Support NeoGAF

[strange headache]

There is this growing trend among media critics to snobbishly dismiss tropes as something to scoff at. They point out a few tropes. wrinkle their nose and simply turn in their canned work. It's an incredibly lazy approach to media critique and one that doesn't require a lot of intellectual work. Tropes are bad and that's that!

In my view, tropes are fun and to a certain degree even necessary for good story telling. They oftentimes represent archetypal problems of the human condition, fundamental aspects of our lives that are universally shared among human beings. Whether a trope is good or bad has nothing to do with its mere existence, but comes down to how it is presented or explored.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in order to outsnob the snobs, let me present to you one of the greatest stories ever told, The Iliad! An epic tale about love, war and general badassery. The Iliad is considered by many the template for Western literature and the granddaddy of tropes. It is also a B-movie. Would it be stripped of its historical weight and published to today's standards, most critics would turn up their noses and slap it with a 'rotten' rating. The Iliad was basically the Star Wars of its times and in many regards a lot better. Despite its over the top silliness, The Iliad is also a story with complex and well developed characters and a nuanced approach that blurs the lines between 'good and evil'.

As most people already know, The Iliad tells the story of the Trojan War, a ten-year siege of the city of Troy by the Greeks. It covers the battles and events during the last few weeks by focusing on the quarrels between the Greek general and King, Agamemnon and his warrior Achilleus. The war is kicked off when the Trojan Prince Paris, falls in love with Helen, the wife of Menelaos, King of Sparta and Agamemnon's brother. But what most people don't know is the reason why Paris and Helen fell in love. Paris didn't act on his free will, but he chose Aphrodite over Hera and Athene in a petty beauty contest over a golden apple:

Thetis and Peleus were to be married and all of the gods were invited to the wedding, except one: Eris, goddess of discord and sister of Ares. Of course, discord is the last thing one wants at a wedding feast. Nonetheless, she had been slighted and decided to get even. So she crafted a golden apple, inscribed it with the words For the Fairest, and tossed it into the banquet hall. More than one goddess laid claim to it: Hera, the wife of Zeus; Athena, the goddess of wisdom and patroness of Athens; and, of course, Aphrodite. The three began to quarrel and turned to Zeus for a judgment. It would have been folly for Zeus to offer any opinion. His wife Hera could not be disappointed; Athena, as his daughter, could not be disappointed; and, of course, as the goddess of beauty, Aphrodite was entitled to the apple as well. So, characteristi-cally, Zeus gave the decision to a mortal: Paris, son of King Priam of Troy. The goddesses were not above bribery to win the apple. Athena promised to make Paris invincible in battle; Hera offered him the mastery of all Asia; and Aphrodite, reading Paris's mind, used feminine wiles. She loosened her robe to offer Paris a tantalizing glimpse of her cleavage and then promised Paris that she would give him the most beautiful woman in the world. And so, Aphrodite won the apple, and Paris married Helen of Troy. The real winners in the contest, however, were Eris and her cruel brother, who sowed the seeds of a bloody war... - The Iliad: Book 24

Yeah, if you thought John Wick's dog was a petty reason to go on an epic killing spree, Trojan's 10 year bloodshed is literally the result of mighty Zeus, king of the gods, being too afraid to meddle with his wife and daughters. The common critic might just as well dismiss it all as some horny dude getting it on with an unfaithful chick. First of all, there's a reason why the whole setup is silly and petty, because it demonstrates the general stupidity of war. Yeah, people back then were not mere bloodthirsty simpletons. Although they loved sharing stories about war, they did not adore war itself. From the perspective of the common folk, war was something, that took many people's lives for silly reasons.

Thinking about it, the reasons for the Trojan war were ridiculous, but they were far from simplistic. Who's really at fault here? Eris for sowing discord among the gods, the three goddesses for being vain, Zeus for not interfering because he was afraid of a woman's scorn, Paris for having his mind in the gutter or Helena for giving in to Paris' flirtation? The Trojan war could have been easily prevented, but happened anyway due to a combination of people's weaknesses clashing together in the tangled web that we so often refer to as 'life'. The Iliad basically boils down to 'shit happens, people are dumb, try to make sense of it all and deal with it'.

Except for Paris, most of the characters presented in The Iliad are frikkin' badasses, be it Archilleus, Hektor, Patroklos, Priam, Ajax, Odysseus or Aias. For the sake of brevity, I'll focus on Achilleus, the Greek's strongest fighter but also a giant asshole. Achilleus is basically Captain America of ancient Greece, blessed by the gods, inhumanly strong and a proud warrior in shining armor. Despite Achilles being almost invulnerable and one of the greatest warriors ever, his armor is what sets him apart. It represents his strength, as his fellow soldiers recognize it as his symbol. The most famous piece of armor is probably his shield forged by Hephaestus himself:

First fashioned he a shield, great and sturdy, adorning it cunningly in every part, and round about it set a bright rim, threefold and glittering, and therefrom made fast a silver baldric. Five were the layers of the shield itself; and on it he wrought many curious devices with cunning skill. Therein he wrought the earth, therein the heavens therein the sea, and the unwearied sun, and the moon at the full, and therein all the constellations wherewith heaven is crowned—the Pleiades, and the Hyades and the mighty Orion, and the Bear, that men call also the Wain, that circleth ever in her place, and watcheth Orion, and alone hath no part in the baths of Ocean. Therein fashioned he also... - The Iliad: Book 18

Almost three-quarters of Book 18 is devoted to detailed descriptions of the ornamental engravings on the shield alone... it's basically Dwarf Fortress on steroids. If you thought the gearing up scene in Commando was badass, imagine Achilleus, donning an armor literally forged by the God of smithing and metalworking himself, before confronting his archenemy Hektor. After beating Hektor, Achilles strips him naked, watches him beg for mercy, calls him a dog, and simply guts him. He then shoves a rope through the tendons of Hektor’s ankles, ties them to his chariot and drags his bloody corpse around Troy. Yeah, you do not mess with Achilleus... and by this point we have reached comic and anime levels of over the top badassery. F*ck yeah...

But as with all characters presented in The Iliad, Achilleus is not only a supreme hero, he's also full of flaws. He is vain, sentimental, wants glory above all else, is prone to emotional outbursts and totally fueled by rage. In fact, when Agamemnon steals his girl Briseis in order to establish his authoritah, Achilleus throws in the towel and goes moping in the corner. Certainly, both of them act like little brats, but Achilleus puts in a request with Zeus to help the Trojans drive the Achaians, his own men, back. Just to show them how much better off they were with him on their side.

Heavy with wine, with the face of a dog but the heart of a deer, never have you had courage to arm for battle along with your people, or go forth to an ambush with the chiefs of the Achaeans. That seems to you even as death. Indeed it is far better throughout the wide camp of the Achaeans to deprive of his prize whoever speaks contrary to you. - The Iliad: Book 1

Achilleus is a tropey character, but presented with so much nuance and internal strife that he becomes interesting. Whether you side with him or Agamemnon isn't even important, what matters is that it makes you think. Achilleus, just like so many others, is capable of great deeds but also petty failures. That's what makes him a great character. When it comes to modern media and especially many of the modern superhero movies, I think that aspect is often neglected for the sake of action and spectacle.

