4 ms·

I'm a big fan of Haneke's work and I agree that depicting the truth, even obscene truths, is an important role of art. But in this case I am reminded of the "Th

I'm a big fan of Haneke's work and I agree that depicting the truth, even obscene truths, is an important role of art. But in this case I am reminded of the "Thermian Argument" [1]. Squid Game isn't truth, it's fiction, and the authors of that fiction chose how much violence is needed to tell their story. If they go out of their way to make sure everybody gets murdered, it might not reveal a whole lot of truth. I haven't watched any of Squid Game, I just didn't want to miss a chance to share Folding Ideas's work. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk

gameman144 5y ago
I dunno, I'm not super convinced by the "Thermian Argument" video linked here. It seems to be saying that defending objectionable content by appealing to the consistency of the world in which it takes place is a weak argument. For instance, the speaker says that it's unreasonable to object to gratuitous violence in a show by saying "that violence is part of this world." I think that it's totally laudable (and often leads to better stories) to exercise some restraint, or to remove the most jarring content that might bring viewers out of the story, but I disagree with the argument that doing otherwise to preserve the integrity of a fictional world is bad. If a storyteller wants to build a world which isn't aligned with our own concept of obscenity, I think that that's also a totally fine form of art. If a writer creates a world in which there is plentiful violence (or racism, or sexism, or cannibalism, or any other atrocious thing you can think of), I think that those stories are also totally valid. If, as the speaker mentions, a tribe of warrior women wears chainmail bikinis, that is totally fine if it's actually rational within the fictional world (the video sets up what feels like a strawman here, as "that's just what they do" feels like a very weak argument for any content in a fictional world). I'd argue that it's totally fair to criticize why an author constructed a world the way they did, or to say "I don't want to read a story that takes place in this world". In terms of criticizing specific content within that world, though, I'd say diegetic explanations are actually one of the best defenses for storytelling choices (essentially, the opposite of the "Thermian Argument", if I'm understanding it correctly).
- voussoir 5y ago
  > it's totally laudable (and often leads to better stories) to exercise some restraint, or to remove the most jarring content that might bring viewers out of the story, but I disagree with the argument that doing otherwise to preserve the integrity of a fictional world is bad. > it's totally fair to criticize why an author constructed a world the way they did, or to say "I don't want to read a story that takes place in this world". I very much agree with you. In my view, the point of the Thermian argument is not that the critic is too much of a prude for disliking the violence or sexism, the point is that the apologist is unable to express any storytelling purpose or emotional impact of the violence, so they just reiterate the diegetic. "The violence is in the movie because the is villain is violent". The Thermian argument is not that the artist should self-censor to remove these things, but that they should be able to express how it achieves their artistic goal. > a tribe of warrior women wears chainmail bikinis, that is totally fine if it's actually rational within the fictional world > I'd say diagetic explanations are actually one of the best defenses for storytelling choices I could agree with this too, but I guess it depends what kind of media you and I are watching and how much rationality is involved. Besides, if an artist wants chainmail bikinis with no rational explanation whatsoever, that's also fine in its own way as an expression of sexuality. But we should just admit that we think it's sexy instead of pretending there's actually some tribal traditional reason for it. There's just no way that's rational when the enemy is shooting arrows at you without rewriting all laws of physics just to make this work. The comment chain here is "I'm tired of TV shows using so much violence" -> "We shouldn't hide the truth of violence" and that's a Thermian argument because there was no truth until the authors wrote it, unless it's a documentary. But still I haven't seen SG so I can't comment re: how it uses the violence. Thanks for the rebuttal, I like talking about this. And much respect to everyone involved of course.
  - gameman144 5y ago
    Ah, that's a really good point that the argument just requires a diegetic defense to actually provide a rationalization within the world. I assumed that the "that's just the way it is" example was an easy-to-counter example, but if I'm understanding you correctly, the argument is opposed to it specifically because it's so weak. That makes a lot more sense, thanks for taking the time to explain!

gameman144 5y ago

I dunno, I'm not super convinced by the "Thermian Argument" video linked here. It seems to be saying that defending objectionable content by appealing to the consistency of the world in which it takes place is a weak argument. For instance, the speaker says that it's unreasonable to object to gratuitous violence in a show by saying "that violence is part of this world." I think that it's totally laudable (and often leads to better stories) to exercise some restraint, or to remove the most jarring content that might bring viewers out of the story, but I disagree with the argument that doing otherwise to preserve the integrity of a fictional world is bad. If a storyteller wants to build a world which isn't aligned with our own concept of obscenity, I think that that's also a totally fine form of art. If a writer creates a world in which there is plentiful violence (or racism, or sexism, or cannibalism, or any other atrocious thing you can think of), I think that those stories are also totally valid. If, as the speaker mentions, a tribe of warrior women wears chainmail bikinis, that is totally fine if it's actually rational within the fictional world (the video sets up what feels like a strawman here, as "that's just what they do" feels like a very weak argument for any content in a fictional world). I'd argue that it's totally fair to criticize why an author constructed a world the way they did, or to say "I don't want to read a story that takes place in this world". In terms of criticizing specific content within that world, though, I'd say diegetic explanations are actually one of the best defenses for storytelling choices (essentially, the opposite of the "Thermian Argument", if I'm understanding it correctly).

voussoir 5y ago
> it's totally laudable (and often leads to better stories) to exercise some restraint, or to remove the most jarring content that might bring viewers out of the story, but I disagree with the argument that doing otherwise to preserve the integrity of a fictional world is bad. > it's totally fair to criticize why an author constructed a world the way they did, or to say "I don't want to read a story that takes place in this world". I very much agree with you. In my view, the point of the Thermian argument is not that the critic is too much of a prude for disliking the violence or sexism, the point is that the apologist is unable to express any storytelling purpose or emotional impact of the violence, so they just reiterate the diegetic. "The violence is in the movie because the is villain is violent". The Thermian argument is not that the artist should self-censor to remove these things, but that they should be able to express how it achieves their artistic goal. > a tribe of warrior women wears chainmail bikinis, that is totally fine if it's actually rational within the fictional world > I'd say diagetic explanations are actually one of the best defenses for storytelling choices I could agree with this too, but I guess it depends what kind of media you and I are watching and how much rationality is involved. Besides, if an artist wants chainmail bikinis with no rational explanation whatsoever, that's also fine in its own way as an expression of sexuality. But we should just admit that we think it's sexy instead of pretending there's actually some tribal traditional reason for it. There's just no way that's rational when the enemy is shooting arrows at you without rewriting all laws of physics just to make this work. The comment chain here is "I'm tired of TV shows using so much violence" -> "We shouldn't hide the truth of violence" and that's a Thermian argument because there was no truth until the authors wrote it, unless it's a documentary. But still I haven't seen SG so I can't comment re: how it uses the violence. Thanks for the rebuttal, I like talking about this. And much respect to everyone involved of course.
- gameman144 5y ago
  Ah, that's a really good point that the argument just requires a diegetic defense to actually provide a rationalization within the world. I assumed that the "that's just the way it is" example was an easy-to-counter example, but if I'm understanding you correctly, the argument is opposed to it specifically because it's so weak. That makes a lot more sense, thanks for taking the time to explain!