Seventh - Vol. 2 Ch. 10.2 - Aria Lockwood (part2)

[ThatRabidPotato]

Shit just got real.

I don't really mind the peanut gallery too much. But they could use some more self-awareness.

 

[Grimmycoffee]

Spoiler: Snip

Unless your morals are wrecked, the totality of a villain should not be appealing to you. Moriarty's mental faculties may make him formidable, yes, but his description is that of a psychopath. The Joker is similar, except actually unhinged: the popularity of postmodern "deconstruction" (and Hollywood's need for novelties) led to his becoming the protagonist of his own movie--with at least some of his depiction explicitly being that of a sympathetic character meant to evoke empathy as well; none of this changes what he is and does. Hannibal Lecter is presented favorably in contrast with a number of other characters in the setting (including at least one that's supposed to be a "good guy"), being refined and also formidably intelligent--enough so to engineer his own escape from captivity. Despite these, he's what everyone knows him to be.

So, yes--villains have been portrayed favorably for quite a while, but that doesn't change the fact that they're villains: part of the appeal of all of these characters, especially the last two (far more than Moriarty, as Western society only started venerating vice to this degree recently; this doesn't actually apply to him--not in the era in which he was written, anyway), is that they satisfy a lust for novelty and exoticism very widespread in today's society; there's been no easier source of this, for decades now, than the embrace of evil as "misunderstood" together with the rejection of good as the product of traditional knowledge that--in true postmodernist fashion--ought to be questioned and subsequently cast aside as invalid for being so long-held.

Of course, this can be done--as you said. But what you think's happening when flagrantly vicious character traits are given positive depiction in characters who perfectly embody those traits and act by them left and right, while the concept of the "flawed" hero--rife with traits at odds with his status as a "hero"--becomes just as commonly employed? What's the result of this juxtaposition constantly being exhibited in entertainment media?

"The villain's not so bad after all~" "The hero's actually a bad guy..." The product of this being repeated ad infinitum is why villainous conduct is not meant to be glamorized.

Spoiler: Snip

Even if we don't count the Joker standalone movies, most of his popular depictions aren't hated. Definitely not by the product's consumers, and rarely by the in-universe characters*. If the Joker is hated, he won't appear over and over again in medias. Ceres too is not hated. They are perceived as evil, but not hated.

*[the exceptions where characters hate Joker for example are Injustice and Batman: Under The Red Hood. In both, the actions resulted from this hate is presented as big story events that shake things up permanently]

Hated villains exist, but from viewer POV they are generally hated because they're annoying instead of evil.

"The villain's not so bad after all~" "The hero's actually a bad guy..." The product of this being repeated ad infinitum is why villainous conduct is not meant to be glamorized.

Optimistically, it can promote irl critical thinking, I guess? Without clear examples, this isn't easy to response to.

Spoiler: For more thorough

If you think the reason why it's bad is the harm it might've caused, then black and white morality can often do worse.

If you think the reason why it's bad is it could glorify the villain's idea, then the issue is probably the writing.

Some MCU movies try to have villains with a right and just motive, but the story's solution feels so lukewarm that it barely even solves it or said just motive isn't conveyed well enough.

On the opposite side, there's MCU Thanos' idea about killing half of the population to conserve resources and save people, which is wrong even if you don't think about the killing**. The problem with this one is the story doesn't offer any counterargument to his idea, which mislead people into thinking it has merit, this harsh truth that nobody want to talk about (people have talked about it, often related to topic about eugenics).
** [In Thanos' ideal version, the snap needs to be repeated every time a certain population number is reached (what numbers, idk). In real world, there are enough surplus of resources to be shared with everyone, but the distribution needs to prioritize the needs instead of profit, same with energy technology development)

 

[Giga]

Spoiler

Even if we don't count the Joker standalone movies, most of his popular depictions aren't hated. Definitely not by the product's consumers, and rarely by the in-universe characters*. If the Joker is hated, he won't appear over and over again in medias. Ceres too is not hated. They are perceived as evil, but not hated.

*[the exceptions where characters hate Joker for example are Injustice and Batman: Under The Red Hood. In both, the actions resulted from this hate is presented as big story events that shake things up permanently]

Spoiler: For length

You're splitting hairs, here.

When I spoke of a villain being "hated", I didn't mean for his quality as a story element--I meant for his character. To be clear, and so that no further "misunderstandings" can occur, I mean personality and other traits possessed by that villain. And indeed, they are not hated--progressively less so over decades toward the present--because the vicious sums of their characters aren't hated, but celebrated.