Oftentimes, what makes a story truly great is its willingness to engage with moral dilemmas. Achilleus is presented with a simple choice, but no matter how he decides, it comes with great disadvantages. Will he fight for glory by risking certain death, or will he stay home, leading a long but ultimately unnoticeable life?

My mother Thetis tells me that there are two ways in which I may meet my end. If I stay here and fight, I shall not return alive but my name will live for ever: whereas if I go home my name will die, but it will be long ere death shall take me. - The Iliad: Book 9

At first, Achilleus seems to choose a long life over immortal glory, opting for the more rational choice. But what tips him over is his rage fueled thirst for revenge when he is made aware that Hektor killed his best friend and role model, Patroklos. Again, the quest for revenge and the loss of a loved one are well known tropes, but when presented in the context of this moral dilemma, it becomes something much more intricate.

To me, moral dilemmas are what made Star Trek such an amazing show, be it the prime directive or the dichotomy between peaceful exploration and the inevitability of violent conflict. Coincidentally, it's also the reason why Star Trek: Discovery sucks so much, because that aspect is pretty much absent in the new show. Yeah, Stamets alludes to some of if, but it's never explored and mostly brushed aside for the sake of spectacle.

The common PC critic would probably be outraged about certain themes and subplots presented in Homer's epic. Briseis is basically a spoil of war and Agamemnon is a sexist asshole. In the first chapter, when the Trojan priest Chryses petitions him to give back his captive daughter Chryseis, Agamemnon snaps back (I'll use Dolan's translation in order to better convey Agamemnon's general assholery for modern sensitivities):

You want to know what will happen to your daughter, old fool? I’ll tell you: She’ll live and die as my slave, my property. She’ll scrub floors all day, and when it’s night, I’ll take her to my couch and bend her over, bend her any way I please! While she’s young, that is. After I’ve used her for a few years, she’ll be too old and ugly to be worth having, and then she’ll carry out the shit-jars every morning and sleep with the pigs, and when she’s old she’ll die one day and be dragged off to where we bury the livestock. - John Dolan: The War Nerd Iliad

That scene alone would probably rustle some jimmies and discredit The Iliad in the eyes of the modern critic, as evidenced by Detroit: Become Human. In my eyes, it merely shows how lazy and canned media criticism has become. First, it ignores the fact that the intention of this particular scene is to convey how bad Agamemnon really is. Second, it ignores the greater context of Homer's Iliad, because nobody has any sort of agency whatsoever. This is evidenced by the fact that Zeus himself explains halfway through the story what's going to happen, it's basically a foregone conclusion. Moreover, the whole Trojan war is orchestrated by the three goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite. Lastly, every human key character is influenced by the gods taking different sides in the conflict. For example, Patroklos is killed because Apollo intervenes, striking him across the back, sending him into a daze and making him vulnerable to Hektor's attack. Also, Paris falls in love with Helen, because Aphrodite influenced him.

At first glance, the relationship between Achilleus and Patroklus seems like the greatest bromance ever told. In fact, it was much more than that, they both affectionately loved each other:

Then said Achilles in his great grief, “I would die here and now, in that I could not save my comrade. He has fallen far from home, and in his hour of need my hand was not there to help him. What is there for me? Return to my own land I shall not, and I have brought no saving neither to Patroclus nor to my other comrades of whom so many have been slain by mighty Hector; I stay here by my ships a bootless burden upon the earth, I, who in fight have no peer among the Achæans, though in council there are better than I. Therefore, perish strife both from among gods and men, and anger, wherein even a righteous man will harden his heart—which rises up in the soul of a man like smoke, and the taste thereof is sweeter than drops of honey. Even so has Agamemnon angered me. And yet—so be it, for it is over; I will force my soul into subjection as I needs must; I will go; I will pursue Hector who has slain him whom I loved so dearly, and will then abide my doom when it may please Jove and the other gods to send it. - The Iliad: Book 18

Mourning his loss, Achilleus wept, he even wanted to kill himself before his rage took over. Having lost his will to live, he is now ready to meet his own doom in order to fulfill his lust for revenge. That's how much Patroklus meant to Achilleus. What's more is the fact that in Homer's Iliad, it is not forbidden for men to cry, in fact Achilleus cried so much that even the gods took notice.

When it comes to the representation of women in The Iliad, they are not any weaker or any stronger than their male counterparts. While some of them are reduced to mere spoils of war, most of them are actually really really strong. In fact, the Greeks had two gods of war, Athena, who represented brains, strategy and carefully planned warfare and her archenemy Ares, the god of bloodlust, atrocity and destruction, considered by many a real pain in the ass, riding a chariot smeared with blood and gore. Yeah, it goes without saying that Ares wasn't exactly popular, while Athena was revered by most. Ares isn’t the mannerly villain from Wonder Woman, but a murderous fool with no redeeming features whatsoever. In Book 21 Athena throws a boulder at Ares, knocking him out as he is finally defeated when she guides her champion Diomedes to literally spear him in the balls:

Ares has gone to demand justice from Zeus. Which Zeus, and the rest of the gods, find very amusing. Ares? Wanting justice? Ares, who presided over every massacre and rape since the beginning of the world, and enjoyed every second of them?
And now he wants justice – justice! After getting stabbed… by a woman… his own sister! It’s a great moment for the whole family – they just can’t stop laughing. As Ares approaches, squelching with his hands over his wet, bleeding groin, Zeus draws out the pleasure, pretending not to know what happened: ‘Well, Ares, what seems to be the problem? And please, don’t drip on my fine marble floor. - John Dolan: The War Nerd Iliad

Anyway, I could go on and on and on... the elderly Nestor is basically street cred Yoda, oftentimes mourning how soft and spoiled the youth has become, gore and torture is abound, depicting more than 200 gruesome deaths, more intrigue, more moral ambiguity, more character flaws, etc...

Point being, The Iliad is an amazing piece of literature that basically laid the groundwork for most modern tropes while presenting a multilayered and intricate story that is not only more 'progressive' than what's oftentimes presented nowadays but also living proof that pop culture can not only appeal to the lowest common denominator, but also be intellectually and morally engaging. Finally, when it comes to most media critique out there, most of it is not only of very low quality, but also incredibly lazy and intellectually dishonest. In conclusion, I posit the daring hypothesis that in the current climate of mass produced criticism, The Iliad would simply fall on deaf ears.

 

[KevinKeene]

1.) Applause

2.) That's what I've been saying for years now. That tropes aren't bad, not your analysis of the Illiad ;p

Too many people get caught up with the thought of 'this has been done before, therefore it is bad'. This makes no sense in a world where everything has been done. Even variations of tropes are tropey by now. It's all about the presentation.

You can give me a supposedly fresh, unused concept of a story and it'll suck if its presentation is lacking. And you can give me the most run-by-the-numbers plot and I'll love it if it's well presented.

The negative connotation of the term 'trope' makes no sense. It's how you do it.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

This sounds absolutely amazing. I don’t know why people are spending so much cash to get the rights to adopt LoTR again when they could adopt this and the Hindu Mahabharata (also one of the oldest epics ever written, and every bit as interesting) instead and have another Game of Thrones on their hands. Everyone already knows how LoTR ends, they already had a great western adaptation and as the The Hobbit shows, people aren’t really that interested in the world beyond that core story. Very few people know the Mahabharata or the Illiad.

