Jan 2019
10 / 33
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
HGohwell
Jan '19

It's a tricky one. I tend to go with just plain old, it doesn't matter what the author's ideology is, if a message you're getting doesn't sit right with you, drop it.

If we take romanticizing abuse as an example. Sometimes, people don't realise that's what they're doing, especial in cases that aren't physical abuse, they think "yeah he's a jerk but he's not abusive". Sometimes, it's a bit more than simply don't understand different types of abuse, often in the case of younger writers they've been exposed to this sort of thing so often they think it's normal/romantic. Look at how many shows for teens have jealousy and obsession as a sign of how much they care. I myself was guilty in my younger years of writing the dreaded "if he isn't at least a little jealous and possessive does he really care?" line (I know, I'm sorry, I was an embarrassing teenager). Sometimes it's not their ideology, it's just cold hard money grabbing. I've heard that some traditional publishers are pushing troublesome messages in some of their books because it's more scandalous and sexy (thanks 50 Shades) and will sell better. Screw morals, make money. Sometimes an author just wants to write a screwed up story knowing it's screwed up. And sometimes this is what they really believe is right. You just don't know which it is most the time.

So just go with your gut. If you don't like it, you can leave a message asking the author (lots of indie creators especially love to chat and will tell you lots if you reach out). If not, just drop something if you don't like the message.

joannekwan(ง ˙o˙)ว here to help~
Jan '19

Usually if a certain viewpoint is championed by a being in their story that has a LOT of authority and has been consistently framed as 'in the right' without question, then I'm willing to bet that's what the author believes too.
And if it's a damning viewpoint, and in the context they admonish those who oppose it, I'm like :grimacing: -cringe-

But if it's not too preachy, I can continue to read with an open-mind.

unknown_user
Jan '19
silverraven0

Yes, I agree that in many cases we can't know what is the author's point of view.
But sometimes I have strong feeling of ideology which I can't explain completely. For example, when I watch James Bond movies, I have strong feeling, that I should count James Bond as a positive character, despite there are obvious reasons why he is psychopath and sadist.

For example,

  • He usually doesn't bother to invent sneaky, stealthy way to just eliminate the main villain, not harm others and go away silently. Instead he makes bloodbaths and kill many people. It is the strong hint that he enjoy killing.
  • If he has a choice, he doesn't choose to keep the villain's life. Moreover, he doesn't choose the most merciful way of killing them. He even doesn't choose just the most simple way to do it. Instead, he choose just the most spectacular way of killing even if it make that human suffer very cruelly.
  • He jokes at people deaths and sufferings, which shows lack of empathy once more.
  • He rapes women. Nuff said.

Don't think that I'm against rapists and psychos in movies. Not at all! They can be organic part of the plot and move the plot in different ways. They can give non-standard view on some events or have unusual inner world as well (but it would obviously be very dark inner world).
I'm just feeling uncomfortable and inadequate because of nobody in those movies notice that James Bond is like this. Moreover, I have annoying feeling that I as a spectator supposed to count him a good guy too, but can't catch why exactly I have this feeling. :thinking:
Because he somehow plays the role of good guy? But what does this mean to play the role of good guy? To kill the villains? But villains can kill each other too... so... I'm not sure...

unknown_user
Jan '19
joannekwan

The most interesting part is, how the author makes particular characters seems "having authority" not only for other characters, but for spectators as well?

HGohwell
Jan '19
unknown_user

Sorry, had to pick this up. It's wroth noting this is a modern thing. Older James Bond movies there is faaaaar more simply knocking people out or running away or when they do die it often through their own doing rather than his and waaaay more actual under cover work rather than "under cover for fives seconds before murder starts". His treatment of women has generally been reflective of the time, although usually on the iffy side, but the killing and violence side has definitely been upped as the modern taste in action films has changed. James Bond as a series has shifted from "witty sauve actually leaning towards comedy at times spy film" to "blood bath and sex action film with cool gadgets".

silverraven0
Jan '19
unknown_user

Lol, it's the most cases of the things I often read. OP characters with sympathetic settings that click with readers though we know deep down that this one dude is possibly a psycho. XD

But you can't resist reading it. That is the point.

