TF Views

Maybe it's because (probably largely from Dom's influence) character-based fiction has done little to nothing for me over the years. (Then again, I did just watch the entire series of Daria and get way too horribly involved in their interpersonal relationships. WHY IS DARIA SUCH A BITCH IN THE LATER SEASONS DAMN IT MTV)

That and, since becoming a musician, I've had to examine art in a whole new way since I'm, well, making it.

Well like I said, we've all hashed this one out enough to know where we all stand. Although I can defintely see how producing art could alter your perception of it since you now have to consider what you want to say with it.

Onslaught Six wrote:WHY IS DARIA SUCH A BITCH IN THE LATER SEASONS

I know right?

Onslaught Six wrote:That and, since becoming a musician, I've had to examine art in a whole new way since I'm, well, making it.

Weird, since becoming a writer I've become more about character than concept. Horses for courses? Interesting, anyway, how it has a different effect on everyone.

Gomess wrote:

Onslaught Six wrote:WHY IS DARIA SUCH A BITCH IN THE LATER SEASONS

I know right?

Seriously she gets all moody whenever Tom does like the most mundane little thing or whatever for real why.

Onslaught Six wrote:That and, since becoming a musician, I've had to examine art in a whole new way since I'm, well, making it.

Weird, since becoming a writer I've become more about character than concept. Horses for courses? Interesting, anyway, how it has a different effect on everyone.

Might just be a difference in mediums. It's really hard to do a character-based piece in music/lyrics, after all, without it feeling particularly hamfisted.

Question, why does Daria have to be admirable or even likeable?

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.'

I think it might be a "standards of the time" thing with "Beowulf", As in, "the high concept was there and apparent to people who were alive at the time of original distribution". If nothing else, I read the original, and remember thinking that Beowulf is only a good guy because somebody says he is. Most of the "old school" heroes have more in common with modern villians. (Credit Peter David for helping me put that one so clearly.)

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?

Moore has been quite clear about Rorschach never being meant to be admirable. You might disagree with Moore about what qualifies as admirable or otherwise. But, appropriating one of his reprehensible characters as a paragon of virtue for somebody else's ethical standard is dirty pool at best.

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.

Ah, but that is the thing. To this day, I am not sure what Roche and Roberts would say about those questions. I can make educated guesses, based on Roche's age and certain things in the story. And, if I am right in those guesses, I would disagree with Roche and Roberts on all of the important questions.

But, they also gave a balanced enough treatment of the questions that I cannot be sure where they stand. But, they have clearly thought about and understand the questions.

To do character and setting based fiction, even soft sci-fi, right, one has to have a level of expertise/understanding in anthropology, sociology, economics, politics, and physics that few if any would have. And, if you did have that kind of expertise, you would probably have better things to do than write fiction.


Dom
-not that it has not been done.

Dominic wrote:Question, why does Daria have to be admirable or even likeable?

She doesn't. But you really should accept that some people will focus more on the characters in a piece of fiction than the concepts behind it, and such a stance is no less valid. It often seems like you think characters have no intrinsic worth beyond being ciphers that are there to convey the author's message, and nothing else.

If that were true, of course, the concept of "cipher" wouldn't be used perjoratively. But it is, which implies there's a "deep" and "right" kind of character that does more than just move a plot along.

Dominic wrote:To do character and setting based fiction, even soft sci-fi, right, one has to have a level of expertise/understanding in anthropology, sociology, economics, politics, and physics that few if any would have.

...The only thing you need to write character-based fiction is a social life, and even that isn't always true.

A cipher provides nothing but their presence. They take up space on screen or a page while doing/adding little. Actually, there are ciphers in real life as well.


As for writing character based stories, is not just a question of having a social life. It is a question of the number and type of one's reference points, as well as actual life experience. One can have many friends. But, if they are all from the same area and backgroung, that person will have limited references to draw on.