Most modern movies and especially superhero shows absolutely suck in this regard. They often make the hero cartoonishly heroic and the villains cartoonishly evil. They have no layers, and the villains rarely have an authentic motive. It teaches kids to think of people as good or evil without any regard for what their motives might actually be and why they believe what they believe. Hence our current doxxing culture.

It doesn’t even make sense from a financial perspective. Almost every truly amazing and beloved show in the past twenty years had characters that had motive and layers instead of a simplistic good and evil breakdown. Breaking Bad, Death Note, The Wire, Game of Thrones (except for the one cartoonishly evil character, King Joffrey), The Shield and countless others.

Edit:

Interesting fact, the Mahabharata was written around the same time as the Illad. The only flawless character in the epic was Bhishma who despite being flawless, invincible (blessed by god similar to Achilleus) and a fearless warrior ends up fighting for immoral people that he deeply disagrees with due to a misplaced sense of duty/loyalty. He doesn’t have any weaknesses, unlike achellies, and the only way Krishna is able to defeat him by tricking him to turn his own sense of duty and loyalty against him and force him to give up his invincibility voluntarily.

The Mahabharata has a very good lesson in this regard, that loyalty does not supersede the duty to what is right for all people, even when if you end up having to do things you find immoral or betray those you swore loyalty to. ie. You shouldn’t follow the orders of those you swore loyalty to if the orders will end up causing great harm. That was one of the core tenets of the Bhagadatta Gita philosophy that Krishna shares with Arjun (the flawed hero prince in the story) to convince him to set aside his personal morality to do what he knows will lead to the greatest good.

It also featured the first transgender hero in recorded history, Shikhandi.

 

[Corrik]

I have seen so many different versions of the illiad that I no longer know what is the actual story anymore. I remember a Greek raid to try to steal an artifact in Troy. I remember tales of Cassandra pleading before the King of her visions. I remember Aeneas actually being the true badass of the Trojans and not Hector.

I remember the gods going back and forth on who to support and it causing the tide to turn over and over with backroom politics between the gods. And God's and goddesses literally on the battlefield in disguise as other men and outright fighting or sending down gales to usher away their favorites from impending doom.

I dunno the point of my post but basically, I do not even know what the actual illiad says anymore and what it doesn't at this point.

 

[strange headache]

The negative connotation of the term 'trope' makes no sense. It's how you do it.

Indeed, I think most of it comes down to how mass produced media criticism has become, it's just so out of the can and run of the mill. It is much easier to point out a few tropes and call it a day, than engage with the greater context these tropes are presented in. For example: 'This game depicts X, therefore it sucks' or 'this game has person W, X, Y but not Z, therefore it must be bad'. It doesn't take a lot of thought to point these things out, yet gives the illusion that the criticism is deep. It's a lot more difficult trying to understand character motivations through their actions and how they relate to each other. In other words, what I find oftentimes lacking, is the contextualization.

Modern movies and especially superhero shows absolutely suck in this regard. They often make the hero cartoonishly heroic and the villains cartoonishly evil. They have no layers, the villains have no motive and it doesn’t even make sense from a financial perspective. It teaches kids to think of people as good or evil without any regard for what their motives might actually be and why they believe what they believe.

Exactly and it's something that worries me a great deal more than the mere depiction of conflict and/or violence in modern media. As you said, it inculcates media consumers with a very black and white view on the world. What's more, it conveys the impression that it's okay to be violent against the enemy, because he doesn't have any redeeming feature anyway. We need more role models in our media, but we need role models that are flawed, because the most important aspect is not virtue itself, but how heroic characters deal with their own shortcomings and try to overcome them. For me that's what heroism is all about, engaging with your failures and finding ways to become better. This sort of introspection is hardly ever present anymore. These sorts of struggles transcend mere identity, they are something that most humans can relate to.

 

[KevinKeene]

As you said, it inculcates media consumers with a very black and white view on the world. What's more, it conveys the impression that it's okay to be violent against the enemy, because he doesn't have any redeeming feature anyway. We need more role models in our media, but we need role models that are flawed, because the most important aspect is not virtue itself, but how heroic characters deal with their own shortcomings and try to overcome them. For me that's what heroism is all about, engaging with your failures and finding ways to become better. This sort of introspection is hardly ever present anymore. These sorts of struggles transcend mere identity, they are something that most humans can relate to.

Haha, I actually planned on making a thread about this, more or less. Intended to do it on the gaming side, but if you think it's true to all media, I'll make it in the OT.

 

[synchronicity]

In my view, tropes are fun and to a certain degree even necessary for good story telling. They oftentimes represent archetypal problems of the human condition, fundamental aspects of our lives that are universally shared among human beings. Whether a trope is good or bad has nothing to do with its mere existence, but comes down to how it is presented or explored.

Absolutely agree. The notion that everything has been said has, of course, been said itself. It's far more about execution than concept/content so often. Nice thread.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Exactly and it's something that worries me a great deal more than the mere depiction of conflict and/or violence in modern media. As you said, it inculcates media consumers with a very black and white view on the world. What's more, it conveys the impression that it's okay to be violent against the enemy, because he doesn't have any redeeming feature anyway. We need more role models in our media, but we need role models that are flawed, because the most important aspect is not virtue itself, but how heroic characters deal with their own shortcomings and try to overcome them. For me that's what heroism is all about, engaging with your failures and finding ways to become better. This sort of introspection is hardly ever present anymore.

Beautifully said, but I think the modern audience is now rewarding authentic characters over cartoonish good/evil characters more. This is why Superman and Preptime Batman come off as super boring characters. Meanwhile Iron Man, Spider-Man and Nolan’s take on Batman resonate so well with the audience, because they are not flawless beings. They keep making mistakes and they are haunted by past mistakes and their own neuroses. This is why people fall in love with complex villains like Magneto (before the comics decided to make him cartoonishly evil) and the villain in Black Panther.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Haha, I actually planned on making a thread about this, more or less. Intended to do it on the gaming side, but if you think it's true to all media, I'll make it in the OT.

You can make a sister thread in the gaming side about this, that addresses these same issues but in games. This thread can be focused on this same topic but in all other media since the OP didn’t touch on games at all.

 

[strange headache]

Haha, I actually planned on making a thread about this, more or less. Intended to do it on the gaming side, but if you think it's true to all media, I'll make it in the OT.

Feel free to talk about it here as it very much pertains to the greater context of this topic. Case in point, GameSpot is seemingly unable to cope with opposing views while being wholly incapable to comprehend that people with different viewpoints aren't absolute inhuman monsters. They spend the latter half of the video questioning themselves how they are supposed to feel about it, when in fact this kind of ambiguity is what critically engages you with the content in the first place. Go figure...

Meanwhile Iron Man, Spider-Man and Nolan’s take on Batman resonate so well with the audience, because they are not flawless beings.

Indeed, that's why Nolan's second Batman movie is one of the best comic book adaptations to date. Batman is an interesting character by himself, but when put in contrast to the Joker, it becomes so much more interesting. The Joker's primary goal is to destroy the Batman and by doing so, also himself. It's the reason why he puts Batman into dilemma situations in order to force him to break his single redeeming principle, that he doesn't kill people. He wants Batman to concede, that he's not any better than the Joker himself. In a certain sense, the Joker is right, because Batman is a vigilante, someone who elevates himself above the law by taking justice into his own hands.

