Sorry, I skipped some posts. version

People who analyze fiction almost always ignore the fact that most of the time things happen for the sake of the plot and not because the author is trying to make a comment about anything. This bugs me.

It also bugs me that some people think the ideology is more important than fun.

Original post, made smaller because it sucks

I gotta admit this is sort of a Take That at some recent topics, but I'm gonna also look at it from the other side too.

"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Sure, he was talking about psychoanalysis, but it applies just as much to works of fiction and the over-analysis that goes into them.

When a hero preaches about wanting to protect others, ask yourself: Is he doing this because the author is trying to make An Aesop, or is this just a personal quirk of that character? If the hero falls in love with a woman who is really weak and needy, is the author saying this is how the world should be or is it just one fictional character's personal preference?

Even though the former has a grain of truth in both cases, more likely its the latter. Anyone who has ever written knows that sometimes you write an event out just because it works better for the plot, not intending any greater meaning, but sometimes the path you chose can be read as reflecting your views on something.

Reading meanings into shit can be fun, in a WMG sort of way, but it gets tedious when people take their readings seriously and, worse, use them as the basis of a complaint or some sort of cultural analysis. At that point, you're just fuckin' looney. A work of fiction rarely ever represents the writer's actual beliefs  ^*

^{before you click "reply", keep reading}

, much less that of an entire culture in which the artist represents one person out of BILLIONS.

Just to highlight the silliness of it: Would you claim the writers of Batman are advocates of vigilantism?

...

But as I said, it annoys me from the opposite end as well—authors whose works are meant to be taken as messages. In other words, Author Tracts and Author On Board. Difference between these and just plain stories being over-analyzed is that the ones meant as a message are usually in no way subtle about it. A Michael Crichton novel for instance, or an episode of Law and Order.

Stuff like that annoys the fuck out of me, because when I sit down to watch TV or read a good book I want just that: To have a little bit of relaxing fun, not for some fuckwad with a typewriter to try and preach his message to me. I gotta wonder why these people go through the trouble of writing it as some sort of story when they could just write an article or film a documentary instead. Either of those would take far less effort.

The weird thing is this preachy crap is often praised by critics for being "thought-provoking." Thought provoking? A psychotic rant on why everyone but the author sucks is thought provoking? So when I hear this crap from some of my more socially unbalanced acquaintances its just them being douchebags but if its on TV its thought provoking? Do critics just like anything that has the depth and complexity of a Filmation cartoon? (Probably, considering some actual Filmation cartoons have won awards for this type of stuff).

What exactly do the literary snobs of the world have against pure fluff anyway? Why does everything have to be a commentary on something that we've been hearing about on the news for the last millions years? Works of fiction rarely have a far reach anyway, so its safe to assume your book isn't gonna turn heads, unless you happen to be George Orwell or you gimmickly decide to ride the wave of popular sentiment.

Ugh, no wonder American television dramas meant for adults are often far more vapid and less intellectually stimulating than a Japanese comic book meant for little kids...

By the way, DBZ is better than Batman.

edited 8th Nov '09 8:48:47 PM by James_S_Pratt

This is a joke, right?

Would you claim the writers of Batman are advocates of vigilantism?

Depends on the particular writer. Some are, some are not. Some are very critical and aware of what they are doing.

But the point is, you can't write Batman without having a stance on vigilanteism.

What exactly do the literary snobs of the world have against pure fluff anywa

Here's the thing:

There is no such thing as pure fluff. There is stuff whose implications has been thought through and stuff whose implications are not considered (which tends to mean it defaults to the memes and ideals present in the culture of origin in some fashion) No work of fiction lacks meaning, because if it lacked meaning it wouldn't be fiction.

edited 4th Nov '09 2:12:36 AM by Arilou

Gah don't sneak replies up on me! Now I have to edit!

Hulk Hogan has a lead role in Suburban Commando!

No I'm serious. Dragon Ball Z is better than Batman.

Arilou has solar energy!

One day Batman went into a bar and ate a cookie. The end.

There, now what's my stance on vigilantism?

One sunny day James sat down in a warm chair. Next to him was his beloved dog. He petted the dog, and suddenly the dog began growling at an evil cat that was now walking across the yard. Angered at this intrusion, James picked up his BFG 9000 and blew the cat away. Then he gave the dog a special treat for detecting the foul feline's presence. The end.

That's a work of fiction and it clearly lacks meaning.

