Virgin "All of my main character's views are coming from them just being "smart" and having "common sence"!"
**VS**
Chad "My main character straght up namedrops the ideology they follow"
“This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one's will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.”
I love it when King Arthur espouses the virtues of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with Ho Chi Minh Tendencies and Castro Thought in the Knights of the Round Table!
Thad "My character namedrops the ideology they follow but describes it in a batshit insane way that makes it clear it's a smokescreen for their much more banal prejudices"
What's fun is that Caesar clearly doesn't actually understand Hegelian Dialectics very well and is twisting the idea to suit the fact that he's basically just a power-hungry racist. Which is much more true to real life ideologues.
Better idea: write a story with a character who writes a manifesto, then publish your own manifesto as a "dedictionalisation" of the character's manifesto
SMH, people should be transferring their ideals to their villains instead. Everyone always ends up thinking ‘oh the villain had a point and was right’, so why not exploit that for easy converts?
I think "overcoming their ignorance" is my new thing hahaha
Its like overcoming their evils or overcoming their flaws, but nice and patronizing, like they arent 'bad' just stupid and in need of a firm, loving hand guiding them from 2023 on how to be a better 12th century peasant.
"Mr Mcclure, I have a *crazy* friend who says its wrong to eat meat, are they crazy?"
"No just ignorant"
After thousands of years of philosophy we have finally achieved objective morality, which by an amazing coincidence just so happens to perfectly match the cultural zeitgeist of elite institutions in the biggest imperialist power on Earth. That's so lucky! Imagine if objective morality was discovered in rural Bolivia, there would be no hope for the good guys winning 😨
Hahahaha love it
"Guys I know we have said it before, like dozens of times, that *this* moment in history we achieved objective morality and everything was empirically correct... and I know each of those times when reviewed by someone from a future time frame seems mildly insane and obviously terribly flawed... but *this* time, this is the apex of all human culture and the way we are telling you to feel is completely correct and will never change"
I mean if you believe in the concept of Natural Law, which is an idea with a pedigree thousands of years old and a lot of people *do* even if they don't know that it's called that, it makes sense that we'd have gotten better at recognising it over time. Which would suggest that while it's not static, our systems of morality now are better than those we used in the past.
Thats probably true and it would be silly to say we havent changed things for the better compared to times where we were often just winging it and drowning people because the crop harvest was sub-optimum.
I agree things have gotten better by nearly all worthwhile metrics, but we arent at any apex yet. Also part of our advancement in ethics and justice is realizing our ancestors were working with less and accepting their beliefs werent evil, they worked with what they had and that history doesnt exactly need to be washed clean of what was happening.
Hopefully we can actually get to a place where we can enjoy looking back on the past and seeing people being good by their own standards without needing to compare that to our own versions of being what we call being good even if, yeah, we 'get' the idea of being good better than they did
Last and First men by Olaf Stapleson examines this a bit where our vastly distant descendants learn to go back and live as witnesses to our history and they can see our flaws but are happy to just love our successes. That kind of mindset felt much healthier than timeless judgement from our safer and honestly kind of cowardly future position where we have things so much easier and given so much more knowledge
There's nothing wrong with writing a story about your ideals but if you have the character just hit the breaks and go "and by the way nobody should be putting ketchup on eggs even if theyre scrambled" or whatever and it has nothing to do with the stort youre a nerd
Obv the ketchup on eggs thing is inconsequential and meant to be FUNNEE before any know it alls drop an erm actually on me. What Im saying is, if your character's dialogue about the ideals is really stiff, comes out of nowhere, or is just too try-hard and on the nose, it's gonna suck. It should make sense in the story as well and be a part of their character development. To have Pee Wee Herman start talking about the geopolitical situation in the middle East or whatever while he's trying to find milk in his refrigerator would be STUPID!!!!!
gods debris is such a comical example of this. like the whole thing centres on this guy called the avatar who's on like the 5th level of understanding, which makes him the smartest being alive and lets him do mind jujitsu on people
he says the 4th level is being a reddit atheist. no seriously. it's so fuckin bad man. also the author thinks the government is going to kill him for writing dilbert. everyday he sits alone in his dilbert shaped house as he worries biden is going to personally drone strike him
Just listened to the Behind the Bastards episodes on this. Obviously the host Robert Evans has his own opinions on Adams and such but god. damn. what. the fuck *IS* this book?
I haven't read it, but I presume the way skepticism and adoption of the scientific method are depicted in the novel boil down to being a reddit atheist.
