What would you like me to address in writing??

@bigdurk4115

5 жыл бұрын

I think the fantasy world still has a long way to go on how they portray women

@TheOther19

5 жыл бұрын

How authors change their writing style, in a way, when they have different character's talk. Such as an Illianer (spelled that wrong) accent. Or certain character talk differently from others? That's all I can think of carefully

@ryanratchford2530

5 жыл бұрын

I know it’s a big topic but I’d to see you talk about plot. I really enjoyed your character & setting videos & think plot would be a good direction to finish the big 3

@ryanratchford2530

5 жыл бұрын

As a worldbuilding adict and a ancient history nerd, I’d love to see you talk more about history & culture for fantasy settings. I know you’ve already have but there’s SO much you can explore with that topic I’d be excited to see

@ryanratchford2530

5 жыл бұрын

It might be interesting to hear what you have to say about religion & philosophy in fantasy worlds? Obviously having God’s exist will change EVERYTHING in a fantasy world but rarely you see it done well. It would change how many different religions there are, their philosophies, standard of right and wrong (so many fantasy novels have a generic Greek pantheon with different names- but everyone has copied & pasted Christian values that really have no origins in the religion they supposedly believe in)

Even though i like grey characters, i disagree quite a bit of what is said in this video. There are a lot of people in the world who are motivated by and to the doing of good deeds for it's own sake. To find them unreal would be to deny such people in our own world. I know a few really good people, who just enjoy being good. I don't mean to say that they are perfect individuals, but that they are normally good people, who in some form or another, do some extraordinary charity work. Also, to call something more or less pure evil as "unreal" is also short- sighted. I know Tolkien denies being influenced by WW2, but whether he wanted to or not, he was indeed influenced to a certain degree. In that case, would we not consider Hitler to be the ultimate evil? Why ever not? Just because he was vegetarian, loved dogs and kids and thought that he was doing right? Doesn't make him any less evil, in my opinion. An absolute good and an absolute bad in a particular context can exist in our world and to deny that is too mainstream. Just imagine if a fantasy series were to be written about the protests and happenings in Hong Kong. How on earth would one try to make the Chinese Government as a grey character? How would one categorize the beaten up protesters fighting for their freedom? Would one look into their histories and see if someone cheated on a spouse, stole some money or some other such triviality to make them "grey"? It would neither be great writing, nor would it be particularly convincing. "Everything is not black and white." is an over-abused phrase that might soon need to be done away with. "Everything is not grey." should be the new mantra.

@garbledsand-which2321

3 жыл бұрын

Though this is a old comment, it rather me moved so thank you!

@joshred1571

2 жыл бұрын

This is a great point

@Hard-R-Energy

Жыл бұрын

Hitler, while considered evil by most of the world cannot be considered "pure evil" because what he was doing, in his mind, as well as the minds of the people in his party, was considered "the greater good." They believed they were destined to fix the world. Hitler never sat there thinking, "I love being.evil and doing evil things." Jeffrey Dahlmer on the other hand considered himself evil, and HIS fatal flaw was "if I am not stopped, I will never stop."

I get what you're saying, and i mostly agree with you. But that last point, that you dont understand characters that have the motivation of "I want to be good." Why is that not believable? Thats an actual motivation that most people have in their day to day lives. I dont donate money to a homeless man because of a lost loved one, or having been wrong by a villain. I do it because i want to be a good person, and this is one way i can help. Kaladin in stormlight for instance, is a character that actually experiences this. His words that he speaks all harken back to this simple idea. He wants to do good, and he will defend people to do that good, even if they are people he hates. What makes his character compelling is the fact that he fails momentarily to do this, and forsakes his words... A characters motivation can simply be, i want to do good. So long as its believable, so long as its written compellingly. And if they falter along the way, thats even better. Also, morality and motivation are not the same thing. A character can be driven by this need to do good, but their good and your good might be two vastly different things. "Every villain is the protagonist of their own story." -George RR Martin. For instance, Thanos actually believes that what he is doing is for the greater good. His convictions are sound, his arguments logical and convincing. But i hardly think his greater good is the same as Captain America or Iron Man's greater good. Ras Al Ghul believes that killing hundreds of millions of people is for the greater good of the earth, for the greater good of humanity, but his idea of good is contorted by the lazarus pit, and his good is vastly different from Bruce Waynes idea of good. I get what youre saying about morality, but i think you are conflating it a little bit with character motivation.

@urorazbojnik5678

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with this for real life, however, in art and literature the problem is intent...you can't really know if this is what author intended to enrich a character, or if this is his easy way out...because it's far easier to write a character who just feels like doing "good" and sticks with it, than someone who is actually flirting with a thought of cutting few of his problems down by mere force, or lying, or cheating, and then succumbs to one of these. So I very much see his point here and agree with it.

@We1mann

4 жыл бұрын

That's true enough, and I agree; a person can absolutely do a good thing just because they want to be good. I have two points against that, though. 1) Reality doesn't have to be believable and engaging, because reality is real. Fictional characters need stronger and more interesting motivations than humans do, because humans have the advantage of being people, while fictional characters have to convince us they are. 2) It's one thing to donate money to a homeless person just because you want to do good. It's another to do the kind of things fantasy heroes typically do, JUST because of that. It's hard to believe a person going out to put his life on the line JUST out of impersonal dedication to the ideal of Good. We feel like there should be something in it for them as well. Kaladin does want to make a positive change in the world, but that's not JUST because of him being A Good Person. At the start, he's quite a broken man, and part of what drives him is a desire for change in himself as much as anything, an attempt to prove that he's not worthless. That surely playing into him being a good person, but it is more involved than JUST that.

@SrValeriolete

4 жыл бұрын

I am actually tired of people trying to make every hero motivation like it was forced into it and the idea that people can't be actually good. I mean, everything nowadays seems to have to be dark and grey and greed, even superman motivations have to be something personal now and not really wanting to save people. I think there's a lot of bad writing nowadays trying to be "complex" just by turning characters into douchebags.

@Mjot101

4 жыл бұрын

Totally agree, I think it can be one the best motivations if done well. Jaime Lannister is one of my favourite examples, his whole arc (in the show at least) can be boiled down to him trying to get redemption for killing the mad king and proving that he's "a man of honour." But it works so damn well and and I think anyone who has watched the show or read the books would agree he doesn't feel at all one dimensional. To me he feels like one of the most realistic and relatable characters out there