The quality behind a villain's design may be praised and for this, the work on a villain's character is to be praised--not the character of the villain himself. That design quality is why a villain can be liked enough to recur--because his good writing plays a role in the story of a righteous hero defeating him being of high quality. That's not what I was talking about: people now love the villains themselves, whether for characteristics they were imbued with to evoke favor or for the vicious characteristics themselves. At no point at all was I referencing the quality of writing behind a villain.

Given the fact that the author is a "lolicon", this may be debatable, but--under normal circumstances--a character like Ceres is not meant to be liked at all: there is quite literally nothing to like about her as a person, which is readily seen with her. Everything shown about Ceres is patently vicious; if she--not the writing behind her--is liked, either it's because of some additional trait added to her design meant to absolve her of her vicious character or the people who like her being in love with vice. There is massive overlap between the two possibilities.

Optimistically, it can promote irl critical thinking, I guess? Without clear examples, this isn't easy to response to.

"Optimistically". And if it doesn't, which is the almost certain result in circumstances like this? In an ideal world, people use their heads and think about the world they're in, using the same critical thinking you spoke of. In this world we're in, a person like Ceres is instead regarded positively because she gives the people who so regard her a chance to go "UOOOGH!"

Regarding your saying you don't have clear examples, consider the following once again:

"The villain's not so bad after all~" "The hero's actually a bad guy..."

Such ideas are found in the lion's share of JP manga alone, and have been for quite a long time now--and as implied, this is not considering Western fiction; comics alone were rife with this warping/degeneration of heroes since at least the '90s. Are you truly saying you don't understand what I meant by this, that you have never seen examples thereof?

If you think the reason why it's bad is the harm it might've caused, then black and white morality can often do worse.

If you think the reason why it's bad is it could glorify the villain's idea, then the issue is probably the writing.

Spoiler: For length

I'm not sure what you're getting at here--specifically what you're referring to: I presume the glorification of villains. Presuming that, the concept of moral relativism--the idea of "black and white morality" as something nonexistent or at least invalid, relevantly--is precisely part of how society has gotten to where it is, and how the aforementioned love of characters like Ceres happens. That moral relativism asserts that there is no objective good or evil--that such things are totally subjective and dependent on the people involved or any given individual perspective on what's to be judged. As a result, you can slap a few sympathetic or otherwise agreeable (or, like in Ceres' case, lust-evoking) traits on a villain and--all of a sudden--"The villain's not so bad after all~"

Villain A will eat you--literally. Villain B will murder you for his aims. Villain C will give you a Glasgow smile because it's funny to him. All three are given sympathetic/agreeable/respectable traits via writing. Will you love them, now?

 

[Grimmycoffee]

You only use spoiler for length, so I won't manually cover them to keep things easy

Spoiler: For length

You're splitting hairs, here.

When I spoke of a villain being "hated", I didn't mean for his quality as a story element--I meant for his character. To be clear, and so that no further "misunderstandings" can occur, I mean personality and other traits possessed by that villain. And indeed, they are not hated--progressively less so over decades toward the present--because the vicious sums of their characters aren't hated, but celebrated.

The quality behind a villain's design may be praised and for this, the work on a villain's character is to be praised--not the character of the villain himself. That design quality is why a villain can be liked enough to recur--because his good writing plays a role in the story of a righteous hero defeating him being of high quality. That's not what I was talking about: people now love the villains themselves, whether for characteristics they were imbued with to evoke favor or for the vicious characteristics themselves. At no point at all was I referencing the quality of writing behind a villain.

Given the fact that the author is a "lolicon", this may be debatable, but--under normal circumstances--a character like Ceres is not meant to be liked at all: there is quite literally nothing to like about her as a person, which is readily seen with her. Everything shown about Ceres is patently vicious; if she--not the writing behind her--is liked, either it's because of some additional trait added to her design meant to absolve her of her vicious character or the people who like her being in love with vice. There is massive overlap between the two possibilities.

----
"Optimistically". And if it doesn't, which is the almost certain result in circumstances like this? In an ideal world, people use their heads and think about the world they're in, using the same critical thinking you spoke of. In this world we're in, a person like Ceres is instead regarded positively because she gives the people who so regard her a chance to go "UOOOGH!"
----
As a result, you can slap a few sympathetic or otherwise agreeable (or, like in Ceres' case, lust-evoking) traits on a villain and--all of a sudden--"The villain's not so bad after all~"

You have described what your definition of hated means, which is not about viewer or in-universe characters, but personality and traits. However, I don't understand how you can differentiate people liking the characters in a way you prefer vs in a way you don't prefer,

and how it is that distinct from "the quality behind a villain's design" or can't be from viewer POV when you talk about Ceres being lust-evoking.