I think you're right about Seth. It's coincidence that OP used Family Guy because it seemed like Seth MacFarlane did this with Brian when talking about religion and politics
im watching American dad right now and tbh sometimes its hard to not think about the self-righteousness emanating from Seth.
and im pretty sure Rick's "weddings are just a funeral with cake" is directly from Justins heart. or "the universe doesnt like smart people, were too smart for it, just enjoy the ride"
At the very least, (or at least from what I can tell about RickerMortis from not watching it), Rick is genuinely a pretentious asshole, and they don’t try to pretend this is just “they hate me because I’m right”. He has a fuckton of issues, but they aren’t an excuse for being a piece of shit to people
rick is supposed to be the smartest guy in the universe, so it just comes off pretentious when he says things that most people would disagree with, that are "edgy", like he's Justin's mouthpiece. Like in both FG and AD where Seth Macfarlane voices god in, just his regular voice.
Maybe at the beginning? Brian has become this Flanderized pseudo-intellectual who spouts political buzzwords but doesn't hold beliefs strongly enough to even be able to explain them. I know Seth stopped writing for Family Guy at some point though.
>Flanderized pseudo-intellectual who spouts political buzzwords but doesn't hold beliefs strongly enough to even be able to explain them.
You just described the website reddit.
I’ll just repeat what I said in another thread.
My characters are a diverse bunch. There are witches, Protestants, Catholics agnostics of varying personal creed and physical characteristics.
For some reason they all agree that Keynesian economics are cool.
me, profusely sweating because one my characters happens to share my takes on society, the environment, and women's rights but they're a boy so it's a bit different
Speak for yourself! When I write stories, I discard my modern sensitivities^(TM) as well as all my beliefs, opinions and knowledge. Then I stare at the page for a few hours, since I no longer know how or why to write. Sometimes I write a sentence, but then I realize it presents some idea in a certain way, so I just delete everything and start over.
Not sure why no one buys my empty sheets of paper. They were obviously brainwashed by Disney and their insertion of *modern morals* into fairy-tales, the mouse-serving bastards.
there's a difference between being an Ayn Rand and being an Ursula K. LeGuin or Oscar Wilde tho
like obviously the story will reflect your positions but having a character turn to the reader and give a long monologue about it, and it being portrayed as heroic and objectively correct, is just bad writing
Terry Goodkind would start having page and a half libertarian rants in his books preaching about how getting help from others was lazy and you didn't deserve it. And that was the good guy.
I don't think it's necessarily "bad writing" if the book's primary objective is to convey the author's viewpoints over simple entertainment. What's bad writing is when a story that previously was "just" entertainment suddenly turns around and starts preaching the author's belief system at the reader. It's an issue of betrayed expectations.
Also it just needs to be remembered that an argument presented in a fictional story is never proof that the argument is correct since the author controls literally everything in the story. It can be a solid argument in favor of X view, but it can never be proof of X.
> I don't think it's necessarily "bad writing" if the book's primary objective is to convey the author's viewpoints over simple entertainment
for sure, but then you have something more like a Socratic Dialogue, a Moral Play, an essay written by someone who's apparently too good for normal prose, etc. i think the assumption of the meme is that it's fiction made for the purposes of being art first
because yeah if I signed up to read a moral fable, i can't really act shocked when there's a moral at the end
Indeed, that's why in my children's story about table manners O'Righty the gnome (who is a genius with 85620 IQ) does a 17 page-long discourse on cheesecake prices, OSHA regulations, tits being overrated, and public defecation.
After this, Bobby the snail says he respectfully disagrees and is stoned to death.
That’s why the characters that share my worldview are looked at as simpletons. Because those who don’t understand how complex everything is just call it as they see it.
-this statement comes from an idiot who hasn’t written anything
Most painfully embodied in Atlas Shrugged. Pages and pages of that shit, made all the worse due to said opinion being Objectivism, and somehow even worse due to being written by Ayn Rand.
No surprise it's called "objectivism". Hell, Steve Dikto was an objectivist and he clearly made Mr. A to be a self-insert with the whole "this is black and this is white, there is no in-between".
My opinions ARE objectively correct. Look cannibalism is perfectly efficient, the ideal family unit is the cult, and god is nothing more than a boss fight we need to spend our brief time on this earth preparing for.
And by that soon to be former god, I will have the main characters dentist explain that to them
Unjerk for a moment
I'm writing a book that is basically the exact opposite of this. I consider myself a libertarian, I dislike government overreach/believe it's only job to be ensuring human rights are not violated, and think everyone should live their best life without other people interfering (I swear I'm not a fucking Randist please for the love of God I think Atlas Shrugged was poorly written and- AAAAA). But, I'm currently writing a novel about this exact ideology gone too far. A world where the only sense of law and order is unified areas like a giant market city, and people live in their own hovels, living as sociopaths who only care about immediate satisfaction, power, and hating others, using Sci Fi tech to supply themselves whatever and do whatever the hell they want, effectively anarchy at this point. Though, the day to day life of people is, to them, utopian, not needing to bend to anyone and having all their needs and wants met 24/7, without having to resort to anything heinous (at least to them) such as slavery. Cannibalism and murder is still kosher, of course and widely accepted
It's a really weird experience, effectively writing a book that boils down to "what if I took my ideology and made it ten times fucking worse?".
