Probably Not About You
Jan. 16th, 2010 04:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rinueSomething that's solidified for me lately is that almost all of the things I hate are products of intellectual laziness. Postmodern critiques that say there is no empirical truth mean you don't have to decide what is true, or make a clear, logically sound argument to defend it. ("I don't know," is still valid. Choosing not to do something is also valid as long as you are specifically choosing not to, rather than just not doing a thing.) Fighting the same "hippies versus straights" culture war in your 60s that you fought in your teens means you don't have to observe the world as it is. Fuzzy spiritualism and doing what feels right means you don't have to have a considered philosophy of right and wrong.
Giving up hope means you don't have to do anything at all, because it's pointless anyway.
Lazy. Laziness that lets you feel righteous and noble and smug, but laziness.
The other thing I've been thinking is that the traditional plot structure - the Frietag triangle - is patriarchal. This is not an observation unique to me; Ciro, for instance, has talked about it extensively in my presence, and probably more extensively out of my presence. However, it's just now clicked for me that, yes, it is patriarchal - or at the very least is patriarchal when imposed as an ideal model for all stories (and, pointedly, scripts). The definition of plot wherein a story is the narrative of a protagonist actively confronting a conflict and winning or losing it - a protagonist who protags, as the saying goes - biases strongly toward stories about empowered people either defending their own power or taking a stab at more power. In order for a character to choose to protag, that character must be able to believably see himself as someone able to change things through his actions.
That requires both a particular cultural mindset and a certain amount of privilege within that culture. It basically says that stories about white guys in Western cultures are inherently more interesting and valid narratives - that a burly man fighting for his survival in the arctic (why?) means more than two people having a conversation that does not lead to action. I am going to stop asking myself whether a scene moves the plot forward. Instead, I am going to ask these questions:
1. Is it entertaining?
2. Does it illuminate the human condition?
3. Does it present a compelling idea or behavioral model?
If it doesn't meet one, or ideally all, of those conditions, it's out. In terms of whether anything happens in the scene, or whether it's "visual," I don't care. Am I entertained? Are they acting like real, and ideally admirable, people? Good.
Giving up hope means you don't have to do anything at all, because it's pointless anyway.
Lazy. Laziness that lets you feel righteous and noble and smug, but laziness.
The other thing I've been thinking is that the traditional plot structure - the Frietag triangle - is patriarchal. This is not an observation unique to me; Ciro, for instance, has talked about it extensively in my presence, and probably more extensively out of my presence. However, it's just now clicked for me that, yes, it is patriarchal - or at the very least is patriarchal when imposed as an ideal model for all stories (and, pointedly, scripts). The definition of plot wherein a story is the narrative of a protagonist actively confronting a conflict and winning or losing it - a protagonist who protags, as the saying goes - biases strongly toward stories about empowered people either defending their own power or taking a stab at more power. In order for a character to choose to protag, that character must be able to believably see himself as someone able to change things through his actions.
That requires both a particular cultural mindset and a certain amount of privilege within that culture. It basically says that stories about white guys in Western cultures are inherently more interesting and valid narratives - that a burly man fighting for his survival in the arctic (why?) means more than two people having a conversation that does not lead to action. I am going to stop asking myself whether a scene moves the plot forward. Instead, I am going to ask these questions:
1. Is it entertaining?
2. Does it illuminate the human condition?
3. Does it present a compelling idea or behavioral model?
If it doesn't meet one, or ideally all, of those conditions, it's out. In terms of whether anything happens in the scene, or whether it's "visual," I don't care. Am I entertained? Are they acting like real, and ideally admirable, people? Good.
