Heart of Darkness discussion

[Shockwave]

What good purpose would there have been in keeping them alive?


Dom

Watching them evolve into decent characters?

Shockwave
-Just sayin'.

[Gomess]

What good purpose would there have been in keeping them alive?

Watching them evolve into decent characters?

I'll just pre-emptively stay out of this one then, as you guys have seen it enough lately. =p But let it be known that I'd rather see more genuinely new TF characters, and watch them evolve than see *any* character be killed off to make the audience give a jaded chuckle, and I realise I'm somewhat alone in that.

[Dominic]

There was more to "Last Stand of the Wreckers" than "kill the ass-holes for giggles". In all seriousness, it was a very well written series. And, yeah, Roche and Roberts do kill of some truly annoying character types.

Watching them evolve into decent characters?

Yeah, but that would have defeated at least part of the point of "Last Stand of the Wreckers". If too many of that sort of character had lived, it would have undermined the important parts of what Roche and Roberts were saying.

There are plenty of other characters in TF, obscure and otherwise, to say nothing of characters still to be written. There is no reason not to use and dispose of a few of them when there is a good reason to do so. This was not a "hi then die" type story.


Dom
-barely cares that much about real people, and can hardly see caring that much for fictional characters.

[Shockwave]

Ugh. I have to re read LSoTW before I continue this debate, but what "type" are referring to? IMO any character has potential to develop it's all a matter of how the author uses them. And what were Roche and Roberts saying?

As for caring about characters, come on Dom, I now damn well you care about real people and I also know damn well that you also cried when Dinobot died in BW. We all did. It's like Old Yeller. You can't watch it and not cry unless you're some sort of robot .

Shockwave
-Barely cares about getting a "message" from fiction.

[Dominic]

Okay, clarification time:

It is less about getting a "message" or moral from fiction than about understanding what the author is saying, if they are saying anything. (Along similar lines, one might question if the author is talking about anything worthwhile.) In the case of "Last Stand of the Wreckers", the high concept was having illusions/delusions shattered and the good/bad points of that. (Read the annotated compilation.)

And, for the record, while I think that Roche and Roberts gave both sides of the question a fair shake, I have a gut feeling that I would disagree with them about practically addressing a similar question in real life. But, it is to their credit that they were able to write guys like Prowl (who wanted to bury the truth if at all possible) as something other than complete monsters.

Dom, I now damn well you care about real people and I also know damn well that you also cried when Dinobot died in BW. We all did. It's like Old Yeller.

I do care about real people in the sense that I do not want to see them getting senselessly killed. But, I am less interested in stories about them "just doing stuff". (At most, the supermarket magazines are a source of illicit giggles for me while I am waiting in line.) If the person in question is known for special skills in something that is important or simply of interest to me, I will pick up an article about them or have a conversation with or about them. (I had a damned interesting conversation with a local wrestler last week. I came away from it with real insights into the business.)

But, there is a huge difference between having a preference that people (or for that matter animals) not be pointlessly hurt/killed and treating fictional characters as worthy of moral consideration. I do not *really* care about the feelings of Big Barda, Overlord, Pyro or Rotorstorm beyond their relevance to the plot or concept of the story in question. Writers, like any craftsmen, require tools and resources. Characters would be part of that "kit", to be used (and occassionally displosed of) as needed.

In the case of Rotorstorm and co, Roche and Roberts needed them to die to show "the ugly truth". The fact that a few of the characters who died were based on an obnoxious template that is all to common in soft sci-fi was icing on the cake.


Dom
-knows you feel "unsafe" when you get a message from me.

[Shockwave]

I think this is one of the reasons I don't follow politics: I don't like listening to assholes gas on endlessly about their opinions on how fucked up the world is or what they think I should be doing with my life. As such, I don't really care what writers "have to say" either. I mean if there is a message it's really kind of icing on a cake for me. First and foremost I want to be entertained. I want something to have good story and good characters. As for characters, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant about "caring" about the character. Obviously one would not have the same emotional investment into a fictional character as one would with say a significant other (or at least if one is well balanced they shouldn't). But that doesn't mean that one can't care what happens to a character. Case in point would be what you've said about Sue Dibney and how she was used. Now you might not care about her as you would for say a wife or mother, but you care what happened to her in that I'm sure there's a certain direction that you would have preferred her storyline to have gone (in other words, you cared what happened to her in the story). As for the characters that died, you still didn't answer my question, I was asking what the onboxious template was.

