![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anghraineI’m sure this is futile, but whatever.
Characters are not real people. We do not react to them the way that we react to real people, and we do not apply the same standards that we do to real people. Narrative role is relatively nonexistent for real people, but it is crucial when it comes to fictional characters.
What do I mean? Okay, say the narrative (as I see it subjectivity disclaimer blah blah blah - it’s usually clear) presents one character as a hero. I therefore expect them to not only meet basic standards of decency but to rise considerably above that, whatever their personal failings. If they’re rarely more than decent and often rather less, the dissonance between what they’re supposed to be and what they are (to me etc) becomes annoying. Once they fall below my Hero Assholishness threshold, I end up actively disliking them.
Scenario B: suppose the narrative presents a character as a villain. I expect them to be a malignant kind of person. Probably ruthless, likely remorseless. They may have admirable qualities (really, they need to, to be remotely credible as a threat), but they’re still largely evil. That’s what I expect them to be. I not only don’t expect them to surpass basic decency, I don’t expect them to remotely approach it. Because they’re bad guys. And if the villain rises above my Villain Goodness threshold, even though their “good” behaviour may still be worse than the behaviour that is making the hero seem like an asshole, they become sympathetic to me. (And, to look at fandom, a lot of other people.)
So this whole thing where people go, ‘you’re criticizing Han, but you like DARTH VADER???’ is … kind of missing the point. Vader is a mass-murdering agent of a tyrannical genocidal empire. If you don’t already know the ending, you don’t expect anything but evil-coated evil from him. So even very slight acts of possible decency, like opposing the destruction of Alderaan and the existence of the Death Star, carry a lot of weight. Han is a loyal friend who’s not interested in causes and likes money and adventure. At worst, he’s a … pale dove-gray. So 'disapproves of slavery and genocide’ makes a weak defense of his character. I mean, wow. Reach for the stars, Han.
Also, another thing gets skimmed right over in these comparisons, and it’s one where narrative is, if anything, more crucial.
We, as audiences, generally have a sense of what the narrative is telling us - or what we think it’s telling us. It doesn’t have to be preachy or obvious, and it’s not what the AUTHOR is saying (this holds very true for Death of the Author folks). A character’s actions can be treated as morally right or terribly wrong or some more nuanced place in between. And if there’s a dissonance between how the narrative seems to be treating something and how the readers themselves judge it, they often get pissed off.
Fiction being what it is, what you get a lot is the narrative seeming to say that the hero is totally justified but the audience questioning it, or the narrative seeming to treat a villain’s actions as purest evil, while the audience finds it perfectly justifiable. “The audience” is not going to be the entire audience, of course; it might just be a tiny contingent, or a very large one. And resistant reading isn’t necessarily right or even valid (no, not all readings are valid; you do actually have to take account of the text).
And when these two combine, what you get is people who feel they’re being told that a character is wonderful and heroic, and therefore apply reasonably high standards of conduct to the hero, but the hero comes across as mostly an asshole, and their reaction is more or less AGGGGH HATE HATE BURN IT WITH FIRE HAAAAATE. If, at the same time, they feel the narrative is framing the villain as terrible in every way, but some of the villain’s actions seem at least kind of decent, and often reasonable and justifiable, with (narratively supported or resistant) reasons to sympathize with them, people’s reactions are going to be more like YOU’RE JUST HURT OMG MY POOR BABY YOU CAN STILL TURN BACK SWEETIE COME ON WOW SO AMAZING <3 <3 <3
tl;dr - people have different expectations for heroes and villains and apply wildly different standards to them, particularly when their personal moralities clash with what they find in the narrative frameworks. So it’s kind of stupid to complain about people condemning moderately dickish heroes while flailing over villains’ traces of humanity. Characters are not real and they are not created equal. And for a ton of fandom, sympathetic villain > asshole hero.
(Alternate version: substitute “anti-hero” for “villain.” Similar reasoning applies.)
Characters are not real people. We do not react to them the way that we react to real people, and we do not apply the same standards that we do to real people. Narrative role is relatively nonexistent for real people, but it is crucial when it comes to fictional characters.
