![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Writing the Other
Writing my thoughts about the truly depressing event that recently took place in Washington DC will change nothing about it, upset the conservatives on my list and just depress the liberals further, so I won't bother.
Hopefully more interestingly, and on a bi-partisan level: recent discussion with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
karabair about Angels in America has reminded me how rare it is if a writer manages to (deliberately) make a character with a different ethical or political belief system to his/her own sympathetic and layered. I'm not talking about the Draco effect, otherwise known as "fandom picks a character the author wrote as a one-dimensional horrid prat and rewrites him into a new creation". I mean characters whom their writers definitely wanted to make endearing and/or understandable, despite the fact said characters represent a world view the writer either does not share or is even opposed to. It's possible, though.
Let's see: over at Babylon 5, we've got two, arguably three of them. I remember back when the first season was originally broadcast, some fans here in Germany took the episode Quality of Mercy and specifically Garibaldi's views expressed therein as being JMS' views on the death penalty (especially since Garibaldi was a sympathetic and important main character) and were appalled. Come Passing through Gethsemane in season 3, this particular fear was laid at rest for good. Not because Garibaldi's pov had changed, but because the episode, among other things, revisited the question from a very different angle. So, anyway, Garibaldi: loved by his writer, not representing his writer's political viewpoints. And let's look at the two characters which JMS he "heard" most clearly, whom it was the easiest for him to write for. Sheridan or Sinclair, those two gents with whom he shares initials and who are the leading men, fighting for democracy? Nah. Delenn or G'Kar, wise (well, for G'Kar post-epiphany, of course) and spiritual people who inspire their followers? No, not them, either. The two characters he named as his two most talkative muses, with whom he most easily connects, were Londo Mollari and Alfred Bester.
Londo: tragic imperialist. Responsible for a war that cost millions of lives. Bester: ruthless Psi Cop, belongs to an organisation which the show's hero calls "fascists r us". In conclusion: definitely not the guys whose world view their creator shares. And I dare say he finds their politics appalling.
But okay, this is sci-fi. No matter how well one likes Londo or Bester, there is no way viewers are going to want to have an empire of their very own or conduct aggressive wars or, arguing that there will be a war in the future anyway and everyone is after them, are going to take liberties away and do pre-emptive… never mind. You know what I mean. Okay, how about contemporary drama? I only saw the first season of West Wing (not because I didn't like it, but because I have limited time and not a limitless budget and many other shows), and I don't recall Republicans written with the same level of layers and interest etc. like the Democrats. When Louis in Angels in America says "you're nice, I can't believe you voted for Reagan" to Joe, we're meant to laugh at him, but I'm afraid I can't think of a contemporary arch-conservative character, written by a liberal author, whom one is expected to love, which would imply we're all Louises.
I can't think of a liberal character written by an arch-conservative author whom the author wants one to love, either, for that matter; please correct me if I'm wrong. And keep in mind that the character has to be contemporary. Any incarnation of Spartacus written by a conservative or of, say, Queen Victoria, written by a liberal does not count. Books, tv-shows, movies - is there anyone?
Trying to think of some of my own, I'm thrown back to the fantasy or sci-fi genre again and again. The Mayor of Sunnydale in BTVS' third season, for example, is on one level a satire of a Reaganite politician and the villain of the season, but he's also endowed with endearing ideosyncracies and one major sympathetic trait, his genuine affection for Faith. But again, fantasy.
Now in genre fanfic, too, we're able to write any number of characters with world views completely different of our own. (I very much doubt, for example, that the majority of Slytherin fans in HP fandom would identify themselves as being on the right end of the political spectrum.) It's fantasy, or Sci-Fi, and so we can. Why is this identification with the other so absolutely impossible if the other actually lives in the same world, or in a reasonable close fictional representation thereof?
Hopefully more interestingly, and on a bi-partisan level: recent discussion with
karabair about Angels in America has reminded me how rare it is if a writer manages to (deliberately) make a character with a different ethical or political belief system to his/her own sympathetic and layered. I'm not talking about the Draco effect, otherwise known as "fandom picks a character the author wrote as a one-dimensional horrid prat and rewrites him into a new creation". I mean characters whom their writers definitely wanted to make endearing and/or understandable, despite the fact said characters represent a world view the writer either does not share or is even opposed to. It's possible, though.Let's see: over at Babylon 5, we've got two, arguably three of them. I remember back when the first season was originally broadcast, some fans here in Germany took the episode Quality of Mercy and specifically Garibaldi's views expressed therein as being JMS' views on the death penalty (especially since Garibaldi was a sympathetic and important main character) and were appalled. Come Passing through Gethsemane in season 3, this particular fear was laid at rest for good. Not because Garibaldi's pov had changed, but because the episode, among other things, revisited the question from a very different angle. So, anyway, Garibaldi: loved by his writer, not representing his writer's political viewpoints. And let's look at the two characters which JMS he "heard" most clearly, whom it was the easiest for him to write for. Sheridan or Sinclair, those two gents with whom he shares initials and who are the leading men, fighting for democracy? Nah. Delenn or G'Kar, wise (well, for G'Kar post-epiphany, of course) and spiritual people who inspire their followers? No, not them, either. The two characters he named as his two most talkative muses, with whom he most easily connects, were Londo Mollari and Alfred Bester.
