On Problematic Tropes

[rowyn]

I have a couple of conflicting principles that I don't know how to reconcile:

* Fiction at its best illuminates reality. This includes all genres, even the obviously fantastic and implausible. Fiction has the ability to make us understand one another better, to let us see through another's eyes. This is amazing and powerful and should be used wisely.
* Daydreams and fantasies are harmless fun. Fantasizing about things that are unrealistic, as long as you know that they're unrealistic and have no interest in making them reality, is fine.

There's no conflict between the two when one's fantasy is something socially-acceptable if impossible, like "having a telepathic bond with a friendly dragon".  Things where, if you could make them real, it wouldn't be particularly detrimental for the world at large.

But lots of fantasies are not socially-acceptable, nor a desirable/plausible reality. Twilight, for example, gets a lot of flak for its romance between a century-old vampire stalker and his 17 year-old love interest*. There's a novel I won't name about a romance between a Nazi concentration camp commander and a  Jewish prisoner that ends with him rescuing the internees and her converting to Christianity. Master/slave romances are commonplace.

I've named all romance tropes here because those are the ones I hear discussed. Maybe in horror circles they discuss whether their monsters are too monstrous or the events depicted too awful, and I just don't hear it. I hear occasional decrying of the Chosen One trope of fantasy, or more rarely, on the idealization of feudal societies and tyranny.

In general, I am talking about tropes that entertain but appear to do the opposite of illuminate: dehumanise, debase, disinform. Tropes that turn things that are devastating and awful in reality into light entertainment, or portray those things as acceptable and even enjoyable in the context of the story.

I believe in free speech, so obviously I think people should be allowed to read and write what they please regardless of whether or not I think it has merit. That part is easy.

But when I run into a trope that deeply offends me, I feel this conflict over whether or not condemnation is appropriate. How dangerous are fantasies? Does it make a difference if you draw on real history or use a fantasy world for the setting? (Eg, would the Nazi/Jew romance be less offensive if the same tropes were used in fictional countries with fictional religions?) How much does tone matter? I can't help thinking that tone has an impact, that some things are written as escapism and the author and readers are aware that it's Not Realistic, and that's different from a book written seriously. From one where the author's style suggests "this book is illuminating, resonant, true" and I am all D:

But I don't know. Maybe what I want is a bright line between someone's goofy dubcon fanfic and a mainstream novel glorifying rape, and maybe there can't be one. Maybe judging works case-by-case, and recognizing that what I think is offensive and repugnant may be someone else's harmless fantasy (and vice-versa) is inevitable.

I remain curious about how other people feel on the topic: Of the principles I opened with, do you find one one or the other unconvincing? If both are relevant, how do you handle the conflict?

* On this subject: I half-joked last month that 'I'm not saying it's not possible to write a good romance between a first-person young woman narrator and an ancient superpowerful male jerk. Wait, maybe I am'. But I remembered later that there's a book I liked which used this trope! N.K. Jemisin's The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. So yeah, apparently I judge based on execution as well, even when I feel strongly about the trope.

Comments

[rowyn]

*nods to your last point especially*

I feel weird trying to explain why one book's use of a trope will set me off but not another's. A lot of it really does come down "do I feel like the author is advocating for this terrible idea, or just writing about it?" Because the latter doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as the former. But what I perceive as "advocating" is squishy, and other people are very likely to disagree, possibly to an extreme degree.

The other thing is that I try not to conflate "this is bad" with "I don't like this", so I am reluctant to condemn things that I don't like. Even though it's sometimes appropriate, like you say.

... I am so incoherent on this topic. :D

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Hey, it's a topic that inspires incoherence.

I mean, I can think about "morality tales" in which there's some villain who gets his way, and eventually he gets his comeuppance in the end ... but until then, things look awfully good for him. "Reefer Madness" supposedly started out sponsored by a church group (originally titled "Tell Your Children") and yet somehow it's got a strip-tease and all sorts of stuff that doesn't seem to be in there for purely moralistic reasons.

I think here about "Death Note," and how the protagonist -- I daren't say "hero" -- basically gets his way through the run of the series. Sure, something bad may eventually happen to him in the end, but he sure got to gloat and play "god" for a pretty long ride, and he's sure got his fan base. At some point ... okay, is he really the villain, or are we supposed to root for him and then lament his "tragic" end?

On the one hand, the author might focus on the brutality of a villain's crime so that we remember that and don't feel too keen to sympathize with him when things go against him. However, an especially long and graphic rape scene in a book ... okay, thank goodness I can skim over that, but past a certain point I might wonder why the author is spending quite this much detail and narrative on that. I do not want to participate in this, and that's what I feel like is happening to some degree if a story's POV focuses too much on graphic cruelty, even in the name of "showing the true side of evil."

But where's the dividing line? If we just totally hide and gloss over the wicked things the villain has done, it might invite the reader to sympathize with him, as whatever his "wrongs" are, they're out of sight and out of mind, and surely can't be worth the extreme cruelty with which the designated hero delivers retribution. (I've felt this way about a number of fan stories and sloppily-presented derivative works where the writer just introduces us to the heroes killing antagonists effortlessly and joyously without bothering to take the time to make sure that we're on board with the fact that these are, indeed, BAD GUYS and thus worthy of such treatment. I find it especially necessary if it's a story with an outlaw hero and law-enforcement antagonists; sorry, but as much as I realize that police powers can be abused, I'm not at the point where I see a cops-and-robbers situation and automatically assume "robber = good guy; cop = bad," so more effort is required to bring me on board.)

I don't think there CAN be a real rule for where to draw such lines, and "I know it when I see it" sounds pretty lame. If I run into something like this that makes me uncomfortable, I'll often back up and see if I can find some more context. In the days of Google, I've got a number of options. I might see what else the author has written. Is there a theme here? Or, are there statements by the author? I thought very differently of Lolita once I heard a reference made to the story in the context of an "unreliable narrator," and I learned more about Nabokov. But then (since it seemed relevant just now because I was trying to find an example of a "misunderstood satire") I read the history of some of his earlier works prior to Lolita, with very similar themes, and that made me uncomfortable again. (So ... I don't know what to think there.)

I might just be left with, "It's unclear, so I'm just uncomfortable with this." However, sometimes I'll find out that, yes, the author really DOES believe (thus-and-such is the way things ought to be) and is keen on letting this be known, thus driving out any ambiguity (and perhaps even embracing the controversy) -- but I wouldn't be able to tell for sure from just reading the story itself.