represent the result of harm, yo

[kaigou]

While reading (hah, more like rapid scanning in slight boredom), hit a line in the story and it just suddenly popped out at me. I'm sure you've read it a hundred times yourself, pick the variation of your choosing:

it saddened/frustrated/angered him to think of a girl/boy so [imply speshul character trait here] being trapped/forced/hurt like that

The reason this stuck out was due to a comment on my own WiP, about the issue of the power-holding character (ie the detective, the cop, the lawyer, the doctor, the spy, the agent, etc) taking a protective and/or helpful attitude towards the endangered [eg non-powered] character. The observation was basically that noblesse oblige only goes so far, and is an impersonal thing. (I'm not saying that doctors and cops are operating under n.oblige, only that if you think in terms of "authority" = "power" then it's not a far stretch.)

Over and over in stories about spies, cops, and all the rest, our white-hatted hero gets characterized not just as someone doing good because it's the Right Thing, or doing good solely for the sake of doing good, but also acting purposefully for a specific character. Plenty of times this is also taken as the lead-in to a romantic subplot, too: the victim just has that extra 'something' that makes our White Hat sit up and want to be all extra-protective.

CP's comment was that of course cops and doctors and the rest of the 'good guys' are in there to help the hopeless, etc. That's part of what defines the good guy. But I say it's more than that; it seems an expected point, especially in action-influenced genres, that you can't really have a good guy who doesn't -- at some point -- accept/extend this connection with a victim.

Because the victim (in the course of the story) represents the harm of the Bad. The victim is not so much a character, at least at first, as symbolic of all the harm potentially or actually caused by the big bad. So to feel a connection to the victim is really just a 'showing' of the good guy's dedication to preventing or resolving ill-doing.

Sometimes, too, we must be given backstory about our White Hat, a game most often played for grizzly gruff cops in their 40s who carry around a picture of a little girl brutally murdered whose killer was never found. (I'm not saying that doesn't happen; it does -- just that in literary terms, it's an authorial ploy.) By showing Mr Gruff being all misty-eyed over Past Victim, the author creates grounds for extending this into protective/care-for current or potential victim.

(Which is yet another reason I hate backstory, sometimes. If it's that well-trodden, then just skip it.)

The third reason this all gelled is because of a strange bit of dialogue in Mo No No Ke, which really jumped out at me when I finally got to see the official subtitle/translation. As the storyline kicks into its final big showdown, the Old Man of the family is being pressured to explain what may have caused this demon to come after the Sakai family. So far, at this point, it's killed five people, and Kusuri-uri (the medicine seller standing in for the cop, doctor, exorcist, etc) has realized that somehow this old man is at the center of things and/or knows the truth of the demon's grudge. When he asks for the old man to explain...

	official subtitles	fan subtitles
Sakai the Elder	The beast can't be held back anymore. Soon, I will be killed by that.	" "
Kusuri-uri	I don't care whether or not you are killed. The fact is that I have to cut the beast down.	To you, it doesn't matter if you survive or die, but to me, I must definitely kill it.

If you want to take a stab at translating Kusuri-uri's lines yourself, I uploaded a cleaned/filtered version to make the dialogue a bit more clear against the soundtrack's ambient background.

I list both because you can see there's obviously some ambiguity in the original text. CP often says that putting Japanese into English grammar would result in sentences that go something like "about the horse, I rode". In this case, I'd guess the construction might be "about whether or you are killed or are not killed, does not matter; about killing/cutting-down the beast is what matters".

The fact is that within the story's context, both interpretations are feasible. Up to this point, the old man has made no even a single move to defend himself from the demon ravaging through the household. It may be that "about whether..." could refer to his passivity. But while Kusuri-uri has attempted to warn the household away from certain danger, he's also shown as likely to be out of the way (by chance or by choice, hard to tell) and let them go screaming to a gruesome death. He protects, but to me it seems clearly to be a by-product of his main goal, which he states here quite explicitly to be the task of getting rid of the demon.