@JerkyMurky

4 жыл бұрын

@TheCoffeeNut711 I would argue what makes ray a bad character has nothing to do with her motivation, and has everything to do with her characterization. She suffers nothing to gain everything, and she never once fails. At no point is the possibility of her success in question, because it's established through all three films that when push comes to shove she will discover a new ability that she has never trained in or new existed that helps her out in said situation. She's a bad character because she is boring. Inversly, we have Superman. And I'm talking classical, 1940s, Tom Fleischer Superman. A compelling and complex character who was raised by his adoptive human father to be a good person, to be an exemplar of moral virture, to be good for the sake of being good. A moral phylosophy of intrinsic value. The phylosophy of Plato and Socrates. Superman doesn't do what is right because he has a vested interest in doing that thing, or defending people because of a personal bias. He acts because if a moral code that tells him to do what's right has been engrained in him his whole life. It's this simplicity that makes him interesting. We always know what Superman will do, because he will always do whats right. And his moral goodness isn't alone. The iron giant, Omar from the wire, captain america, the Rocketeer. Hell, even Batman, a character who is motivated by the death of his parents applies this same moral phylosophy albe it on a more complex way. And in the first iron man, Tony stops selling weapons because "it's right." That's his words... Not mine. Cs Lewis once said, "a character can be good for the sake of being good, but a character cannot be bad for the sake of being bad." And I find myself agreeing with him. I am far more interested in the gray motivations of the antagonist then the hero. I know me incredible is a good guy, and I know he's going to do good things. Not even because he enjoys it but because he knows he has the power to make a difference. I am vastly more interested in the motivations behind syndrome... Someone who is not evil for evils sake. Or Vader, someone who wasn't always evil, and became this way to save his doomed wife. And don't get me wrong. A character can have complex motivations. But the fact that wonderwoman wants to save man because it's the right thing to do is compelling enough to sell comic books for 70 years. I think Disney could learn alot from the luke of old. And I think people could learn alot from being good not because of monetary gain, or fame or adoration... But because it's right.

I don't feel all the characters/authors are suffering from this flaw as much as you suggest. I think it's just a question of scale. Bilbo for example does what he can to avoid people and be lazy. He will lie, trick, and hide to avoid responsibility. It's why he's such a good burglar and able to fool/avoid Gollum, trolls, etc. Aragorn seems like he has a dark past other than hiding his inheritance. Rohan is quick to mete out punishment to outsiders. Tolkien gets this, he just chooses as his protagonists hobbits, who aren't subject to the temptation of great evil as they seem well off and protected. This makes hobbits less of a grimdark candidate for their narrative approach.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Masood Voon Exactly! People have become so desensitised to violence and serious evil in general that they don’t see ‘lesser’ evils as making a character complex or human. Most people aren’t tempted by evil or have done terrible things. They’re like Bilbo and the hobbits as you say, and this actually does make them relatable and realistic. I mean it’s not like the hobbits are a race of angels; they’re overly parochial, a bit xenophobic, pretty cowardly, disinterested in others and not well educated. That’s most of the human race right there!

@clementdenis4212

4 жыл бұрын

The lord of the rings is a book about how even the character with the strongest moral will fail to the temptation of power at the end. I can't understand how people think "everybody is perfectly nice in Tolkien's books"

I think you're mostly right, the only problem I personally have is how it feels how everyone seems to think being good or being evil are just those super thin lines and the moment you take one little step out of it the character is "morally grey". It's like someone who is on the side of good can't have doubts or temptations outside of it or else he is "morally grey". I like grey morality, I think it's a good connection between black and white morality and all of these three things can exist together, but everyone seems to make EVERYTHING grey or sees it as such.

I really like Dear Authors & hope you are able to do them regularly

@lukeskywalkerthe2nd773

5 жыл бұрын

Same!!! :)

I like the Witcher morality system, where good vs bad doesn't mean anything at countries and faction level - there are no good and bad countries, all rulers have to break some eggs occasionally, and if you're in their way - they will destroy you without a second thought. Good and evil can only be understood on an individual level, and it's often not clear what is good in a particular situation, often you have to choose between many evils. It's very realistic system, but more importantly it allows for more interesting conflicts between characters. If there were 2 sides and one was good and the other evil - there would be no point talking. And Sapkowski's best at dialogues :)

It's worth noting that even Sauron is capable of introspection. When Morgoth was defeated and taken back to Valinor, Sauron actually has a genuine crisis of faith, and experiences regret for being such a dick. It's actually these feelings of shame and humiliation that drove him deeper into the darkness, because although he knew he was probably in the wrong, his punishment would be so great that he might as well double down. Even Sauron is not entirely beyond empathy. As always, Tolkien's Legendarium ends up being more complex than many people think. Not that I think Daniel is unaware of this, but that I thought those watching might be interested. Edit: I found the quote, "When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eönwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eönwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were strong." The Silmarillion, _Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age_

i think sam is a really believable character tho. thats why hes so beloved. i also really like grey characters, but having a few ppl who are just nicer or meaner than others is not so unrealistic. and if theyre side characters i accept that we dont get a justification as to why they have become that way. i real life you also have to accept that ppl are on the spectrum of goodness without an explanation.

I personally begun to loath the concept of "Morally Grey" because it is such a nebulous, broad term, it doesn't really mean anything. There are big differences between: morally conflicted, morally compromised or bankrupt, morally ambiguous or amoral. For example Benjamin Sisko from DS9 is a morally conflicted person, leaning into the compromised, he has strong sense of morality and a definite good guy, but the he had to deal with issues that forced him to bend the rules and compromise himself, and feels guilty about it. While Scorpius of Farscape is a more morally ambiguous person who's willing to do messed up shit in order to combat and take vengeance on the Scarrans, who are a very legitimate danger and bad guys, and doing all of it without a flicker of remorse. Elric of Melnibone is a morally conflicted person who goes from a wide eyed idealist to a somber sardonic, who's dual nature of being a melnibonean and a servant of chaos, wielding stormbringer is frequently in odds with his personal sense of loyalty and morality. I could line up more characters such as Kreia, or half the cast of the Dune and Legacy of Kain franchises but my point is all of these characters could be thrown into the zone of moral grey, easily, despite their differences. Morally grey is just a big cloud of nothingness people love to repeat because it sounds deep and edgy.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly! It's almost got to the point where, imo, it's just used an excuse to portray morally reprehensible characters as sympathetic heroes. People don't actually seem to seriously consider the various moral/ethical positions, they're just so afraid of appearing naive that they jump on the 'grey' (read cynical and self-centred) bandwagon.

@Maren617

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, I also agree. It's also used to silence anyone who does prefer moral characters and finds them more relatable or more inspiring. I love being inspired by people who are better people than I am, more courageous, more honest, more willing to work on themselves to overcome their weaknesses. Sympathizing with people like that in a book inspires me to be a little better in my own daily life, as well. Whenever I say about a "morally-grey" book featuring yet another mass-murdering sociopath that "I couldn't really relate to the protagonist much", I'm accused of hating "realistic" people. And honestly, it just makes me low-key scared of that person if they think that only sociopathic killers are realistic and that nobody ever does anything kind because they genuinely are kind. No, it always has to be some secret guilt or sentimentality or narcissism. Not the fact that genuinely being kind *feels great*, makes you (and the other person) happy, and makes you feel as if you're living a truly meaningful life. There are also so many people who will tell you that the "morally grey" character is simply a product of their circumstances and that they couldn't have made any other choice than becoming e.g. a mass-murderer of innocents, even when that is clearly untrue and they could have easily and without negative repercussions chosen not to kill anyone. We've gone from "is it occasionally okay for a hero to kill someone if they are really really dangerous and bad??" to "raping, pillaging, torturing children etc. is just the historically correct and realistic thing for a hero to do, and if you don't like that then you obviously have no taste in literature".

