Subj: Oh, ye of little faith. :)Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:13:27 am EDT (Viewed 378 times)
| Reply Subj: Part of the problem is that I'm too removed from the discussion.
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:22:19 pm EDT |
Previous Post
I don't hear anybody claiming that tragic endings are more "artistic", so a rant about how that is a bullshit claim just seems like a strawman argument. Likewise the Moonlighting issue, as that show had nothing to do with tragic endings, and was all about the dangers of building all of your appeal around the hostile interactions of "will they or won't they" sexual tension.
I can believe that somewhere, there are people making these arguments that leaves them open for debate, but I just haven't seen them personally.
> Because every single sentence that follows, as far as I'm concerned, should be tattooed on the inside of every writer's fucking skull.
>
> ESPECIALLY with regards to writers who want to maintain endless unresolved sexual tension between Lois and Clark, or Peter and Mary Jane.
|
Another point of contention for me is framing so much of the argument around how Joss Whedon chooses to write the stories of characters that *he* created, and the seeming indignity stemming from putting his opinion of where those characters should go above the wishes of certain fans. For comic book characters with a long, pre-existing legacy, there may be some argument there, but for the creator of the characters? I say he gets to tell whatever story he damn well pleases.
|
You can't trip over a LiveJournal account without finding someone who thinks that Joss Whedon is A God Of Writing because "negative endings are inherently more realistic" (actual quote), and Moonlighting has specifically been cited as an example of the supposedly imperative need to undo the Spider-Marriage by several Marvel staffers, including both Tom Brevoort AND Joe Quesada.
As for Joss doing what he chooses with his characters ... see, as a writer and as an audience member, this is where I'll admit to being conflicted, because on the one hand, a writer shouldn't exist to appease his audience (because that way lies your least favorite person in the world, Michael Bay), but if a writer believes that their vision for their characters should be sacrosanct ... well, that's great if they're Alan Moore, but most people aren't, and as a result, you get a LOT of Anne Rices and Laurell K. Hamiltons instead.
And yes, I'm saying this as someone who would hate the idea of compromising my own characters for the sake of the audience, but by the same token, I've learned over the years - much of it from my writing here on the Parodyverse - that a writer can be wrong about their own characters. There have been a number of times where I was wrong about CrazySugarFreakBoy! and company, and either Ian or somebody else pointed it out to me, or I realized it on my own upon reflection.
It's an impossible-to-define balance, but there needs to be some way in which the artist can honor his or her vision, but the audience can correct them if they're fucking up, in ways that are more refined and effective than the attempts to strike that balance that we have now.
|
