Our Favorite Narrative Cliche: A World Filled with Idiots (2013)(davidbrin.com)
davidbrin.com
Our Favorite Narrative Cliche: A World Filled with Idiots (2013)
http://www.davidbrin.com/idiotplot.html
42 comments
As a corollary to that type of fictional world view; anyone can die, at any time, even the protagonists, because the bigger story isn't necessary dependant on them. It helps create some freshness in story writing.
As it happens I am nearing the end of reading Brin's excellent Uplift series (spanning six books from the 80s and 90s), where the story often involves several groups of protagonists and antagonists acting in parallel. It makes for a nice change from the typical hero-driven stories that do appear to form the bulk of our fiction.
As it happens I am nearing the end of reading Brin's excellent Uplift series (spanning six books from the 80s and 90s), where the story often involves several groups of protagonists and antagonists acting in parallel. It makes for a nice change from the typical hero-driven stories that do appear to form the bulk of our fiction.
I'd like to reverse the cause-effect relationship here to posit:
People and systems are depicted in fiction as stupid because writers, by and large, are stupid people.
In reality, the problem isn't that writers are stupid but that writers are lazy--unfortunately the result is effectively the same.
Writing a smart character takes a great deal of work. Most authors simply will not put in that work.
Guy Gavriel Kay is one of the few authors I like simply because his characters are competent.
People and systems are depicted in fiction as stupid because writers, by and large, are stupid people.
In reality, the problem isn't that writers are stupid but that writers are lazy--unfortunately the result is effectively the same.
Writing a smart character takes a great deal of work. Most authors simply will not put in that work.
Guy Gavriel Kay is one of the few authors I like simply because his characters are competent.
Yes, so often we're simply told that this character is the most brilliant person ever... but then they miss obvious things and simply jump to impossible conclusions or whatever.
Writing characters that are actually intelligent is really, really hard and I tend to remember the few characters that seem honestly clever that I really tend to remember those. I still remember my jaw dropping when L first told Kira he was coming after him in Death Note because of the clever way that was executed. Not to mention how both of those characters exhibited a very different sort of intelligence and you could follow their reasoning process most of the time.
Writing characters that are actually intelligent is really, really hard and I tend to remember the few characters that seem honestly clever that I really tend to remember those. I still remember my jaw dropping when L first told Kira he was coming after him in Death Note because of the clever way that was executed. Not to mention how both of those characters exhibited a very different sort of intelligence and you could follow their reasoning process most of the time.
Effectively communicating the thought processes of characters seems to be much more prevalent among Japanese writers of popular media. I suspect this is at least in part because American writers in industries like Hollywood look down on their audiences or are encouraged to simplify and remove nuances by marketers, where Japanese writers tend to trust their audiences to handle much more.
Where Japanese writers suffer is, not unlike the American TV show writer, in the business incentive to drag a series out for as long as possible to milk the most money out of it. Anyone would run out of material under those circumstances. The best serializations are those smaller ones that either planned the arc of the story from the beginning, or never pretended to have one in the first place.
Where Japanese writers suffer is, not unlike the American TV show writer, in the business incentive to drag a series out for as long as possible to milk the most money out of it. Anyone would run out of material under those circumstances. The best serializations are those smaller ones that either planned the arc of the story from the beginning, or never pretended to have one in the first place.
It was clear that the author of Death Note spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about the first few volumes before they published anything. It started densely packed with cleverness, but Naomi Penber was the last fancy trick for quite a while, presumably because they could not continue to invest so much time in each page. There was nothing as intricate and clever as Yagumi Light's hidden desk compartment from that point until, perhaps, the finale.
Oh definitely, the series started out amazing and slowly went downhill to being rather decent. I think that just shows us how hard this kind of writing is, even for really talented writers. It takes a lot of thought and time and cleverness and it's not something that can be just churned out regularly.
Death Note is a favorite. If you enjoyed that you should definitely watch Liar Game. It is a live action.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0978076/
The first episodes with the Teacher are okay, but it really kicks into high gear when they being playing 'minority rules' later on. Really marvelous!
If you enjoy a real challenge read The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. It's the most rewarding puzzle I've ever tangled with. I was up for days, weeks, thinking about it afterwards.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0978076/
The first episodes with the Teacher are okay, but it really kicks into high gear when they being playing 'minority rules' later on. Really marvelous!
If you enjoy a real challenge read The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. It's the most rewarding puzzle I've ever tangled with. I was up for days, weeks, thinking about it afterwards.
I read the manga of Liar Game a long time ago, actually. It was also a favorite of mine.
