Subject:
|
Re: Something not right about Captain Ahnee and the Dipwads?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:36:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
902 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> But when I was seventeen, and looking at someone who annoyed me to the extent
> that many of the people in these related threads seem to be annoyed by Jar-
> jar, I might very well have pushed him down a stairwell at school. Or bombed
> his car. I never did any of those specific things, just because somone near
> me was obnoxious, but it could have happened.
>
> How do you explain this perfectly peaceful guy who could have engaged in that
> kind of activity?
For rhetorical purposes I will discuss this as though you were yourself a
fictional character, since I cannot evaluate your real-world psychology. My
impression from what you've presented is that, during your teen years, you
were lashing out at or against something, whether it was family strife, some
societal infraction you'd imagined yourself to have suffered, or even the
natural internal chaos generated by the wild metamorphoses of puberty. Your
evolution from there to the peaceful person of today can be seen either as a
direct result of reflection upon and regret of your wild past, or as a
simple aspiration to a higher ideal than you had previously maintained. In
either case, your adult renaissance stems from a reassessment-conscious or
otherwise-of your own psyche, your interaction with the world, your
self-perception, your desire to portray yourself in a certain way, or any
combination of these and other factors.
Again, this is how I would evaluate such a transformation in a fictional
character; I am not presuming to psychoanalyze you as a real person.
> And maybe that's not you. But I am PROOF that people like that do exist. Do
> you want encouraging them to beat up goofy others on your hands?
Encourage? No. However, in my experience such people will act violently
whether or not they have violent media expressions to egg them on.
> > Or maybe this: some fiction exists merely for entertainment, not
> > as a moral parable.
>
> Nah. Artists tell themselves that, but it's a cop out. It's horse pucky.
> Fiction, created as only entertainment, stilla acts as a moral parable to some
> of the audience. Maybe lots of the audience, but I'm sure that varies.
You've just put your finger right on it. The artist, working in text,
sculpture, music, or film is not responsible for conveying a moral parable,
even if the artist is attempting to produce a morality play. The
responsibility of interpretation lies in the viewer, even in defiance of the
artist's intention. If it becomes a moral parable for the viewer, that's
the viewer's responsibility, not the artist's.
Having said that, I don't think it's inappropriate for artists or todays'
machinery of art to demonstrate some thoughtfulness in choosing the
marketing targets.
> I agree to some extent that it's the role of the parents to guide thier kids.
> (Although, I'm an adamant supporter of freedom for kids, really more than
> almost any of you would agree with.) But I'm not sure that only kids might be
> harmed by violent media.
I'm a firm believer that the parents have a definite responsibility in the
guidance of their kids at a young age, diminishing during the teen years
until the child reaches adulthood. However, it's fairly clear to me that,
if the parent asserts that the teen acts on his own, then the teen should be
held responsible for his actions. Conversely, if the child is too young to
be responsible, then the parent should be held accountable, either for
allowing the act itself or for exposing the child to such damaging media in
the first place.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