@chinuaalibatya7345

3 жыл бұрын

@@Maren617. Yeah people have pushed the envelope too far

I'm not a hardcore ASOIAF fan, BUT I always feel that Martin was killing this Black and White moral compass in his Series when he killed the ONLY character that was GOOD just because he wanted to be good in the first book.

@LoudWaffle

2 жыл бұрын

Ned did not die because he was Good, he died because he was naive. Just like Cersei did not instigate the coup because she is evil, but because she wants to protect her children. And Joffrey called the execution because of his countless personality issues from being raised as both a spoiled brat AND someone who feels he is not properly respected or acknowledged. In broad strokes I would still classify each as overall good and evil, because Ned cares for society and people on a whole, whereas Cersei and Joffrey and entirely self-motivated and completely disregard the lives and wellbeings of people not associated with them. But I never felt like this good/evil dichotomy is ever the deciding factor in ASoIaF conflicts.

@alakomachado9680

2 жыл бұрын

@@LoudWaffle no no no, I completely agree with you, tbh. In the narrative, I totally agree that Ned died bc of his nativity. What I meant is that, for the """traditional""" fantasy reader, as myself, that was a feeling I got. It is an outside reading, not in-world. If that makes any sense hahaha

In general, the best way to work out a villain or a good guy is how they think; "A hero will question if he is doing the right thing, a villain always believes he is."

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

S Hollis Yep, unqualified certainty isn’t usually a good thing.

I would say the hobbits are probably some of the best representations of ordinary people in fantasy, most people I've met are genuinely good. Sure people are flawed, but flawed doesn't have to mean 'murdered some kids one time, but hey he's still a nice guy!' The most common flaws are pretty minor personality flaws, so the trend of making every 'grey' character violent murderers comes off as pretty unrealistic.

@Dhirallin

5 жыл бұрын

It's pretty easy to appear goodly when you're powerless. A person needs some form of power or responsibility in order to cause harm.

I think Kaladin Stormblessed is supposed to come across the way he does. I mean, I think attracting an honor spren requires a certain type of character. I agree with your opinion on Dalinar though. His ark in Oathbringer made me tear up several times.

Funny enough, today | was taking with a co-worker about "grey personas" in books. Can't agree more with you. It is so much more intereting to see multiple facettes of a character, thus making them more realistic and maybe also making you feel conflicted about their motives. Although I can appreciate an Umbridge from time to time.

Interesting video. My option on morality of writing is simply this: why can't we have both? I honestly hate this trend created by HBO shows and breaking bad where we follow stories about generally bad people but it's considered "Deep" because it's morally ambiguous (i'm not say breaking bad and the like are bad shows, i'm just saying I hate the trend they have created. It's like Pearl Jam.) I think writers need to stop thinking on the lines of "hero and villain" and think more on the lines of "protagonist and antagonist". Aside from stormlight archives, I think Daredevil season 1 is a great example of being both binary and grey when it comes to morality. Matt is a super hero that fights to help people yet he lies to his friends and think about whether he should kill Wilson Fisk. Fisk, on the other hand is a crime boss with moments of murderous rage and plans to gentrify a part of the city, yet he's more honest with the ones he loves and generally believe's he's doing the right thing until the very end. Again, you can have both

@Mharriscreations

5 жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree with you more. Both is good. Sometimes a story requires a grey character and that's awesome. Other times strict black and white characters are some of the best you see in any given material. Write well and write to fit the story...And write both grey and the black and white well.

40 sec in and a Kvothe diss xD Jalan is my favourite character ever, love that fool. "I’m a liar and a cheat and a coward, but I will never, ever, let a friend down. Unless of course not letting them down requires honesty, fair play, or bravery."

@Dhirallin

5 жыл бұрын

It's weird because I see Kvothe as a grey character, but Daniel thinks that the author is trying to portray him as purely good, and that the author simply has a flawed view of good. Either way doesn't it end up the same for the reader?

Great Video! I definitely agree that complex and morally ambiguous characters are interesting and some of my favorite characters. But I I also like humanitarian characters or characters whose motivation are just 'I want to be a good person'. I absolutely think they should struggle and suffer; being a good person isnt easy and my favorite characters of these are characters whose morality costs them, but they decide to be good anyway. I think theres a place for darker stories with more morally ambiguous characters and for more hopeful stories with good people or people who are trying really hard to be good simply for the sake of it.

It’s official guys, he hates wholesome protagonists.

I can definitely see why Dhalinar is such a relatable character. I find that Kaladin is more relatable for me with his struggles in depression and struggling with actually doing what he already knows is right. I think I have the same thoughts towards Dhalinar as you do to Kaladin. Dhalinar is very compelling to me, but I relate more to Kaladin. But it is interesting none the less.

I’ve only read Eye of the World so far but I loved that the people who served the Dark One did it out of resignation to fear, rather than being wholly evil. I appreciate the outlook of “oh, well, he’ll take over the world anyway, might as well embrace it.”

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

That in itself is a pretty nihilistic and evil view though. It basically says that they care for nobody but themselves, and for me that lack of empathy and care is the root of all evil.

"I don't need my villains to be right. I just want them to think they are." WRITE THAT DOWN! WRITE THAT DOWN!

I don't have a problem with black and white morality in stories, though I do agree that conflicted characters can be more interesting. What I really don't like is what TV Tropes calls "protagonist centered morality", where what ever the protagonist does is presented as being good because it's the protagonist is the one doing it. Also, to the last point you make in your video--sure, human characters should have believable human motivations, but that doesn't apply to non-human characters. Granted, a lot of authors can't handle, uhm, shall we say, unusual motivations and POVs well.

Really enjoyed this video. I study philosophy at uni & so I think about morality a lot. And I also spend a lot of my spare time writing and planning fantasy novels. And I try hard to give everyone believable but flawed personalities and morals. Particularly the villains- I enjoyed you talking about what you thought made good moral characters. Ps have you seen Nando vs Movies “Making a case for Thanos” videos? He also suggested similar things you said about how the privledged have been keeping the either to themselves or locked up where Thanos wants to use to help the suffering. I found what you and he said really interesting and has made me think about having a villian of mine have similar beliefs. I’m very excited to see what your characters & villains end up being like

Ok, I watched your entire WOT review series because I was missing some WOT in my life, having finished the series about six years ago. I am now subscribing because you too see the genius of Robert Jordan and his ability to humanize and 'grey' his characters. Well done on your reviews, I have enjoyed them immensely!

To be honest, I have, in the book I'm writing, two characters whose primary motivation is wanting to be good, but I think is fitting in their cases. One of them is a demonic creature who is cruel in nature and doesn't feel empathy, but was raised by a loving mother along with a heroic and kind brother, and this character truly loves and respects these two people, so they want to follow their exemple, even if is not their natural instinct. The other character is a orphan who wants, more than anything, having a family and having love in their life, because they were never loved, at least as longer they can remeber, since they have no memory of their parents; but they believe that they must be worthy of this love and that, if they are good enough, they will be loved, so that's why they are willing to do heroic things and put themselves in danger in order to "be a good person", since, in their mind that would make them worthy of love.