Friend! That was to prepare you for TBOTNS. Mere homework before your final exam.
Here is an introduction by Alastair Reynolds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kY1kJA0jA
It is the favorite book of a huge number of well known authors but is less known outside of their circles.
Wolfe's book is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Here is an introduction by Alastair Reynolds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kY1kJA0jA
It is the favorite book of a huge number of well known authors but is less known outside of their circles.
Wolfe's book is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
To Joseph Campbell people identify with an in group and an out group. Have you ever empathized and cheered for a villain? Where in the psychology does that come from? A good story requires identifying with the protagonist or villain protagonist as a friend or someone we become emotionally wrapped in. Some stories we identify with the out group that we aren't in. First two movies that come to mind are the early Stars Wars and really to make this point is Revenge of the Nerds.
The story of Revenge of the Nerds was really needed at the time. Keep in mind at the time that movie was released gays were still hated, much more than today and yes there seems to be people in today's government who vocally hate gays. The movie causes us to identify with the nerds, to see how we might fit in as an individual, and to see how Lamar with his effeminate javelin throw is a member of our in group, our team.
Any larger community that doesn't accept gays are a bunch of idiots and there is a time and still large communities in the United States that don't. In that case the world is filled with idiots.
> The "we're in this together" spirit of films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s later gave way to a reflex shared by left and right, that villainy is associated with organization.
That's not true. First movie that comes into my mind is the Wizard of Oz from 1939. The witch with her obedient monkeys and the wizard are the antagonists. The Munchkins were not idiots or enemies in the film. They were hard working people who wanted to get through the day and take care of the their families (maybe not that exactly). They needed someone who was brave, smart, and compassionate, to help them face a problem. That is what the hero does.
"Society never works". This completely misrepresents what Joseph Campbell was explaining about these stories. He would say most people need to conform because they need at the top of Maslow's pyramid to belong but society only works if someone with a new and different idea to solve a problem for that era and time stands alone against the grain of all the people who submit to the status quo because their need to belong.
It's not that society are idiots. It's that most people need to conform. Also, society won't work if people didn't conform. Society doesn't need everybody to be a hero but only a few.
The story of Revenge of the Nerds was really needed at the time. Keep in mind at the time that movie was released gays were still hated, much more than today and yes there seems to be people in today's government who vocally hate gays. The movie causes us to identify with the nerds, to see how we might fit in as an individual, and to see how Lamar with his effeminate javelin throw is a member of our in group, our team.
Any larger community that doesn't accept gays are a bunch of idiots and there is a time and still large communities in the United States that don't. In that case the world is filled with idiots.
> The "we're in this together" spirit of films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s later gave way to a reflex shared by left and right, that villainy is associated with organization.
That's not true. First movie that comes into my mind is the Wizard of Oz from 1939. The witch with her obedient monkeys and the wizard are the antagonists. The Munchkins were not idiots or enemies in the film. They were hard working people who wanted to get through the day and take care of the their families (maybe not that exactly). They needed someone who was brave, smart, and compassionate, to help them face a problem. That is what the hero does.
"Society never works". This completely misrepresents what Joseph Campbell was explaining about these stories. He would say most people need to conform because they need at the top of Maslow's pyramid to belong but society only works if someone with a new and different idea to solve a problem for that era and time stands alone against the grain of all the people who submit to the status quo because their need to belong.
It's not that society are idiots. It's that most people need to conform. Also, society won't work if people didn't conform. Society doesn't need everybody to be a hero but only a few.
Posted at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8332614.
> Today's dominant storytelling technique, in contrast, nearly always portrays one or two individuals in dire scenarios, without useful support from the societies that made them.
I dunno, that last movie I saw in theaters, Finding Dory, was sort of about the social support system coming out to save a member of society in some deep shit...
I dunno, that last movie I saw in theaters, Finding Dory, was sort of about the social support system coming out to save a member of society in some deep shit...
Sheeple: https://xkcd.com/610/
Hmm, I wonder why the post-war era was generally less trusting of institutions?
Besides the non-sequitur section about individuals acting stupidly for plot reasons in horror movies, this shift also fits another pattern. One of people being more educated and more able to communicate and discarding some of the ideology of: those who rule us must be our honourable betters.
I personally feel the evidence is more on my side than Brin's. Especially the ethical behaviour of humans when layers of abstraction are added in between their choices and the consequences.
Perhaps he can write another piece about how modern propaganda has implanted the ridiculous cliche in our heads that Kings don't actually rule by divine right and that time spent as a serf who always submits to authority won't be repaid in the next world. That cliche is even more widespread!
