I'm sure you have all heard of the saying that goes along something like this: 'the objective justifies the method'. The end justifies the meaning.
That's so untrue.
What's your take on that if you think of writing, writing skills and subjects/stories/characters?
-
Let's have a friendly debate, shall we?
--
UPDATE:
In the comments section, a Hungarian young man relates the subject to Harry Potter. Since I have NOT read book 7 YET, I would like to ask you NOT to mention any hints and spoilers re:HP, any number. Thanks.
--
UPDATE 2:
I think I have to clarify the main point of this entry.
By methods I ment serious sickness involved in plots, events, characters, and also the lack of a catharsis.
By objective I wanted to refer to the effect a writer can have on the reader. An intense feeling that can be uplifting and constructive, helpful, even. Which feeling is quite the opposite if one reads a story that uses one or more of the methods described above.
17 comments:
Én egyet értek a mondással, bár sose hallottam még. Pl: Piton prof a Harry Potterben végig negatív színben lett feltüntetve, de a végén mégis kiderült, hogy ő hozta a legnagyobb áldozatott. Jó én mindig is szimpatikusnak találtam, de ez azért volt, mert nem kedveltem Harry karakterét, meg a negatívabb/ gonoszabb szereplőket jobban meg tudom érteni. harry szerintem egy álszent kis ............. (ide bármilyen vulgáris szót/ szavakat/ kifejezést betehetsz) és szerintem a történet végére kiderül, hogy Harry csomószor fölöslegesen pattogott.
Ez a cél szentesíti az eszköz angol verziója?
igen, erre gondoltam (a cél szentesíti az eszközt) és tökre nem tudom, mi az angol megfelelője.
A HP7-et még NEM olvastam, lécci, lécci ne lőj le többet belőle, jó?
Nos, én nem értek egyet a mondással.
Gondolj pl a keresztes háborúkra, vagy bármi más cselekedetre ami elvileg azért jött létre hogy Jézus szavait terjesszék, a békességet stb., ehhez képest rengetegen haltak gyalázatos halált, irtottak ki ősi kegyhelyeket és szent fákat (lásd az ún. Szt. Márton). Nekem ilyenek ugranak be ha ezt a mondást hallom.
Az első 3 keresztes háború azért lett kiprovokálva, mert a zarándokokat inzultálták az arabok meg túlnépesedés volt Európába, de a 3 keresztes háború után lévők már csak hab a tortán voltak. Pl amikor 1204ben a Velenceiek megkenték a lovagokat hogy foglalják el Konsatntinápolyt vagy amikor gyerekeket küldtek 1212-ben. Azt hiszem ezek a 4. és az 5. k. háborúk voltak.
I tend to allow a lot of things to happen in a manuscript that I wouldn't want to happen in real life. Even my heroes sometimes do outrageous things that I would be upset to see anyone do in actuality.
If outrageous atrocities happen, like a maniac killing peaceful citizens with a shotgun just because it's 'one-of-those-days' that is acceptable is he gets punished in any way.
Thus I think such things are permissible, between certain limits.
I think there should be some hope, justice done, light offered to the reader.
I have a girlfriend who has recently finished a book about WorldWar II. It was about a man who has lost all his faith in practically everything. This man can't find anything cheerful, nor he wants to.
This book had an effect on my girlfriend.
She liked it for it reached her guts.
She kept feeling the same hopelessness for weeks after finishing the book.
Was it worth it?
Szelsofa and Ropi--Any chance we can get an English translation of the first two comments? I know you both write English very well, and I'm curious about the discussion and how the books relate to the question. And even though the Sorting Hat says I'm a Ravenclaw, I don't understand Hungarian. Thanks.
Steve, and other readers who do not speak Hungarian:
I AM SORRY.
And I would like to ask Ropi to write English when commenting here.
Here comes the translation:
Ropi's first comment at 14 Nov, 8:28 AM
'I agree with the saying, althought I don't remember having heard of it. Take Professor Snipes in the HP books for example. He was always a villain, but at the end he turned out to have made the greatest sacrifice. Well, I always found him to my liking, but it was perhaps b/c I never really liked Harry. I also tend to like negative/evil characters more. I think Harry is just a pretentious little ....(insert any vulgarism here) and the end of the story reveals that Harry was fidgeting way too much.
Is this saying is the English version of the 'a cél szentesíti az eszközt?'
Szélsőfa's comment at 14 Nov, 10:26
Yes, I was referring to that (a cél szentesíti az eszközt) and I ain't got the faintest idea of its English equivalent.
I have NOT read book 7 in the HP series so, please, please stop giving away any material, will ya?
Well, I completeley disagree with this saying.
This about the crusades or of any other action that was basically done to spread the words and peace of Jesus etc., and what they did? Think about the massacres of pagans, elimination of sacred places and trees (please refer to that so-called 'Saint' Martin). Upon hearing this saying these events pop into my mind.