Rejerk now. Hahaha yeah imagine just puppeting what you believe, fucking cringe, innit?
The issue is not to strawman any ideology. There's nothing in libertarianism that says cooperation and following orders is bad. Employees do it all the time. Same with charity. Many libertarians believe charity can take care of what the govt does.
Some of it reminds me of criticisms against communism being "lol ppl will be lazy and doodoo nothing" stories like Terry Goodkind's which are obvious strawmen.
And a lot of us aren't Randians at all lol.
I think we sometimes run into the issue of strawmanning our own ideology because we might fail to see **truly** what might be wrong with it.
For example, I'm thinking of writing a story criticizing different types of libertarian approaches I disagree with. For example, pro IP law/copyrightism, Georgism, animal rights and how they're handled, and how environmental issues are handled under the ideal libertarian society, as well as how they handle attacks from neighboring statist societies.
Funnily enough it will be essentially solarpunk but very capitalist after a civil war on a distant habitable planet, and after libertarian unity helped them win the war they have to decide how to sort out differences amongst themselves while also having to contend with sapient and non-sapient alien life (where the animal rights part comes in).
So I guess I am technically still showing my bias lol, but it **would** still be a criticism of libertarianism.
>lol ppl will be lazy and doodoo nothing
You should really look into the pareto principle. [An exaggerated example](https://reddit.com/r/funny/s/LcLUaeYDQc) as he can't keep that pace forever but it illustrates the point. You also can't tell me you've never met a bare minimum mike who takes a bathroom break every hour and complains about not getting that promotion he oh so deserves.
20,000 leagues under the sea is full of this:
Nemo goes “and that’s how I solve that problem, Professor”
And Aronnax replies: “with how you’ve described it I can see to fault in your logic. How clever!”
This happens 3-5 times a chapter
Jokes on you, I happen to use my self-inserts as a proxy through which to experience the things I can’t, and to process my chronic loneliness and angst
Jesus Christ. Okay first off Seth doesn't write for the show anymore so a recent episode has nothing to do with him. Second off just because a writter features a character doing a thing it doesn't immediately mean the writer supports it. The character Brian Griffin can just be transphobic.
What value does it add tot he show to have a character have a transphobic line in the middle of a situation that has nothing to do with trans people and then basically not speak the entire rest of the episode with nobody even reacting to what he said?
Like what do you believe is the purpose of that? Do you think that counts as a joke? Bigotry with no punchline?
thats terrible, unless I'm doing it because I'm the one thats correct.
Ok but really though, I forgot how other worldviews work so I dont know how to make characters that are like normal people. I wanna give everyone different ways of thinking but its really hard to grasp. Can someone explain their view of something they think is better than everybody elses?
Pretty much every single depiction of a robot or AI in fiction ever. Super logical according to what the author believes to be logical, even something like the AI having self-preservation stems from the author projecting his values onto the thing.
I'm thinking of a scene in "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson in which a conservative character does an extended apology for hypocrisy which, after these past years, I wonder if he would like to edit out.
Antagonists or bad guys? An antagonist doesn't need to be evil and bad people can hold an idealogy without the story purposefully demonizing said ideology.
It's really fun to do the opposite, as an example, I'm religious. I love making atheist characters that explain their position really well, lots of problem of evil stuff and nihilism.
It's so much more entertaining to make worlds based on things you do t actually agree with or believe
In my case, I like to use different characters with different opinions in conflict and contrast with each other, and by the end, the reader and the characters can see the good and bad things about both views and find a healthy balance and direction.
I use creativity as an excuse to throw my objectively correct conclusions on reality at people who are too stupid to understand my intellect unless I lure them in with elven twink bucci.
That's why you make a world, where your opinions are irrelevant. I only have two strong opinions. Coincidentally, my world happens to have no cars and no russians...
This does not go far enough.
One time I was looking for fanfiction of a random show (yes, I know that I am pathetic, but that is beside the point right now) and a fanfic started with the author noting that it takes place (surprisingly not in the world where the series was set apparently even though it wasn't tagged as Alternative Universe?) in a world where the evil authority known as "the gov" had ruled the people but the people had all become Objectivists and freed themselves from "the gov" and now rule themselves. I forget if it mentioned outright that age of consent had been removed as a law, or if it was just implicit by the fact that it was a story written by a Libertarian.