Besides the non-sequitur section about individuals acting stupidly for plot reasons in horror movies, this shift also fits another pattern. One of people being more educated and more able to communicate and discarding some of the ideology of: those who rule us must be our honourable betters.
I personally feel the evidence is more on my side than Brin's. Especially the ethical behaviour of humans when layers of abstraction are added in between their choices and the consequences.
Perhaps he can write another piece about how modern propaganda has implanted the ridiculous cliche in our heads that Kings don't actually rule by divine right and that time spent as a serf who always submits to authority won't be repaid in the next world. That cliche is even more widespread!
> I personally feel the evidence is more on my side than Brin's.
Sometimes the evidence is so obvious, we don't even see it. I – and most people frequenting HN – have the fortune to be living in a time and place of 70+ years of peace. That's a "black swan" event when viewed from history, and institutions & political leaders quite possibly have contributed to it.
The same could be said about the economy, civil rights and science.
But even if you disagree with that, there's a difference between "they're all corrupt and idiots" and "they failed". It's quite unlikely that we manage to systematically elect people with a below-average IQ, or below-average moral standards. Therefore, it'd be more constructive to assume good faith and consider that some of the problems are actually hard to solve.
Fundamentally (in discussions such as this), this would require a bit of ethical behavior itself. First among them: Consider the best possible version of your opponent's argument. I. e. nobody is suggesting a return to a King <-> serf relationship model.
Sometimes the evidence is so obvious, we don't even see it. I – and most people frequenting HN – have the fortune to be living in a time and place of 70+ years of peace. That's a "black swan" event when viewed from history, and institutions & political leaders quite possibly have contributed to it.
The same could be said about the economy, civil rights and science.
But even if you disagree with that, there's a difference between "they're all corrupt and idiots" and "they failed". It's quite unlikely that we manage to systematically elect people with a below-average IQ, or below-average moral standards. Therefore, it'd be more constructive to assume good faith and consider that some of the problems are actually hard to solve.
Fundamentally (in discussions such as this), this would require a bit of ethical behavior itself. First among them: Consider the best possible version of your opponent's argument. I. e. nobody is suggesting a return to a King <-> serf relationship model.
I'm not really following, I agree that it's a very peaceful time, that's not at issue is it? It's also less individually corrupt now than in the past I'd say.
The argument in the essay is that the idea that leadership and the masses are stupid and corrupt compared to intelligent individuals (not the average person, but a cliche heroic individual) is propaganda, which wasn't present in the past.
I think that's ridiculous and it's much more likely that the idea of there ever being benevolent and intelligent rulers (compared to this intelligent and ethical individual) was the propaganda, which is working less effectively now.
Hence the King/Serf jab, obviously we now know more than those in the past did, and reject the propaganda that the King rules by divine right and is superior to the rest. This is similar to what I'm saying is happening now.
The argument in the essay is that the idea that leadership and the masses are stupid and corrupt compared to intelligent individuals (not the average person, but a cliche heroic individual) is propaganda, which wasn't present in the past.
I think that's ridiculous and it's much more likely that the idea of there ever being benevolent and intelligent rulers (compared to this intelligent and ethical individual) was the propaganda, which is working less effectively now.
Hence the King/Serf jab, obviously we now know more than those in the past did, and reject the propaganda that the King rules by divine right and is superior to the rest. This is similar to what I'm saying is happening now.
Theory: widespread fast communication inverts perception.
Past: the cops in that town over there are probably good because the cops here are good.
Present: the cops here are probably bad because the cops over there are bad.
Past: the cops in that town over there are probably good because the cops here are good.
Present: the cops here are probably bad because the cops over there are bad.
It took me a while to get what you're at, but I think you're up the wrong tree. Because when Brin used the word "institution", what I understood was something like "layers of abstraction" that you're referring to. Because that's what institution means in economics (or at that's least one it's senses, since it's an incredibly wide concept). That is, rational organized collective behavior. And not some arbitrary top-down bureaucratic structure.
An even bigger cliché is the "new technology is evil". I've been thinking about it for a minute and can't even come up with a movie that depicts recent or futuristic technology in a favorable light.
Transcendence, Interstellar and Gravity. I haven't actually watched neither Interstellar nor Gravity, but from what I know neither of them portray technology in a bad light. But Transcendence does overall portray technology in a good light, though the majority of the movie is just the movie makers playing with the audience's luddite fears.
Still, it's a damn bad movie.
Still, it's a damn bad movie.
