Reading the Classics
Sep. 17th, 2007 04:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyingskullSorry 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...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-20 04:36 pm (UTC)On an utterly unrelated topic, have you heard Jordan is dead? Who the suck was he? A fantasy writer, yes, but what did he write?
Ah yes, Robert Jordan. I did hear. Funny, I used to think he was the living definition of epic fantasy, but it's been years since I read one of his books, or cared to.
He wrote The Wheel of Time which is genuinely regarded as the most needlessly long fantasy series of all time (and definitely the one with the most descriptions of dresses and tea parties) and which was still unfinished at the time of his death. He is famous, first and foremost, for having exceptionally bitchy and unpleasant female characters, all of which seem to have the exact same personality and a strong tendency to end up naked for no apparent reason. =] I stopped being a fan some time ago, I must admit.
Still, I'm sorry he died. He started out well - I still remember the absolute delight I took in The Eye of the World - and though his story lost momentum and grew dull, it never got offensive the way Rowling's got offensive. He turned out not to be much of a writer, despite his initial promise, but he always seemed to be a pretty nice person.
DO you have any idea how dangerous it is to throw such hooks to a terminally curious person? Huh? Huh? HUH?
Haha, you werecat. ;) I sent the email last night, and pardon the delay. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-20 09:16 pm (UTC)Sometimes the only push people need is: "I need to eat and this is a good-paying job". Because people are very apt at ignoring what they don't want to see (cfr. Pterry). It's the story of the Exquisitors and Vorbis, innit? Or the more clichéed period of human history.
Heroes who suffer temptation but don't give in are suffering temptation of thing they do NOT like at all. Imagine Harry Sodding Potter being tempted by Tolerance and Respect. He'd scoff like anything. But he's tempted with power and he's got OOODLES of it already. What's to tempt? Try and tempt heroes with something they want very much indeed and see. Like Moist - and ain't Pterry GREAT to give such a name to a protagonist and have readers not even raise a hairbrow? - was tempted with something he wanted very much indeed: not dying. That's a good temptation, that is.
Problem with temptation is that it's always in a fucking religious context in which you're supposed to say no to perfectly reasonable things. So saints overcome temptation of eating sprouts, a thing I can do standing on me head. And also it always seems to be power. Most people wouldn't touch power with a ten foot pole, who wants the aggro? What I find risible is that it's always power and own the world in the temptation scenes and the tempted is always the most powerful character in the story. Like: "I've eaten ten pounds of ice cream." "Mmmm... Do you want some ice cream in exchange for your little pony?" "ARE YOU FUCKING DEAF? I'VE EATEN TEN SODDING POUNDS OF SODDING ICE SODDING CREAM ALREADY! I'M GOING TO PUKE OVER YOU!!!"
Ahem. Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-22 03:49 pm (UTC)I think everyone wants a certain amount of power, and the amount is exactly as much as they think they can handle. I mean, imagine if I was chosen as Prime Minister. Then I'd technically have lots and lots of power - but as I haven't got the faintest idea what a Prime Minister actually does, in practical terms, I wouldn't know how to use it and I'd cause a big old mess when I tried. It wouldn't be real power, in the sense of "the ability to bring about a desired outcome." It'd just be a hassle. =]
On the other hand, if some publishing company told me, "here's the manuscripts that we've received this month, and we want you to decide which ones we're going to accept, which ones we're going to demand massive rewrites of, and which ones we're going to send back covered in laugh spittle" I'd be thrilled. I'd love that power, because I'm confident in my ability to wield it wisely.
Or, an even better example - if someone offered me the ability to earn a living writing and studying whatever I felt like, that'd be some serious temptation. I think I'd compromise my morals quite a bit for a chance to spend all my time doing what felt the most meaningful to me. Though it might be argued that then what I really want is "freedom" rather than "power" - and isn't it odd that more villains don't try that one, since most heroes already have lots of power but tends to be bound by Destiny or whatever and thus not have all that much freedom? =]
Also, when the deal is "serve me and I'll give you power," one might wonder just what the point is. Is the villain going to let the hero do what he pleases with all this power? Doubtful. And considering that the hero and the villain probably have very different views on everything, the villain is bound to veto the hero all the time. "Serve me, and you'll be able to do whatever you want, as long as it coincides with what I want you to do" doesn't strike me as that good a deal, to be honest... =]
Some ideas for better temptations...
1. "Join me, and I will share with you my unrivalled knowledge." (works for a studious mage/scholar character)
2. "Join me, and you'll be able to live a life of unimaginable luxury." (works for a pragmatic antihero, or arguably for a hero who's always been dirt poor and hated it)
3. "You know that other enemy you have, because this story includes an Eviler Than Thou (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.EvilerThanThou)? Join me, and between the two of us, we could kill him pretty easily. Come on, you don't have to like me, you just have to hate me less than him!"