About James Bond movies, I actually never watched them (what a life I'm living), but I know the 'standard knowledge, so to speak, because it's referenced in many things and I just know the basic thing, but there's a theory that the James Bond, the spy, is actually a different characters whenever the actor changes. But that just a theory tho, and I'm branching from the main topic. I'm sorry.

unknown_user
Jan '19
HGohwell

All things which I've mentioned about him, were already noticeable in old movies "Thunderball" and "The Spy Who Loved Me".
I remember how I've watched them as a teen and was shoked by how was depicted the rape of sanatory worker in the first of them. It was shown like no big deal, just part of their life. I was very confused by it, because for me it seemed as clearly unnecessary cruelty for woman who made nothing bad, not justified by anything, and nobody even gave a shit about it. Also I've remembered how he pushed the dude into pool with sharks in the second one seemingly with joyment.
I'm sorry if it you like that character, and for moralizing and offtop. It is just an example of the movie, in which I feel a mismatch between the views of me and the author.

vothnthorvaldson
Jan '19

I stopped reading countless works of fiction because of that.
I don't think authors HAVE to be explicit in regard to their ideologies, or that they HAVE to be clear about what they think of (for eg.) the actions of their characters; however if they are not, there are multiple reasons why it may make me unconfortable.

Main ones are almost opposites:
The first category are ones who know what they are doing and hope the reader does not know what they are up to. It is the "I know I'm going to face criticism if I push forward these controvertial ideas, so I'll make sure I keep some distance but insist on them enough that the receptive persons get the message". It's irritating and dishonest, although I can somewhat understand as excessive political correctness is so prevalent now that even the most benign fiction works can get in trouble. So for that category, I'd say my reaction (negative or neutral) will depend on what ideas are pushed forward and if I can perceive whether the author is being dissimulative or only careful.

The other ones don't know what they are doing, and that's very depressing. This was already discussed on this thread in the context of abusive relationships. Generally naive and/or very young authors mostly inconsciously writing horrors because of poor education about the issues they are tackling.
Often makes me more sad than angry; I always feel like saying something but being helpful and constructive in these situations is not easy.

DiegoPalacios
Jan '19

It depends of how the actions are portrayed in the story, and on what aspects of the actions are shown and emphasized.

For example: "stealing to the rich to give the money to the poor"

If an author wants to portray this in a positive light, the rich person will be either a terrible person or the story will somehow downplay how this affect them, and in some cases, not even show the victims at all, (like robbing an empty house). In this cases there will probably be more emphasis to how this makes the lives of the poor people better. And making sympathetic characters that are poor and really need that money.

In the opposite case, there will be more focus on the violence of the robbery and show a sympathetic side of the rich victims. There may be an emphasis on the trauma the robery victims suffered (maybe a rich`s loved one died in that robbery or the jewelry stolen was from a dead relative and had a lot of sentimental value). The poor will probably not be shown, or in some cases, portrayed in a negative light.

HGohwell
Jan '19
unknown_user

I never said I liked the character, and I didn't say it was totally not there is the older movies. As I said, the treatment of women is always on the dodgy side of the times attitude to women. He's still a womaniser, but there's no rape in the modern movies. Rape was just more acceptable back then, I'm afraid.

The old movies are on repeat every weeknight on one channel here and at 2am there's little else to watch and what I said was that the older movies have far less violence and murder and it has increased on the way to the modern movies. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said there was less and it has increased.

All so called spy and action movies are now filled with violence and murder. This is not James Bond or his creator (I've not read the James Bond books so I can't comment on his creators intentions but given he was based on an actual spy in an actual war I'd imagine he's rather different to the films too), this is the audience. James Bond's levels of violence and attitude to women simply move with what the audience expects from their action hero. James Bond's evolution is a case of audience ideology not author.

skicoak
Jan '19

Which also clouds the issue of determining creator's actual ideology, it's increasingly hard to distinguish between playing/pandering to a desired audience or actual creator beliefs.

SleepingPoppy
Jan '19

Not to mention unconscious biases or simple accidental meaning. Not everything should be taken as 100% intentional. I think anyone reading a work of fiction while considering the authors ideology with a pretty big grain of salt unless it's quite overt!

Jenny-Toons
Jan '19
1

And this is where a lot of people go wrong when assuming the intent of a creator.

