One of the characteristics of good art, to me, is how strongly it makes somebody feel. Any feeling. If a work of art annoys you, that too should be appreciated. In the same way that an actor who plays a character that makes you HATE them should be admired. That is not only a difficult thing to accomplish but also the least appreciated. If all characters satisfy your personal hangups and pet peeves, then every character is the same person.
Rejoice that you are annoyed by something. That says something about you as much as the work of art
I'm always annoyed by vandalistic names carved into trees and rocks and monuments wherever I visit. I don't think that's admirable or should be appreciated.
You may be going too broad
That's why I started my opinion with "one of the things" that makes good art. Another set you clearly pointed out is time and place. The fact is that people do not value negative outcomes or feelings. I think being aware of it, and why you're annoyed or feel hate, is very important. The thing that annoys you about tree carvings tells me what you care about. Defacement of nature and public monuments is also a statement and also art whether you enjoy it or not. There is always something to glean from the negative.
Roman's left their names all over the place as tourists, ancient Egyptian workers left graffiti at their worksites, and Pompeii basically used walls as message boards.
I'm conflicted, on one hand I love that people want to leave a trace of themselves behind. That feels beautiful in a way, even if I think the message they leave is silly. It also leaves something for our ancestors to hopefully find if something happens, and that's delightful to think about.
On the other hand, I loath selfish entitled people.
Eugh, no. Intensity is not the only axis worth caring about.
I disagree.
Recently I've read a book, it was alright. I went on to the next book in the series, only to realise the main characters were behaving in a stupid manner very out of character, not reaching into some pretty obvious conclusions, and that the plot was being stretched for no good reason.
This annoyed me so much I put the book down and didn't finish. I don't consider the changes in the second book a consequence of better writing at all.
Generally speaking whether I like a character or not has very little to do with whether I think they're moral. One of my favorite characters in any book is a horrendously evil man - like approaching Hitler levels, though on a smaller scale - but goddamn is he a fascinating character to read (Vorbis from Small Gods - which if you haven't read it is a masterpiece)
The black-on-black eyes stared imploringly at Brutha, who reached out automatically, without thinking… and then hesitated.
HE WAS A MURDERER, said Death. AND A CREATOR OF MURDERERS. A TORTURER. WITHOUT PASSION. CRUEL. CALLOUS. COMPASSIONLESS.
“Yes. I know. He’s Vorbis,” said Brutha. Vorbis changed people. Sometimes he changed them into dead people. But he always changed them. That was his triumph. He sighed.
“But I’m me,” he said.
Vorbis stood up, uncertainly, and followed Brutha across the desert.
Death watched them walk away.
Especially impactful when you consider that Death basically never passes judgement on individuals in the series. For him to try and dissuade Brutha from helping Vorbis shows a level of disdain he usually only reserves for people who are cruel to cats
... heh. I remember thinking how real my annoyance was, at different times.
Fictional characters who commit war crimes can be magnificent bastards, but characters who are annoying cannot.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/dObTXYa-_n4?t=105
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That makes sense. I have often wondered how much atrocity we're willing to forgive in a fictional character if they're charming/charismatic and if it translates at all to real life with for instance the glorification of certain serial killers.
Not saying there definitely is one. I have no idea. But I do wonder about it.
Bad take
People like Reagan irl
He was just too dang "unlikable!" (i.e., I didn't like him and don't want to explain why)
We all thought of two characters in that first post. And I know my two.
Anakin "I Surrender, Now R2!" Skywalker and Jar Jar Binks respectively.