To speak of more serious literature (and I'm stretching the meaning of the word "serious" here), what's the meaning of, say, the first appearance of the Riddler in Batman (and I mean that particular story not the character/mythos as a whole)? What's the meaning of the first Resident Evil game? What's the meaning of one of H.P. Lovecraft's Dagon?

edited 4th Nov '09 2:22:24 AM by James_S_Pratt

For some reason this makes me think of a quote I heard somewhere. "Fiction's job isn't to make us feel happy. Fiction's job is the make us feel." Perhaps writing down a story was the only way an author thought they could convey their idea. You could ramble on and on about how it sucks to work in a meat processing plant but you might get a better reaction from the audience if you show them how much it sucks from the view of a character.

Alright go put a nickle in the hyperbole jar. Not every anvillicious story or Author Tract is about how awesome the author is.

So an author should never try to put their opinions or beliefs in a work, because the chances of it creating a social movement are slim? Right...

Welcome to the Jungle, we've got fun and games, we've got everything you need, honey we know the names...

Why?

@Arilou, if you haven't already, see the edits I made to my previous post.

Alkthash has solar energy!

That's not what I wrote. Interjecting one's own opinions is fine as long as its not the entire fucking reason the story was written.

Hulk Hogan has solar energy!

Oh no, I'm not gonna derail this into a DBZ vs Batman discussion. That's for another topic, preferably located in Yack Fest. And I'll start it when I'm ready.

edited 4th Nov '09 2:28:48 AM by James_S_Pratt

There, now what's my stance on vigilantism?

That's not a Batman story.

'''One sunny day James sat down in a warm chair. Next to him was his beloved dog. He petted the dog, and suddenly the dog began growling at an evil cat that was now walking across the yard. Angered at this intrusion, James picked up his BFG 9000 and blew the cat away. Then he gave the dog a special treat for detecting the foul feline's presence. The end. That's a work of fiction and it clearly lacks meaning.'''

No, it doesn't. There's meaning there: There is love, there is evil, there is violence. That's a lot of meaning right there.

To speak of more serious literature (and I'm stretching the meaning of the word "serious" here), what's the meaning of, say, the first appearance of the Riddler in Batman (and I mean that particular story not the character/mythos as a whole)? What's the meaning of the first Resident Evil game? What's the meaning of one of H.P. Lovecraft's Dagon?

I'm not actually that much of a Batman fan, so I haven't read the first Riddler story, and I haven't played the Resident Evil games (but considering it involves an evil megacorporation and zombies, there are a bunch of themes about the corrupting influence of evil, fear of disease, and so forth that could probably be extracted relatively easily) I'm unsure if I've read Dagon (I tend to mix my lovecraft stories up) but there's definitely all sorts of meaning in his work (a lot of it not particularly pleasant, btw.)

edited 4th Nov '09 2:37:56 AM by Arilou

Schmuck Bait if there ever was any!

Well for one thing the dog represents companionship, through good times and bad. When danger comes by it alerts its master quickly suggesting that vigilance is encouraged. Another theme is that danger should be dealt with swiftly, even proactively before it has a chance to act. One has to wonder if the cat would have actually been a threat or it was just passing by. We only have the narrative's word that it was a foul creature, but that is more of an Informed Ability than anything since it doesn't do anything besides get killed. The story also shows that one should reward aid, even if there is little incentive to do so. James could have easily been dismissive of his dog, but instead he chose to reward it for its vigilance.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. gah going back and forth to edit posts in response to things below them makes it confusing to follow.

Arilou has solar energy!

Details details. Its a story, about Batman, therefore its a Batman story.

Point is though, the premise that "if you write Batman you must have a stance on vigilantism" is fallacious. In fact it illustrates the whole problem of "X must have a meaning."

There was a time when Batman was a fully deputized agent of the law. Under your premise that would be a statement that the writers did not like vigilantism. But in fact during that time the CCA had put a ban on glorifying crime and vigilantism is, in fact, a crime, so they were forced by government mandate to make Batman go legit  ^*

^{I almost wrote "go straight" but... well they did that too}

Most of the Silver Age stories were quite meaningless because any "meaning" you could extract from them is devalued by the knowledge that whatever happened in those stories was more than likely a result of censorship, corporate mandate, or other forms of Executive Meddling with virtually no input from the actual writers (who at that time didn't even get to come up with their own stories and instead had to write whatever the publisher told them to).

That's the thing: You don't know what went into getting that story out on the shelf, so unless the author releases a big tell-all, you're just guessing (and even the author can be wrong, or might just be bullshitting. After all there's Ray Bradbury...).

WHAT?!?!

...

You're just trying to drop a Logic Bomb on me, aren't you?