About motivation... If the text puts the protagonist as a good person who wants to do good things and justifies they're actions within the text itself by showing the way they're look on things, that's good for me... if it matches his personality, that's him. Who knows, maybe the author is inspired by someone he knows? The way you put it is great, too much formula

Galad from WoT is an excellent character because even though his motives and beliefs are binary (he always has to do the "right" thing) that actually becomes his greatest flaw. There are several times within the series that his beliefs are thrown into question and he has trouble deciding the right course of action or believed his actions were just, only to find out later that their was "more to the story."

I am writing a series of books and I think after hearing all of your pet peeves, preferences & etc... I think we have similar tastes & you’d like what I’m planning to write. I’m also excited to find out more about your work

I thought snape was a beautifully written gray character

@walterpinkmantanay1577

4 жыл бұрын

Oh man Snape🙌

@clementine127

3 жыл бұрын

Snape could have been so much stronger if Lily was just his friend, no romantic strings involved. Then it could emphasize how much he cared about her, wanting to protect Harry because that is what Lily died for. The crush dynamic makes him seem obsessive and not at all caring.

@gauracappelletti3893

3 жыл бұрын

Magic nazi who's good because he's an incel?

@MrsTold

3 жыл бұрын

I was actually really disappointed in snape? Oh yeah, im horrible 99% of the. Time, but because I did 1 good thing im actually good? Ugh. Child abusers cant be good/ok people imo

@kelseyswanepoel7056

3 жыл бұрын

I see him as a basic Grey character. He passible but could have been much better, for example if I wrote him I would have had him randomly pop up and sneer out a sujestion to Harry which he never uses but later thinks 'I should have done that' and personally keeping tabs on him in book 3 and there is one other thing but I've forgotten. Then when he died it would have been more emotionally wrenching cause he actually did care about Harry a little bit.

just rewatched this and i forgot how good it is. cannt wait for more of these

This was great and a point you've touched on in multiple videos. This could have been 5mins longer.

I love your assessment that because of the incredible complexity of human neurology that our behavior is "unpredictable and strange". Seriously. I am a neuroscientist and I plan to steal that exact phrase.

The villain's motivation doesn't even need to be relatable. It just needs to make sense in the context of the character. A person obsessed with justice might have been wronged in the past and thus travels a dark path to undo that deed. Or heavy regrets, as you mentioned, might make someone leave reality and have them trying to undo what they've done at all cost. Those thought lines aren't relatable, but they do make sense.

If fantasy is about escapism, and an ideal, then what is wrong with a character that just wants to do good? Or is simply a good person? Now and then a morally grey person is great, but i would still prefer it if the MC i read about doesn't remind me too much of real life that i'm trying to forget when reading fantasy :)

*This* author hears you, for sure ;) The characters who've always fascinated me the most are the ones towards whom I feel strong, active mixed emotions (It probably took hold while reading ElfQuest as a kid...Rayek was always my favorite character...I mean, sure, Cutter was the badass who I *wanted to be when I grew up*, but Rayek was captivating on a much deeper, richer level, specifically because I was so frequently torn between whether I loved him or hated his guts). So naturally, those are the kinds of protagonists I have the most fun writing about.

@thetalantonx

4 жыл бұрын

Polarizing and paradoxical, I definitely agree with you. I like it when the setting has the exemplars of their types, whether the idealized hero to inspire the idealistic, or the prime evil with whom there can be no compromise, *and* the humans caught somewhere in the middle. The protagonist who strives for the heroic but is only mortal and must live with the guilt of failure, or the wickedly self-interested "villain" who is the only one able and willing to do what it takes to save the day. The hero you can see yourself in, and the villain you can see in yourself.

Sauron is evil because he literally is an extension of a dark god who is even just a distorted cloud in the main series. Of course he is evil. And you could argue that voldemore gave away most of his soul and is cartooniish evil because of that. Normal humans having no other side having no other side are very bad villains. Unless they are delightful entertaining psychopaths.

This video is surprisingly amazing.

I will say that yes i like believable characters (who are morally grey) but at the same time I like reading about what characters who are morally strong will do in situations that cause them to bend their morality. I.e. Rand's tough choice with the Aielman in Cairhien (trying to avoid spoilers)

I would love to have a villain who was a previous uncorruptable hero and defeated an unrealistically evil villain and became king, but because his moral stance is so high and his justice absolute he becomes a tyrant.

There's also what is the good or right thing to do - e.g. utalitarian vs Kantian perspectives of whats good/bad/acceptable or the right thing to do, there's the Dientological perspective too (Ive spelt that wrong, I know it).

Nice video, glad to see your take on the whole black and white morality issue! Have you read the Eli Monpress series yet? The novels follow the adventures of Ei Monpress the world's number one thief and his trio as they travel the world stealing anything that they think will increase their bounty as much as possible ( for instance a King), and all the characters are pretty well rounded. For instance, on the outside, Monpress seems to be a carefree, rebellious spirit. On the inside however, Monpress is forever haunted by his past of being someone's ( Spoiler-ish territory) puppet. He is running from dark forces, as well as the light forces, him and his crew are a wild, dynamic force that appears where the government doesn't want them to be and in the course of their actions, fix the problems that the government either caused or can't fix by chance that the problem also affects them personally. Very good series, I highly suggest you give it a try!

I dig you man. I don’t subscribe to many things that don’t involve woodworking....but....in my opinion there is nothing wrong with having some characters that are inherently good or evil. I think it adds to the story as in “real life” there are people that do follow that dynamic “albeit very few”. Samwise is a good example of someone inherently good who adds depth to a story. I do feel that an inherently good main protagonist or inherently evil antagonist can make a story less enjoyable. Also cheers, I think you are doing a good job with the casts.

Just asking myself after all these vids on 'morally grey char' on whether the characteristics of this kind of character should be: - dramatic, tragic backstory and equally dramatic situation they have in the present (Batman, Dexter, Breaking Bad, Thanos, etc.) - doing huge things like murder, shooting, cheating, lying I read that only putting 'sad' backstory is cheap writing in creating these kind of characters, yet studies on serial murders proven that the environment did a great deal in influencing their thoughts and ideals (maybe it depends on how they choose to respond to their past?) Can it be just a thought that the character hold off from doing several times, and when she finaly done it things got awry? Does it count as morally ambiguous?

I disagree with the idea that characters in modern fantasy need to be morally gray, or that being morally gray makes a character complex. It's a myth produced by modern cynicism and I personally hate it. I'd argue that a character who does good either in the face of overwhelming evil or despite their desires to do bad things simply because it's the right thing to do is significantly more interesting and poses more conflict than someone who just does whatever they want because they've got a past, and it sometimes happens to be good. There's a difference between a good, wholesome character and a perfect character, or even a morally righteous character. The latter two aren't well-written, and are often confused with or are failed attempts at writing the wholesome hero.

I fail to understand this new fad of having to relate to characters. Has everyone become so self-absorbed that they need to see themselves everywhere?