Even more so, the Joker is inherently self-destructive. He's well aware that he is irredeemable hence his wish to die. Not only does he want to be killed at the hands of Batman, his actions are generally reckless because he does not care for his own life. The Joker is hobbesian in essence by rejecting the social contract and wanting to return to natural state which is a war of all against all. It's in essence the whole point of the Ferry scene. Yes, the Joker is fucked up beyond redemption, but his philosophical perspective made you ponder and is frightfully coherent. That's why the Joker is such a great villain, because his destructive nature goes against everything you believe in, yet manages to show you how fragile the skin of human civilization really is.

 

[SirKicksalot]

>tfw the Game of Thrones writers turned it into a shitty soap opera starring Brad Pitt

Imagine how those who discovered Troy felt. The city of myth turned out to be not only real, but utterly spectacular too.

 

[MoFuzz]

Yeah, yeah, a literary epic that has stood up for almost a millennium and all that. Blah blah blah.

Storytelling is overrated, and characters with meaningful arcs are predictable and hacky. What I really need to know is whether it subverts my expectations?

 

[KevinKeene]

.What I really need to know is whether it subverts my expectations?

Hardly, because these days we expect our expectations to subverted. Hence why Shyamalan had it tough to keep up his shtick.

 

[Airola]

I've noticed two things about tropes:

1) People laugh at them because they think tropes are bad. And to be a really good writer one should avoid tropes and come up with something new.
2) When the writers or critics can slip in some references to really old stuff then tropes are ok. The work immediately gets more value when people can say it's like a classic story from ancient Greece, or if they can see similarities to some Shakespeare plays.

I kinda personally see similarities between tropes and stereotypes. Tropes become tropes because they often work so well, and I think there's nothing wrong with that. Stereotypes become stereotypes because that's often how it things just are (and stereotypes are often funny too because they are familiar to us). In both cases just saying "that's a trope" or saying "that's a stereotype" has zero value as criticism.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

If well rounded heros and villains that have clear motives, relatable flaws and solid intelligence becomes a trope. That’s a trope that I and I suspect almost everyone would handily accept.

This problem shows up on every single show with 24 episodes per season but I have never seen them more blantantly displayed than in The Flash. They made the flash fast enough to search every crevice of the city in less than a minute, but every single damn time that he engages with an enemy, he just stops in front of them, talks to them, and then stands still while the villain get their cold gun or whatever and shoot him. He could literally run in and tie up every single villain but I guess that wouldn’t be much of a show. But they also make the villains cartoonishly motiveless that always do shit because the story demands it. Goddamm did they make both the hero’s and villains into such dumbasses with no clear motives for that show.

 

[KevinKeene]

Tbh Flash always was a dumb hero imo because of those reasons. But that goes for every 'fast' hero ever. Being fast means winning most of the time, so they create silly reasons for why these heroes can't do something. What's even worse is that it's always ignored how thee heroes aren't just fast runners - to do so they have to 'fast thinkers', too. Meaning Flash should be able to reas entire libraries and solve difficult math problems in no time. That doesn't happen, though, because it'd be too powerful :/

Btw mt threas over at the gaming side doesn't seem to garner much interest. Kinda disappointed, since I thought it was a very interesting, relevent topic

 

[strange headache]

What I really need to know is whether it subverts my expectations?

The Iliad is a tragedy ins the sense that it features characters who cannot escape their destiny. How the story ends is well known in advance. Despite subverting no expectation at all, it's still a great story. Nolan's Memento and Tarantino's Pulp Fiction are some of the most well received movies, despite spoilering the ending at the very beginning of the story.

Conversely, The Last Jedi tried subverting every single expectation of the audience, yet it's still a shit movie. Subverting expectations doesn't automatically make for great storytelling.

 

[strange headache]

Btw mt threas over at the gaming side doesn't seem to garner much interest. Kinda disappointed, since I thought it was a very interesting, relevent topic

I'm not too keen to engage in yet another parallel conversation that is stretched over multiple topics, so excuse me for replying replying here instead. To be quite frank, I think your approach to your topic was a bit lopsided.

Examples are too many, be it Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Zelda or really most games.

One of those examples is not like the others. Link is pretty much a silent protagonist which makes it pretty much impossible to give him any character at all. Much like Gordon Freeman, those characters are mere empty vessels through which the story of a game is explored, they aren't supposed to have character flaws in the first place.

GTA5 needed the comically over-the-top Trevor to show at least some villainy, but the other two characters are pretty much good guys.

But that's not true at all. Michael is a deeply flawed and broken character who is eaten up by regret. He's also a hustler, a criminal and a killer. On the outside he may lead a pretty idyllic family life, but behind the facade everything is in shambles. As his midlife crisis pushes him to the breaking point, he has to deal with past mistakes that come back to haunt him. On the contrary, Trevor is pretty much the weakest character in that regard.

Some easy, rough examples of what I'd like to see...

Those examples are way too heavy-handed. Character flaws are supposed to have two things:

They need to be relatable: Character flaws pertain to human nature in the sense that they can be shared and understood by most people. Doesn't matter if people can relate to these traits in a positive (i.e. I share these flaws in different degrees) or negative manner (i.e. I find these traits abhorrent).​

​

They need to be redeemable: The whole point of the heroic struggle is to overcome (or at least gain agency over) these flaws. If you go too much into the extremes (rape, really?), the hero will never be able to redeem himself in the eyes of the audience. There is a fine line between a hero and an antihero. Antiheroes are characters who merely happen to do the right thing but for all the wrong reasons, so intention matters.​

Here, let me give you a few examples: Vanity, anger, low self-esteem, overbearing pride, narcissism, egoism, egotism, hubris, arrogance, greed, obsession, emotionally stunted, apathy, impulsiveness, carelessness, etc... what you are describing are mostly secondary results of these flaws.

Lastly, your examples are way too political in nature, much to the point where I have to wonder whether this topic is about narrative nuance and character flaws or more about agenda pushing. Like, I'm not against the depiction of sexism and racism, but your examples were poorly chosen if you want to stick to the topic at hand rather than let is devolve into yet another political flamewar. No offense, but your approach is just as heavy-handed as those you seek to criticize. Good storytelling is something that can overcome societal divides and excellent storytelling is something that is timeless because it transcends whatever controversy is currently en vogue.

From what I've heard, the villain in Kingdom Come is gay, and I find that great.

Homosexuality is neither a flaw nor a virtue. So what's even your point here? In fact, the main problem with identity politics in storytelling is that this important distinction isn't made at all, oftentimes leading to poor quality in writing.

Please don't consider this a personal attack, merely some constructive criticism.

 

[KevinKeene]

One of those examples is not like the others. Link is pretty much a silent protagonist which makes it pretty much impossible to give him any character at all. Much like Gordon Freeman, those characters are mere empty vessels through which the story of a game is explored, they aren't supposed to have character flaws in the first place.

That's not true. Link in BotW is a fully defined character - he just doesn't speak. But he reacts, acts and even shows facial expressions of someone who is anything but a silent protagonist. That's just Nintendo being cheap/too afraid.

But that's not true at all. Michael is a deeply flawed and broken character who is eaten up by regret. He's also a hustler, a criminal and a killer. On the outside he may lead a pretty idyllic family life, but behind the facade everything is in shambles. As his midlife crisis pushes him to the breaking point, he has to deal with past mistakes that come back to haunt him. On the contrary, Trevor is pretty much the weakest character in that regard.