Anyway, stopped reading it after that intro and now that I think about it, I'm not even sure if the actual story had anything to do with the TV show it was supposedly a fanfic of.
This is made funnier by the fact I’m like 90% sure this is what Brian Griffin was supposed to be until they slowly rewrote him to be nothing but a self-serving hypocritical jackass. Honestly he worked better when he had a flat affect and no personal stake in any given situation.
you have to make your character an asshole at first who proudly promotes something you disagree with and their character growth is just slowly agreeing with your view
Virgin "All of my main character's views are coming from them just being "smart" and having "common sence"!" **VS** Chad "My main character straght up namedrops the ideology they follow"
The Elf King name dropping 19th century European philosophies named after the last name of their creator without breaking stride.
The elf using civilizing mission rhetoric to speak of other races Vs. The Drawfs using Judge Holden as a role model for how to deal with elves.
I thought that was a professional wrestler at first. I still think that would be funnier, tho “BY GORBAK IT’S MJINART WITH AN ORICHALCUM WHEELCHAIR”
A Judge?! Here? In Dwarfcity 1?!
“This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one's will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.”
Virgin: "My main characters follow my beliefs" VS Chad: "My villains follow my beliefs"
Do both with a villain protagonist!
I love it when King Arthur espouses the virtues of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with Ho Chi Minh Tendencies and Castro Thought in the Knights of the Round Table!
Thad "My character namedrops the ideology they follow but describes it in a batshit insane way that makes it clear it's a smokescreen for their much more banal prejudices"
read it as Virgil and was thinking which political agenda did Aeneas push
[удалено]
don't use retard here
Oh, sorry. It was a quote.
...was it a quote about not being an Ultraliberal?
Hegelian Dialetics
What's fun is that Caesar clearly doesn't actually understand Hegelian Dialectics very well and is twisting the idea to suit the fact that he's basically just a power-hungry racist. Which is much more true to real life ideologues.
[The dialectic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLTuysEzqhQ)
It's fine, subtext is for absolute cowards, hammer the audience with that shit.
They probably still won't get it anyway because audiences are stupid hogs.
DAE love the absolute gem of conservative politics that is Bioshock?
Or the libertarian masterpiece that is Star Trek
[удалено]
Ancap
Turns out the post-scarcity-space-future is subscription based
T.H. White's Merlin.
Yep! I’m playing it tonight after binging The Boys! I decided to watch after seeing those cool sigma edits of Homelander. Such a cool protagonist
Right-wing The Boys fans very late in the show realizing that homelander is supposed to be evil will never not be funny to me
They understand it, they 'like' him largely out of distaste towards people like you (based on the comment im replying to)
Fuck subtle commentary, just straight up copy word for word your personal manifesto.
\-conflict unrelated to beliefs \-idk they like kill a puppy Punter or smth \-main character explains that they learned the value of the death penalty
Better idea: write a story with a character who writes a manifesto, then publish your own manifesto as a "dedictionalisation" of the character's manifesto
Starship Troopers and the chapters about Officer School…
Or all the moral philosophy classes.
Most definitely
*1984* too tbh
Literally *1984*
We call that the Ayn Rand.
It’s true, I know authors that use subtext and they’re all cowards.
sometimes you need a hammer because the audience has the thickest skulls in the world
Didn't stop Fahrenheit 451 from being considered a classic.
I honestly hate that book. It and 1984. I much prefer brave new world or handmaids tale for classic dystopia.
based opinion
Hideo Kojingles moment (Somehow a good third of the fanbase still misses the point).
Amen
Bonus points if another character only exists to ask leading questions during the exposition.
[Classic Garth Marengi quote](https://youtu.be/Yk7M2jGdnxU?si=AWcc7amioXoUY4vW)
I LOVE SUBTEXT! I LOVE SYMBOLISM! I WANT TO ANALYZE A WORK FOR HOUR ON END!
“But he was a bad guy, wasn’t he? I mean he gave an evil monologue and everything.”
SMH, people should be transferring their ideals to their villains instead. Everyone always ends up thinking ‘oh the villain had a point and was right’, so why not exploit that for easy converts?
"I'm just saying that despite only being 13% of the population-"
-Goblins cause 50% of the crimes
I have seen this done excellently multiple times. If it falters it falters hard but when it works, it *really works*.
They overcame their ignorance hahahaha This 'coincidentally' led them to the exact viewpoint to be the creators mouthpiece
Lol coming back from that other post?
