11–20 of 50 posts
I hadn't heard about the site, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd It's paid for out of the pockets of a hedge fund billionaire who used to support the Liberal Democrat party in the UK, but who has since become a major Conservative donor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) He's also a major funder of the recently launched UK News, whose biggest draw appears to be far-right poli…
The “rubber ducky” explanation isn’t bad because it tries to explain a character, but because it’s a bad explanation .
But far too often the one dimensionality is used as a lazy writing device and serves as a showcase for an amateurish script.
The author's hypothesis is undermined at two points: by their insistence on making it as oblique as possible (thanks, I suppose, to UnHerd's editorial predilection towards dressing up conservative culture war talking points) and by the fact that none of their "villains" are actually villains. At best, they're morally flawed or challenging characters, producing narrative complexities that Disney (or whoever) lazily ex…
I think they dramatically misread Toy Story, which is disqualifying given the subject of their thesis. Biased and lazy, a twofer.
The “rubber ducky” explanation isn’t bad because it tries to explain a character, but because it’s a bad explanation .
I did find the article’s point - that having a comically evil villain can sometimes work out really well as a narrative device - to be relevant. The example that the author points out - that some people are just plain evil and their malice is beyond comprehension - is exhibited really well by the Joker. A few other memorable examples that come to mind where such villainy plays off its absurdity to make a larger point…
I hadn't heard about the site, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd It's paid for out of the pockets of a hedge fund billionaire who used to support the Liberal Democrat party in the UK, but who has since become a major Conservative donor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) He's also a major funder of the recently launched UK News, whose biggest draw appears to be far-right poli…
> Some of these are successful entertainments but, nonetheless, ones that nobody asked for. I doubt that any child has ever watched the Wicked Witch of the West and thought, “Huh, what’s her story?” Wicked wasn't aimed at children. Nor is it even remotely intended as a friendly to the original explanation of backstory, it is a deliberate inversion that is based as much as anything on the insufficient demonstration th…
Yes, it’s almost as if the author suddenly noticed that grownups have learned that one-dimensional villains aren’t very interesting or realistic. Why this needs to be “blamed” on anything is beyond me. We might as well try to assign blame to the person who decided stories should be more interesting than watching the nth iteration of a good guy just barely saving a damsel that’s tied to the railroad track.
I hadn't heard about the site, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd It's paid for out of the pockets of a hedge fund billionaire who used to support the Liberal Democrat party in the UK, but who has since become a major Conservative donor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) He's also a major funder of the recently launched UK News, whose biggest draw appears to be far-right poli…
[flagged]
I don't think that's ad hom, in that the characteristics I'm raising are relevant. For example, if I am reading an article about a company's stock, I'm not going to care whether the author's eye color is blue or green. But I will care whether they hold that stock or something related, as that's relevant to how I read the article and weigh its claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
One of my fundamental questions with anything I read is where the writer is coming from, what motivates the writing. That not only helps with interpreting the work, it helps me decide whether it's worth my time at all. I don't think that's ad hom, in that the characteristics I'm raising are relevant. For example, if I am reading an article about a company's stock, I'm not going to care whether the author's eye color…
"I havent heard of William Pietri before, he seems to be a San Fransisco liberal, LGBT affirming atheist and leading figure for the ADL's Online Hate Index."
FWIW, I agree with the author.
I found myself thinking about this last night as I finished the first 10-episode season of Netflix's Cowboy Bebop live-adaptation[0]. There were many changes to the original story in the live adaptation, and I feel that part of these changes involves building up a rubber-ducky story for a plot twist at the end. I'm opposed to it not just because it's a change to the source material, but also because it created a needless sense of moral ambiguity.
SPOILER ALERT
In the original, the protagonist Spike seeks justice in the final episode for the death of his loyal love interest Julia, who dies at the hands of Spike's arch-nemesis and evil syndicate leader Viscous. With the Netflix live-action, in addition to a number of story changes that allegedly made it more appealing to modern audiences, the love interest Julia lives, exacts her revenge on Viscous after years of abuse, becomes the leader of the evil syndicate, and also... shoots the protagonist?
The old Julia was perfect in the original story, but the new one cares more about power than anything else. The new version's plot twist for Julia was built up to, with a rubber ducky explanation gradually developed as a side story in each of the new episodes. The director wanted you to see Julia getting her revenge after years of abuse and then cheer for her as she becomes the girl-boss[0] of the most evil crime organization in the galaxy. This ending was... disgusting.
An overwhelming volume of contemporary media sends the message that you can be a bad person if you have sufficient justification, and that coincides with OP's concern of the overused rubber ducky device.
When I was very young and impressionable, I always liked the villains the most. In kids TV shows, villains could never be shown doing anything truly heinous, and so my sense of them was that they were the only ones who actually felt free to do what they wanted. It was the "good guys" who always ruined the party. Like Nietzsche's ubermensch, villains were great because they were not imprisoned by morality. I thought villains were amazing until I matured some. I needed to realize the value of morality and understand what real-life villains were actually capable of. More and more, contemporary entertainment seeks to deconstruct that idea, which seems like a shame to me. Every rubber ducky story strengthens some real-life narcissist's ego - who wants to live is a society where people like that feel empowered?
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267295/
[1] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200127-the-advert-tha...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my fundamental questions with anything I read is where the writer is coming from, what motivates the writing. That not only helps with interpreting the work, it helps me decide whether it's worth my time at all. I don't think that's ad hom, in that the characteristics I'm raising are relevant. For example, if I am reading an article about a company's stock, I'm not going to care whether the author's eye color…
So you won't have a problem with people commenting this under everything you write? "I havent heard of William Pietri before, he seems to be a San Fransisco liberal, LGBT affirming atheist and leading figure for the ADL's Online Hate Index."
An important difference here is that I try to have useful profiles pretty much anywhere I write. Whereas I had to look this information up specifically because UnHerd is studiously vague about all the things I mentioned: https://unherd.com/about-unherd/