Fiction/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
m (Mass update links)
m (Mass update links)
Line 38: Line 38:
**** It's also likely that many of the fans of Wicked, in fact many of the fans of Wizard of Oz are solely familiar with the franchise through the movie. Most people probably have never read the original novel, and even fewer have probably read all the others, if they are aware of them at all. For better or worse, when most people think 'Wizard of Oz' they think 'Judy Garland' not "L. Frank Baum'. And the Movie-verse fits in fairly well with Wicked. And just as a personal question, can we tone down the venemous hatred of Wicked fans? like most fandoms, 90% of us are perfectly normal, non-insane people.
**** It's also likely that many of the fans of Wicked, in fact many of the fans of Wizard of Oz are solely familiar with the franchise through the movie. Most people probably have never read the original novel, and even fewer have probably read all the others, if they are aware of them at all. For better or worse, when most people think 'Wizard of Oz' they think 'Judy Garland' not "L. Frank Baum'. And the Movie-verse fits in fairly well with Wicked. And just as a personal question, can we tone down the venemous hatred of Wicked fans? like most fandoms, 90% of us are perfectly normal, non-insane people.
***** Interestingly enough, the ''Wicked'' novel fits in much better with the Book-verse. Ultimately, though, it doesn't really fit either, particularly noticeable if you examine Elphaba's confrontation with Dorothy at the end.
***** Interestingly enough, the ''Wicked'' novel fits in much better with the Book-verse. Ultimately, though, it doesn't really fit either, particularly noticeable if you examine Elphaba's confrontation with Dorothy at the end.
** 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'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 (novel)|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 (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-Hero|Antiheroine]] struggles against bias and parental issues to make a name for herself in a [[Crapsack World]], but fails tragically" is far more interesting--In My Humble Opinion--than "girl gets transported to a fantasy land and must get home". Also, I happen to like Nessarose and Elphaba.
** I actually read ''[[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 (novel)|Wicked]]'', because in becoming [[Darker and Edgier|darker]] it makes it more realistic and more gripping. "[[Anti-Hero|Antiheroine]] struggles against bias and parental issues to make a name for herself in a [[Crapsack World]], but fails tragically" is far more interesting--In My Humble Opinion--than "girl gets transported to a fantasy land and must get home". Also, I happen to like Nessarose and Elphaba.
** 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.
** 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 134: Line 134:
** Because villains can cheat. Here's what I mean. When a character does something clever, gets over on their opponent and does so stylishly, this creates viewer/reader interest. That's much, ''much'' easier to do with a villain than the hero, because we ''see'' the hero. We ''know'' what the hero has planned and what the hero can do. Case in point: [[The Dark Knight]]. There's ''no way'' the Joker could have snuck that much explosives into a hospital (a building that is operating 24/7). Especially explosives in the form of gasoline (his preferred bomb). But we can ignore that because he's the villain; we don't know what his resources are. The writer can play fast-and-loose with what he does. He cannot do so with the hero because the hero has too much screen time. Also, if the hero starts pulling things out of their ass, the audience is more likely to call them on it. In short, it's easier to make a villain look cleverer, because the villain can cheat.
** Because villains can cheat. Here's what I mean. When a character does something clever, gets over on their opponent and does so stylishly, this creates viewer/reader interest. That's much, ''much'' easier to do with a villain than the hero, because we ''see'' the hero. We ''know'' what the hero has planned and what the hero can do. Case in point: [[The Dark Knight]]. There's ''no way'' the Joker could have snuck that much explosives into a hospital (a building that is operating 24/7). Especially explosives in the form of gasoline (his preferred bomb). But we can ignore that because he's the villain; we don't know what his resources are. The writer can play fast-and-loose with what he does. He cannot do so with the hero because the hero has too much screen time. Also, if the hero starts pulling things out of their ass, the audience is more likely to call them on it. In short, it's easier to make a villain look cleverer, because the villain can cheat.


* Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that says each and every pipe organ that appears in a work of fiction ''has'' to play Bach's Toccata and Fugue? Thank God for the climax of ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (Video Game)|The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time]]''. And maybe the Exorcist tanks that the [[Warhammer 40000|Sisters of Battle]] use.
* Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that says each and every pipe organ that appears in a work of fiction ''has'' to play Bach's Toccata and Fugue? Thank God for the climax of ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time|The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time]]''. And maybe the Exorcist tanks that the [[Warhammer 40000|Sisters of Battle]] use.
** No unwritten rule, just the usual [[Small Reference Pools]]!
** No unwritten rule, just the usual [[Small Reference Pools]]!
** The makers of the fiction are aware of how much that melody (particularly its famous opening bars) has haunted popular consciousness ever since first being employed to provide a grim atmosphere in silent movies. They figure that you have to go with what works, and the Toccata really [[Incredibly Lame Pun|strikes the right chord]]. You'll notice, though, that it is neither played on organ nor for any sort of dark atmosphere in [[Fantasia]].
** The makers of the fiction are aware of how much that melody (particularly its famous opening bars) has haunted popular consciousness ever since first being employed to provide a grim atmosphere in silent movies. They figure that you have to go with what works, and the Toccata really [[Incredibly Lame Pun|strikes the right chord]]. You'll notice, though, that it is neither played on organ nor for any sort of dark atmosphere in [[Fantasia]].
Retrieved from "https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Fiction/Headscratchers"