You misunderstood my GTA5 example. I'm complaining here that these characters are anything but villains - which they should be. Instead of villains with some good traits, they're full on heroes with past happenings. There flaws don't continue in the present though. And Michael having an apathetic family wasn't really effective, considering this is GTA, where everything is parody.

Those examples are way too heavy-handed. Character flaws are supposed to have two things:

Sorry, I disagree with all three of your points

1) As I replied in my topic, it's not about subtlety. Existing heroes and villains aren't subtle about their goodness/evilness. So neither should their moral imperfections be.

2) I don't think any of my examples are unrelatable. Some a bit more, others a bit less. Also I used examples that would make it clear what is meant. Your examples fit the criteria, too, but they're too everyday. That might fit some heroes, but not all. And a slightly arrogant or egotistical hero doesn't sound that interesting. That's basically most jrpg heroes ever

3) I absolutely disagree that flaws need to redeemable. That'd be true for a story that wants to teach a moral lesson to its audience, but not for story that simply tells a story.
Vegeta in Dragonball murdered countless human beings before he finally joined the good guys. As a big DB-fan I can say confidently: nothing he's done has redeemed his evil past. He has saved some since, but he'd have a lot to stil make up for. Which requires the base to even make up for it, because one could say saving others doesn't make the murder of again others okay. But that's okay, because DB is not a moral lesson. It tells a progression of happenings,be they whatever they want to.

Since you seem to be offended at the idea of a hero committing rape (which is already excellent proof for why it'd be interesting btw), I'd like to elaborate on that. First of all, it's not irredeemable either, which you seem to think (?). Secondly, it'd be a fascinating situation to witness. I'm not talking about a mindless beast of a man, going on a rape-spree over the course of the game. In the context of relatability, it could be a case of drunk rape, misreading signs, etc.. in the context of fantasy settings, it could be mind control that forces the hero to commit such crime. There's countless ways to do it. And that's just the mist extreme. A little sexual harassment, verbal even, could be enough to present the flaws in a hero. Don't get hung up on these examples.

What I'd like to see is heroes and villains that challenge our perception. So no, there's zero political agenda in my posting, I just really want here and villains that at times vastly stray off their expected path. Stories that show that one isn't a complete monster for committing a mistake, or isn't a good person for doing good in one aspect. I googled and apparently there's a name for such literature: transgressive literature. I'd like that in video games.

​

Homosexuality is neither a flaw nor a virtue. So what's even your point here?

Just because I really don't want that to be mistaken: you REALLY got that one wrong. I actually used 'being homosexual' as a positive trait here (which is dumb, too, it's a trait,neither positive nor negative) in an otherwise evil character.

Please don't consider this a personal attack, merely some constructive criticism.

Don't worry, I didn't. It's why I took the time to elaborate on the above points. I really think we're too used too black and white concepts of heroes and villains, so much that even mere talk about changing that can be difficult.

 

[TheGraykid]

The Iliad is a tragedy ins the sense that it features characters who cannot escape their destiny. How the story ends is well known in advance. Despite subverting no expectation at all, it's still a great story. Nolan's Memento and Tarantino's Pulp Fiction are some of the most well received movies, despite spoilering the ending at the very beginning of the story.

Conversely, The Last Jedi tried subverting every single expectation of the audience, yet it's still a shit movie. Subverting expectations doesn't automatically make for great storytelling.

Memento and Pulp Fiction pretty much spend their entire run times subverting the audiences expectations. Memento specifically constantly reveals information that changes your viewpoints on the characters therein. And the last Jedi is pretty damn good in my book. I agree with your final point though.

 

[strange headache]

That's not true. Link in BotW is a fully defined character - he just doesn't speak. But he reacts, acts and even shows facial expressions of someone who is anything but a silent protagonist. That's just Nintendo being cheap/too afraid.

Link is by definition a silent protagonist, didn't you read the link I provided (no pun intended)? You say it so yourself, he doesn't speak! The fact that he reacts makes him a reactive silent protagonist, but that's beside the point. Whether you think Nintendo is 'too afraid' is up to your subjective interpretation, as it stands my aforementioned reasons are why Nintendo prefers to keep Link that way.

I'm complaining here that these characters are anything but villains - which they should be. Instead of villains with some good traits, they're full on heroes with past happenings. There flaws don't continue in the present though.

You're free to disagree, but all three protagonists are far from 'full on heroes' and their flaws continue well into the present as evidenced by the video I provided. As I already stated before, Michael's family isn't his only problem and it would be silly to assume that he didn't directly contribute to his rather sad family situation. GTA V may be satire, but that doesn't diminish the story in any way. I find it a little bit dishonest that you so easily dismiss a game that's trying to do exactly what you're wishing for in the first place.

As I replied in my topic, it's not about subtlety. Existing heroes and villains aren't subtle about their goodness/evilness. So neither should their moral imperfections be.

Subtlety has nothing to do with what I said. Besides, most heroes a rather subtle about their virtues, because people don't like boastful heroes very much.

Your examples fit the criteria, too, but they're too everyday. That might fit some heroes, but not all. And a slightly arrogant or egotistical hero doesn't sound that interesting. That's basically most jrpg heroes ever.

But that's exactly my point. The reason why you consider these flaws 'too everyday' is because everybody can relate to them! And yes, nobody likes arrogant or egotistical heroes, hence why they are subtle about their heroism.

I absolutely disagree that flaws need to redeemable. That'd be true for a story that wants to teach a moral lesson to its audience, but not for story that simply tells a story.
Vegeta in Dragonball murdered countless human beings before he finally joined the good guys. [...] But that's okay, because DB is not a moral lesson.

The whole point about Vegeta is his attempt to come to terms with what he has done in the past and his continued struggle with his own overbearing pride. Also you seem to forget the reason why Vegeta was evil in the first place. It's because he grew up in an unforgiving environment. At a young age he saw his father die and his whole planet wiped out and then he was forced to work under Frieza's iron fist. So it's not like Vegeta had any real agency over his actions. Later on he encounters Goku who's the first person ever to show him compassion, which makes him switch sides over time. Later on, he lets Babidi take control over him and for that he has to pay with his life by killing himself when fighting Buu.

If you think DB isn't a moral lesson, you're dearly mistaken. Throughout DB (and to a lesser extent DBZ) Goku time and time again turns his enemies into friends by showing compassion (Tenshin, Picoolo, Vegeta, #18, Buu, etc...). It's what makes Goku such a great character in the first place. There is of course also the fact that DB convey the message that you have to work (or train) hard in order to reach your goal.

Since you seem to be offended at the idea of a hero committing rape (which is already excellent proof for why it'd be interesting btw)

Oh yes, I'm literally shaking right now and ready to get out my pitchfork. I think you're forgetting who you're talking to, so I'd appreciate if you could ease up on your edgy buzzwords there. I'm interested in the topic at hand, not what offends people for the sake of being offensive. This isn't about you or me, but what constitutes good storytelling.

What I'd like to see is heroes and villains that challenge our perception. So no, there's zero political agenda in my posting, I just really want here and villains that at times vastly stray off their expected path.

Fair enough.

you REALLY got that one wrong. I actually used 'being homosexual' as a positive trait here (which is dumb, too, it's a trait,neither positive nor negative) in an otherwise evil character.

