themselves as being on the right end of the political spectrum.) It's fantasy, or Sci-Fi, and so we can. Why is this identification with the other so absolutely impossible if the other actually lives in the same world, or in a reasonable close fictional representation thereof?