There is a huge difference between media that promotes, normalizes, or apologizes (in the sense of apologists) terrible things; and media which merely *depicts* those things.
-
There is a huge difference between media that promotes, normalizes, or apologizes (in the sense of apologists) terrible things; and media which merely *depicts* those things.
A book set in the time of slavery will likely have slavery in it. Pro-slavery characters likely exist in that book, and they will say pro-slavery things. That doesn’t automatically make that book or author ok with slavery.
-
There is a huge difference between media that promotes, normalizes, or apologizes (in the sense of apologists) terrible things; and media which merely *depicts* those things.
A book set in the time of slavery will likely have slavery in it. Pro-slavery characters likely exist in that book, and they will say pro-slavery things. That doesn’t automatically make that book or author ok with slavery.
Making the character sympathetic doesn’t change that either. Complex characters are realistic. There’s a huge difference between a character that’s trying to evoke “the guy is basically likable and trying to do what we want him to in the plot, but holy shit does he have some bad points” and one that’s trying to make us be ok with the bad things.
The world is messy, people are complicated and weird, it’s ok for media to reflect that.
-
undefined Oblomov ha condiviso questa discussione