@metalbyakkoLP

4 жыл бұрын

Not really, it has more to do with seeing yourself in the character in one way or another which helps to understand the character and their motivations better. I personally think people just forget two things about it: 1) Relateable doesn't mean the character has to be the same as me. Sure it does help if the character in question has the same traits as I the reader have, but he doesn't have to be exactly like me (but to be fair I doubt many people ask for that) 2) I think it's also important to mention that the reader also WANTS to relate to said character. In the end no matter how much the character and the reader have in common in the end the reader should also want to relate to the character or else the reader won't see the similiarities. Edit: Also I don't think it's really a new fad. It's just much more emphasized.

@nichoudha

4 жыл бұрын

Are you kidding? It's better than cookie-cutter stand-ins with no personality, which is fucking boring shit.

@teehee-yn3jh

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly tho. I understand the appeal and sometimes it's cool, but ppl who always want to relate to certain characters need some friends or something💀. Really i think it's because some ppl treat fiction like it's their religion- not Greene tho i like that he does. But i agree. Agree or disagree it's whatever lol. I do agree with everything Greene is saying tho

@joshknightfall

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, they have become that self-absorbed. This is a very me-me-me era. We have a narcissistic man in the white house who can do no wrong in his own mind and has zero capacity for self reflection. And plenty on the political left who are fully self/identity obsessed, so it ain't just orange-man and his fans. I met a girl who couldn't enjoy LotR AT ALL because it didn't have enough female representation and she "couldn't relate." Just deny the basic human condition cuz it's attached to a penis I guess.

@teehee-yn3jh

3 жыл бұрын

@@joshknightfall yeah that's so stupid. The ppl who scream for representation the most won't even make their own stories- which would sound like a better solution. Like I'm black, so if I'm looking for black representation I'll go to a black content creator, or make stories myself. I'm not begging anybody else to do it for me

Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood spoilers: Our heroes, Roy Mustang, Riza Hawkeye, Edward and Alphonse, all have major regrets. Those who served in the Ishvalan Extermination are haunted by the atrocities they committed, even if it was on someone else's orders. It drives Hawkeye and Mustang to continue working within the military to hope to change it. Ed and Al committed the taboo of attempting Human Transmutation, and lost their bodies. Edward begins in arrogance with alchemy, as he is very gifted and had used it. Scar as a villain is also very nuanced character. At first, his motivations are purely anger and revenge. Then he is confronted by the daughter of two of his victims, and realizes how far he went, and ended up in a very different place, fighting with our heroes.

@dylanbaker9016

5 жыл бұрын

aNImE Is SiN

@ebnovels

5 жыл бұрын

I 100% agree. FMA has some of the best character development I've ever seen. Not just because of the depth with the character, but also because essentially everyone single one of them has depth. With such a big cast, I find that really amazing :)

@jonsnor4313

5 жыл бұрын

Greed had the best developement of all of them, The others are very good too.

@Dhirallin

5 жыл бұрын

Of course because it's anime, it has to have an unbelievably goodly waifu bait character or two :)

Morality is a concept that is defined largely by the society we or in a book, the characters live in. Example: the Aztecs believed in human sacrifice as a tool to terrorize their enemies and tribes that they had conquered, but the Spanairds who defeated them did not believe in that ritual. That is one of the main reasons why the Aztec's enemies sided with the Spanairds in their conquest of the Aztecs. Morality is a code of ethics that a people or nation agree is the ideal to aim for. In Christian nations, Jesus's Beatitudes offer a way for its adherents to practice their faith as part of their daily lives. The Christian faith requires its adherents to "love thy neighbor as themselves." That commandment of Jesus' is what spurred a crisis of conscience among many Quakers, who after many decades of debate decided to abolish slavery within their church by 1761. They then proceeded to work to outlaw it in the nations that they lived in. Morality, or national morality, does not mean that it is good. Nazi Germany had their code of ethics that believed that they were the master race and had the natural right to abuse, subjugate and murder inferior races and ethnicities. From their point of view, that is what a good Nazi would do. But like with the tribes subjugated by the Aztecs, that view of the Nazis was not shared by the people they abused and murdered nor by the nations that opposed them. So an author, especially an author of fantasy and sci-fi, need to provide the reader with a description of the morality or code of ethics of the society that produced the protagonist of their story.

knocked this one out of the park, yet again.

I loved Kelsier as a character because his motivations and past lined up beautifully with his goals and methods. He is a great man while also being a mass murderer, but he is a pretty honest character as well. I feel that Sanderson is very good at doing consequences in general, including character.

Lord Ingtar has this very struggle in book 2: Verin Sedai is a glowing example of this as well.

@DanielGreene WHEEL OF TIME SPOILERS AHEAD!: Would you consider Ingtar Shinowa and Verin Mathwin to be gray characters? Ultimately they served the shadow but had what they felt were good reasons to do so. As much as I hated the idea of their actions as dark friends I also felt legitimately good when Ingtar confessed and died to help the (then) boys get away.

LOOKIT YOUR BABY FACE! OMG ADORABLE!

I would like to see arguments between two friends about how war should be carried out. Allow pillaging or no? The aiel 1/5? My one problem with wot is lack of communication between characters. If the Emonds fielders talked to each other there would have been no problems. ( but that includes rand letting them know lews therin was there)

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Natewing Al' Thor Yes exactly and what made it so frustrating was that there were no proper reasons for the absolutely appalling lack of discussion and communication across the whole spectrum of protagonists. So it’s just became ridiculous because it’s not how people really behave at all; in times of stress and crisis where momentous decisions are made, reasonable people (which our protagonists generally otherwise are) would discuss everything to a point. It’s basically just Jordan’s tactic to prolong conflict which makes it extremely irritating.

@natewingalthor1266

5 жыл бұрын

@@dreamer2260 it happens in so many books i sometimes wonder if it's a rule to writing lol. But yeah i can't imagine being around my best friend and NOT telling him everything wrong and all my worries. Sword of Truth did that crap too, but i came to realize if they were all together and open with each other, they could fix any problem and all that would be left is the physical fighting

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Natewing Al' Thor Exactly! It’s like they don’t even act like they’re childhood friends once they split up. Mat especially but Perrin too, show v little concern for Rand really, and Mat basically disowns him bc he’s supposedly afraid of losing his life for a worthy cause. What loyalty! Some friend. Never understood why people like Mat so much; beyond the superficial charm he’s really a bit of a hedonistic void, pretty morally bankrupt and lacking in any goals which makes him aimless, unsympathetic and uninteresting, in my view. Like I said, Perrin suffers from similar issues but not to the same extent imo.

Has anyone read the Three World's Cycle(Ian Irvine)? It has a great deal of these characters. Especially everything after the first quartet.

I think you've given me the motivation for my most immediate antagonist, so thank you. :)

Did you happen to catch Nando v Movies' video about Thanos? He provided a really similar idea about extending Thanos' motivations to be even more compelling, showing how the Stones were being used to maintain a flawed status quo

What I'd find more interesting than "because I want to be good" would be "because I don't want to be bad". That reaks of baggage full of potential.