4. "You know your family who got killed by my minions in the prologue and who got you started on your stupid revenge quest in the first place? I had my sorcerers bring them back to life. You're welcome. Of course, if you die in battle with me, you'll never see them again, and wouldn't that be a shame?"
5. "You do realise that I only want this particular kingdom, while there's a perfectly nice kingdom next door that offers plenty of opportunities to a resourceful young woman such as yourself, especially if she were to arrive there in possession of lots of gold and with the documents to prove that you're... well, anyone you want to be, really?"
And, one that I actually plan to use in my November story...
6. "Get out of my hair already, and you won't have to turn into a twisted sadistic mutant who's going to end up serving me anyway."
and ain't Pterry GREAT to give such a name to a protagonist and have readers not even raise a hairbrow?
Hehe, I'm not sure I usually notice things like that, but then most of the books I read have character names that seems to have been created by mushing random letters together until they spelled out something pronounceble. In fact, that's pretty much exactly how I come up with character names... ^_^;
"ARE YOU FUCKING DEAF? I'VE EATEN TEN SODDING POUNDS OF SODDING ICE SODDING CREAM ALREADY! I'M GOING TO PUKE OVER YOU!!!"
(*LAUGHS*) Your description is, as always, spot on. =]
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 09:53 am (UTC)Which, as it happens, is the very temptation Orochimaru offers to Sasuke. If you've read or are reading and/or watching Naruto, you'll know what I'm talking about...
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 10:20 pm (UTC)I'm sure actual canon is decent, but you know how it is... After one's swam on the fringes of PotterFandom, one is wary of water... :P
But I at least have a good idea of who Sasuke and Orochimaru are. :-D
no subject
Date: 2007-11-03 06:01 am (UTC)On a completely unrelated note, you might enjoy this; it's a character study, pretty short but it's very good.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-22 03:50 pm (UTC)Very true. I think it's very hard to write about properly, though - you'd have to show the reader the moral iffiness of the protagonist's occupation while the protagonist himself fails to notice, and you have to find some way to do it without making the protagonist look like he's deranged or very, very dim. =]
no subject
Date: 2007-09-25 03:03 pm (UTC)Well, most heroes (heroines too) are rather dim, aren't they? I mean, most of them never seem to realise there's usually a very simple AND efficient way to destroy evil. Think of the LOTR thing. Just grab a Noble Eagle; give it the ring; send it to throw it into the volcano and bob's your uncle. And so on and so forth. Dimness in Fantasy - as in thrillers - is a must for heroes. Derk is rather dim as well, innhe? I mean, the children are excused by way of youth, mummy is rather too caught up in the femninist conspiracy, but what's his excuse except he wants nothing to do with the whole thing - rather Hamletish of him - and nothing to do with his whole reality? Yet he has money problems... You know? That's a perfect example of the kind of push I was talking about.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 04:02 pm (UTC)Sadly, yes, and when they're not, the villains usually are. =] And yeah, Derk is kind of dim - or at least, so stubborn that he refuses to think about anything he doesn't think is interesting. Mara is the brains in the family, and she's not on stage much. And Scales is clever as hell, he's not not very helpful. =]
And even the smart characters are a bit foolish at times. Jones and Pratchett seems to have that in common - people in their books are silly, except for the ones that are scary. =] (Mr Chesney actually scared the crap out of me without ever harming a hair on anyone's head - it was something about the way neither he nor anyone else ever seemed to doubt that he wielded supreme power ^_^; )
All in all, I am (having finished the book now) extremely impressed. Jones can really talk about complicated things well while using simple terms, can't she? So up yours, Rowling, with your damn anvils and your utter lack of vision. =]
You know? That's a perfect example of the kind of push I was talking about.
Yes, Derk is a great character that way - he's not greedy or ambitious and if you offered him all the kingdoms of the world he'd turn it down in horror, but he isn't as damn content as fantasy protagonists tend to be. He has certain interests and goals, and he needs certain things to achieve them, so he can be tempted - not into selling his soul, perhaps, but certainly into doing things he doesn't want to do and which he doesn't think are entirely right. That's something that's sorely lacking in fantasy - the awareness that there are degrees of desire between "slavering would-be world dominator" and "happily baahing sheep." =]
Another thing I loved was how Jones writes family, incidentally. I'm normally allergic to family matters because they tend to be either abusive and uber-dysfunctional or else sugary sweet, but Jones writes Derk's family as, well, as a bunch of people. =] They love each other well enough, but since they spend so much time together they also constantly get on each other's nerves - there's all sorts of irritations and adversities and little ongoing feuds in Derkholm. In fact, the part of the book that got to me the most was that female griffin who felt so guilty because she thought her brother was dead and she couldn't bring herself (at least at first) to feel properly mournful about it because he was such a pain in her ass. It was so sweet and so sad.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-25 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 03:33 pm (UTC)And your troublesome tourists are lucky to have you on their side. =]