flyingskull (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
flyingskull) wrote2007-09-17 04:50 pm
flyingskull) wrote2007-09-17 04:50 pm
Reading the Classics
Sorry for the absence. Part of it was work, part of it was a bit of sex, but most of it was that I was thinking and trying to understand a thing that's been irritating me: why is it so hard to use decent reading comprehension when faced with the classics?
Take Romeo and Juliet for example. Everybody and their mother-in-law are dissing it right, left and centre because the protagonists are eejits and there's such a simple solution to their problem and also that's not love, that's hormones talking. Which would be alright if the actual text didn't say something completely different from 'see how tragic this immortal love story is?'.
What the actual text says is that murderous hatred and family feuds are killers; that they blind people to logic, reason and good sense. It says that the adults have lost all sense of responsibility and social values, not that the children are cretins. The children - he's sixteen and she's fourteen - have good social values, the children are open to dialogue, the children fall in and out of love and lust and, if they don't respect their parents so much, they fear them enough and love them enough to be willing victims to the adults' whims. That's what the tragedy is all about, y'know? The love - lust, hormones... doesn't make a difference - of the young protagonists is just a symbol of the hope for reconciliation, a thing that happens only after their death. The children are the scapegoats and sacrificial lambs.
They are also real human teens and so they are passionate, willful, confused, arrogant and timid. What's wrong with that? Why should we think Shakespeare (henceforth Will) endorses all their actions? He doesn't. He thinks the marriage is imprudent, he thinks Romeo's a butterfly, he thinks Mercutio's too hot-tempered for his own good, he thinks Juliet is a blancmange... He also clearly thinks that, if the families hadn't been so fucking blind, the whole thing wouldn't have been a problem at all. Romeo is a very good parti for Juliet, surname apart, after all.
Got sidetracked. I had another very good rant on Hamlet, but it can be summarised thus: Hamlet does most emphatically NOT want to kill anyone. He especially doesn't want to go "I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." for a father he didn't even like all that much and who always put him down. He does NOT want to be in Denmark and reign, he wants to be in Wittenberg and stude and frolic with Horatio. He does NOT want to marry Ophelia. Yet he's supposed to do all those things and he balks. A LOT. But external forces (as for Romeo and Juliet) force him to a bloody end. Which is all very well, but is utterly not to the point.
What I meant to say is: the protagonist is just the cardea, the hinge around which all actions turn. The author doesn't have to endorse the protagonist's character or actions, one can write about a person one despises, but if s/he is pivotal for all actions and events, then s/he is the protagonist of the novel, drama, whatever. I think it's the same problem I was trying to analyse in singing the praise of the Bastard Hero. There's a cultural trend today I rather hate. If someone is the protagonist, then s/he must be our paragon of virtues. Readers often mistake 'protagonist' for 'hero/ine'. Back to Will, look at Macbeth. Is he a hero? Nah. Is he a protagonist? Hell yes. Did Will endorse Macbeth's actions? 'Course not. BUT he was an interesting person to write about, an interesting person to analyse and condemn, not praise. Will wanted the audience to understand villains and what makes them tick. Because, y'know? he was an author, not a propagandist.
To jump a few centuries, look a Heatcliff. I mean, just look at what he does. He's the protagonist, no doubt, but a Hero? The man's a sociopath! I mean, he has reasons, but they are just reasons why he is what he is, they are not authorial endorsement of his actions. Emily was clearly fascinated by the character - mostly because it was based on her brother whom she loved far too much - but she never once endorses his actions, even if she endorses his passions and his love.
Why should the protagonist be a role model for readers? What has given birth to this monstrous attitude? I grant you it's easier to write this way than to risk readers' bad reactions if you try and tell the story of a villain protagonist; but why doesn't anyone try anymore? Well, no, I tell a lie. I know that authors who have a host of protagonists write some of them 'good', others 'bad' and others 'grey', but that's because the story doesn't have one protagonist. An epic fresco where several characters are all pivotal to a swirl or action. That's lovely and also quite satisfying to read, but that's always been true of epics. I was more focused on the single-protagonist story because I think it's there that the confusion between protagonist and hero happens most frequently for contemporary readers.
Made a hash of things as usual, haven't I? Sorry all. Shouldn't blather when at work, too many telephone calls and things.
ETA - I decided to let it stand, warts and all. Heh...
Take Romeo and Juliet for example. Everybody and their mother-in-law are dissing it right, left and centre because the protagonists are eejits and there's such a simple solution to their problem and also that's not love, that's hormones talking. Which would be alright if the actual text didn't say something completely different from 'see how tragic this immortal love story is?'.
What the actual text says is that murderous hatred and family feuds are killers; that they blind people to logic, reason and good sense. It says that the adults have lost all sense of responsibility and social values, not that the children are cretins. The children - he's sixteen and she's fourteen - have good social values, the children are open to dialogue, the children fall in and out of love and lust and, if they don't respect their parents so much, they fear them enough and love them enough to be willing victims to the adults' whims. That's what the tragedy is all about, y'know? The love - lust, hormones... doesn't make a difference - of the young protagonists is just a symbol of the hope for reconciliation, a thing that happens only after their death. The children are the scapegoats and sacrificial lambs.