Regarding your saying you don't have clear examples, consider the following once again:

>"The villain's not so bad after all~" "The hero's actually a bad guy..."

Such ideas are found in the lion's share of JP manga alone, and have been for quite a long time now--and as implied, this is not considering Western fiction; comics alone were rife with this warping/degeneration of heroes since at least the '90s. Are you truly saying you don't understand what I meant by this, that you have never seen examples thereof?

By specific examples, I mean specific show or series. "Hero bad, villain good" is so broad that it can be applied to so many shows regardless of how well liked this trope's execution is done in them.

If you're saying you hate the trope's entire existence in every shows that have it since the '90s, then that clears things up and we just have to agree to disagree.

Presuming that, the concept of moral relativism--the idea of "black and white morality" as something nonexistent or at least invalid, relevantly--is precisely part of how society has gotten to where it is, and how the aforementioned love of characters like Ceres happens

I don't know what society you're talking about. Modern time's atrocities are caused by the demonization of one side, not the application of moral relativism.

Same with the demand of overwhelming punishment for crimes, but then talking and dealing with the root causes of why, for example, someone poor might rob someone or why an environmentalist might be pushed do something more than just protesting when he believe it isn't working.

 

[Giga]

You have described what your definition of hated means, which is not about viewer or in-universe characters, but personality and traits. However, I don't understand how you can differentiate people liking the characters in a way you prefer vs in a way you don't prefer,

and how it is that distinct from "the quality behind a villain's design" or can't be from viewer POV when you talk about Ceres being lust-evoking.

I don't think you understood what I said--perhaps you should reread...especially since I took care to make the distinctions I made. But so I can understand you clearly, what did you mean by "in a way you prefer"? Are you talking about the viewer's preference or mine specifically?

Given what follows, however, I'm getting an idea of your actual aim in your replies.

By specific examples, I mean specific show or series. "Hero bad, villain good" is so broad that it can be applied to so many shows regardless of how well liked this trope's execution is done in them.

That's exactly what I meant--there are many examples of what I described. "'Hero bad, villain good'" are your words--not mine: if you're going to apply reductionism to what I'm saying then claim I'm wrong because you don't understand your own misrepresentation of my position, how's that a good faith argument?

If you're saying you hate the trope's entire existence in every shows that have it since the '90s, then that clears things up and we just have to agree to disagree.

The above applies to this, as well. That aforementioned idea of your aim is clarifying: the discussion is now less about the original topic and more about me and my view--which you, clearly, disagree with. Surely so: you just extracted one part of what I said that you liked and claimed my argument boiled down to it and nothing else.

I don't know what society you're talking about. Modern time's atrocities are caused by the demonization of one side, not the application of moral relativism.

Because you're either truly ignorant (this is not an insult, but--given everything else prior, you'll probably pretend it is) of the status quo or you're pretending to be. The misdeeds of today, you say, are caused by "the demonization of one side"--and how does that come about? You're suggesting that gimmicked scales aren't one of the ways that happens, when it all but totally characterizes modern Western society.

Feigning ignorance does have its uses, though--especially when you're ardently motivated to defend something normally indefensible. Just a hunch: this kind of thing happens quite often when I speak ill of the likes of Ceres...and the people who lust after her.

 

[Grimmycoffee]

You have described what your definition of hated means, which is not about viewer or in-universe characters, but personality and traits. However, I don't understand how you can differentiate people liking the characters in a way you prefer vs in a way you don't prefer, and how it is that distinct from "the quality behind a villain's design" or can't be from viewer POV when you talk about Ceres being lust-evoking.

I don't think you understood what I said--perhaps you should reread...especially since I took care to make the distinctions I made. But so I can understand you clearly, what did you mean by "in a way you prefer"? Are you talking about the viewer's preference or mine specifically?

I'm asking for specific shows, like maybe MaoYuu, not a broad "it's everywhere".

Repeat question: Apparently nowadays people love the villain himself instead of its design, but how do you differentiate that? Even with BTAS Joker back before 2000, unless they want to specifically praise the writer or VA, they'll just say they like their Joker.

The misdeeds of today, you say, are caused by "the demonization of one side"--and how does that come about?

Read the fairly recent history from 1900 to today. It doesn't necessarily start there, but they're good enough.

You're suggesting that gimmicked scales aren't one of the ways that happens, when it all but totally characterizes modern Western society.

I have no idea which society you're talking about, but I'm gonna try to America. When did America ever "see the other sides pov" too much? Even most anti-war Vietnam medias focus so much more on the veteran with little to no sympathy for Vietnamese civilian casualties.