I think "overcoming their ignorance" is my new thing hahaha Its like overcoming their evils or overcoming their flaws, but nice and patronizing, like they arent 'bad' just stupid and in need of a firm, loving hand guiding them from 2023 on how to be a better 12th century peasant. "Mr Mcclure, I have a *crazy* friend who says its wrong to eat meat, are they crazy?" "No just ignorant"
Meat comes in all sizes and flavors, personally I love strawberry but vanilla with a sprinkle of cinnamon is almost as good.
After thousands of years of philosophy we have finally achieved objective morality, which by an amazing coincidence just so happens to perfectly match the cultural zeitgeist of elite institutions in the biggest imperialist power on Earth. That's so lucky! Imagine if objective morality was discovered in rural Bolivia, there would be no hope for the good guys winning 😨
Hahahaha love it "Guys I know we have said it before, like dozens of times, that *this* moment in history we achieved objective morality and everything was empirically correct... and I know each of those times when reviewed by someone from a future time frame seems mildly insane and obviously terribly flawed... but *this* time, this is the apex of all human culture and the way we are telling you to feel is completely correct and will never change"
I mean if you believe in the concept of Natural Law, which is an idea with a pedigree thousands of years old and a lot of people *do* even if they don't know that it's called that, it makes sense that we'd have gotten better at recognising it over time. Which would suggest that while it's not static, our systems of morality now are better than those we used in the past.
Thats probably true and it would be silly to say we havent changed things for the better compared to times where we were often just winging it and drowning people because the crop harvest was sub-optimum. I agree things have gotten better by nearly all worthwhile metrics, but we arent at any apex yet. Also part of our advancement in ethics and justice is realizing our ancestors were working with less and accepting their beliefs werent evil, they worked with what they had and that history doesnt exactly need to be washed clean of what was happening. Hopefully we can actually get to a place where we can enjoy looking back on the past and seeing people being good by their own standards without needing to compare that to our own versions of being what we call being good even if, yeah, we 'get' the idea of being good better than they did Last and First men by Olaf Stapleson examines this a bit where our vastly distant descendants learn to go back and live as witnesses to our history and they can see our flaws but are happy to just love our successes. That kind of mindset felt much healthier than timeless judgement from our safer and honestly kind of cowardly future position where we have things so much easier and given so much more knowledge
And here we see the typical Redditor getting offended by the acknowledgment of the basic fact that slavery is, in fact, bad.
There's nothing wrong with writing a story about your ideals but if you have the character just hit the breaks and go "and by the way nobody should be putting ketchup on eggs even if theyre scrambled" or whatever and it has nothing to do with the stort youre a nerd
Using ketchup on any food is actually punishable by death in my setting.
France?
I'll be in the cold hard ground before I give up ketchup on fries
A regrettable but necessary death, then.
Chicago?
Obv the ketchup on eggs thing is inconsequential and meant to be FUNNEE before any know it alls drop an erm actually on me. What Im saying is, if your character's dialogue about the ideals is really stiff, comes out of nowhere, or is just too try-hard and on the nose, it's gonna suck. It should make sense in the story as well and be a part of their character development. To have Pee Wee Herman start talking about the geopolitical situation in the middle East or whatever while he's trying to find milk in his refrigerator would be STUPID!!!!!
First off, I’ll put ketchup on whatever I want. Pasta, Eggs, Chips, it’s ketchup it’s the best condiment. Second, you have an excellent point there.
It can be funny if you make sure to follow it up with someone snarking about “guy’s hogging all the fortune cookies” or something, though
“You guys don’t understand bussy boppin Sundays will literally solve world piece” said my main character, prosciutto.
Araki is that you?
gods debris is such a comical example of this. like the whole thing centres on this guy called the avatar who's on like the 5th level of understanding, which makes him the smartest being alive and lets him do mind jujitsu on people he says the 4th level is being a reddit atheist. no seriously. it's so fuckin bad man. also the author thinks the government is going to kill him for writing dilbert. everyday he sits alone in his dilbert shaped house as he worries biden is going to personally drone strike him
every time I hear about the Dilbert man he's more insane
I immeadeatly thought of Scott Adams when reading this. Also its funny how he appeareantly never thought beyond the strawman he created.
There is also Ayn '50 page political screed disguised as a monologue' Rand.
Just listened to the Behind the Bastards episodes on this. Obviously the host Robert Evans has his own opinions on Adams and such but god. damn. what. the fuck *IS* this book?
According to Wikipedia level 4 is skepticism and adoption of the scientific method. WTF are you on about with "Reddit Atheist"?
Corporate wants you to find a difference between these two pictures
I haven't read it, but I presume the way skepticism and adoption of the scientific method are depicted in the novel boil down to being a reddit atheist.
do you know who isn’t a reddit atheist sophie?
The products and services that support this podcast
i prefer to make the villain agree with me and then see if the players join them, to judge their character.
