4 ms·
Every story consists of the decisions that an author executes. Sure, there are the intentions of the author, but that comprises only a small selection of factor
by SoftAnnaLee 4y ago
Every story consists of the decisions that an author executes. Sure, there are the intentions of the author, but that comprises only a small selection of factors that goes into a reading of any work.
Within the Jazz community, there is a saying;
> It's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play.
Likewise, within narratives, both fictional and non-fiction, a story is not composed only of the intentional and emphasized aspects of a narrative. But likewise, the subtle details, and the details left unsaid that lead one towards a conclusion; that craft a message unconsciously.
To use a more simplistic narrative to illustrate this. Take a look at the original Star Wars. The overt message created in the actions of Luke, Han, and Leia is a tale of good overcoming evil. But in the small details of the setting, there is a subtle narrative about living under an authoritarian regime. The unpleasant but overly clean hallways and rooms within the Empire's bases and vehicles; contrasting with the impoverished, lived-in, locales of Tattooine. The identical uniforms and looks of the Empire's soldiers and commanders; contrasting with the infinite variability of those who live outside (and opposed to) their armies.
But another subtle detail that becomes deafening in its silence is; why does the camera only display complex emotions with the human characters? C-3PO and R2D2 are flat comedic relief characters. The only alien we have extended time with as an audience is Chewbacca. Meanwhile, Luke, Han, and Leia all get to experience anguish, wonder, frustration, relief, and elation in varying degrees throughout the narrative. The fact that the narrative is human-centric is an implicit message that only humans within the Star Wars setting have interesting, exciting, and relatable inner lives. Since we are not given a proper chance to relate to a significant non-human character.
Likewise with Francis Coppola and John Milius both have made an implicit message to place the narrative within a particular real-life setting; yet significantly downplay the humanity of those who actually inhabit that setting in real-life. It may not be a particularly intentional decision by those two men, or it may actually well be. But the implication of it in either case is that American Men are implied to be those who wield autonomy in foreign lands that they visit, at the cost of those who are native to those lands. It can be read as an implicit view of how the American characters view the Vietnamese people they fight for/against; or a missed opportunity to enhance the horror of war. Or in the most uncharitable light, it is implicitly saying that only American lives are worth depicting and that the loss of an American is a tragedy while the loss of a Vietnamese life is a statistic.
- junofan 4y ago[flagged]
- wruza 4y agoStories are written for people, and people don’t like their main heroes winning over similar humans who have the same concerns and life depth. It just doesn’t make a good saga or a good background for the key idea, unless it’s related. Dark parodies often literally add humanness to an enemy, both in shows and games (scenes like a trooper talking to his mom about a dinner and then gets stealth killed because hero is too lazy to loop around his post). The idea of showing both (all) sides only makes sense when a plot revolves around that exact idea, and doesn’t otherwise. You have to contrast an idea enough for it to stay primary, and adding a real-world drama does the opposite, because, well, your auditory is not a soulless bunch.