So I'm wrong for exactly pointing out the same error that you yourself just admitted to being 'dumb'? Alrighty then...

 

[MoFuzz]

Hardly, because these days we expect our expectations to subverted. Hence why Shyamalan had it tough to keep up his shtick.

The Iliad is a tragedy ins the sense that it features characters who cannot escape their destiny. How the story ends is well known in advance. Despite subverting no expectation at all, it's still a great story. Nolan's Memento and Tarantino's Pulp Fiction are some of the most well received movies, despite spoilering the ending at the very beginning of the story.

Conversely, The Last Jedi tried subverting every single expectation of the audience, yet it's still a shit movie. Subverting expectations doesn't automatically make for great storytelling.

I agree with both of your statements. My silly reply was an attempt at sarcasm, though it didn't appear to be obvious enough. Internet and all that.

As to my actual thoughts on the matter, I think it's tragic that people are happy to tear down old devices that have worked for a millenia, yet in its place they have put absolute garbage and propped it up to be "bold" and "adventurous". Yes, it's nice to venture outside the box, and it can definitely make for interesting results, but when your entire work is framed around doing the opposite of what people expect, it ironically becomes just as predictable once people see what you are doing. Case in point: TLJ.

I also think genre subversion is likely an easier path to work with than self-subversion.

 

[KevinKeene]

Strange, I just want to say I have zero illwill against you. Your tone makes me think you believe I'm out to get you. I'm just discussing. Just wanted to point that out to deescalate things. It's an interesting topic

Link is by definition a silent protagonist, didn't you read the link I provided (no pun intended)? You say it so yourself, he doesn't speak! The fact that he reacts makes him a reactive silent protagonist, but that's beside the point. Whether you think Nintendo is 'too afraid' is up to your subjective interpretation, as it stands my aforementioned reasons are why Nintendo prefers to keep Link that way.

I held the same opinion as you - until Twilight Princess happened. Ever since then, Link has been presented like a fully defined character. He's no longer an avatar for the player. Add voice acting and he'd be no less defined than, say, Nathan Drake.

GTA V may be satire, but that doesn't diminish the story in any way. I find it a little bit dishonest that you so easily dismiss a game that's trying to do exactly what you're wishing for in the first place.

Can't help it. A parody or comedy always take some distance between the themes at hand and the player. Nobody ever cried from being emotionally touched by a GTA-game.

But that's exactly my point. The reason why you consider these flaws 'too everyday' is because everybody can relate to them!

But there's a thing such as 'too relatable'. We can relate to the general idea of a hero doing good, but most of us cannot relate to actually saving the world, fighting monsters, etc.. Same goes for flaws. There are instantaneously relatable' flaws (like arrogancy), but that doesn't mean there can't be more unique, further detached flaws, too.

The whole point about Vegeta is his attempt to come to terms with what he has done in the past.

If you think DB isn't a moral lesson, you're dearly mistaken.

I strongly disagree. If you force it, then yes, there's some message to be derived . But that's akin to the 'every game is political'-crowd, which I strongly disagree with, too.

And nothing Vegeta has done has redeemed his past crimes. Having a tough childhood is an explanation, not an excuse.

So I'm wrong for exactly pointing out the same error that you yourself just admitted to being 'dumb'? Alrighty then...

I was half-joking. But i didn't want to remain the impression that I might view homosexuality as a character flaw.

 

[strange headache]

Strange, I just want to say I have zero illwill against you. Your tone makes me think you believe I'm out to get you.

Me neither, as evidenced by me 'liking' your reply. That being said, I don't react kindly when people make false assumptions about myself.

I held the same opinion as you - until Twilight Princess happened.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but you would be hard pressed presenting any factual evidence for it. My argument was not about how I view Link as a character, but what he actually is, a silent protagonist. I'd like to think that I have presented enough evidence for that.

Can't help it. A parody or comedy always take some distance between the themes at hand and the player.

Since you seem to be well versed in anime, what about My Hero Academia or Gurren Lagann? Do you feel distanced from these characters?

We can relate to the general idea of a hero doing good, but most of us cannot relate to actually saving the world, fighting monsters, etc.. Same goes for flaws. There are instantaneously relatable' flaws (like arrogancy), but that doesn't mean there can't be more unique, further detached flaws, too.

Helping one person or helping every person on earth is merely a quantitative not a qualitative distinction. So not, it's not like you can't relate to a hero saving the world, since your mind is easily capable of diminishing and exaggerating its cognitive notions. I still stand by my assertion that flaws need to be relatable and redeemable in the eyes of the audience, otherwise you'll end up not with a hero but an antihero. Doesn't mean that they can't be more unique or out there, but the further you go, the less appealing your story becomes. In over 2.500 years of storytelling, we have yet to find one single evidence of a 'rapist hero' and for good reason. This has nothing to do with my personal predispositions.

I strongly disagree. If you force it, then yes, there's some message to be derived. But that's akin to the 'every game is political'-crowd, which I strongly disagree with, too.

Feel feel to disagree, but considering that DB is heavily influenced by Journey to the West, a deeply philosophical and Buddhist tale that presents many of the same themes, your stance is shaky at best. Seems more like you're willfully blind to these recurring themes due to your strong distaste for 'the PC crowd'. As for me, I enjoy these themes immensely and it's one of the reasons why I enjoy that show so much (especially DB).

Again, I thought we were talking about heroism, flaws and morality, so I find it kinda weird that you react so negatively when I bring it up in the context of DB. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but how are we able to discuss these things, when you seem so heavily biased against it? Let me reassure you that politics has nothing to do with morality, so maybe it's best to not confuse both.

I think this discussion would be much more fruitful, if it would stay away from whatever political hot topic, hence why I took umbrage with your examples in the first place.

 

[EviLore]

strange headache What's your preferred translation? Great thread, btw, and if possible I'd rather it be about The Iliad than a largely unrelated back and forth.

I read The Iliad as a young teen (whatever was public domain; pretty sure the Alexander Pope translation) but haven't retained much in the couple decades since. Yesterday I ended up pouring over various comparisons and critiques of the available translations (e.g. here, here, here) thanks to this thread, and picked up the Stephen Mitchell version. Mitchell's seems very close to the original Greek, unembellished and consistent, while remaining highly readable.

At these words, Hector ran from the house, back along
the route he had taken through the broad streets of Troy.
He had crossed the city and come to the Scaean Gates,
where soon he would make his way out onto the plain,
when breathlessly his wife came running to meet him,
Andromache, King Ëétion’s noble daughter
(he had ruled the Cilícians in Thebē under the wooded
slopes of Mount Placus). Now she ran up to meet him,
and behind her a handmaid came who was holding the child
in her arms, an infant, cooing and gurgling, Hector’s
beloved son, as beautiful as a star.
Though Hector had named him Scamándrius, everyone called him
Astýanax, “Lord of the City,” because his father
seemed to them all the one defender of Troy.
Hector smiled as he looked at the boy in silence.
Andromache came even closer and stood beside him
weeping and said to him, taking his hand in hers,
“My dearest, this reckless courage of yours will destroy you.
Have pity now on your little boy and on me,
your unfortunate wife, who before long will be your widow.
Soon the Achaeans will kill you, and when you are gone,
it will be far better for me to die and sink down
under the earth, since once you have met your fate
I will have no comfort—only unending sorrow.
I have no one else. My father and mother are dead.
Achilles cut down my father when he took Thebē,
though he didn’t strip off his armor—respect touched his heart
and he couldn’t do that—he burned his body with all
his beautiful war gear and heaped a mound over his ashes,
and the nymphs of the mountain planted elm trees around it.
I had seven brothers, who lived in my father’s palace,
and all of them, on the very same day, went down
to the realm of Hades; Achilles slaughtered them all
while they were tending their sheep and their lumbering oxen.
As for my mother, the queen of our proud city,
he carried her here along with the rest of his spoils,
then set her free, in exchange for a huge ransom;
but Ártemis shot her down in her father’s halls.
Hector, you are my everything now: my father,
my mother, my brother—and my beloved husband.
Have pity on me. Stay with me here on the tower.
Don’t make your child an orphan, your wife a widow.”