I've been trying to think of any major western storylines in which the White Hat has so plainly stated that the endangered character's life (regardless of guilt or innocence) is possibly irrelevant to the task of catching the bad guy. I expect we'd find such to be totally callous: look, another three victims, another twenty, what matters to me is getting this guy no matter how long it takes.

Yowser.

Naturally we'd get hollywood cramming down our throat, I expect, all sorts of backstory about how this guy doesn't really mean that, he's Mr Gruff because of this, that, or the other. That is, an absolute goal of "kill the demon and the rest be damned" just doesn't seem to show up in any storyline radar I can think of.

What stories am I missing? How else could it be read? Can a White Hat gain audience sympathy even if there is no connection and/or especial attachment to a symbolic victim? Would we believe a western-based character who has little to no care for the victim's eventual end, if we don't also get an entire biopic about the character's life to explain such dismissal?

Anyone?

Comments

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

completely off topic--I wrote a new beginning to The Turning Tide. and some other different things. It's quite a different book from the one you read. Hopefully this will swallow down better :)

Going to bed now . . .

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Ehehehe. AAAUUGH. I saw you'd said you'd edited and then I didn't want to say anything because saying, "yeah, I like it," does that mean it could be taken as "but then I won't like the changes so NYAH" or what? ...since I know editing can be emotionally wracking if yo'ure halfway through and knowing there's more coming. Not at all the same as being there for the first major rewriting, my bad this time around.

Brain & psyche just hasn't been what it's supposed to be, this year. I'm thinking of saying '09 is '08 and just pretend like '08 never really happened. Besides, that means I can put off the next zero-year for another year, right?

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. 2008 was just a bad dream like Terminator 3. That's the ticket

Kitchen is getting there . . .

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Wait... what? No, not about my year, but the movie -- you ARE kidding me, right, that the movie wasn't (ergh) was a bobby-in-the-shower thing... was it? It WAS? And no one told me!? ...or was it just that bad..?

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

Worse. Worse than that. The new Terminator 4 they are making is ignoring it.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

*boggles*

Okay, that's beyond epic fail.

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

It's almost worth watching. Like a bloody car wreck . . .

[girl-starfish.livejournal.com]

There's a couple of Agatha Christie's in which the murdered party is painted as a despicable character, and the implication is that the world is better off without him -- sometimes, like in Cards on the Table, there is a case made for the suspects, the implication being that until justice is done, the four of them will not be freed from the shadow of suspicion, and it will blight their lives. It's interesting in that there are some sympathetic murderers in the story (for interesting definitions of 'murderer'), but the culprit is found to be completely reprehensible.

The theme of even reprehensible victims needing to be avenged, to free others from suspicion is repeated in a few others of Christie's works, (Nemesis, Sleeping Murder) but the only story I can think of where the victim is completely denied justice is Murder on the Orient Express.

Of course, given the breadth of Christie's output, and the fact that most of her novels do fall into the broad outlines you've laid about above, it's hard to know how much you can read into this. Christie's a master of playing with expectations and turning them on their heads, and that's a big part of why she is so good at what she does.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Eheh, yeah, there's got to be a reason Christie remains a top seller after all this time (although the extent of my interaction with her was Orient Express and, hrm, didn't she also write Ten Little Indians?)

I'm thinking more in terms of potential victims -- that is, "the next person on the list" -- the contrast of a case where the powerful figure (cop, doctor, whatever) says, "you know what? you could fall off the face of this planet and I could care less," but continues to try to catch the bad guy ... and gives no impression of losing any sleep if the next-victim bites it in the meantime. Which is a really exaggerated way to put it, but still.

It's the connection to the "potential victim" -- ie, not the dead body but the character interacting on the page -- that creates the symbolic "if this character is hurt, it represents all the harm the bad guy has done/could do." You don't really get that with Mr. Body, but you can get it with Miss Next In Line.