I honestly find a lot of Lovecraft's work kinda inspirational. Yeah I've read the "default" interpretation, the whole "all is chaos and mankind is irrelevant yada yada yada" nonsense but that's not really supported by the text—after all if the gods are so far above men then why are there secret ceremonies that can be performed and scientific devices that can be used to bind and/or summon them? Not to mention secret societies which have benefited from worshiping the entities of the Cthulhu mythos? Obviously humans must be some kind of awesome if they can wield that kind of power. But that only proves that even the Word Of God can be wrong and that just because something is a popular belief doesn't make it true.

Alkthash has solar energy!

....

Jimmy claps his hands in pure awe. Talk about those third options...

Though I could still pick apart that analysis a bit.

Well for one thing the dog represents companionship, through good times and bad. When danger comes by it alerts its master quickly suggesting that vigilance is encouraged. Actually, that's just how most dogs behave—they bark at anything that moves.

Another theme is that danger should be dealt with swiftly, even proactively before it has a chance to act. One has to wonder if the cat would have actually been a threat or it was just passing by. We only have the narrative's word that it was a foul creature, but that is more of an Informed Ability than anything since it doesn't do anything besides get killed. This of course leads to an alternate interpretation: story-James was a gun-crazy looney of the "shoot first, ask questions later" variety who just as likely killed an innocent creature, in which case rather than being about vigilance the story is about paranoia and egomania. Since its impossible to determine which interpretation is the "correct" one the debate really serves no purpose except to allow us to duel wits with each other—therefore the story is just fluff.

The story also shows that one should reward aid, even if there is little incentive to do so. James could have easily been dismissive of his dog, but instead he chose to reward it for its vigilance. Or perhaps James is one of those animal-obsessive types who thinks anything Fido  ^*

^{or whatever the dog's name is}

does is special and therefore sees no problem with "rewarding" the dog for doing basically nothing. Also in light of the previous Alternate Character Interpretation perhaps the dog knew the cat was no threat, but barked at it anyway because he knew his master would like that and reward him. James doesn't really like the dog at all, but keeps it around because of his paranoia. Perhaps he even obsessively rewards it in order to ensure its loyalty because that damn mutt could switch sides at any minute...

... Great, I just analyzed an analysis. Oh well this wouldn't be the first time I've contradicted myself.

Tell you the truth though I was hoping someone would pick up on the obvious "the author thinks dogs rule and cats drool" message so I could point out that in real life I love cats and hate dogs, but Arilou is apparently into Zen and you took a third option, so hell with it.

Yeah, no. A story is actually defined as a sequence of fictional or nonfictional events. One event does not a story make.

"Stuff like that annoys the fuck out of me, because when I sit down to watch TV or read a good book I want just that: To have a little bit of relaxing fun, not for some fuckwad with a typewriter to try and preach his message to me."

It's perfectly fine if all that you want from your books and shows are relaxation and light entertainment; there are many such books and shows which carter to the type of pleasure you are trying to extract from them. But you shouldn't condemn those who write plots and characters in order to express a viewpoint or to explore an idea, and offer their works to readers and viewers that would like to think and learn new ideas trough those stories.

"I gotta wonder why these people go through the trouble of writing it as some sort of story when they could just write an article or film a documentary instead. Either of those would take far less effort."

Just like the fact that movies exist do not make books based on similar stories obsolete, so too does the fact that an author can write articles or make documentaries about the themes of their choosing does not make books and shows written to explore those themes irrelevant.

There was a time when Batman was a fully deputized agent of the law.

And that doesen't say anything about vigilanteism? IT TOTALLY DOES. It says that the writer is very clearly trying to define Batman as not being one.

Under your premise that would be a statement that the writers did not like vigilantism.

Not neccessarily.

But in fact during that time the CCA had put a ban on glorifying crime and vigilantism is, in fact, a crime, so they were forced by government mandate to make Batman go legit

• The CCA was not a government body. It was something set up by the comic-book companies themselves to *avoid even the possibility* of having to deal with a government agency
• And that doesen't say anything about vigilanteism? Just because something comes as a result of outside pressure doesen't reduce the meaning of it.

'''I almost wrote "go straight" but... well they did that too Most of the Silver Age stories were quite meaningless because any "meaning" you could extract from them is devalued by the knowledge that whatever happened in those stories was more than likely a result of censorship, corporate mandate, or other forms of Executive Meddling with virtually no input from the actual writers (who at that time didn't even get to come up with their own stories and instead had to write whatever the publisher told them to).'''

Err... Yes? So? You think these executives just came with these restrictions out of nowhere? There was a meaning and a point to them, and the result produced carried that meaning. A lot of the Silver Age stories has very clear (although frequently broken) Aesops!

That's the thing: You don't know what went into getting that story out on the shelf, so unless the author releases a big tell-all, you're just guessing (and even the author can be wrong, or might just be bullshitting. After all there's Ray Bradbury...).

