Oh, it's a morality play, definitely; and if you don't like morality plays, or believe them to be fundamentally flawed fiction, then no, there's no way to really justify it.
The trick with morality plays is the need to have a strong moral rule running through it (something JKR failed miserably at doing). And then there's the even trickier bit of making sure the moral argument you're making is a worthy moral. What moral lesson are you teaching with this story?
If done well, it can be a good form of story-telling. But thinking its simplicity means it's an easy method of story-telling is where the danger comes in.
And that's why I'm not really soothed. Bashing is generally sloppy writing, as far as I've seen. And morality plays do not lend themselves to sloppy writing.
What it's *not* meant to do is punish those fans of the character.
Of course it is. You set a character up as an example of what's wrong with the world, of course you're punishing those who support what's hurting the world. Jennifer is a morally bad person because she answered back to Rodney and needs to be slapped down by John who'd never do such a thing. If you support Jennifer you're a Rodney-hater and a bad person.
I do agree that the people writing such things probably aren't thinking about the people who like the character they've set up as the scapegoat. For the most part they seem surprised such people exist. (But she's so morally disgusting! How could anyone like her?) But you can't say a character is an example of moral wrongs and not think you're saying something about the people who like her.
I'm arguing that it's not (at least not usually), any more than a writer who writes McKeller is intentionally trying to hurt OTP-loving-me.
IIRC, McShep is your OTP? I agree that someone writing McKeller isn't trying to hurt you. As long as it's only McKeller. But if a McKeller story includes a section that exposes John as a morally bad character, brought down by the moral goodness of Jennifer it is trying to hurt you. You're supporting a morally bad 'ship and a morally bad character. Aren't you a bit silly to fall for such an unlikable character? (Probably taken in by his sexiness and totally missing the bankruptcy of his character. Got to look out for the pretty ones. *g*)
Once again I don't think the writers of such things are consciously trying to hurt their readers. As you point out, they think they're writing a universal truth. The character is evil and if you think you like her, well, she's just got you snowed, too. But right there is the insult (I shall save you from your stupidity!).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2009-10-16 05:18 am (UTC)The trick with morality plays is the need to have a strong moral rule running through it (something JKR failed miserably at doing). And then there's the even trickier bit of making sure the moral argument you're making is a worthy moral. What moral lesson are you teaching with this story?
If done well, it can be a good form of story-telling. But thinking its simplicity means it's an easy method of story-telling is where the danger comes in.
And that's why I'm not really soothed. Bashing is generally sloppy writing, as far as I've seen. And morality plays do not lend themselves to sloppy writing.
What it's *not* meant to do is punish those fans of the character.
Of course it is. You set a character up as an example of what's wrong with the world, of course you're punishing those who support what's hurting the world. Jennifer is a morally bad person because she answered back to Rodney and needs to be slapped down by John who'd never do such a thing. If you support Jennifer you're a Rodney-hater and a bad person.
I do agree that the people writing such things probably aren't thinking about the people who like the character they've set up as the scapegoat. For the most part they seem surprised such people exist. (But she's so morally disgusting! How could anyone like her?) But you can't say a character is an example of moral wrongs and not think you're saying something about the people who like her.
I'm arguing that it's not (at least not usually), any more than a writer who writes McKeller is intentionally trying to hurt OTP-loving-me.
IIRC, McShep is your OTP? I agree that someone writing McKeller isn't trying to hurt you. As long as it's only McKeller. But if a McKeller story includes a section that exposes John as a morally bad character, brought down by the moral goodness of Jennifer it is trying to hurt you. You're supporting a morally bad 'ship and a morally bad character. Aren't you a bit silly to fall for such an unlikable character? (Probably taken in by his sexiness and totally missing the bankruptcy of his character. Got to look out for the pretty ones. *g*)
Once again I don't think the writers of such things are consciously trying to hurt their readers. As you point out, they think they're writing a universal truth. The character is evil and if you think you like her, well, she's just got you snowed, too. But right there is the insult (I shall save you from your stupidity!).