[girl-starfish.livejournal.com]

Hercule Poirot often comes across as more interested in justice and his own reputation then the potential victim that you're talking about, although there are suggestions of that -- Poirot's just done it too much to be really involved. A couple of times the murderer succeeds in offing the potential victim, and Poirot is upset -- but its more upset at himself, at the failure of his little grey cells, that the conflict seems much more between human failings/pride and human ability, than symbolising potential harm in my opinion.

Then again, if you want a detective/hero figure who cares fuck all for the next in line, you want Raymond Chandler.

[tatterpunk.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm, Chandler.

[girl-starfish.livejournal.com]

I get so annoyed with how he writes women and his predjudices -- then Phillip Marlowe comes out with another fantastic line and I have to admire him despite the outrage.

[tatterpunk.livejournal.com]

LOL for your icon!

Have you tried out Ross Macdonald? His Lew Archer is a something of a more palatable (IMO) and eventually more complex Marlowe.

[girl-starfish.livejournal.com]

I have not! Thanks for the rec -- I shall add him to my long list of things to read. :D

[kraehe.livejournal.com]

Speaking of gritty mysteries, the Rebus mysteries by Ian Rankin are excellent. Set in modern Edinburgh -- and not at all "twee"; we're talking the IRA, drug running, prostitution, and a very, very flawed detective who still goes after the case with terrier-like determination. I've read a few non-Rebus mysteries by Rankin, too, also excellent.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Doublemmmm, Chandler.

[clarentine]

I was thinking of The Maltese Falcon, myself. The protag really does not care about the victim (the girl), as I recall; he cares about doing what's right, even if it screws him over in the end.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Oh, another good call.

I still can't figure out how Dashiell Hammett could write the novel for that, and the The Thin Man series -- the two are just such radically different approaches.

Although I suppose one could say that Nick & Nora care less about catching the bad guys than making sure the next drink is delivered without any spillage.

[girl-starfish.livejournal.com]

My reading list just keeps getting longer!

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

When you're done being wrecked by the grit and despair in the ultimate noir series, then, take a break and read the Thin Man series, or just watch the movies. Absolutely some of my favorites, if you ask me -- the detective parts are almost incidental, not even that much to stress over, but that's not the point: it's how you get there, and how many witty jabs you can get in on your spouse along the way.

Nora Charles: You know, that sounds like an interesting case. Why don't you take it?
Nick Charles: I haven't the time. I'm much too busy seeing that you don't lose any of the money I married you for.

[tatterpunk.livejournal.com]

Eheh, yeah, there's got to be a reason Christie remains a top seller after all this time (although the extent of my interaction with her was Orient Express and, hrm, didn't she also write Ten Little Indians?)

Yes and yes.

But if you really want to see Christie do interesting things with Poirot -- and I mean in the vein of things you are looking for -- give a whack at Curtain: Poirot's Last Case.

[tatterpunk.livejournal.com]

But I say it's more than that; it seems an expected point, especially in action-influenced genres, that you can't really have a good guy who doesn't -- at some point -- accept/extend this connection with a victim.

...

I've been trying to think of any major western storylines in which the White Hat has so plainly stated that the endangered character's life (regardless of guilt or innocence) is possibly irrelevant to the task of catching the bad guy.

In Western canon this character is usually called the "anti-hero." I think recently the definition of the term has been extended to any character who isn't overtly heroic, but the type experienced a surge in popularity (I'd argue this is also where it was "born," as the character took a definite and defined shape, but others disagree) in 19th century Russian literature, where he (sadly always a he) was a character thrust into the role of savior who actively did not want it and even worked against realizing his new identity. A particular distinction was a marked lack of empathy for the people he was supposed to save, instead focusing on the task at hand so he could get back to his life.

In terms of the anti-hero in genre fiction... Spider Jerusalem of Ellis' Transmetropolitan comes to mind, though his general misanthropy (he tries to save the City not for the sake of the people in it, whom he usually abhors, but for the principle of not allowing evil to come to power) is tempered by a sympathy for (if not an identification with) children and other "innocents." Another example that sticks in my mind is the book by Eve Forward, Villains by Necessity, where she takes great delight in skewering overused Tolkein tropes about light vs dark by having the villains -- while still remaining villainous (i.e., uncaring of the pain their actions may inflict on others, so long as they survive and get the job done) -- be the saviors of the world.

