Averting Good Is Impotent

So what do you like reading, if you don't want to see characters having emotional reactions to events that occur to them? Bland fact-by-fact reports of fictional going-ons?

Again, no one said anything about emotional reactions in general. The complaint was specifically against overmuch Wangst due to killing, even when the killing was as morally straightforward as you get.

Do you want to write, or read, Noir? Writing necessarily requires reaching out of your own tastes.

No it doesn't.

I'll make a caveat to his statement so that it is more palatable and true: Writing anything worth reading requires reaching out of your own tastes.

Again, no it doesn't. Why would you write about something you didn't want to read? That's dishonest, if it's anything. If you want to convince me otherwise, give an example, stop making blanket statement with no evidence.

edited 15th Dec '11 10:41:55 PM by NoirGrimoir

Writing anything to be consumed by anyone but yourself necessarily requires consideration of other people's tastes. Plus, stretching your writing and reading out of your comfort zone will improve your writing even when you return to your comfort zone.

I don't really want to get involved with this, but I have to say that in this case I wholeheartedly agree with Noir Grimoir. Why would you write something you don't want to read? There's a difference between "stretching your comfort zone" and writing something you have no interest in whatsoever.

edited 15th Dec '11 10:46:46 PM by nrjxll

An example of what? It is a more complex thing. In order to write about characters as though they were people you need to understand how people think and react to things based on their beliefs, past and personality. You don't learn these things from watching DBZ and Naruto, you learn these things by talking to other people who you normally wouldn't and reading works by people you normally wouldn't in order to get a better understanding of differing views and mindsets.

If you write solely from your point of view, all you will end up with is something shallow and self-fellating which does not look at characters or theme in any way.

edited 15th Dec '11 10:46:13 PM by YeahBro

I don't write from my point of view. I just don't write heroes who excessively whine about having killed someone, instead of soldiering on regardless of their emotional issues. I don't usually write about character who have killed people at all. I don't think it's a requirement that all heroes have to have killed anyone.

edited 15th Dec '11 10:58:20 PM by NoirGrimoir

Yeah, but we are talking about works where they do, in which case it is important for them to show some kind of reaction, rather than being emotionless death-bots. If you are never going to write about people who kill people, why preach about how they should not have a reasonable emotional reaction to the murder?

No, you were talking about works in general. It was stated that way, anyways. And I never said I never write about characters who kill other people, I said I usually don't. And the reason i mention it is because I do read stories about charcaters who kill people and I'm just sick of the over-angsting on the issue. Again, stop implying I said characters have to be 'unemotional death-bots'. I just said I want a character who isn't as obviously emotionally demonstrative.

Time to bust out Urasawa's Monster again, clearly: the protagonist goes after someone who, by your definition, more than obviously deserves to die. He is reluctant to kill him because he does not believe that it should be in his power to decides who dies, yet he knows that the killing will prevent many others. By your preferences, he should pull the trigger and shut the fuck up, but thousands of readers have managed to find the story incredibly compelling because he doesn't - and because the moral dilemma focusing on the worth of a killer's life is far more fascinating and important than a bullet to the head.

I didn't say works shouldn't ever do it, I said I'm tired about reading about it. besides, once again, it's the same thing with Tri Gun and Kenshin, which I've already talked about. Tenma doesn't hide in a hole (from what little I've watched of the series so far) he is off doing stuff. That isn't something I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is Heroic BSoD over the issue. Besides, Tenma never even kills Johan, so it's kind of a different thing regardless.

So, you're tired of the shitty execution rather than the concept itself.

You could say that, yes.

So what works have you read that have the emotional reaction you despise so much, Noir? I think the problem here is that nobody has any clue what it is that you're so sick of, and what you're proposing as an alternative rings hollow. Talking in tropes doesn't help anyone understand what it is that you're trying to say.

The big one I'm thinking of is Rand al' Thor from The Wheel Of Time series. In-universe characters actually get annoyed with him over it.

Well, there's your problem. That series is poorly written even by the standards of genre fiction. The lesson to take from it is to avoid obnoxious, unrealistic emotional reactions, not to avoid emotional reaction (even depression!) entirely.

Wow you're slow, I've been saying this the entire time.

And it's why people have been exhorting you to read effective fiction (and non-fiction!) where people are affected by killing and the horror of war, rather than... whatever it is you're suggesting, your alternatives haven't been terribly coherent, to be honest.

Phrasing things like a fat-tongued gibbon who is incapable of expressing themselves without relying on tropes is the fastest way to be misunderstood. You could have just said that you did not like when emotional reactions are executed poorly (which would be expected and not really worth posting) but instead you went off about how people should not have angst in stories. This could have been sorted in 5 minutes if you had not written carelessly.

edited 15th Dec '11 11:40:58 PM by YeahBro

The moral of the story? Stop thinking in tropes.

Amen.

I was phrasing things perfectly fine, you guys weren't listening. You were just being belligerent jerks. I repeated myself at least five or six times. I was being perfectly clear. Tell me how I wasn't being clear. With evidence.