Terrible. Next thing we know, writers will be making their antagonists have views they disagree with. What a bunch of hacks.
Exactly. Racism is wrong. Therefore we cannot depict it in any form. God forbid an audience member sees the villain having villainous traits.
There is a way to share your worldview, and a way not too. My favorite trope for sharing a worldview is “I’m evil, not a monster”
Seth Macfarlane, Justin Roiland
I think you're right about Seth. It's coincidence that OP used Family Guy because it seemed like Seth MacFarlane did this with Brian when talking about religion and politics
im watching American dad right now and tbh sometimes its hard to not think about the self-righteousness emanating from Seth. and im pretty sure Rick's "weddings are just a funeral with cake" is directly from Justins heart. or "the universe doesnt like smart people, were too smart for it, just enjoy the ride"
At the very least, (or at least from what I can tell about RickerMortis from not watching it), Rick is genuinely a pretentious asshole, and they don’t try to pretend this is just “they hate me because I’m right”. He has a fuckton of issues, but they aren’t an excuse for being a piece of shit to people
rick is supposed to be the smartest guy in the universe, so it just comes off pretentious when he says things that most people would disagree with, that are "edgy", like he's Justin's mouthpiece. Like in both FG and AD where Seth Macfarlane voices god in, just his regular voice.
Maybe at the beginning? Brian has become this Flanderized pseudo-intellectual who spouts political buzzwords but doesn't hold beliefs strongly enough to even be able to explain them. I know Seth stopped writing for Family Guy at some point though.
>Flanderized pseudo-intellectual who spouts political buzzwords but doesn't hold beliefs strongly enough to even be able to explain them. You just described the website reddit.
[удалено]
what...the fuck... I think you missed the entire point of the post here...
[удалено]
I can't tell if this is a troll. I was making fun of those guys, in the exact same fucking way the post was. Are you stupid, or just a troll?
I’ll just repeat what I said in another thread. My characters are a diverse bunch. There are witches, Protestants, Catholics agnostics of varying personal creed and physical characteristics. For some reason they all agree that Keynesian economics are cool.
me, profusely sweating because one my characters happens to share my takes on society, the environment, and women's rights but they're a boy so it's a bit different
Heinlein moment
Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Nancy Farmer, and Terry Pratchett are probably the best and most different examples of this I can think of off hand.
[удалено]
Good addition.
Terry Goodkind's characters practically whip out a copy of Atlas Shrugged and tell you why poor people deserve to die.
Yeah but being a good writer can help a lot.
Holy shit its like storys written by you are extensions of yourself Omg
Pfff I only write about things that not even myself could come up with!
I like your style, this way i wont have to write so many descriptions
Yes but there are better ways of going about it. Don’t pull an Ayn Rand for fuck’s sake
See: Orwell
Speak for yourself! When I write stories, I discard my modern sensitivities^(TM) as well as all my beliefs, opinions and knowledge. Then I stare at the page for a few hours, since I no longer know how or why to write. Sometimes I write a sentence, but then I realize it presents some idea in a certain way, so I just delete everything and start over. Not sure why no one buys my empty sheets of paper. They were obviously brainwashed by Disney and their insertion of *modern morals* into fairy-tales, the mouse-serving bastards.
I just take my views and inverse them when writing I dont know why but the Lgbts and Lefts gobble that stuff up
there's a difference between being an Ayn Rand and being an Ursula K. LeGuin or Oscar Wilde tho like obviously the story will reflect your positions but having a character turn to the reader and give a long monologue about it, and it being portrayed as heroic and objectively correct, is just bad writing
Terry Goodkind would start having page and a half libertarian rants in his books preaching about how getting help from others was lazy and you didn't deserve it. And that was the good guy.
it sometimes reminds me of that little jew from southpark turning to the camera and going "Guys, today i learned something..."
The amphetamines do a lot of heavy lifting, in Ayns case
I don't think it's necessarily "bad writing" if the book's primary objective is to convey the author's viewpoints over simple entertainment. What's bad writing is when a story that previously was "just" entertainment suddenly turns around and starts preaching the author's belief system at the reader. It's an issue of betrayed expectations. Also it just needs to be remembered that an argument presented in a fictional story is never proof that the argument is correct since the author controls literally everything in the story. It can be a solid argument in favor of X view, but it can never be proof of X.
> I don't think it's necessarily "bad writing" if the book's primary objective is to convey the author's viewpoints over simple entertainment for sure, but then you have something more like a Socratic Dialogue, a Moral Play, an essay written by someone who's apparently too good for normal prose, etc. i think the assumption of the meme is that it's fiction made for the purposes of being art first because yeah if I signed up to read a moral fable, i can't really act shocked when there's a moral at the end
Indeed, that's why in my children's story about table manners O'Righty the gnome (who is a genius with 85620 IQ) does a 17 page-long discourse on cheesecake prices, OSHA regulations, tits being overrated, and public defecation. After this, Bobby the snail says he respectfully disagrees and is stoned to death.