What do I mean? Okay, say the narrative (as I see it subjectivity disclaimer blah blah blah - it’s usually clear) presents one character as a hero. I therefore expect them to not only meet basic standards of decency but to rise considerably above that, whatever their personal failings. If they’re rarely more than decent and often rather less, the dissonance between what they’re supposed to be and what they are (to me etc) becomes annoying. Once they fall below my Hero Assholishness threshold, I end up actively disliking them.
Scenario B: suppose the narrative presents a character as a villain. I expect them to be a malignant kind of person. Probably ruthless, likely remorseless. They may have admirable qualities (really, they need to, to be remotely credible as a threat), but they’re still largely evil. That’s what I expect them to be. I not only don’t expect them to surpass basic decency, I don’t expect them to remotely approach it. Because they’re bad guys. And if the villain rises above my Villain Goodness threshold, even though their “good” behaviour may still be worse than the behaviour that is making the hero seem like an asshole, they become sympathetic to me. (And, to look at fandom, a lot of other people.)
So this whole thing where people go, ‘you’re criticizing Han, but you like DARTH VADER???’ is … kind of missing the point. Vader is a mass-murdering agent of a tyrannical genocidal empire. If you don’t already know the ending, you don’t expect anything but evil-coated evil from him. So even very slight acts of possible decency, like opposing the destruction of Alderaan and the existence of the Death Star, carry a lot of weight. Han is a loyal friend who’s not interested in causes and likes money and adventure. At worst, he’s a … pale dove-gray. So 'disapproves of slavery and genocide’ makes a weak defense of his character. I mean, wow. Reach for the stars, Han.
Also, another thing gets skimmed right over in these comparisons, and it’s one where narrative is, if anything, more crucial.
We, as audiences, generally have a sense of what the narrative is telling us - or what we think it’s telling us. It doesn’t have to be preachy or obvious, and it’s not what the AUTHOR is saying (this holds very true for Death of the Author folks). A character’s actions can be treated as morally right or terribly wrong or some more nuanced place in between. And if there’s a dissonance between how the narrative seems to be treating something and how the readers themselves judge it, they often get pissed off.
Fiction being what it is, what you get a lot is the narrative seeming to say that the hero is totally justified but the audience questioning it, or the narrative seeming to treat a villain’s actions as purest evil, while the audience finds it perfectly justifiable. “The audience” is not going to be the entire audience, of course; it might just be a tiny contingent, or a very large one. And resistant reading isn’t necessarily right or even valid (no, not all readings are valid; you do actually have to take account of the text).
And when these two combine, what you get is people who feel they’re being told that a character is wonderful and heroic, and therefore apply reasonably high standards of conduct to the hero, but the hero comes across as mostly an asshole, and their reaction is more or less AGGGGH HATE HATE BURN IT WITH FIRE HAAAAATE. If, at the same time, they feel the narrative is framing the villain as terrible in every way, but some of the villain’s actions seem at least kind of decent, and often reasonable and justifiable, with (narratively supported or resistant) reasons to sympathize with them, people’s reactions are going to be more like YOU’RE JUST HURT OMG MY POOR BABY YOU CAN STILL TURN BACK SWEETIE COME ON WOW SO AMAZING <3 <3 <3
tl;dr - people have different expectations for heroes and villains and apply wildly different standards to them, particularly when their personal moralities clash with what they find in the narrative frameworks. So it’s kind of stupid to complain about people condemning moderately dickish heroes while flailing over villains’ traces of humanity. Characters are not real and they are not created equal. And for a ton of fandom, sympathetic villain > asshole hero.
(Alternate version: substitute “anti-hero” for “villain.” Similar reasoning applies.)
no subject
on 2018-12-14 07:04 pm (UTC)I have a hard time with media where I'd rather side with the 'villians' for whatever reason. "Inhumans" was one, and I'm not surprised that only got one season. "Knightfall" was another and I'm not going to watch season 2. There are some others where there more grey areas.
If the bad guys are the most interesting, the least hypocritical, the least annoying, more relatable, etc, then why wouldn't I prefer them!