Hector answered her, “Dearest, what you have said
troubles me too. Yet I would feel terrible shame
at facing the men and the long-robed women of Troy
if, like a coward, I shrank from the fighting. Nor can I:
my heart would never allow that; it is my place
to be brave and scorn danger and always fight in the front line,
winning great fame for my father and for myself.
But however it is, deep in my heart I know
that a day will come when the sacred city of Troy
will be devastated, and Priam, and Priam’s people.
And yet it is not their anguish that troubles me so,
nor Hecuba’s, nor even my father King Priam’s,
nor the blood of the many brave brothers of mine who will fall
in the dirt at the hands of their enemies—that is nothing
compared to your grief, when I picture you being caught
by some bronze-armored Achaean who claims you and takes
your freedom away and carries you off in tears.
Then, all your life, in the Argives’ land, you will work
long days, bent over the loom of some stern mistress
or carrying water up from her well—hating it
but having no choice, for harsh fate will press down upon you.
And someone will say, as he sees you toiling and weeping,
‘That is the wife of Hector, bravest of all
the Trojans, tamers of horses, when the great war
raged around Troy.’ And then a fresh grief will flood
your heart, and you will start sobbing again at the thought
of the only man who was able to ward off your bondage.
But may I be dead, with the cold earth piled up upon me,
before I can hear you wail as they drag you away.”

Then Hector reached out to take his son, but the child
shrank back, screaming, into his nurse’s arms,
scared by the flashing bronze and the terrible horsehair
crest that kept shaking at him from the peak of the helmet.
At this, his father and mother both burst out laughing;
and right away Hector took off his helmet and laid it,
glittering, on the ground. And he picked up the child,
dandled him in his arms and stroked him and kissed him
and said this prayer to Zeus and the other immortals:
“Zeus and you other gods who can hear my prayer,
grant that this child, this boy of mine, may grow up
to be as I am, outstanding among the Trojans,
strong and brave, and rule over Troy with great power.
And let people say of him, ‘He is a better man
than his father was,’ as they see him returning from battle,
having killed his enemy, carrying back in triumph
the gore-stained armor to gladden his mother’s heart.”

He handed the child to his wife then, and she took him
to her fragrant breast and smiled with tears in her eyes.
And looking at her, her husband was touched with pity,
and he stroked her face, and he said, “My foolish darling,
please do not take these things so greatly to heart.
No man shall send me to Hades before my time,
and no man, I promise, has ever escaped his fate
from the moment that he was born, whether brave man or coward.
Go now, return to our house and your daily work
at loom and spindle; command your women as well
to go about their work. The men must take care of the fighting—
all men of Troy, but I more than any other.”

As he said this, Hector picked up his gleaming helmet
with its horsehair crest. Andromache walked home, slowly,
and she stopped many times, turning around to look back
and bitterly weeping. And when she came to the palace
of man-killing Hector, she found all her handmaids inside,
and they burst into lamentation. So, in his own house,
they mourned for Hector even though he was alive,
for they thought that he would never return from the fighting
or escape from the deadly hands of the Achaeans.

Paris did not remain in his palace for long.
Once he had put on his beautiful inlaid armor
he rushed through the city, confident of his swift legs.
Just as a stabled horse who has fully eaten
breaks his tether and gallops across the plain,
eager to have a swim in the fast-flowing river,
and exults as he runs—he holds his head high, and his mane
streams in the wind, and he runs on, aware of his own
magnificence, to the fields where the mares are at pasture:
so Paris ran down from the height of Pérgamus, shining
in his armor like sunlight, exulting, laughing out loud,
and his swift legs carried him onward. And right away
he caught up with Hector, as he was leaving the spot
where he just had been speaking so tenderly with his wife.

Paris said, “Here I am, Brother; I must have delayed you
by taking so long and not coming as fast as youwished.”

And Hector answered, “What kind of warrior are you?
No man of any sense could ever belittle
your exploits in war, since you are such a brave fighter;
but then you slack off and willfully hang back from battle,
and my heart is grieved when I hear the contemptuous words
of our men, who endure such hardship because of you.
But come. Later on, we will make these things right, if someday
Zeus grants that we celebrate, drinking wine in our halls
in thanks to the gods for our freedom— if we should ever
manage to drive the Achaeans away from Troy.”

 

[KevinKeene]

You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but you would be hard pressed presenting any factual evidence for it. My argument was not about how I view Link as a character, but what he actually is, a silent protagonist. I'd like to think that I have presented enough evidence for that.

Maybe we have different ideas of what constitutes as a silent protagonist. Imo it's not about literally being silent. It's about expressimg no emotional reaction at all, hence being a vessel for the player to use as his link into the game world. Link isn't that. He reacts, he makes decisions in cutscenes, shows affection, etc.. He even moves his lips in Skyward Sword. All of that makes me no longer call him a silent protagonist.

Since you seem to be well versed in anime, what about My Hero Academia or Gurren Lagann? Do you feel distanced from these characters?

Surely you're not implying that those anime are parodies? They're taking themselves 100% seriously, so of course I feel close to those characters. Kamiya ...

Helping one person or helping every person on earth is merely a quantitative not a qualitative distinction.

Actually, I have to disagree here. It's very much a qualitative distinction to try help one person or ... all persons. The basic principle of helping others is the same, but the decision to do the latter requires an immensely different motivation than the former, so much that I think it's less relatable. The wish to help everybody might be relatable, but not actually doing it.

I still stand by my assertion that flaws need to be relatable and redeemable in the eyes of the audience, otherwise you'll end up not with a hero but an antihero. Doesn't mean that they can't be more unique or out there, but the further you go, the less appealing your story becomes. In over 2.500 years of storytelling, we have yet to find one single evidence of a 'rapist hero' and for good reason. This has nothing to do with my personal predispositions.