Yes. That's called The Death Of The Author. And technically, anyone that has a hand in the production of a text, be it an editor or whatever, is an "author" in that sense, since he or she is part of the production process and can affect the final product.

Actually, that's just how most dogs behave—they bark at anything that moves.

And why do you think they do that? It's something that can be trianed away with sufficient skill, and it's something that is fairly useful to the dog. There is meaning there, now, there are alternate interpretations, but there is meaning there.

This of course leads to an alternate interpretation:

Yes, the text supports multiple interpretations. Most texts do, although some are more supportive of interpretations than others.

"For sale: Baby shoes. Never worn."

Tell you the truth though I was hoping someone would pick up on the obvious "the author thinks dogs rule and cats drool" message so I could point out that in real life I love cats and hate dogs, but Arilou is apparently into Zen and you took a third option, so hell with it.

Meaning isn't something the author puts into a text, it is something the reader pulls out of a text. Or rather, the author puts stuff int a text and he might be trying to get the reader to read the same meaning as he's putting into it, but nothing guarantees that the reader will extract what the author intended: The reader might find meanings the author didn't intend to put in, and ignore meanings the author tried to convey.

To further confuse matters, the author might be deliberately misleading (trying to instill some form of meaning that is not his own) for all sorts of reasons.

Sorry, I skipped some posts.

Batman is better than DBZ.

This somewhat dwells into mind fuck territory.

I agree with the OP that some people are really looking too much into things. Now I personally don't like tons of false symbolism put there just to make everything look more symbolic or deeper. But frankly, I don't particualary like show that put shitloads of symbolism for a purpose (not that you can be sure it is there for a purpose anyway). If you want to tell a story, tell it plain and simple. A good mesure in everything.

That is why I don't like FLCL for instance.

EDIT: Oh, you can write about something wihout having a strong oppinion about it. Heck, you don't even have to have an oppinion at all. I can write a story about Batman and the whole vigilantism thing might never cross my mind during hte process.

edited 4th Nov '09 6:07:53 AM by TrashMan

You can certainly write something without having a strong opinion on it, but you must have some knowledge of or opinion on whatever you write about, or else you wouldn't be able to write about it.

James, with regards to complaints and cultural analysis, I think you're missing the point. It's not about deliberate moral messages. It's about the writer's personal preferences and assumptions, which will be inherent in their writing.

For example, if I were to write a story featuring a Fascist dictatorship, with no intention of delivering An Aesop or anything like that, I would still end up portraying said dictatorship in a negative light due to my personal prejudices. OK, so in theory I could deliberately go out of my way to avoid that, but only if I was aware of said prejudices and considered them to be a bad thing (which I don't, honestly).

Likewise, anyone who writes about Batman doing vigilante stuff is going to have some opinion of vigilantism, even if they think it's irrelevant to the story at hand. If their opinion is "I don't really care about it in Real Life, but when Batman does it it's really awesome", then that's an opinion that will most likely show through in their writing.

OK, so in theory I could deliberately go out of my way to avoid that, but only if I was aware of said prejudices and considered them to be a bad thing (which I don't, honestly).

To be honest, you could also deliberately try to portray the fascist dictator in a positive light, suppressing your own views. But that's harder than it sounds to pull off.

I could, but why would I, unless I was trying to make a point?

In some cases, to sharpen your writing skills.

To write an interesting story and tread new ground?

Frankly, I'd go about it this way: "What should Batman do next? What would be cool?"

How someone wil lview it is irrelvent. How I view vigilantism is irrelevant. There's no message I'm putting there.

It's just Batman beating up a thug. It might end up loking good or bad to someone, but that's debatable and depends on the readers POV too.

You might be toeing a party line.

This might have been what Zhang Yimou had to make concessions to in Hero, his big wuxia epic. The film has been called out for being essentially a sympathetic allegory of the rise of Communism in China, by attempting to justify despotism under certain extenuating circumstances.

I was talking about writing to entertain others, but Meaty, your point is valid. Nevertheless, I don't know how I could possibly portray the Fascism itself as a good thing, without resorting to cheesy propaganda. I can't even get my head around the idea.

Trash Man, when you think "What will be cool?" you are making a judgement based on your own opinion.

James, with regards to complaints and cultural analysis, I think you're missing the point. It's not about deliberate moral messages. It's about the writer's personal preferences and assumptions, which will be inherent in their writing.

What about the critics personal preferences and assumptions, which will be inherent in their writing?

I find these attempts to telepathic (sometimes necromantic) psychoanalysis somewhat tedious, especially when they are followed by condemning the presumed ideological stance of the writer (and usually of their readers, generally without ever talking to an actual reader).

Erik