Someone doing the wrong thing for a very human reason like protecting the people they care about can be very emotionally powerful

Other good examples of 'grey characters' in Fantasy are in The Witcher : Dijsktra, Vernon Roche and Philippa Eilhart fall obviously into that category and are among the best written characters. On the other hand, I just began Six of Crows, and each main character seems to be grey as well, that is intersesting!

The one WoT character study I think deserves it most is Elaida Do Avriny a'Roihan.

Not trying to be critical, just an honest request for information: Do you have something that gives weight to your opinion like a degree or a book series. or Are you just an avid reader with a KZread channel

Great video

Regret is the best tool to hook me on any character. It really is a powerful tool.

Nobody's going to read this, but what the heck ... I tried to get away from the binary morality system, and my protagonist's motivation is a mix of being forced into the protagonist role and thus find a way to escape, guilt for dragging someone he cares for into a terrible situation, a bit of straight up white knighting and being the savior for once, and, down the road, trying to save the world because of the relationships and bonds he has formed along the way. My antagonist is a bit more simple, viewing herself as a zealot, much like Thanos, who believe that her side didn't go far enough to ensure victory in a major war against an opposing faction. When she expressed her dissatisfaction with the resulting peace treaty, feeling that their enemy would take a mile after being given an inch, she was put in the proverbial corner and turned to means that were perceived as evil to make her point. This video did inspire me to include some regret, as well as some loose ideas about how to incorporate them. I knew there was a reason I subbed to this channel. :D

I would argue or at least put some nuance on that contemporary trend of wanting grey morality everywhere. Sometimes what I want in my fantasy is a place as far as the real world, and that includes not wanting to see people behaving like I expect them to behave in real life. Either way, what makes people behave like they behave are incentives and when writing a fantasy novel it should correspond to the writer to design in his worldbuilding a system of incentives that explain why people do what they do (Martin excels at that). Thus, it would be possible to create worlds with a different array of incentives that make people behave well or badly and both would be correct. But that is different from wanting a grey morality per se. And, I really think that Tolkien’s characterization is not outdated: it is one of the few fantasies written in the language of myth (rather in the language of history with a veneer of fantasy). Tolkien characterized like that because his work is practically a theological text: one based in a theology that is very reactive to the idea of greyness.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

EstoNoEsUnSpoiler Excellent point about Tolkien; I’m an atheist myself but I think his religiosity and love of the spiritual really made the LOTR as fascinating and timeless as it is.

Can you do a video about plottwists ?

I don't know if you've ever read Daniel Abraham's Long Price Quartet? Based on what you say you enjoy in villains, I think you would enjoy that series.

Thats why I love Roland Deschain, my god this guy has some serious flaws.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Mario Stoeffler yes! Brilliant example of a grey, complex character who isn’t actually a monster either, he’s just suffered a lot and makes a lot of mistakes, but you end up loving him and rooting for him anyway, which is essential for a protagonist!

Eh didn't we go through this grim dark "all heroes should be antiheros" thing in the 90s? It's not unrealistic for people to want to do good things for good reasons. That's not to say they don't have flaws or blindspots or different ideas about what "doing good" looks like but not everyone is doing everything for purely selfish reasons.

The reason why we can't have people wanting to be good for the sake of being good in stories nowadays is because people are just way too G*d damn cynical and jaded for that s**t.

Just a little side note. completely irrelevant but I just heard you talk about Spanish inquisition. Did you know that the medieval inquisition, that it is often confused with, happened in the entire Europe and the infamous inquisition that most people think they are talking about, it was created against jews? To put it into perspective recent estimations put the number of executions in 2000. Of course, they also went against protestants who apparently made up many of the horror stories everybody has heard of. It looks like the reason why it was "actually" so scary was that this organization had the complete crown on his side and it was very efficient even recording deaths (here is implied that in other kingdoms they were not as well backed up and did not even recorded the stuff). Cool example, in 1680 61 persons were condemned to the fires, 34 of them were just statues representing the convicted. About which hunting, it is estimated that about 40000-60000 were executed in Europe during that time, 500 of which happened in Spain. So you see, the reality is often time much more "boring", and who knows what else is there in the common knowledge that is not true! BTW I am politically spanish but REALLY I am Basque, also non religious, so yeah, impartial!

It kind of amazes me how many people write off LOTR as a simple story with characters who are simple. I feel like people consider Sauron a simple villain because of the movies where he is very much a villain who wants to conquer the world just because he does. I would recommend watching Hello Future Me's videos on Dark Lords and on Sauron because they might help you see more of the complexities of Sauron's character. Granted he's not morally grey in my opinion but he is interesting. You don't have to have something be grey in order for it to be interesting.

I think the real good guy among a sea of gray people is intended to show the difference between the two....and there are truly good people in the world even if only relatively speaking. Gahndi for example was a very peaceful person in a time of upheaval and violence.

I think Sam in the Lord of The Rings is more grey of a character than we realize. He essentially denies Sméagol the opportunity to be redeemed. Sam is a lot like Ned Stark- once a label is assigned to someone, it never changes.

I really like stories where the hero and the villain are portrayed as 2 sides of the same coin, rather than total opposites. Harry Potter actually did this really well in a very interesting way.

You talk about Lazy Morality. But then include Wheel of Time as an example of good when it is one of the clear examples of lazy villains.

My characters are three dimensional because I love that too. N. R. Williams, fantasy author.

The good-bad lines are just irking, simplistic and common. It works for older classics because they are classic whilst nowadays we are becoming more and more acquainted with the complexity of humans. I think that is why so many people enjoy Jaime from ASOIAF because you have so much reason to dislike him but you still hold sympathies for him. Black Panther did so well because we understood why he felt so motivated. People want stories that truly change them as they are the most rewarding. But it is definitely substantially harder to write such varied and grey stories so it's pretty understandable why authors avoid it, not that they should. Just hope to see more complex characters in the future.

@chroniatry2250

5 жыл бұрын

Black Panther doing well had very little to do with KIllmonger's morality, though his motivations were definitely the most compelling aspect of the film.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