Technology saves humanity in Interstellar, so there's that.
Gravity, as in the film where Sandra Bullock's team gets nailed by a bunch of space junk?
Star Trek
If it wasn't for the cliche of the "new technology is evil" we would not care about net neutrality or domestic spying. The cliche serves a purpose. Also, the problem with new technologies like radiation is not the good that it does curing cancer, it is the danger of it very quickly today in a matter of minutes ending all humanity.
This may be true but I get the feeling those movies overwhelmingly lean towards luddism rather than the responsible use of technology. For example, in Jurassic Park, the message is essentially "don't mess with nature (because it's impossible to outsmart it no matter how hard you try)", not "be cautious when messing with nature". Maybe nuance just doesn't easily lend itself to exciting stories.
I thought the message of Jurassic Park was "Chaos theory is awesome, and capitalists underestimating complexity will watch their innards eaten by their own creations".
If that's part of Luddism – sign me up.
If that's part of Luddism – sign me up.
Don't forgot what makes a story is conflict: man against others, man against himself, and man against nature.
I could argue almost all widespread application if technology in human history has been fairly irresponsible
Culture
For a second you had me hopeful that there was a Culture movie out there already.
Thought he said book. Whoops.
Worth reading now in the light of the recent election that was rich in villains, riveting storylines on a background of a society (aka. the idiots, Feds, Washington, Establishment) is broken beyond repair.
Shlock. The writer is satisfied with the world he inhabits, is not particularly aggrieved by the powers that be, has not been particularly failed -- and therefore takes umbrage at the suggestion that the established order might not be both benevolent and competent.
But guess what? This isn't the general experience! Most people are constantly, crushingly immiserated and failed -- a societal "failure mode," as he so charmingly terms it, has already come to pass. It's unclear, in fact, that we've ever /not/ been in a failure mode -- begging the question of /why/ things are so consistently fucked up.
But guess what? This isn't the general experience! Most people are constantly, crushingly immiserated and failed -- a societal "failure mode," as he so charmingly terms it, has already come to pass. It's unclear, in fact, that we've ever /not/ been in a failure mode -- begging the question of /why/ things are so consistently fucked up.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I had my finger on your exact objection to the author of the article but couldn't articulate them well. Respect to you.
The author lost me the moment he introduced the "paradox" of a writer thinking the societal systems are inefficient but they would dial 911 as soon as there's trouble. So...
(1) Both things are not mutually exclusive at all. Nobody is expert in everything.
(2) What does this guy think the writer should do? Grab a kitchen knife and go be a hero? Outside the USA you can get jailed for assaulting a burglar. He should do some net reading because I suspect him of being too USA-centric.
(3) You can write about heroes while fully realizing you're not one. Takes culture and education to do, and it's very far from impossible. Example: the writers of Spiderman whom the author likes aren't superheroes themselves yet they portrayed the superhero quite well.
The whole thing is written in a way that somehow makes you feel the author is salty and strongly dislikes people who criticize the current public systems. "Be respectful for the work previous generations have put for your future, you ungrateful whippersnappers!", that's how he sounds to me.
I'll admit he makes several good points (like the horror "plots" which were probably already beaten to death as far back as the 1950s) but there are parts of his article I find to be very biased.
The author lost me the moment he introduced the "paradox" of a writer thinking the societal systems are inefficient but they would dial 911 as soon as there's trouble. So...
(1) Both things are not mutually exclusive at all. Nobody is expert in everything.
(2) What does this guy think the writer should do? Grab a kitchen knife and go be a hero? Outside the USA you can get jailed for assaulting a burglar. He should do some net reading because I suspect him of being too USA-centric.
(3) You can write about heroes while fully realizing you're not one. Takes culture and education to do, and it's very far from impossible. Example: the writers of Spiderman whom the author likes aren't superheroes themselves yet they portrayed the superhero quite well.
The whole thing is written in a way that somehow makes you feel the author is salty and strongly dislikes people who criticize the current public systems. "Be respectful for the work previous generations have put for your future, you ungrateful whippersnappers!", that's how he sounds to me.
I'll admit he makes several good points (like the horror "plots" which were probably already beaten to death as far back as the 1950s) but there are parts of his article I find to be very biased.
Brexit, Trump, 86% popularity of Putin, mass media, TV shows, Javascript - what other evidences are needed?
In game of thrones every faction does exceedingly stupid and brilliant actions. There are no protagonists (besides maybe the mother of dragons - who burns people alive), who are ever clearly going to be good people or even win. It makes you always sit on the edge of your seat and makes the whole story much more entertaining