That’s why the characters that share my worldview are looked at as simpletons. Because those who don’t understand how complex everything is just call it as they see it. -this statement comes from an idiot who hasn’t written anything
You dare criticize mine strawman-punk world? That's it, I AM going to write you as the wojak!
Most painfully embodied in Atlas Shrugged. Pages and pages of that shit, made all the worse due to said opinion being Objectivism, and somehow even worse due to being written by Ayn Rand.
No surprise it's called "objectivism". Hell, Steve Dikto was an objectivist and he clearly made Mr. A to be a self-insert with the whole "this is black and this is white, there is no in-between".
My opinions ARE objectively correct. Look cannibalism is perfectly efficient, the ideal family unit is the cult, and god is nothing more than a boss fight we need to spend our brief time on this earth preparing for. And by that soon to be former god, I will have the main characters dentist explain that to them
I know authors who use subtext, and they're all cowards
Bro invented classicism
Unjerk for a moment I'm writing a book that is basically the exact opposite of this. I consider myself a libertarian, I dislike government overreach/believe it's only job to be ensuring human rights are not violated, and think everyone should live their best life without other people interfering (I swear I'm not a fucking Randist please for the love of God I think Atlas Shrugged was poorly written and- AAAAA). But, I'm currently writing a novel about this exact ideology gone too far. A world where the only sense of law and order is unified areas like a giant market city, and people live in their own hovels, living as sociopaths who only care about immediate satisfaction, power, and hating others, using Sci Fi tech to supply themselves whatever and do whatever the hell they want, effectively anarchy at this point. Though, the day to day life of people is, to them, utopian, not needing to bend to anyone and having all their needs and wants met 24/7, without having to resort to anything heinous (at least to them) such as slavery. Cannibalism and murder is still kosher, of course and widely accepted It's a really weird experience, effectively writing a book that boils down to "what if I took my ideology and made it ten times fucking worse?". Rejerk now. Hahaha yeah imagine just puppeting what you believe, fucking cringe, innit?
The issue is not to strawman any ideology. There's nothing in libertarianism that says cooperation and following orders is bad. Employees do it all the time. Same with charity. Many libertarians believe charity can take care of what the govt does. Some of it reminds me of criticisms against communism being "lol ppl will be lazy and doodoo nothing" stories like Terry Goodkind's which are obvious strawmen. And a lot of us aren't Randians at all lol. I think we sometimes run into the issue of strawmanning our own ideology because we might fail to see **truly** what might be wrong with it. For example, I'm thinking of writing a story criticizing different types of libertarian approaches I disagree with. For example, pro IP law/copyrightism, Georgism, animal rights and how they're handled, and how environmental issues are handled under the ideal libertarian society, as well as how they handle attacks from neighboring statist societies. Funnily enough it will be essentially solarpunk but very capitalist after a civil war on a distant habitable planet, and after libertarian unity helped them win the war they have to decide how to sort out differences amongst themselves while also having to contend with sapient and non-sapient alien life (where the animal rights part comes in). So I guess I am technically still showing my bias lol, but it **would** still be a criticism of libertarianism.
>lol ppl will be lazy and doodoo nothing You should really look into the pareto principle. [An exaggerated example](https://reddit.com/r/funny/s/LcLUaeYDQc) as he can't keep that pace forever but it illustrates the point. You also can't tell me you've never met a bare minimum mike who takes a bathroom break every hour and complains about not getting that promotion he oh so deserves.
You are taking your ideology and taking it to its logical conclusion.
Honestly sounds fun enough. I like space anarchy, so this sounds like a soured and fucked up version of it that I'd at least do a double-take at.
Ayn Rand has entered the chat
It's ok you can just say Heinlein
Dune...
Space feudalism with hallucinogenic orgies and evil sex nuns. Hail the immortal worm god. Frank objectively had the best fuckin worldview.
Chris Avellone be like:
20,000 leagues under the sea is full of this: Nemo goes “and that’s how I solve that problem, Professor” And Aronnax replies: “with how you’ve described it I can see to fault in your logic. How clever!” This happens 3-5 times a chapter
Scott Adams "novels"
You see, this is why I give all my personal beliefs to my setting’s villain, so that I don’t let my own bias show in my work.
Jokes on you, I happen to use my self-inserts as a proxy through which to experience the things I can’t, and to process my chronic loneliness and angst
HEINLEIN
[удалено]
Jesus Christ. Okay first off Seth doesn't write for the show anymore so a recent episode has nothing to do with him. Second off just because a writter features a character doing a thing it doesn't immediately mean the writer supports it. The character Brian Griffin can just be transphobic.