"Well you wrote about it, so obviously you support it"

And that is definitely not always true. We also have creators who just create works to please an audience, merely following a mainstream trend in order to stay popular. This doesn't mean that the author liked making it.

Unless their views are really, really, explicit in their works (like seeing a pattern of behaviors, of characters, of reactions, etc.), we can only take what they make with a grain of salt and we have to be critical in how we view our media as opposed to taking it all at face value.

I feel the only way to truly understand an author's ideology is if they themselves state what they do and don't support in their works and the reasons behind their work. Only then can we go back and look at their work and begin to see some patterns, if we haven't already seen them before.

With that said, I am also ready to leave a piece of work if I feel the creator in question isn't really a decent person; the work itself doesn't even have to be "bad", per se. But if they're an asshole, I'm just gonna drop them.

My reason?

This creator isn't the only creator in the world making work in whatever field they're working in. There are plenty of other amazing creators who are decent people doing the same thing they do. If I lived without seeing their work before, I can live after I've dropped them.

fattackycats
Jan '19

This sounds like a case of "separate the art from artist" maybe? If a creator is actually a terrible person but makes great content, how are you to know they are terrible unless they show it somewhere online? I say when reading a story or comic, try not to even think about the artist or their intentions. Sometimes this can't be avoided though because if they are a bad writer/storyteller, they may ham fist their ideologies or opinions into the audiences face and it is painfully obvious. But a good writer/storyteller would be able to successfully illustrate the overall message of the story without it sounding like the creator's own views are screeching at you.

skicoak
Jan '19
Jenny-Toons

Which is completely within your rights as a reader, but too often this is stated as some sort of social responsibility. To abandon works based on an assumption of a creator's ideology in opposition to your own is iffy from either side of the equation. There's always too much we don't know for sure about a creator's beliefs.

Now actual behavior/actions are a different story...

I might not have avoided Ethan Van Sciver's work for his individual worldview but he's prone to repeatedly doing things that can't even be considered an "difference of opinion". Currently, he's trying to bully one of the best letterers on the indy scene, Micah Myers, for opposing Comicsgate's openly stated agendas.

Jenny-Toons
Jan '19

I feel my case is more different because I operate on the basis on actual actions.behavior and facts (like from the source), as opposed to rumors.

I've come in contact with creators who I've had time to talk with face to face, and as I learned more to their character, they turned out to be unpleasant people. From there, I left all their social media and dropped their works.

Probably can't always do that or have the chance to do that, but if I find out they're an asshole, and it turns out to be true, I'm dropping them.

indagold
Jan '19

I dunno usually I assume its not the author's political beliefs in the story they just made a really weird choice but sometimes its so obvious you know it was intentional. Like i've seen authors that want to give depth to a character thats suppose to be nice by making them rude and they end up being abusive (tsunderes for an example) but you know its just a product of lazy cliched writing while others they seem to really hammer in the fact this is a healthy couple and fight to the end to prove it where you start wondering if the authors got things they're hiding.

amortelito
Jan '19

i have mentioned this point of "pushing their ideology" as a deal breaker for me when I read a comic. I can totally read comic that have views of the world I don't agree with because I understand this is fiction.
In fact I don't agree with my own character's behavior, in real life that's awful. They are very unhealthy and I wouldn't do that in reality. But they react that way because it is what makes sense to them. And my goal is not to educate but to have interesting interactions.

What I can't stand is when the comic feels like propaganda of an ideology /whatever ideology). I don't want to point fingers but some religious or identity comics tend to be very extreme in their preaching.

Literally the main character is a self-insert and everyone who doesn't agree with them is a horrible person and the purpose of the comic is to call out and bash people. It just feels very toxic for me.

vfinnigan
Jan '19
1
unknown_user

Uh, yeah. This guy violates character rule #1, which is to make the character someone readers would like to have around. Even villains have to have something likable about them.

As for pushing ideologies, I don't mind ideology sneaking in as something organic, like a natural part of that character's belief set. I might still read a book if it promotes something I disagree with a little, but if it promotes an ideology I find repulsive, I'll drop that book like a plague. However, even if it promotes an ideology I like, if it's too heavy-handed or preachy, I'll drop that, too.