20 KiB
[D] Worth the Candle - Are you put off by the harem style arrangement of the main cast?
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL:
-
Score: 0
-
Created: 2018-06-23T14:21:36
Post:
[removed]
Comments:
u/MereInterest [+11] (41 minutes later)
In cases where the leading male character is surrounded by many women, for the purposes of titillating a male audience, I find it extremely off-putting.
Regarding "Worth the Candle", I find it similar to watching Chris Tucker in films. In Rush Hour, I cannot stand his character. He is loud, obnoxious, and his sense of humor does not match mine. In The Fifth Element, I love his character. He is loud, obnoxious, and his sense of humor does not match mine. The difference is that in The Fifth Element, everybody surrounding Chris Tucker has the same reaction to him as I do, being incredibly annoyed at him. This changes the joke into a meta-joke, with his character being the setup for a joke, rather than the punchline.
In "Worth the Candle", the social dynamics have not at all seemed like those of a catch-them-all style harem story. Joon is shown to be in conflict with the game-layer wherever he has moral qualms with it. Frequently when he has a heart-to-heart and sees a message that a loyalty score increased, his reaction is one of disgust. The intrinsic motivation for getting to know his friends resulted in an extrinsic reward, cheapening the experience. Similarly, Joon's anger at the achievement shows the main feature is not one of Joon being in a harem story, but his disgust at being treated like a self-insert male protagonist into a harem story.
Add to that the parallels between Joon and Arthur, and Joon's worry/dismay on hearing of : Joon is worried about what sort of a person the game-layer and narrative is trying to force him to be, and is trying to avoid being a self-insert protagonist in a harem story.
u/Eryemil [+2] (56 minutes later)
Good quality post. Thanks!
u/MereInterest [+2] (an hour later)
Thank you! I liked your question, and it made me stop and think why I have been enjoying "Worth the Candle", where the harem-style plots of other similar stories have made me stop reading them.
u/muns4colleg [+2] (a day later)
I mean, in Fifth Element Ruby Rhod is a character who makes perfect sense in both from a Watsonian and Doylist perspective. In universe Ruby is a flamboyant media personality who serves as a microcosm of how weird and exaggerated the future is, so his behaviour makes sense for his character. From a narrative perspective his comic relief is contextualized by him being a fish out of water mixed up in events against his will or consent, so his presence in the story feels more natural.
The presence Chris Tucker in Rush Hour by contrast is bizarre on both. From a narrative perspective he serves no other purpose other than comic relief to back up Jackie Chan's Wu Shu heroism with "comedy" (which is unnecessary because Jackie is a perfectly viable comedic actor) without brining anything to the table to resolve the story. From an in universe perspective you have to wonder how the hell Tucker *made it through the academy* let along became a Detective acting the way he does, his existence in the narrative is pure fiat and he's only there because Chris Tucker is a popular comedian with a distinctive voice who will help get butts in seats.
So it's pretty easy to see why a viewer or reader might react negatively to certain story elements in some context and not in others if it a. fails to make sense from an in-universe standpoint to the reader and b. fails to justify why it needs to be a part of the story to the reader.
u/therealflinchy [+1] (an hour later)
Is that last spoiler a recent chapter thing?
I fell of the regular reading thing a month or two ago when it got boring
u/MereInterest [+1] (an hour later)
It is, yes. Chapter 92.
u/Anderkent [+7] (47 minutes later)
There are some things that I find outright distasteful like Joon's early claim that he finds it easier to care about the safety/well-being of females than males but which as far as I've seen went unremarked upon in the community. It completely changed the way I relate to the character since.
Really? I mostly found that admission an admirable display of self-awareness. I think most heterosexual men find it easier to care about the safety & well-being of attractive females in their immediate social vicinity. That's just biology. Being aware of it doesn't make it worse.
u/None [+10] (25 minutes later)
[deleted]
u/Eryemil [+1] (30 minutes later)
I love the story and I contribute to the authors Patreon.
I'm not here to 'bitch about WtC', your conclusion does not follow the preceding argument evidence nor do I think my post is rude to the author.
But I DID post this to talk about something I found unpleasant. What's the issue with that, exactly?
u/None [+6] (46 minutes later)
[deleted]
u/Eryemil [+0] (an hour later)
"Tonedeaf" is pretty arbitrary and we only have so much control of how what we communicate will be received.
Some things simply can't be discussed in a particular community without creating pushback regardless of well politely or gently it is brought up. It takes two to tango; posters are always going to be particularly hostile and nitpicky to an opinion that they disagree with instead of being generous and charitable.
Only one person that has replied so far has even attempted to steelman my post or interpret it in the best possible light. That reflects badly upon you too.
u/None [+2] (an hour later)
Ah, so "I didn't word my post poorly, you just weren't generous enough in your reading of it."
u/Eryemil [+1] (an hour later)
I never claimed my post was perfect. Do you think your replies to me so far have been?
u/None [+1] (an hour later)
Yes.
(Also, keep moving those goalposts.)
u/Eryemil [+1] (an hour later)
Well I can't measure up to your perfection so here is where I tap out.
u/None [+2] (an hour later)
Don't worry, we don't hold it against you. Those goalposts were probably pretty heavy.
u/Amonwilde [+3] (2 hours later)
I think this thread is unbecoming of this sub. This seems like a reasonable question that could go either way. Attacking the right to ask it or questioning the motives of the questioner is not conducive to discussion.
u/None [+1] (2 hours later)
Well, I'm happy you feel that way, but I didn't do either of those things. I just pointed out that he was evading responsibility for his own lack of clarity, then additionally pointed out that he was moving the goalposts of the conversation by asking other people if their posts were "perfect."