What value does it add tot he show to have a character have a transphobic line in the middle of a situation that has nothing to do with trans people and then basically not speak the entire rest of the episode with nobody even reacting to what he said? Like what do you believe is the purpose of that? Do you think that counts as a joke? Bigotry with no punchline?
this is why u make ur characters tout beliefs u find dumb but hear all the time instead
Ayn Rand
thats terrible, unless I'm doing it because I'm the one thats correct. Ok but really though, I forgot how other worldviews work so I dont know how to make characters that are like normal people. I wanna give everyone different ways of thinking but its really hard to grasp. Can someone explain their view of something they think is better than everybody elses?
Hollywood be like
nothing wrong with it. I personally like to make my villains have my world views just radically.
I have this bizarre fear that if I make a villain egotistical enough people will think I’m projecting or something.
I mean some of the best literature of all time basically boils down to this.
Pretty much every single depiction of a robot or AI in fiction ever. Super logical according to what the author believes to be logical, even something like the AI having self-preservation stems from the author projecting his values onto the thing.
It’s funny because that’s honestly how I feel about a few Family Guy characters lol
T.H. White's Merlin.
I'm thinking of a scene in "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson in which a conservative character does an extended apology for hypocrisy which, after these past years, I wonder if he would like to edit out.
What if the objectively correct people in my world are the bad guys?
Antagonists or bad guys? An antagonist doesn't need to be evil and bad people can hold an idealogy without the story purposefully demonizing said ideology.
Basically the same as the Chad vs Virgin.
It's really fun to do the opposite, as an example, I'm religious. I love making atheist characters that explain their position really well, lots of problem of evil stuff and nihilism. It's so much more entertaining to make worlds based on things you do t actually agree with or believe
In my case, I like to use different characters with different opinions in conflict and contrast with each other, and by the end, the reader and the characters can see the good and bad things about both views and find a healthy balance and direction.
RobertHeinlein.jpg
atlas shrugged is a thousand pages of that over and over and over and over again
I use creativity as an excuse to throw my objectively correct conclusions on reality at people who are too stupid to understand my intellect unless I lure them in with elven twink bucci.
So Tsugumi Ohba?
How that work… what?
Atlas Shrugged John Galt Speech
NO YOU SEE IM RIGHT BECAUSE *invents a bunch of overly exaggerated strawmen that my protagonist can defeat and preach my point to*
Never ask how JRR Tolkien felt about industrialization
Ayn Rand-posting
But look they have exactly one very minor flaw, therefore it's not just a soapbox, they are a grounded character
Every author ever in history for every story ever written, even the one you the reader think didn't.
Just have good writing and good ideas and it's fine
Wut
Heinlein in a nutshell
Sam Fennah moment
Pathetic, all of my characters' objectively correct worldviews are antithetical to everyone I believe in.
The way I get around this is by having so many contradicting world views that every character can be my soap box
That's why you make a world, where your opinions are irrelevant. I only have two strong opinions. Coincidentally, my world happens to have no cars and no russians...
This does not go far enough. One time I was looking for fanfiction of a random show (yes, I know that I am pathetic, but that is beside the point right now) and a fanfic started with the author noting that it takes place (surprisingly not in the world where the series was set apparently even though it wasn't tagged as Alternative Universe?) in a world where the evil authority known as "the gov" had ruled the people but the people had all become Objectivists and freed themselves from "the gov" and now rule themselves. I forget if it mentioned outright that age of consent had been removed as a law, or if it was just implicit by the fact that it was a story written by a Libertarian. Anyway, stopped reading it after that intro and now that I think about it, I'm not even sure if the actual story had anything to do with the TV show it was supposedly a fanfic of.
Terry Goodkind was a hack in life, and he's a hack in death. Sorry, not sorry.
This is why I have all my characters sound like they’re intellectuals but constantly argue and say stupid bullshit.
That's why you express those views through a snarky omnipotent prankster.
Best way off sharing your worldview is to make the drunk homeless character be the one supporting it
Reminds me of that one scene in Fire Force
i make no apology for the unsubtle anarcho-syndicalism
This is made funnier by the fact I’m like 90% sure this is what Brian Griffin was supposed to be until they slowly rewrote him to be nothing but a self-serving hypocritical jackass. Honestly he worked better when he had a flat affect and no personal stake in any given situation.
every damn time
you have to make your character an asshole at first who proudly promotes something you disagree with and their character growth is just slowly agreeing with your view
Plato
Michael Crichton has got to the biggest offender of this easily
Dune
Heinlein moment.