Jan 2019
16 / 33
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
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.

scythe
Jan '19

If a work is a piece of social/political propaganda, then you'd be a fool to divorce the ideology of the protagonist from the author, and by extension, the antagonist as having an ideology intended to be demonised.

But for a regular story, with honest, genuine characters, then I don't know why anyone would assume the author agrees with any ideology contained within the work.

That isn't to say that author's don't or shouldn't impart their own personal worldview into their work, but rather, that they should be careful that if they do it makes sense within the confines of the story, lest they inadvertently turn what they're writing into a piece of propaganda.

unknown_user
Jan '19

How do you distinguish honest story from propaganda? There are so many shades between them.
I see blatant propaganda, too - for example, in that creative works, where all not-absolute-evil characters profess one religion or politics opinions. But there are also more subtle types of propaganda, which is harder to see and formalize. Moreover, like you and others have said, it becomes harder to understand which point of view, shown in creative work, is authors point of view, and have been ideas, which you see in their work, put here intentionally or not.
So, how do you distinguish those shades of gray?

scythe
Jan '19

For me personally, it's a I'll know it when I see it kind of deal, but that might not help people who aren't as knowledgeable in such matters.

Off the top of my head, generally, the more extreme the ideology being celebrated, the more likely it is to be propaganda. When it comes to politics, it's can become a question of how partisan is it. Also, how likely is it that the reader will feel as though they're being sold an ideology, or being preached to by either the characters or the story in general? Who made it, for what purpose, who paid for it?

For instance, I don't think anyone would call Lord of the Rings Christian propaganda, despite it being heavily laden with christian themes and symbology. But I myself only became aware of the links after reading it, despite being extraordinarily familiar with the christian mythos.

Whereas, a Chict tract is a pretty clear example of Christian propaganda.

Those examples are obvious, but you're right, it does become grey with many others.

A lot of comics these days will have characters that inexplicably go on rants about whatever social or political topic, which to my mind weaves into the realm of propaganda because it's often out of character, or at least devoid of the character's voice, and has clearly been inserted by the author for the sole purpose of using their platform to propagate their specific worldview (at the expense of the story's honesty and continuity.) To my mind, this is especially off putting when the author draws you in with a good hook, plot and characters, only to later throw that all away to sell you on the moral superiority of their worldview.

punkarsenic
Jan '19
1

you dont! kill the author! die die dieee

in seriousness... smth like 'romanticising abuse' is less a belief and more an action - if an artist has a trend of telling stories where abuse is portrayed as romantic / in a positive, uncritical light, then it can be said that that creator romanticises abuse.

and over a body of work, it can be possible to notice trends. for example, from the treatment of people of colour and LGBT expression in the series of unfortunate events netflix series and a trend of off-colour jokes and snide remarks - as well as the 2 counts of brownface - i can infer that daniel handler, writer and showrunner, is... an ass. (i love that show btw, no shade, i just take issue with some of the subtext. and the brownface.)

for a more complicated example, people argue that brad bird (the incredibles, ratatoille, iron giant) follows a randian ideology. while bird describes himself as a centrist, and ayn rand is firmly right wing, its easy to find trends of objectivism and individualism (rand's specialities) in all of bird's films... so... even though he doesnt openly support ayn rand, is it fair to say his films are randian?

heres a good video on the topic that goes into more detail

The Incredibles - Ayn Rand and Objectivism | Renegade Cut

theres a lot of like... interpretation when it comes to themes in all works, especially when applying death of the author, and theres a lot of ambiguous cases where its hard to say whether the author 'intended' for something to be, like, racist or abusive or whatever the offence. however, creators can still be held accountable for unintended messaging.

bakasama25
Jan '19

"you dont! kill the author! die die dieee"

Dude you were SO close to the "Death of the Author".