I've also been told Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever is an anti-hero classic, but I'd have to read it myself. (I remember getting very grumpy about people labeling the characters of Joss Whedon's Firefly as anti-heroes, which they certainly were NOT.)

It's one of my favorite character types in fiction, so if you like I can go away and try to some back with a few more examples...

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I've always liked the anti-hero as well, but does the "lack of connection with victim" automatically indicate an anti-hero? Which if it does, it sort of argues my point for me: that for a character to be a hero, s/he must have that connection, that caring for the victim. It's anti-heroes that don't.

For the ultimate anti-hero, at least in the SFF world, it'll probably always be Elric of Melniboné.

[tatterpunk.livejournal.com]

I've always liked the anti-hero as well, but does the "lack of connection with victim" automatically indicate an anti-hero?

Nope, no more than "actively works cross-purpose to the hero" automatically indicate a villain. But it's a broad indicator and general rule of thumb -- remember, this is humanities. No hard and fast rules.


that for a character to be a hero, s/he must have that connection, that caring for the victim. It's anti-heroes that don't.

"Anti-hero" is a subset of the hero archetype -- they don't cancel each other out, you can be both.


Elric of Melniboné

Eh, I'm not a Moorcock fan. (Helps that I don't much cleave to high fantasy in general.) Plus he always struck me as more of a tragic hero than anti- (more subsets)! But again, humanities and their breadth of interpretation.

[luna-the-cat.livejournal.com]

I would say, yes, and point towards Nevada Barr's novels. In some cases the protagonist (a female park ranger whose name I'm blanking on at the moment) makes a strong emotional connection to the victims, or the victims relatives; however, other times, it's just like the victims are not of nearly as much interest as the fact that murders are happening on her turf, and that is just not on, dammit. But I personally do not feel that as being especially alienating because of the way the character was portrayed -- and I like the fact that it doesn't depend on backstory so much as on the protagonist's essential personality. The backstory is only revealed in bits and pieces in the first 4-5 books, but the personality is established in the first book, and then merely expanded on.

Aside from that specific example, yes, I think that sympathy can be established for a callous protagonist, but only if the writing walks the fine line of showing him as a normal human, with the callousness being balanced out by some basic decency. If that isn't done, sure you can have a callous main character; we just don't have to like him.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

only if the writing walks the fine line of showing him as a normal human, with the callousness being balanced out by some basic decency

I guess what bugs me is when "providing explanatory backstory of How He Got This Gruff" is supposed to qualify as "showing basic decency".

Actually, what it reminds me of is an interview with the scriptwriter for Thelma and Louise -- the fact that she refused to let anyone edit the script to explain any backstory on why Louise, point-blank, refuses to enter the state of Texas. It's an entire plot-point of the movie, half the plot hinges on having to go around Texas, fer cryin' out loud! and yet it's never explained. It's not even hinted at, really.

From a storytelling perspective, I've always really admired that movie for that very specific but awesome detail (or lack thereof).

[kraehe.livejournal.com]

Well, if the Old Man caused the problem in the first place, he's only getting his just desserts if the demon kills him, right? The hero isn't saying he doesn't care if innocent victims are killed; the Old Man isn't innocent. (I'm assuming, anyway.)

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Except that at that point in the story, the only certain thing is that the old man knows the truth of things -- not that he's the cause. Sort of like pressuring a potential witness to give insight on a murderer's motivation. The fact that the witness saw everything doesn't mean the witness is guilty, except under a legal system that believes in guilt-by-association.

The phrasing leading up to that point, and including that point, is somewhat ambiguous. So it remains open at that point in the story whether the old man holding the "truth" of things is because the old man is hiding his own guilt, or someone else's.

