39,327
edits
Fiction/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
m
Mass update links
(clean up) |
m (Mass update links) |
||
Line 26:
** One could take it as a form of flattery, or even as a form of paid fanfiction. And I personally don't feel that Wicked is a ret-con, or a flip for that matter. the Wizard of Oz is seen through Dorothy's eyes, and the witch to her IS wicked. She never asks about the Witch's motivations, or what her backstory is. It's simply a different perspective on the same events. Naturally the Witch is as unlikely to view herself as truly wicked as a real world well intentioned extremist is.
*** Unless, you know, you actually read the other Oz books. The series didn't end with the first one.
** Let's bear in mind that this isn't revisionist history... not all fictional works exist in the same continuity. In the world of ''The Seven Percent Solution'', much of the Holmesian canon is, in fact, false. That doesn't mean that he's coming out and saying that Sir Arther Conan Doyle wrote is ''wrong''... it's fiction. Of course it's not true. Neither is ''The Seven Percent Solution''. And ''Wicked'' doesn't even change the events that took place; it just gives the Witch a backstory, instead of leaving her a [[Card
*** What bothers me, on a fundamental level, is the [[Misaimed Fandom]] that has sprung up of those hardcore fans who as a result of Maguire's work have developed a hatred for Dorothy and the other protagonists, which comes along with making Elphaba a [[Draco in Leather Pants]]. What bothers me is that these versions are taken as canon, when they are patently not true. And ''Wicked'' does fairly evidently change some of the backstory to Baum's official canon: the Scarecrow in Baum's version is ''not'' the murdered remnants of Fiyero, but simply a scarecrow an enterprising Munchkin farmer made, Glinda is not the Good Witch of the North, but rather the Witch of the South, and the personalities and morals are some of the major characters, including Glinda and the Wizard himself, are drastically changed. Depicting the Wizard as a power-hungry villain, and Glinda as snotty and effete, along with the disturbing hatred of Dorothy by some ''Wicked'' fans, all strike me as being fundamentally wrong.
**** 'When they are patently not true'. This fiction. Not true. With regards to this ''other fiction''. I can think that Dorothy was an alien from Pluto who was adopted. Guess who is more 'true' out of me and the original author? Unless you simply want people to never publish fan-fiction, or enjoy it, which seems to be the problem here, Stop-Having-Fun guy.
Line 40:
** I'm not going to bother spoilering, because if one is reading this, then one is likely to have read the book/watched the musical. You had some decent points until you started bashing all ''[[Wicked (Literature)|Wicked]]'' lovers as [[Misaimed Fandom|lovers of the witch no matter what]]. I know some that are like that, and it's seriously yanking me out of the fandom, but I know many more who if asked their favorite book/musical character, they'd say one of the trio/Dorothy/Glinda. I have read the books, watched the movie of the original and... I don't care for the Witch. In fact, I find her unlikeable in the book, especially in the last two parts. However, I quite possibly would not have read the books and realized how interesting my personal favorite character is had I not read the book. (For the record, it's Scarecrow, and I find him far more interesting when I don't think of Baum!Crow or MGM!Crow as being a [[The Mole|mole who knows damn well he doesn't need the brain, or at least believed by some to be so]].) And [[Fanon Discontinuity|the sequels]] seem to really split off from the main Baum!Oz canon, in the worst way. As for the [[External Retcon|external retcon factor you're griping against]], I've been reading childrens' books with similar premises quite a few years before Maguire wrote Wicked. He's not the first, not the last, and is the only successful author of it in the adult fiction market. And to validate some of your opinion, the fans of Wicked (The ones I spend time with) really see him as slipping and putting all his books except for the first Wicked and Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister into the discontinuity bin. So I guess the fad's slipping and you win. Your gripe has been solved.
*** I (the person who started this thread) never meant to tar all ''Wicked'' fans with the same brush; it just bugged me the hatred some of the more "out there" fans, the ones driving you out of the fandom, directed at Dorothy. That's what bothered me, not sympathizing with the Witch, or what have you. Looking back on it now, I really could have phrased it better.