Ropi's comment at 14 November, 10:53
The first 3 crusades were reactions to provocations. The Arabs insulted pilgrims and Europe was overpopulated. Crusades after the 3rd one were just for fancy. Take Venice in 1204 for example when knights made oath to conquer Istanbul, or when kids were sent in 1212.
I think these were crusades number 4 and 5.
I think it depends on the writer's skills and if the appalling scene is an integral part of the plot or not. Couldn't the plot do without it? Is it there only to shock the readers and thus prey on their attention? When I find something like this in a book, something that's blatantly there just for that purpose, I feel insulted. For example, the openings of Dan Brown's books - they're meant as "hooks" obviously.
Exactly Vesper.
When violence is meant as a hook and has nothing to really do with the story: this is one of the things I detest.
You captured the essence so well :)
"I think there should be some hope, justice done, light offered to the reader"
Szelsofa, I don't know whether there should be - that goes at the heart of personal philosophy and social ethics.
Nevertheless, I personally could not write a story that did not reflect your words which I quoted above.
There are stories that invoke various effects merely for shock,as a form of emotional blackmail.
I find them pretentious, artificial, sophmoric,lazy, and insulting to the reader.
(I see now that Vesper has already expressed my attitude very nicely.)
Thank you, Szelsofa, for the translation. In English we have the phrase, "the ends justify the means." Or a little bit more crudely, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." American Communists sometimes used that phrase to justify the excesses of Lenin and Stalin.
Unfortunately, such justification for atrocities seems to happen when idealists get some power. The Crusades--especially the Fourth Crusade, is a good example. Or, there's the more recent example of the American neoconservatives, who thought that by invading Iraq, they could make it into a model democracy.
We're going to disagree on Martin of Tours, so I won't go there. But the Lord Acton quote I used in my post about Martin, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," applies here. When the church obtained near-absolute power, it was corrupted, and the Albigensian Crusade followed the killing of the Priscillians just as Stalin's massive purges followed Lenin's more limited ones.
As far as ends justifying the means in literature, I think I agree with you. I loved J.K. Rowling's books because good trumphed over evil and Harry always overcame his impulse to use Dark Magic.
On the other hand, I was very disappointed with the third season of Star Trek: Enterprise because Captain Archer used torture to get information--and, of course, in that TV world, it worked. I think it was a post-9/11 reaction.
Bernita,
I'm so glad we share opinion in this field. I value your views, you know. If I found out that in this crucial issue we held opposite field woulds, that would be sad news for me.
Steven,
thanks for the real translation.
Although for me the omelet thing refers to something else; to something that is inevitable, like some slaps when house-breaking a dog.
All right, nevermind.
And yes, Martin of Tours is definitely not my hero. While abstinence from going into war is a nice idea and I appreciate that, I am partial to trees.
And to one's beliefs.
Unfortunately I can't relate to Star Trek Part III or Part Any in fact, but I think I know what you're up to.
I am sorry for using Hungarian on this blog (despite I got permission).
Szelsofa and Ropi,
No need to apologize. Szelsofa translated. And I've enjoyed reading Ropi's posts about the Roman Emperors and Roman history. (And if you can find a copy of the BBC production of "I Claudius," it's worth it.)
While I always liked Harry Potter, Snape was interesting because he was so complex. Most of what Snape did, though, he did for himself, but he did have some moral qualms about what he perceived as Dumbledore's use of Harry as a sort of lab rat.
I agree with Szelsofa that we need characters we can identify with. A brilliant writer can wrte form the point of view of a deeply flawed character--Alfred Bester's science fiction classic, "The Stars My Destination" comes to mind. But we can still identify with the anti-hero, a low-level technician on a wrecked spaceship, whose obsession with revenge on the spaceship which ignored his plea for help, drives him to do amazing things. (It's a space-age rendering of "The Count of Monte Cristo.")
And even though I love the cynical Ambrose Bierce, I usually like to have some glimmer of hope to cling to. Erich Maria Remarque wrote a novel about life in a Nazi death camp, which was gruesome and shocking, but it ends with a young couple who survives the camps and sets off to find a new life. The main character, who is known only as "509," dies, but is an inspiration to the couple.
I think there are different rules for fantasy literature, where the struggle for good and evil is often magnified, and even the heroes can act barbarously. Often, though, they act against non-human creatures, such as Tolkien's Orcs, who can be slaughtered at will. I'm troubled by such a construction, but I'll usually accept it.
Steve,
I agree; there should be some kind of a hope, and even if th emain character dies; he/his fate might give hope to others, like you mentioned in that E.M.R. novel.
And while fantasy novels can be a bit exaggerated in terms of creatures killed/strength involved, I am pleased when hope pull through here as well.
I suggest it's the meaningless evil actions that should be avoided, in both writing adn reading.
Post a Comment