Characters=Authors?

[Rudolph Quin]

I thought maybe those in this community would have a better insight into this particular topic over anyone else, since we all come here to write out fantasies, personalities and roles that we do not exhibit ourselves. To a degree, I think we can all agree that in order to play something well, there has to be some part of us put into the role or we have to empathize with those character's motives and emotions. But the question is

Is a character's opinions an author's opinions?

And I'm not just talking about role-play. I'm also talking about books and movies, authors, directors and actors. If you have a problematic character with toxic ideals and opinions expressed within a work of fiction without being challenged or called out by the other characters, does that mean that the author is endorsing those opinions and actions?

What is endorsement in your opinion? Can you endorse something with a work of fiction? Isn't it open to interpretation? How far does that go? And I ask that because obviously propaganda is a thing but isn't propaganda just blaming a source because people are too lazy to think for themselves?

Is there a difference between an author's intent behind a work and how it is interpreted? Which one matters more? Obviously, if I write something with a particular motive behind it or intent, you can't tell me what I meant if it's different. But what if a lot of people interpret the work in the exact same way and it is very offensive? Should I be blamed for writing the thing or do we just call everyone stupid for 'not getting it'?

Gray stuff. Answer any and all. Let's just have a conversation.

 

[Mitsu]

I think intent only matters to a certain extent, and certainly so under certain circumstances, because works will always be interpreted differently by different people. It isn't even uncommon for people to take meaning from a story that the author never even considered before. People have a habit of looking for, or finding, things that aren't really there, and then taking it as gospel. Just look at the most popular book in the world: tell me if any statistically significant population interprets it the exact same way. Even when a source of authority (author or otherwise) on the matter flat-out states that a work has a specific meaning or intent, there will always be those that insist on another meaning, a deeper meaning, or that there isn't really one at all. Consider the WWII propaganda of the past, and how people tend to view it today.

I feel that personal interpretation of allegory and metaphor should be taken with a grain of salt, and the authors stated intention/meaning as the only one that is true. The truth matters, and those that stubbornly flail against it should be ignored to the greatest extent possible.

Characters in a story may be used as a tool for many things, such as pushing that allegory or metaphor. Sometimes it's very true that a character acts as a symbol, or that they are the soap box on which the author stands. In the later it's only a literary issue when it contradicts the character's established personality. I think good authors write what they know, so some characters may be based on friends, family, acquaintances, or may take a part of themselves. However, I don't believe that it means that each, or any, character is necessarily a reflection of their own ideals. I'd like to think that JK Rowling isn't some kind of racial supremacist for writing Voldemort and his goons, nor is she racist for coming up with the name Cho Chang.

A character can just be a character.

 

[HypnoDrome!]

And I'm not just talking about role-play. I'm also talking about books and movies, authors, directors and actors. If you have a problematic character with toxic ideals and opinions expressed within a work of fiction without being challenged or called out by the other characters, does that mean that the author is endorsing those opinions and actions?

... No? It just means this person is exploring a particular fantasy from a particular perspective or set of perspectives which may or may not be their own, but which they for one reason or another, find fascinating. By this line of logic, someone who engages in a rape fantasy from the perspective of the rapist--without then punishing and/or murdering that rapist off--is somehow reflective of the author's own moral compass and by extension makes him or her a rapist. The same goes for violent content: I am absolutely certain that the directors of Fast & Furious aren't endorsing street racing in real life, and I'm sure the developers of Grand Theft Auto aren't asking you to go carjacking people to run over old grannies.

I think this website's own user base--and its plethora of extremely violent and sexually graphic fantasies--can disprove this handily. It may be reflective of a fantasy, fetish, or intellectual fascination on the part of the author, but nothing more can be extrapolated than that without proclaiming to be a mind reader.

That's my two cents anyway, as I plog along to get my signature unlocked.

 

[Trygon]

Well, no. I delight in trying to make characters that I find ideologically repulsive but are still realistic, functional people.

Of course, my characters have also been my mouthpiece.

 

[ShadowsLitany]

In many published works, and movies, a certain point of view is held and expressed on various topics. The author is either trying to get that point across, and depending on whether its held by the protagonist or not, that view can be shown positively or negatively. I've read books where I sensed that the author took on a specific opinion and its validation in various ways through the story. I don't think its possible not to support something within a written work (written being book or script) in some ways it adds conflict, or a dimension to a character.

Is it necessary, no. Is it done, definitely. Does it always mean the author is condoning those opinions or actions, that depends on how you read the work. An obvious way is to find out within interviews, I have sensed certain things in authors writings that I have seen validated in interviews and other personal or political views that were held by the author, that I had never noticed in the story. If its necessary, or a part of the story, I can see them as being validated, or not, by what is written. It may or may not be the author's viewpoints, on that I would say its intent on the authors part if they wanted them in for that reason, or to give dimension or make the character believable.

I have done it to add something to a character, or make a point, but it doesn't mean I endorse it, that gets back to intent. I may intend it for a character because I believe that rounds that character out for whatever purpose that is. Perhaps for a specific kink, but its not a view I would hold personally.