“Nowadays we are becoming more and more acquainted with the complexity of humans”. So you’re implying that authors writing in earlier periods had less of an understanding of human nature than current fantasy authors? Clearly that’s ridiculous. I think that actually it’s the opposite, and that many modern fantasy authors are more interested in ‘cool’ worlds/ideas/individual scenes etc. Even Sanderson is guilty of this. I think that there is a tendency of modern fantasy authors not to spend much time or intellectual effort really thinking about morality and the consequences of characters’ actions or views. Many don’t actually seem interested in right and wrong really, so you see this profusion of ‘grey’ characters, which instead of illustrating the complexity of human nature, ends up encouraging sympathy with, and normalising or minimising, evil views or actions. Whatever you say about Tolkien, for example, he was a student of morality and I think that rather than the LOTR being some kind of primitive presentation of human nature, it was a series steeped in morality and a deep understanding of the corruption of power and the tendency of humans to seek domination. Remember he lived through both world wars and fought in the first; I think he had a deeper understanding of human nature and morality than most, and this thoughtfulness shines through.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Tenyo N Tenyo N haha nah that all makes sense to me dude if you hadn’t told me I wouldn’t have known ;) Thanks for the reply! It’s possible OP did mean readers rather than writers, but I’m not sure. She’s echoing sentiments often implied that earlier fantasy is primitive from a character complexity/morality viewpoint, when compared to mainstream modern fantasy. This dismissal, however gentle, of older, ‘classic’ fantasy is what I’m reacting against really, because I see in it the old fallacy of believing the current trends/state of civilisation/thinking is superior to older kinds. This may sometimes be the case but generally I dislike what I see as the arrogance of it. It’s a bit like, to ape Richard Dawkins, seeing evolution as no more than a series of steps of ‘improvement’ inevitably leading to our own, superior, enlightened species. Really, each ‘step’ was of course dictated not by any grand scheme, but by selection pressures on species at the time. Anyway I’ve gone off topic as well haha. I think that’s an interesting point you make about us being in a period of diverse philosophies and schools of thought. In theory its true but I don’t think that diversity is reflected in modern fantasy. One reason I love the genre is the moral and thought experiments you can do which can give insight into human nature. I don’t see modern fantasy doing that. I see much of it as kind of pandering to a nihilistic, violence- and self-centred world view which purports to show humanity in all its complexity but actually reduces human action to base motives and extirpates notions of nobility, chivalry, piety, loyalty, kindness etc. It’s a reaction perhaps to an over-representation of these traits in older fantasy but if so, is just as false as that earlier narrative and far more damaging to the human psyche.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

@@ShadowsInNight Fair enough. Do you have any specific disagreement with Dawkins? I'm curious; he's not perfect by any means, but i'm not sure I can admit to ever noticing that his interviews are riddled with fallacies. And yes that disillusionment is probably a big part of it you're right. It's also mixed in with a lack of optimism which I think is not founded in the reality of the trajectory of human development and scientific discovery, and so I'm suspicious of it. I see the kind of apathy and cynicism which manifests itself in this trend in fantasy, as simply divisive; it deflects attention from the wrongdoings of true exploiters in our societies. Interesting and concerning point about Chinese fiction if true; I've been peripherally aware of Chinese nationalistic tendencies in their films, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if that's equally true for books, considering their political situation. What brought you to this conclusion? No worries :)

@prigg88

5 жыл бұрын

@@dreamer2260 I took what the OP meant by "nowadays we are becoming more and more acquainted with the complexity of humans" was that are understanding of human psychology & neurology has grown since the older classics were written.

I really like Sinbad from Magi The Labyrinth which i think a grey character.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 PREACH!!!

@kriegermarsh183

5 жыл бұрын

Hey i have been watching your videos for a while now and that is what i have been waiting for

Thanos was a great villan until in endgame we find out he could have just fixed the scarsity problem insted of killing half of everybody.

I love how the most black and white character in wheel of time, galad, is able to be grey because of how starkly one sided his morals are, it's just kinda neat.

Reality changed back up until he had the whole gauntlet. If reality can't permanently change, then the good guys couldn't bring back anyone.

Do you ever aspire to write your own books? You have read so much that you really understand the craft of narrative and character development.

Don`t like Game of Thrones for sympathizing sociopaths (honestly more black then grey). I mean look at Jaime Lannister for example. As if it's normal (and psychological logical) that a guy who would murder a child without second thought becomes a decent guy. Where I stopped people started liking him I think.

@jordendarrett1725

5 жыл бұрын

@@xxreidxx2362 Same with Ted Bundy. Nobody knew what a horrible person he was.

@masoodvoon8999

5 жыл бұрын

Before the industrial age people left babies on a hill to die because of necessities of life & survival. There isn't much difference from that and late term abortion. Times change and different things are considered accepted and forbidden. Human society travels in circular path of Hegelian dialectics with their incompatible moralities.

@ButtslammerBob

5 жыл бұрын

Face turns are a thing, homie. He's one of the most developed characters in the books, and he was hated to begin with. People like good character development, people like good writing. Jamie is both.

@VentraleStar

5 жыл бұрын

Yall he didn't leave a baby on a hill he pushed a child off a ledge because he saw him fucking his sister. And then he all of a sudden grows a conccionce. That's not believable.

@ButtslammerBob

5 жыл бұрын

@@VentraleStar "all of a sudden". Lmao. Exactly how many books and pages are between child-pushing and his face turn? There was nothing sudden about it, bucko.

Man if I was Rand Idk if I'd have stayed with the light. I'd feel like a lot of people aren't worth fighting for

@SonofSethoitae

3 жыл бұрын

It helps that serving the Dark One produces literal monsters. Like yeah, people are shitty sometimes, but at least they aren't Trollocs

I'm sorry but I never once got the feeling that Rand would not ultimately end up being the "good guy with a sword" as it were. Whatever "grey" moments he had felt very contrived...an attempt to make him seem more complex than a wool-headed farm boy. He'd already been pronounced as "The One" who'd defeat evil and was imbued with so much power that you wonder why it took 14 long books and the pointless deaths of countless side characters to reach his pre-ordained destination. In fact all the Emond's Fielders are the same. All unusually powerful and not one truly grey character. Boring. Someone like Anakin Skywalker for example is a lot more interesting to me. Here is someone who fits your classic "chosen one" fantasy trope. Even his birth was biblical. You expect him to bring balance to the force but his very human flaws take him in the complete opposite direction. If you are a reader you have no idea if and how this character can ever live up to the prophecy and you start to question the interpretation if not the authenticity of the very prophecy itself. Same thing with Daenerys Targaryen. Who knows whether she'll end up being a hero or a villain but you appreciate her motivations either way. GRRM has been brilliant at creating incredibly nuanced characters and story lines.

This is why I enjoy Larry Correia's Monster Hunter series. (SPOILERS) Lord Machado is a "chosen one." Hood who's a cult leader wants to rule the world so lovecraftian Old Ones will leave humans alone. The Antagonist in Monster Hunter Alpha, wants to rule the world with werewolves. They all believe they're doing the right. But they do enjoy murdering people.

Do you read Throne of Glass?????????????????????? The series has some of my favorite character development ever! I think only the first book is from only the main female perspective. And the audiobook is great!

Perhaps you won't agree with me but if you read the Tao Te Ching it preaty much says that human nature is inheritely good and if one is in harmony with the Tao and if an individual who is cultivating the Tao within themselves and has not allowed there true nature of goodness to become excessively corrupted and warped by the allure of material things then that person will always act in accordance to what is good without any other motivation or incentive being necessary to act in accordance to what is good except for that but yet again not every human being can be a profoundly enlightened Taoist sage and I guess that even though according to the Tao Te Ching that human nature is inheritely good I guess that holding on to and expressing this point of view is not really good for selling alot of books or making alot of money. Not saying that writing about a saint or sage like character who is profoundly enlightened is something that we should do in literature or even that it really makes for a good book but I'm just saying that the Tao Te Ching strongly disagrees with the idea that human beings need other incentives to be good other then for the sake of being good.

#ThanosShouldHaveGottaMovie I really wish thanos would have had a movie where he was portrayed as the good guy/ It would have made the franchise so much better.

