Cynicism: When is it realistic, and when does it go too far?

I'm sure you guys have noticed that I've made a-lot of these types of posts. That's because this is a question I've debated for a long time.

Many believe True Art Is Angsty, and tend to put stories on the Cynical end of the sliding scale, however, some stories go too far in that direction and create Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy. For me, it's hard to tell when a characters cynical attitude is justified, and when it's a bit too much.

So I wanted to ask my fellow troopers: for you when is a character/story realistically cynical, and when is a character/story a bit too cynical?

DISCUSS.

edited 29th Jul '12 9:04:46 AM by HandsomeRob

Are cynical and idealistic really opposite of each other?

Replace Idealistic with Optimistic. It's possible to be both cynical and idealistic, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Not really no. But idealism and cynicism in the context of fiction are opposites based on the definiton of idealism as an antonym of cynicism. A bit arbitrary but it works.

On topic, I don't think there's such a thing as too far in stories when it comes to cynicism or idealism. Personally, I prefer idealism but the fact is that if a writer's really good, they can pull off relentless cynicism all too well. See: LA Confidential.

This is true, but I always feel that the way it's painted on this site, that the two are opposite to each other. Knight in Sour Armor exist to show off Cynical Idealists / Idealistic Cynics.

I see your point. It's just that in a story where characters have to make a really brutal choice, but another character suggests something that is less so, and is treated like a Naive Idiot who doesn't understand how the world works.

Or when the characters in a story default to questionable course of actions, but it's never really made clear if this was the only way or not. It's just the way things are.

I'm mostly trying to get an idea of when it makes sense to do things in such a way, and when it's actually too extreme.

Such as the old needs of the many debate.

edited 29th Jul '12 11:10:16 AM by HandsomeRob

Cynicism and idealism aren't opposites. I happen to be a fan of those characters that want to make the best of the world by fully expecting and knowing exactly how the worst of it happens, then kicking its ass. Bonus points if they do it cheerfully and without angsting for hours.

Spiderman for instance — in his better moments anyway.

edited 29th Jul '12 11:24:44 AM by Pykrete

They aren't opposites, but the fact is that most stories out there do not work with that premise in mind. And even when they do have a character who embraces both, the story's tone doesn't necessarily do that.

"I'm mostly trying to get an idea of when it makes sense to do things in such a way, and when it's actually too extreme."

Let's see then

"Or when the characters in a story default to questionable course of actions, but it's never really made clear if this was the only way or not. It's just the way things are."

Most of the times I have seen this, it doesn't come from the world and the tone of the work so much as the personality of the character. A very good example would be Wolverine's X-Force team. He pretty much lives in a world where heroes tend to overcome gods through sheer willforce and clever thinking. but the fact is that Wolverine's a soldier and an assassin. Sure he doesn't kill while working for Charles or Scott but he does kill and that's who he is.

"It's just that in a story where characters have to make a really brutal choice, but another character suggests something that is less so, and is treated like a Naive Idiot who doesn't understand how the world works."

This a bit more complicated but let's see. I just watched Avatar and this was pretty much what happened before the finale. Aang has to kill the fire lord. Or so he's told by everyone ever. I'd say in this case it works because, see, Avatar's all about confronting the characters' beliefs and their personalities. Katara and Zuko are the ones who get this more often than the rest. While Toph and Sokka have their moments of character growth in terms of revising their beliefs, the fact is that they don't really change through the story except in terms of learning about the world around them and become more comfortable in their roles in the team.

However Aang's cofronted with the fact that according to everyone he needs too perform an act he simply wishes not to perform. And I agree with him. My big issue with how Avatar ends is not that Aang doesn't kill Ozai so much as the fact that doesn't earn the right to not kill him, if that makes sense. He just stumbles upon it.

Yeah. There we go. In a darker story, Aang might have had to just kill Ozai, and then from that point on, everytime he talked about finding a better way, the plot would have bent over backwards to remind us of that moment, and had anyone who brought it up treat Aang as a Hypocrite (that might be an exaggeration, but it could happen).

However, his solution was out of nowhere, so people believe killing Ozai to be the more realistic solution. If the Lion-Turtle had been hinted at earlier in the story, would it have seemed more viable?

I do as well. I like characters who know how shitty the world can be, but still try and do the right thing and aren't bitter about it.

In my case it's not so much going too far, but more can the author write the characters and story in a fashion that makes me care? Upton Sinclaire couldn't. Towards the middle of the book I had taken to laughing at the misfortunes of the characters and was pleased that the baby died. Nearing the end I had stopped finding amusement in even that and was just bored. Heavily bored. It wasn't due to the cynical and critical tone itself, but more the fact that the man could not write in a fashion that I deemed touching and interesting. It was boring. I had no reason to care about anyone.

At all.

I do like cynical idealist characters on that note. The people themselves can be great fun too like my girlfriend!

I think it when it cross the line between pessimism to depression that it gets unrealistic. I feel after that the author is trying to depress the reader to make their character more sympathetic.

Actually, I think the idealism being opposed to cynicism thing comes from th fact the most people thought that cynicism = thinking bad things happen and people should not do anything about it because it is hopeless/ won't work. That's actually pessimism.

There's that as well.

Ideals are simply values to be stand by,and that's what gets things done,usually positive but not necessarily.

Cynicism simply means these values/thoughts cannot work to get things done,often they are negative in effect but not necessarily .

Realism is the middle ground between the two.

Optimism and Pessimism could fit any of the categories. The Knight in Sour Armor would then end up being either cynical and optimistic ,realistic,or pessimistic and idealistic (depending on how down they are and how high the values are held)

Personally I find myself in the cynical,silly corner and detest the idealistic,serious corner. The other two are YMMV depending on how well written they are.

edited 29th Jul '12 10:10:10 PM by terlwyth

Hum... Maybe I should expand my definition:

Cynicism: there's never a moral method that works. One needs to be as evil alone gets to get things done.

Idealism: there's always a moral method that works. One just have to find it.

When cynicism is realistic: the deadpan snarker or snark knight opines and it's funny or moves the plot along. And then she shuts up or talks like a normal person for the rest of the story. When a work treats a subject realistically and doesn't sugar coat it.

When cynicism fails: When a cynical character just comes off as a jerkass. Think of the stereotype of Goths that South Park lampooned: "All life is pain" (repeat over and over). Instead of a foil or the McCoy you want to punch the character in the face. Think of Neelix from Star Trek Voyager: so happy and cheerful you want to kill him. A scrappy cynic is the same but 180 deg opposite. There's still that "look at me! I want attention!" but now the character is a d-bag.

A work fails in cynicism when the depressing part just takes over. Author tracts about how "life is meaningless" or "people suck" are a chore to read. All too often the cynicism is about how the author's pet philosophy isn't accepted or that most people are idiots for not following it. Expect a war on straw.

Exactly. If the characters are either a bunch of obnoxious jerkasses who seem like they deserve whatever misfortunes happen to them or they're just simply dull and uninteresting you can't really feel much sympathy for their plight.

It also goes too far when it seems like there's just no let up. Like when the creator keeps piling on the gloom and doom in the most hamfisted way possible and it keeps happening for no apparent reason other than to keep the tragedy train rolling. It just turns the story into a great big mountain of Narm that nobody can possibly take seriously or it comes across as trying too hard.

It never helps to be cynical. What is helpful, is to be cautious around those who are.