Given that of a household of, hrm, ten people, and only three survive... it just doesn't seem to me like long odds on surviving!

[kraehe.livejournal.com]

Ah. Well, I was making an assumption there...

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's okay. It's a rather complex series. Hard to sum it all up without seeing, and even then, still not sure what you're seeing is probably par for the course for most folks.

[maldoror-gw.livejournal.com]

This is probably a mile away from the point of the topic(Sleep Deprived Mal is typing here, not the regular one) but Buffy always struck me as rather remote from the people she saved unless she'd befriended them beforehand. That may just be because of the format, mind you; one hour interspersed with ads doesn't leave you time to bond with anyone other than the regular cast. Unless she's befriended them (that's the kiss of death, getting befriended by the hero of a series when he/she already has her regular posse; you're either already evil, or about to become lunch) then the victims are Anonymous Girl 1, Surfer Dude 2 etc. I rewatched the whole series awhile back, and the body count of innocent victims is pretty atrocious, really, but they're often forgotten by the next action sequence. Even when Buffy does actually save them, she tends to shove them out of the way, tell them to scamper, and then turns to do her job of sticking pointy things into the undead. There's been a few instances of...no, contempt is too strong a word, but a certain distance towards the victims she's saved, and that's even before she got rather alienated from the human race. Goddamned I loved that series... *wanders off into lala land*

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Yanno, I had completely forgotten about that as an analogy -- and it works better than strictly detective series b/c the comparison point here is really w/in SFF, that is, fantasy where Bad Guy is not just murderer but demon/non-human of some sort. Or at least more-than-human (if we go with vampire as human origin). Blah blah blah long day, join me in brain deadness.

AHEM.

But yeah, that distance, plus Buffy did sometimes show signs of being the kind who would take on the bad guy who crossed her path because, hey, now she can't ignore him (and did show at times that she otherwise chose to ignore some bad guys, picking the battles & all that, like the creeps at the bar where she'd bother the bartender). But that sometimes her 'taking on' was more of a 'I'm bored, let's mess someone up and you shouldn't exist, anyway, so you're it' -- and the victims were sort of a by-product, and a benefit if saved but otherwise not really the end-goal.

Yeah, she does work much better as an analogy. Must ponder...

(Although in some cases, contempt isn't too strong a word, I think, especially when she felt it was someone's own stupidity that got them into the mess. Like the kids who invited the vampires to come for a snack because the vampires are the unloved or the nameless or whatever romantic title the kids had...)

[maldoror-gw.livejournal.com]

I think the entire audience was rooting for those emo-goth bimbos to get a dose of reality ^_^ That was the pay-out of the entire episode.

I was actually thinking of a very brief moment in an episode in the second or third series where some girl goes out of the Bronze for some necking, only to realize she was getting more in that departement than she bargained for. Buffy shows up, rips off the vamp, poofs him (I think?), and when the victim starts babbling hysterically about 'oh my god what almost happened to me', Buffy is rather terse and tells her with barely a glance to go home without hanging around in dark alleys on the way. Maybe she was having an off day...But the only time I can remember some emotional investement in the victims AS victims was with those kids in the hospital. And that came across in part as echoes from Buffy's own childhood hospital-related trauma.

I may be forgetting a lot of counter-examples in other episodes, mind you.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

No, I've been trying to think of any other incidents myself, and I can't really. Buffy is one of those who will be okay those potential victims willing to pitch in and help (defend, block a door, grab a stake, whatever), but she's definitely cool at best to those who just want to stand back and blither helplessly.

I think that's the purpose served by the sidekicks around Buffy, in that they (as I recall) often draw off the babbling humans.

But at the same time, Buffy's not an anti-hero in the "lone brooding unhappy burnt-out way" a la Chandler or Chinatown -- well, not until the later seasons and even then not all the time. Despite that, she's definitely fixated on kill-the-bad-guy and the victim is almost incidental. I mean, even if there were no victims in sight, she'd still go after the bad guy, if that's what the situation demanded.