I think that's a lazy stance, though. Maybe we should use murder as am example imstead of rape, althoug you seem to think that's a redeemable flaw, see Vegeta ;o Rape is an everday occurence, as terrible as that might be. Again, I'm not talking about this clichee of a beast of a man dragging his victim into a dark sidestreet. Pardon the 'hot topic', but what's most prevalent in the so-called 'rape culture' is drunk rape. Taking advantage of a girl who drank too much. It's non-violent, but wrong nevertheless. And it's a relatable scenario, be it from personal experience or hear-say. As someone who believes in rehabilitation (and again, pardon me for these politics), I don't see rape as an irredeemable crime, especially not when murderer are forgiven in so many stories. So considering both these points, I'd find a 'rapist hero' extremely interesting. It'd be the source of so much inner and outer conflict, for philosophical discourse and tough, but needed choices. Imagine you're playing a jrpg, you're the hero who is the only one who can save the world. But he drunk-raped another party member. He won't reach the goal if the party dissolves, so what will it be? Screw saving the world or make do with a gross jerk? And if so, how? There's so much interesting nuance to work with, it'd be fantastic if handled competently. One of my favorite games of all times, Skies of Arcadia, has a scene im the original release that hints at Vigoro trying to rape hero member Aika. Nothing is shown, and it doesn't delve deeper into it. But it adds moral depth and relatability.
If you want to keep discussing this sentiment but are uncomfortable with the rape-example, please switch to murder, if that's better.

Feel feel to disagree, but

I'm not saying that SB can't have a message or be based on something. But ailm saying that reading it never felt like it was about any special message. It was (is) a great story, telling the adventures of a boy. That's fine with me.

Let me reassure you that politics has nothing to do with morality, so maybe it's best to not confuse both.

Then let me reassure you that I'm not bringing up any example as means for political discourse or even agenda. I simply wanted to both make clear what level of flaws I'm talking about (because, again, I think the flaws you mentioned are too mundane) as well as come up with something that'd be truly fresh, unused.

Maybe let's rather talk about 'flawed' villains, villains that aren't all evil. Because those are rare im games, too. No wonder, since it has to be somehow justified why the player is shootimg the villain inthe face at the end of the game -_-


Edit: I didn't see this as a thread to actually discuss the Illiad, but it being an elaborate example of why tropes aren't to be condemned. If that isn't so, I apologize, strange headache.

 

[strange headache]

strange headache What's your preferred translation? Great thread, btw, and if possible I'd rather it be about The Iliad than a largely unrelated back and forth.

Hey there, thanks for coming by and bringing the topic back on track. Much obliged

I read The Iliad as a young teen (whatever was public domain; pretty sure the Alexander Pope translation) but haven't retained much in the couple decades since. Yesterday I ended up pouring over various comparisons and critiques of the available translations (e.g. here, here, here) thanks to this thread, and picked up the Stephen Mitchell version. Mitchell's seems very close to the original Greek, unembellished and consistent, while remaining highly readable.

Hmm, I've read The Iliad in German translation by Wolfgang Schadewaldt years ago, so I really can't give you a well-informed answer, I'm afraid. But his translation was written in rhythmic prose, which seems to be close in style to your translation by Mitchell. What's a bit weird though is how he seems to spell the Homeric names. Achilles for example is pronounced with a 'k', so in my humble opinion Akhilleus or Achilleus would be much closer to the original (same with Hektor). But that's just a minor niggle, from what I can gather, it's a pretty nifty translation.

But, if you want something a lot more accessible, I recommend the modern prose version from John Dolan's The War Nerd Iliad (Amazon link). I bought it myself recently, which inspired me to make this topic in the first place. It is pretty far from Ancient Greek, but content-wise it is accurate and written with modern sensitivities in mind. I had so much fun reading it, that I can only but give it my most glowing praise. I really recommend it to anybody who wants to relive this timeless story.

P.S.: That article from The New Yorker was pretty cool!

 

[LordOfChaos]

OP is incredible, thank you!

The Iliad, the Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, I loved reading all these old epics in university, sometimes it's the vagueness in the writing that made them interesting.

 

[John Day]

Awesome read, i must say! And I agree, tropes aren’t inherently bad.

 

[EviLore]

About 1/3 through my reading (Mitchell translation mentioned above), and I've found myself highlighting an inordinate amount of passages as I go. As per the OP's thesis, The Iliad is a testament to the ultimate staying power of craftsmanship and style in storytelling. Subversion of expectation, twists, or emotionally manipulative melodrama might evoke laughter or tears or excitement in the moment, but there's a cheapness to relying on those tools that becomes more apparent the farther removed the audience becomes to the experience.

The Iliad revels in the telling of the story itself. It doesn't tug at heartstrings when someone takes a spear to the throat, even as it pauses to contextualize and humanize the man's death by recalling his life before moving on, or makes use of an extended simile to paint a vivid picture of the moment. There doesn't need to be a twist or even a climax; I'm not turning pages to find out what happens next, but to experience the new joys of each moment. Conversations, arguments (hold your breath when Achilles enters the room), battle cries, descriptions of a scene, and interventions of the gods flowing between supernatural and humanist perspectives (like Apollo loosing arrows at the Achaeans in the form of a plague) all leave their own powerful impressions and paint a vivid, engrossing world of heroes and gods and men.

 

[Kadayi]

Read the Illiad years ago. Not sure if I'm up for reading it again, but any recommendations on the best audible version would be appreciated.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

A movie could never do an epic saga like the Illiad justice. It begs an adaptation to tv, along the same lines as Game of Thrones.

 

[EviLore]

A movie could never do an epic saga like the Illiad justice. It begs an adaptation to tv, along the same lines as Game of Thrones.

I gave Troy a rewatch, and it's still confoundingly, "The Atheist's Iliad, " and dry as can be for it. Hector's portrayed as woke for not believing in the interventionist gods, arguing with the priests on and on since they're interfering with his battle strategy, and Achilles mentions he's seen the gods and they're not all that (his only on-screen interaction is with his mom, who in typical Troy form is more or less an aging widow with a magic 8 ball; hardly a goddess). That's about the extent of it. Everything is neutered, from Hector's corpse being dragged around ignominiously to Helen's self-deprecation about her circumstances. Man, does she call herself a bitch a lot in the book for being the catalyst of the ten-year siege and slaughter, if completely understandably...Paris is the real bitch, though.

A proper screen adaptation would be no easy feat, theatrical or TV. The story is such a lush treat for the imagination; peak form for its medium.

 

[strange headache]

I gave Troy a rewatch, and it's still confoundingly, "The Atheist's Iliad, " and dry as can be for it.

I haven't watched the movie in ages, but from my hazy memory of it these are the reasons why I didn't like it very much either. By neutering the mythological aspects they essentially stripped the story of much of its depth, making it more a run-of-the mill action movie. Most of the characters are also much too black and white for my taste and it doesn't give justice to Homer's retelling at all.

From the lofty frivolous heights, to the dark depressing facets of reality, the Iliad serves it all whereas the movie stayed rather flat, not daring to extend its reach for the sake of appealing to the modern movie audience. Most of the protagonist's mannerisms and behaviors were rather severely toned down, especially when it comes to Archilleus. He was a bit moody in the movie, but that was a far cry from the capricious behavior depicted in the source material.

I also would have liked, if the movie delved a little bit more into the excessive descriptions that I mentioned in my OP, although I'm not so sure how that would translate to the screen. I guess it would look more akin to the amazing cinematography that we've seen in Blade Runner (2049) where the movie takes all its time to linger on certain details and its symbolism.



Yeah I know it sounds weird and a bit crazy, but I imagine a movie where you can have these magnificent slower scenes interrupted by fast paced intense action, giving it a rather distinct rhythm that is constantly changing its pace. Because that's kinda the erratic impression you get when reading the Iliad, it's not very even. In a sense, I think Children of Men tried to do exactly that and it worked out pretty great:

 

[TrainedRage]

I have been reading the OP over the course of 10 days..... I'm still not finished.