They are also real human teens and so they are passionate, willful, confused, arrogant and timid. What's wrong with that? Why should we think Shakespeare (henceforth Will) endorses all their actions? He doesn't. He thinks the marriage is imprudent, he thinks Romeo's a butterfly, he thinks Mercutio's too hot-tempered for his own good, he thinks Juliet is a blancmange... He also clearly thinks that, if the families hadn't been so fucking blind, the whole thing wouldn't have been a problem at all. Romeo is a very good parti for Juliet, surname apart, after all.
Got sidetracked. I had another very good rant on Hamlet, but it can be summarised thus: Hamlet does most emphatically NOT want to kill anyone. He especially doesn't want to go "I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." for a father he didn't even like all that much and who always put him down. He does NOT want to be in Denmark and reign, he wants to be in Wittenberg and stude and frolic with Horatio. He does NOT want to marry Ophelia. Yet he's supposed to do all those things and he balks. A LOT. But external forces (as for Romeo and Juliet) force him to a bloody end. Which is all very well, but is utterly not to the point.
What I meant to say is: the protagonist is just the cardea, the hinge around which all actions turn. The author doesn't have to endorse the protagonist's character or actions, one can write about a person one despises, but if s/he is pivotal for all actions and events, then s/he is the protagonist of the novel, drama, whatever. I think it's the same problem I was trying to analyse in singing the praise of the Bastard Hero. There's a cultural trend today I rather hate. If someone is the protagonist, then s/he must be our paragon of virtues. Readers often mistake 'protagonist' for 'hero/ine'. Back to Will, look at Macbeth. Is he a hero? Nah. Is he a protagonist? Hell yes. Did Will endorse Macbeth's actions? 'Course not. BUT he was an interesting person to write about, an interesting person to analyse and condemn, not praise. Will wanted the audience to understand villains and what makes them tick. Because, y'know? he was an author, not a propagandist.
To jump a few centuries, look a Heatcliff. I mean, just look at what he does. He's the protagonist, no doubt, but a Hero? The man's a sociopath! I mean, he has reasons, but they are just reasons why he is what he is, they are not authorial endorsement of his actions. Emily was clearly fascinated by the character - mostly because it was based on her brother whom she loved far too much - but she never once endorses his actions, even if she endorses his passions and his love.
Why should the protagonist be a role model for readers? What has given birth to this monstrous attitude? I grant you it's easier to write this way than to risk readers' bad reactions if you try and tell the story of a villain protagonist; but why doesn't anyone try anymore? Well, no, I tell a lie. I know that authors who have a host of protagonists write some of them 'good', others 'bad' and others 'grey', but that's because the story doesn't have one protagonist. An epic fresco where several characters are all pivotal to a swirl or action. That's lovely and also quite satisfying to read, but that's always been true of epics. I was more focused on the single-protagonist story because I think it's there that the confusion between protagonist and hero happens most frequently for contemporary readers.
Made a hash of things as usual, haven't I? Sorry all. Shouldn't blather when at work, too many telephone calls and things.
ETA - I decided to let it stand, warts and all. Heh...
no subject
I liked the magic in Derkland too. :) It felt... well, "realistic" might not be the right word, but it did feel like Jones took the bubblegum-fantasy version of magic (whereby a wizard can do almost anything by waving his hands) and brought it to its logical conclusion. So magic is potentially very powerful and useful, but wizards frequently mess up spells because they get distracted, or because they're tired, or because they just can't get the hang of the particular brand of magic they're trying to use. I dunno about "useless," but magic certainly doesn't solve the wizard's problems for him, it just gives him an extra set of tools.
no subject
About DWJ's Dark Lord, to me it feels like magic is not a tool, magic is what those people ARE. Like sight or hearing or the ability to think. That's why it's useless as magic in the - as you rightly call it - bubblegum fantasy sense. You can only do the best you can do with yourself and most of the time nobody really even tries to do the best of themselves. Witness the confusion the griffins have about their own abilities. They don't know exactly what they can do and often limit themselves needlessly.
no subject
I'm somewhat surprised to realise, actually, that tertiary characters are almost the most challenging. The main characters have the whole story on them to show off their personalities - even if it doesn't become clear right away what they're all about, the reader is going to catch on eventually. Characters who just show up in a scene or two has to have a personality right there and then, because there won't be any more chances. And I'd really rather not have any empty character-shaped spaces in my story... =]
Good point about the magic. In fact, now that I think about it, talent seems to be a major theme of the book. Derk is so hostile to the wizarding university because they never showed any respect for his unique talents. Blade's and Kit's talents are going to waste for lack of schooling. Shona, at a certain point, is also prevented from achieving the life she has an aptitude from. And, yes, the griffins are all a bit uncertain of just what their assets and limitations are. Interesting. I didn't notice that before...
no subject
no subject