** I actually read ''[[The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Literature)|The Wonderful Wizard of Oz]]'' and all of its sequels (some of which can get pretty disturbing themselves...), and I actually think I prefer the Oz presented in ''[[Wicked (Literature)|Wicked]]'', because in becoming [[Darker and Edgier|darker]] it makes it more realistic and more gripping. "[[Anti
** Speaking for the Holmes stories for a moment, it's worth noting that in-text it's established that they're Dr. Watson's perspectives on events - as such, whilst Watson seems like a reliable narrator, there's no guarantee that things happened exactly as he say they happened. Even if we assume (and we've no reason not to, to be fair) that Watson is a reliable and honest person and that we can trust that his account of what happened is what Watson experienced, that's no guarantee that it'll be the full story. Watson has his viewpoint on the story, but then so does the criminal, the victim - hell, even Holmes' recollection of events is not guaranteed to be exactly the same as Watson's. There's a great scene in ''The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes'', for example, where Holmes criticises Watson's version of "The Red Headed League" and acidly comments that "I'm sure I'll learn all sorts of things I didn't know about the case beforehand," and then accuses Watson of over-romanticising things a bit. Even if we assume that Watson is an honest recorder of events, there's still room for interpretation from another viewpoint.
Line 64:
** Fiction is a great art form with a lot of cultural significance. Humans are mythologically oriented beings. We like stories. Half of history is taking stuff that happened and trying to turn it into vaguely accurate stories. It's what we do. (And it's fun.)
* How is it possible for fictional characters to possess information that does not actually exist? To elaborate, [[One Over Zero|1/0]] got me thinking and trying to develop a comprehensive theory of fictionality that allows for the character's perspective and stuff like [[Mutually Fictional]] stories (what would a ''[[Futurama]]'' character conclude from watching an episode of ''[[The Simpsons]]'' which had the latter's characters watching the former?), accounting for the [[Literary Agent Hypothesis]] and simple writer error...and I got fixated on this tidbit. Take the fundamental theoretical basis for magic in the ''[[Harry Potter]]'' universe, for instance. "Theory of magic" is alluded to, but not elaborated on, because J.K. Rowling could never have come up with it. So even though at least some of the characters (Hermione, for sure), possess lots of information about it and could lecture you for hours on end about it if you found yourself as the protagonist of a [[Self
** If the author told you everything the characters know, every novel would be at least 10,000 pages long. Instead, the author has to carefully select every bit of information given to the reader and offer as little irrelevant detail as possible.
** The fictional characters don't exist either. That's why they're fictional. I don't really see the problem with them knowing something that the author hasn't thought of.
Line 82:
** There is nothing wrong with interpreting a story differently than what the original author intended. Writers are fallible and cannot predict how people view their stories and characters. However, it is usually easier to understand a story if you know what the author originally meant to say.
*** Well, I'm still disillusioned over the fact that "Fight For Your Right To Party" was about '''making fun''' of party animals. Not to mention R. Crumb's "Keep On Truckin'", same concept but for rock lovers in general. But I suppose I can forgive that one since the man admits he hates just about everything in existence, including himself.
*** As fun as it can be to look at a story at a perspective that you prefer to the author's intended one, it is kind of like swimming against the tide. For example, if you follow a story wherein you sympathize with the [[
*** Whilst there's many cases where the author just didn't do the work properly (or they were trying to be ''too'' clever and subtle), in fairness there's plenty of cases where the fans just see what they wanted to see and actually did just miss the point entirely. People listen to a cool tune and neglect the lyrics or they focus on a really dreamy actor's good looks and completely overlook the fact that the character this actor is playing is a complete prick. That's gotta be frustrating.
*** I personally think the problem doesn't so much stem from people interpreting characters in their own way, but when people let their interpretation of a character blind them to what that character really is. There seems to be a tendency for a lot of characters who get [[Misaimed Fandom|'Misaimed' Fandoms]] or [[Draco in Leather Pants]] followers who seem to be blinded to the simple fact that their favourite characters are the ''bad guys'' - ergo, they're villains. Ergo, they're gonna do not-very-nice things. They're villains, it's what they do. As such, when they do bad things - which, being the villains, you'd expect them to do - the fans who've willingly blinded themselves feel betrayed and start whining about how the author's forcing the character to act out of character, when they've haven't.
Line 122:
* I realize that [[Tropes Are Not Bad]] and nothing is truely original, but it annoys me that so many series play tropes so completely straight that I can see it a mile away. Like laying eyes on a female character and instantly guessing she'll end up as the love interest, meeting a cop's best friend/partner and guessing he'll betray him somehow, etc. Is it so much to ask that writers use their tropes effectively and ''not'' telegraph plot developments a million miles away? It completely kills interest and suspense when you can guess most of the plot only a part-way in, or the entire cast are predictable stock characters.
** That's what we call [[
* Why are kids in fiction either cartoonish little brats or- even worse, IMO- genii with ludicrously large [[I Qs]] and every talent under the sun? Is it simply because most writers are so distanced from their own childhoods they can't think or write as a convincing kid anymore?
| |||