Yes, it helps if writers write about what they know. But, the less they know about, the less interesting their writing is likely to be.

Dominic wrote:Question, why does Daria have to be admirable or even likeable?

She doesn't and isn't and I would actually say that that is the point of Daria. To show the social perspective of someone who isn't admirable or likeable by society's standards while providing a commentary on those standards. I would also cite Daria as a case of character driven fiction as it's very much about her and her view of the world that provides the plot for most of the episodes.

But in my opinion, being able to communicate life experience is more important than having lived a range of it, when it comes to fiction. You might have fought in seven world wars and lived on the moon, but if you aren't capable of talking and listening to other people (i.e. have a healthy social life) your story will probably suck. ...In my opinion.

I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree again. I honestly can't tell if Dom even *approves* of character-based fiction. =p

Dominic wrote:Question, why does Daria have to be admirable or even likeable?

Because if she was a real girl I'd probably try to bang her.

Granted, I'm sure I'd be about as successful as Beavis & Butthead on that attempt, but there you go.

On a serious note, she doesn't, but in the earlier seasons of the show, she 'was.' Her cynical outlook and sarcastic wit are what drew me in with her (and also nostalgia for the show's original run; I only ever watched a handful of episodes but now own the DVD box set and watched every episode) but once she got with her boyfriend, she started irrationally treating him like crap a lot of the time. (I think there was some Executive Meddling going on, because during this same period of episode there was an irrational subplot focus on her prissy "popular" sister and the obnoxious Fashion Club.)

I think it might be a "standards of the time" thing with "Beowulf", As in, "the high concept was there and apparent to people who were alive at the time of original distribution". If nothing else, I read the original, and remember thinking that Beowulf is only a good guy because somebody says he is. Most of the "old school" heroes have more in common with modern villians. (Credit Peter David for helping me put that one so clearly.)

There was a high school assignment once based entirely on this--is Beowulf a heroic character or not? I think I argued for, just because it was easier, but the girl I was trying to woo at the time (she wasn't very interested) wrote a good one about how Beowulf is definitely a villain character. (Then she had me proofread it because she can't spell or use grammar very well. Seriously intelligent girl; can't spell for shit. And then I never got anything back out of the deal, not even like, a handy in the faculty parking lot.)

Moore has been quite clear about Rorschach never being meant to be admirable. You might disagree with Moore about what qualifies as admirable or otherwise. But, appropriating one of his reprehensible characters as a paragon of virtue for somebody else's ethical standard is dirty pool at best.

To be fair, Rorschach is meant to be a Question riff.

Ah, but that is the thing. To this day, I am not sure what Roche and Roberts would say about those questions. I can make educated guesses, based on Roche's age and certain things in the story. And, if I am right in those guesses, I would disagree with Roche and Roberts on all of the important questions.

But, they also gave a balanced enough treatment of the questions that I cannot be sure where they stand. But, they have clearly thought about and understand the questions.

And isn't that all anyone asks? The themes are brought up and the questions are raised, which is good enough for me I guess.

Gomess wrote:But in my opinion, being able to communicate life experience is more important than having lived a range of it, when it comes to fiction. You might have fought in seven world wars and lived on the moon, but if you aren't capable of talking and listening to other people (i.e. have a healthy social life) your story will probably suck. ...In my opinion.

I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree again. I honestly can't tell if Dom even *approves* of character-based fiction. =p

It's both! You can be the best damn person at describing shit and coming up with Events and Things For Characters To Do, but if you don't have a really good core *idea* then the whole thing's going to suck.

This was always my problem, see. G, you've read my old stuff. It could be funny or badass or even, when I tried hard, sad and meaningful but 90% of the time I had no idea what was going onto the page before I started, and that's where I failed. Because, well, I was a teenager and knew fuck-all about life. I'm 22 now and still know fuck-all about life but I do know a lot about cyborg robots from space so I wrote an album about that. (Speaking of, how much of my shit have you heard?)