[info]illidanstr @ 07:47 pm: Created an account here just for you =)

I like interesting introspection, but there's nothing to turn me off a book faster then listening to the "good guys" think. I kinda think I associate them with banality, illogic, and a total lack of anything resembling (to me) human emotion...

As people, most of us really, really do suck hard insane. What with all the benefits of presenting a stereotypically good personality, there might be a facade on top of that.

But introspection is incredibly awesome, either with an anti-hero or a villain! If an author can't plausibly do that, can't show their point of view in detail, do they really have a believable villain/anti-hero in the first place? I think, to understand ugly beliefs or actions on the part of others, you have to dissect your own. Sure, we might *think* ourselves forward-minded with our tolerances and all, but..

We're not, obviously. Example: Darfur. Huge humanitarian crisis. People there are living in utterly atrocious conditions. We as people are more interested in the economic benefits of a tight relationship with China. There are major problems like that which would *not* be easily fixed; problems which even the first step toward a solution might provoke an economic downturn, might make things worse in the long haul. It's easier to hold one-day hunger fasts, isn't it?

Can it really be so hard for writers to understand that supporters of slavery and genocide could rationalize their own actions in the same way?


Identity URL: 
Don't have an account? Create one now.
No HTML allowed in subject
Powered by InsaneJournal