Londo: tragic imperialist. Responsible for a war that cost millions of lives. Bester: ruthless Psi Cop, belongs to an organisation which the show's hero calls "fascists r us". In conclusion: definitely not the guys whose world view their creator shares. And I dare say he finds their politics appalling.
But okay, this is sci-fi. No matter how well one likes Londo or Bester, there is no way viewers are going to want to have an empire of their very own or conduct aggressive wars or, arguing that there will be a war in the future anyway and everyone is after them, are going to take liberties away and do pre-emptive… never mind. You know what I mean. Okay, how about contemporary drama? I only saw the first season of West Wing (not because I didn't like it, but because I have limited time and not a limitless budget and many other shows), and I don't recall Republicans written with the same level of layers and interest etc. like the Democrats. When Louis in Angels in America says "you're nice, I can't believe you voted for Reagan" to Joe, we're meant to laugh at him, but I'm afraid I can't think of a contemporary arch-conservative character, written by a liberal author, whom one is expected to love, which would imply we're all Louises.
I can't think of a liberal character written by an arch-conservative author whom the author wants one to love, either, for that matter; please correct me if I'm wrong. And keep in mind that the character has to be contemporary. Any incarnation of Spartacus written by a conservative or of, say, Queen Victoria, written by a liberal does not count. Books, tv-shows, movies - is there anyone?
Trying to think of some of my own, I'm thrown back to the fantasy or sci-fi genre again and again. The Mayor of Sunnydale in BTVS' third season, for example, is on one level a satire of a Reaganite politician and the villain of the season, but he's also endowed with endearing ideosyncracies and one major sympathetic trait, his genuine affection for Faith. But again, fantasy.
Now in genre fanfic, too, we're able to write any number of characters with world views completely different of our own. (I very much doubt, for example, that the majority of Slytherin fans in HP fandom would identify themselves as being on the right end of the political spectrum.) It's fantasy, or Sci-Fi, and so we can. Why is this identification with the other so absolutely impossible if the other actually lives in the same world, or in a reasonable close fictional representation thereof?
we're all Louises?
i think you have a really good point that writers often have to go to history/ metaphor/ myth to examine a character who comes from a different viewpoint.
one sort of example in a contemporary show. . . I just started watching the new 24, which is a politically problematic show in a lot of ways; and I have no idea of the creator's political views or agenda, though I generally assume they're at least more liberal than the characters they're writing. But it doesn't have an agenda the way the West Wing clearly does. I imagine 24 is a show with viewers all over the political spectrum (as is TWW, for that matter, but all of the GOP'ers I know who watch it do so while strenuously bitching over the agenda). Anyway, the current season, without giving anything significant away, involves bad things happening to the secretary of defense. . .he's played by William Devane, and even looks a little like Rumsfeld. now, the show's creators have to know that a good portion of the audience is going to be pre-disposed to hate a Rumsfeld-esque character (and plenty to love him as well, of course, but definitely taking a risk with such a divisive figure). So I was basically expecting this character to be sinister, weasely, etc. -- but so far he's come off as immensely likable, tough-minded, brave, etc. . .all in a real way, not like an action hero. Now, this is sort of a limited example because of the situations the character has been in so far; and I expect that we're going to discover that this guy has DONE BAD THINGS. But I think it's going to be more dramatically compelling when we find this out, because he's been set up as a believable, admirable, and often heroic person. . .so in short, I'm very interested to see where the series takes him (much more interested than in the Kiefer Sutherland action-figure hero).
why not? *g*
Anyway, now that I got some examples of layered and/or sympathetic conservatives written by liberals, I can't help but notice I still didn't get any examples of well written and/or sympathetic liberals written by conservatives...
Re: why not? *g*
I would be careful before making any assumptions. The truth of the matter is, there are very few conservative fiction writers just in general, let alone conservative fiction writers faced with the task of writing sympathetic contemporary liberals. As my real life Republican friend and playwright, Jason, and I openly admit, in the creative fields, liberals are cleaning our clocks. And outside of the sci fi/fantasy genre, I feel like I'm being grossly stereotyped and attacked for my beliefs by the enormous liberal majority more often than not. Which is probably why I stick to sci fi/fantasy shows almost exclusively.
no subject
Nonetheless, it would be great to learn that, for example, a conservative writer created a, hm, Adlai Stevenson-esque politician in his/her drama/tv show/film. I don't mean in the sense of this character being the hero of the piece. The narrative can show him to be wrong about some of the issues the hero is right about. And I'm sure if we look hard enough, we'll find examples.
Sterotypes: sadly, they're definitely the majority of presentations, I agree. (If I never ever see a brutal Southern sheriff in a thriller again, it won't be soon enough.) Which is why creative people from both ends of the spectrum ought to do change this!