2016-05-05 at 12:10 AM UTC
A'ight cunts, listen up. Im writing a paper and I need your perspectives. The paper asks the question "Can a 'rough hero' story be aestetically and artistically valuable?". It must argue or discuss this point from both the moralist and immoralist perspective.
What is the 'rough hero'? Think Hannibal Lecter, Dexter Morgan, Gordon Gekko, the devil in Paradise Lost, Alex in A Clockwork Orange or the guy from The Sopranos. Characters who have unredeemable flaws in character that the audience still roots for. Characters who tend to be sociopaths, selfish, greedy and sometimes dangerous but, because of other qualities such as intelligence, wit, charm or charisma make them someone the audience views as worth rooting for.
Whats a moralist say? Some in the moralist camp say fuck that shit. Fucking degenerate niggas cant be of no artistic value because sympathising with motherfucking bad guys is not cool yo. The argument goes that these types of characters and stories are rape because they elicit unwarranted feelings of admiration or respect for abhorrent characters.
Whats an immoralist say? Boils down to we need these characters because it is only through vice one can know virtue faggot. A well done 'rough hero' such as Hannibal Lecter or Mickey and Mallory from Natural Bork Nillers give us a glimpse into and an understanding of the deep immorality of the human condition and by knowing their stories and considering such an experience we can know what is virtuous or moral that much better or some shit.
What do you shitheads think about this shit?
2016-05-05 at 7:05 AM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
I think
what the fuck does artistic value have to do with morality or immorality? art is meant to invoke thought or emotion, so it stands to reason that artistic value can be measured by the depth of thought or emotion it invokes.
is 120 Days of Sodom artistically worthless because it's morally reprehensible? Sade's whole purpose in writing it was to bring about intense feelings of disgust through it's complete immorality and degeneracy.
2016-05-05 at 7:37 AM UTC
^this is a good start. I think the artistic value in connection to morality lies on its target audience. A work with high artistic value or one that is aesthetically successful is one like the novel you mention where it basks in immorality and filth but the target audience recognizes this filthy depiction as something to be contemplated rather than imitated. A good "immoral" work will push the preconceptions of the viewer to find common ground with something that is normally unpalatable. A bad "immoral" work will exalt the immorality it describes rather than use it as a platform for greater understanding.
Part of my review revolves around the notion that there is a problem to be solved in this work. That problem being how to get an individual with tastes for the normal to become sympathetic to the cause of the supposed 'rough hero'. We see this in works like Hannibal, Dexter, Breaking Bad, American Psyco or A Clockwork Orange where the protagonist is someone of terrible moral standing in some sense yet we are driven to see their success and are nessecarily driven to revel in the failure of a "good" force be it the FBI, DEA, NYPD or Psychology. From this experience we are better able to understand immoral aspects of the human condition.
2016-05-05 at 3:52 PM UTC
Look up "Supernatural" those are more along the lines of rough heros. Hannibal Lector is a straight up evil villain and Dexter Morgan though his intentions are good is a nutjob in his own right.
I do like both characters but they crossed the lines of any sort of misunderstood hero long ago. I'm pretty sure what you're looking for is almost synonymous for "anti hero" in which case browse through "Falling" by Christopher Pike.
2016-05-05 at 5:32 PM UTC
No. The paper I am reviewing defines the rough hero as I have above. The rough hero is a character with irredeemable flaws such a psycopathy, serial murder, pedophilia etc that the audience overlooks for the sake of the work and generally come to a sympathetic state towards.
2016-05-06 at 3:09 AM UTC
This thread weirds me out. I dont know why, but probably because, when I'm reading some of the things here, its like I'm looking in a fucking mirror.
I want to say so much, but cant.
2016-05-06 at 11:32 PM UTC
No. You are just retarded.
2016-05-11 at 5:43 AM UTC
Zanick
motherfucker
[my p.a. supernal goa]
My thinking is that you've begun with the wrong question. Instead of asking whether an immoral hero can be loved, demonstrate how they are using the many examples you listed and ask "why" audiences are captivated by the figure and then identify a common thread that provides some insight into where the archetype might come from.