[Dominic]

Sorry. I am typing these while taking breaks from cramming for a final.

The obnoxious character type in question is a mix of the fan-identification character and the "young guy with potential who grows into a hero". Rotorstorm and Pyro clearly "knew" they were that sort. And, really, who does not usually want to see that sort get killed?


As for understanding what writer is saying, I am not looking for instruction so much as understanding. If somebody is going to write about something, i would expect them to demonstrate some understanding of the topic.


Dom
-back to studying.

[Shockwave]

Sorry. I am typing these while taking breaks from cramming for a final.

The obnoxious character type in question is a mix of the fan-identification character and the "young guy with potential who grows into a hero". Rotorstorm and Pyro clearly "knew" they were that sort. And, really, who does not usually want to see that sort get killed?

Oh ok. So like Hot Rod then? Yeah, I can see that since young characters tend to annoy me mostly since the tend to be written to show the worst parts of youthful attitudes.

As for understanding what writer is saying, I am not looking for instruction so much as understanding. If somebody is going to write about something, i would expect them to demonstrate some understanding of the topic.


Dom
-back to studying.

See now that makes more sense than you've ever described it before. I mean if someone's going to write about something they should know what they're writing about otherwise they just look like they're talking out their ass. I think this is why I have a hard time watching military based fiction.

[Onslaught Six]

As for caring about characters, come on Dom, I now damn well you care about real people and I also know damn well that you also cried when Dinobot died in BW. We all did. It's like Old Yeller. You can't watch it and not cry unless you're some sort of robot .

Fuck Dinobot. With a capital F.

Anyway, any good work of art *should* have some basis in meaning. If it's just a story where Optimus Prime runs around and kills Decepticons, it's trash. It's when the story asks questions about itself, and perhaps also answers them, that the story begins to be any good. Why is Optimus Prime killing these Decepticons? Because they are bad. Why are they bad? Because Megatron went to extreme measures over a corrupt previous government. That's Megatron's arc--he's a guy who started fighting for good, but he took it to a (perhaps to him) logical extreme and now he's become the bad guy.

Hell, look at Beowulf! I'm sure a lot of people went into that movie expecting Beowulf Murders Things for two hours. And to a large degree, that's what happens, but beyond that there's all kinds of themes--about fidelity, trustworthiness, and modesty as well. I read the original story; and a lot of that 'wasn't there.'

A great work of art leaves you at the end with questions. Like Watchmen! Is Ozymandias right? What about Dr. Manhattan's assessment that this will only temporarily stop the war? Is Rorschach admirable or despicable? The work puts these questions out there, and in some cases attempts to answer them as well--but the fact that the questions have been asked is always there, and the message of the work can itself be debated against. (For example, I've seen Dom put out a strong case that Rorschach is not meant to be admirable at all, being that he goes to extremes--like Megatron--and yet he's often seen as the protagonist of Watchmen.)

Wreckers does the same. Was what Impactor did to Squadron X right? After all, those were Decepticons. Certainly, though, Roche and Roberts' attempt is to make Impactor seem like a bad guy--by having all the other characters react in horror to the revelation of what he's done. The same with Flame's war crimes, and Prowl's entire reason for giving the mission.

[Gomess]

Anyway, any good work of art *should* have some basis in meaning.

That's a purely concept-based analysis. There's also the character-based approach, which Trekwave and I have frequently taken. Plenty of good works of art sacrifice "meaning" for the construction of world and character, and are still hugely successful. In fact, the majority of popular fiction is popular on the basis of character and world, rather than message or metaphor. Soap operas in the UK, for example. And if I asked basically anyone I know why they like Doctor Who, I'd put money on their first answer being more to do with liking a certain character than getting satisfaction out of the metaphysical debates going on. That might come, like, third or something.

I'm not saying character-based fiction is "better" or anything, just that I'm surprised it's being basically ignored in this discussion.