In my book "the bad guys" aren't humans and don't have human psychology. They're just doing/behave according to what they are/what drives them and there is no real stopping them forever. There is just fighting to keep the balance (at least) or rather keeping them at bay. Which is why it's more a test of endurance for "the good guys" because keeping the balance is simply their job forever. So dealing with that, with loss, pain, fear and still trying to have happiness in their lives and keeping each other alive... is the struggle of the story. There is no real defeating and no point in hating the dark side just the need to keep finding/having the things to fight for (keeping their will and not break). It's basically a metaphor for good and evil (or better light and )in the world. In this book at least there is no bad guy thinking he is in the right. Actually I will probably stick with sociopaths and psychopaths when it comes to human bad guys in general. Which look out for themselves or their own. The later fits the "thinking they are in the right" category but I would never make them the main bad guy because in theory the problem could be talked through and settled in everyone's best interests. And that makes things frustrating and reminds me of this worlds politics (which is the last thing I want to be remindet of when I read a book). I find corrupt or nonsensical characters just too frustrating. I guess that`s why I don`t like marvels netflix shows too much. Great if the bad guys are fascinating/complicated but I don't want to see the personal struggle of characters I don`t care for at that length (Fisk, Jeryn Hogarth, Patsy). Watching hopelessly twisted, stupid, naive, disgusting, morally weak or of pathetic will etc characters is neither really enjoyable nor inspiring (just frustrating, exasperating, aggravating and annoying). So I am most of the time just fine with watching them from the "good guys" perspective and maybe watching she or he figer them out. "I rather have them scary then hear them ranting" is my fazit I guess. But characters that I like: The more chomplicated the better (as long it`s still sensical)!

They messed up the infinity stones/gauntlet so much

Cool to see a discussion of morality Daniel! While I know you mean well, you can’t help implying that modern fantasy authors have more complex characters and better representations of real humanity than ‘classic’ authors, like Tolkien. I think that actually it’s the opposite, and that many modern fantasy authors are more interested in ‘cool’ worlds/ideas/individual scenes etc. than examining the nature of human nature (haha) or morality. Even Sanderson is guilty of this. Many modern fantasy authors don’t actually seem that interested in right and wrong really, so you see this profusion of ‘grey’ characters, which instead of illustrating the complexity of human nature, ends up encouraging sympathy with, and normalising or minimising, evil views or actions. Whatever you say about Tolkien, for example, he was a student of morality and I think that rather than the LOTR being some kind of primitive presentation of human nature, it was a series steeped in morality and a deep understanding of the corruption of power and the tendency of humans to seek domination. Remember he lived through both world wars and fought in the first; I think he had a deeper understanding of human nature and morality than most, and this thoughtfulness shines through.

Wow.

The idea of being good for the sake of being good being lazy or not being something that occurs in real life or that we're all by default selfish pieces of s**t seems a bit cynical and jaded.

I mean, my whole series is "the chosen one" basiclly giving up on his title and run away beacuse he first doesn't feel like he can do it, and then he feels that there will be no benefit to the world if he do it. beacuse the bad guys (supirior grfin and the supirior empire) aren't exactly bad and good guys (the council of races) aren't good, he doesn't wanr to go into their silly wars. both of sides are disgusting basiclly, the concil is racist as a whole so racist that they delibertly don't protect the rights of mixed race people so those mixed race people run away and this is how the supirior empire was created, but it's not all good and dandy, beacuse they of course hate the concil for all the shit they did to them for thousends of years, so they become a bit genocidel and just kill all "pure" races in the war. so how can you chose when non of the sides is actually good? especially when my chosen one is both from pure royalty and is a mixed race (a mistress child) meaning he doesn't only need to decide on the outside, he himself has parts of both sides.

LoTR literally has the world saved by a grey character turning evil. Tolkien most certainly had a much more complex view of good and evil than any modern fantasy writer. Also, Frodo and Bilbo are anything but "muscle flexing heroes".

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Chow Yee Lee yes precisely! If anything modern fantasy has regressed in terms of understanding of morality. And yh his main characters are unique for their lack of overtly heroic traits. Pretty damn original and admirable imho

@chowyee5049

5 жыл бұрын

@@dreamer2260 You know, I always thought that Eru Illuvatar/ God was the true, unseen hero of the story. After all, it was seemingly random circumstances (ie Gollum dancing too close to the volcano) that eventually brought about the downfall of evil. Considering Tolkien's devout Catholicism, I do believe this was what he had in mind.

@dreamer2260

5 жыл бұрын

Chow Yee Lee It’s possible that Éru Illuvatar was intended as ‘the’ prime mover of the story, but perhaps not a hero. A hero I think has to have some flaws, have some struggle; Tolkien provides several heroes among the protagonists. But yes I think Tolkien implied that Éru may have intervened to cause Sméagol to trip. Perhaps he was implying that only divine intervention can ultimately overcome evil, though I’m not sure on that. But absolutely, Gollum is an excellent complex character who’s so iconic people forget to mention him I think haha

@luisamota7160

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly!! The struggle between good and evil within everyone is one of the most important themes in LoTR, in my opinion. It really annoys me how people nowadays use Tolkien as an example of an author that wrote only white or black characters. And all this "morally gray characters" seems just like a new cliche for me, many of them are not believible at all...

I would argue that "bad because bad" villains, as you put them, are as realistic as conflicted ones, maybe even more so. The fact is, there are as much if not more completely reprehensible historical figures whom we consider to be ultimately evil than morally grey ones. Caligula, Andrew Jackson, Hitler, Stalin, and so many more. They did what they did because they were evil and nothing else. There's also the fact that, in order to be villains, they have to do terrible things. Things that cannot be justified. Killing the emperor who commits systematic genocide is nothing but a good thing, and anyone who thinks otherwise has issues. This isn't to say that one can't make an interesting story out of such people, because that's simply false. Some of the greatest and interesting villains ever were completely terrible people. Take the Joker for instance. He isn't memorable because he's sympathetic, but he represents a deep and terrible evil within society, and shines a light on things we would rather ignore about ourselves. Sympathetic villains are tricky, because beyond a certain point there is no way to rationalize them without rationalizing whatever they're doing. There's also the fact that sympathetic villains can be thematically incongruous to the story. If a story is about how society will go to great lengths to cover up the evil deeds of the upper echelon, then how come the main villain is such a nice guy?

@Alex-if1nf

5 жыл бұрын

So, Hitler committed genocide because he was evil, and he was evil because he commited genocide. Very circular logic.

@technicallythecenteroftheu1349

5 жыл бұрын

@@Alex-if1nf would you prefer the term genocidal maniac?

@Alex-if1nf

5 жыл бұрын

​@@technicallythecenteroftheu1349 That doesn't change your circular logic. Claiming people are just evil is not helpful in preventing future atrocities; in fact, it is counter-productive.

@Alex-if1nf

5 жыл бұрын

Say there is a serial killer. Wouldn't it be better to try and figure out what caused them (and others like them) to kill people? Or is the explanation that they are just evil sufficient?

@technicallythecenteroftheu1349

5 жыл бұрын

@@Alex-if1nf I never said we shouldn't. Hitler's rise to power is actually intriguing, if monstrous. Doesn't make him not evil.