You don't have to be perfect, OP. But you do have to accept that your communication skills aren't perfect and that they have room for improvement.
u/Amonwilde [+2] (3 hours later)
I think I may have been misunderstood, which perhaps points to my own lack of clarity. But I think this is a legitimate question that the OP has asked, and not done to be unclear or controversial. It seems reasonable to assume good intention and engage with the question in good faith.
u/FeepingCreature [+1] GCV Literally The Entire Culture (a day later)
I think the main problem with this thread isn't so much the question as the antagonistic, confrontational way op was treating the answers.
u/Amonwilde [+2] (a day later)
Perhaps. The discussion on this sub tends to be quite good so seeing an uncivil tone is disappointing.
u/None [+5] (12 minutes later)
I think most people didn't really find it odd that Joon admitted that because it's an incredibly normal thing for most young men to think. Not to say that it's healthy, or that the culture that produces that state of mind shouldn't be changed, of course. But the culture does exist, and the mindset it produces is so common as to be considered the default.
But another part of it is how much you appreciate the meta of the situation. Everything Joon is encountering is, to some degree, orchestrated by the DM. So we have that additional layer of separation between the events of the story and the author, and we can talk about what the DM was thinking instead of what the author is thinking. And that sort of thing is definitely not everyone's cup of tea.
u/Eryemil [+2] (23 minutes later)
I would bet a not insubstantial amount of money that if Joon had claimed that he cared more about the well-being of men than women there would have been negative comments about it from the community.
I'm not wondering at what anyone was not surprised that Joon holds potentially misandrist beliefs/values but rather the fact that I've seen no one note that Joon might be a misandrist. After all, just because something is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's not prejudiced; infact prejudice is often so.
I understand the metal levels in the story---I'm not saying the author is some kind of man hater. Just communicating how I don't like the current cast arrangement and reaching out to see if anyone else had the same reaction.
u/None [+6] (31 minutes later)
I would bet a not insubstantial amount of money that if Joon had claimed that he cared more about the well-being of men than women there would have been negative comments about it from the community.
If there were negative comments they would have been about how that doesn't make sense for his character, not for him being sexist. Because, as I said, we live in a world where some degree of chauvinist masculinity is the norm.
I've seen no one note that Joon might be a misandrist. After all, just because something is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's not prejudiced; infact prejudice is often so.
Well, that's because that would be a weird, huge leap of logic that doesn't make any sense. Joon is definitely a little sexist, but that's more of the "women are fragile, precious things that need to be protected" sort of sexism.
I understand the metal levels in the story---I'm not saying the author is some kind of man hater. Just communicating how I don't like the current cast arrangement and reaching out to see if anyone else had the same reaction.
I mean sure, but you wrote that whole thing about the 'weird coincidences' of Fallewhatever being a soulfucker and Grak having a nonhuman gender and sexuality, so I thought I'd comment on why that is.
u/Eryemil [+1] (54 minutes later)
I see what you're saying though I disagree with your politics.
That said I don't see Joon's attitude as a 'little' sexist. I think it's the worst type of (non-active) sexism because it impacts the potential safety and physical well-being of a group. The logical consequences of the stated beliefs are pretty grizzly.
u/None [+3] (an hour later)
I don't think there's anything political in observing the way reality is. The politics of reality can be disagreeable, but they are what they are.
And while I see the seed of logic in that second paragraph, I think you're being incredibly overdramatic and misrepresenting the facts to better suit your bias.
u/Eryemil [+2] (an hour later)
Your beliefs about sexism are extremely political, in the sense that they're typical blue tribe beliefs. Obviously my beliefs are political too, hence why I said I don't agree with your stated politics.
I don't think it's overly dramatic at all. Saying that you care more about the physical well-being of one group than another is pretty extreme. In many social groups you'd be obstracised for far less and we definitely see the impact from that kind of thing (in this very specific context of favoring the safety of women over men) everywhere around us, every day.
u/None [+2] (an hour later)
I will freely admit to having no idea what a blue tribe is, but noticing that sexism exists in our culture is not a belief about sexism. It's the reality. Your decision to associate my ability to notice aspects of our culture with politics you disagree with is on you, not me.
I don't think it's overly dramatic at all. Saying that you care more about the physical well-being of one group than another is pretty extreme. In many social groups you'd be obstracised for far less and we definitely see the impact from that kind of thing (in this very specific context of favoring the safety of women over men) everywhere around us, every day.
Ah, I understand your perspective far better after reading this. I suppose, if you're willing to sequester yourself hard enough from the mainstream, it wouldn't appear overdramatic.
u/Eryemil [+1] (an hour later)
Is the mainstream really what you want to be appealing to here? Most readers of this subreddit are certainly not "mainstrean" by more than one standard.
u/None [+1] (an hour later)
Any reply to the more important, first part of my post?
u/Eryemil [+1] (an hour later)
Your interpretation of what was sexist about Joon's comment and what sexism is and entails is at odds with mine.
The fact that you see that comment as primarily sexism against women (white knighting, damsel in distress) as opposed to male disposability, hyperagency and a sign of the pervasive empathy gap I our society is an obvious sign of political friction.
u/None [+1] (2 hours later)
Hm. I suppose I can't deny that I did imply that. I disagree that there's friction there, though. I think of both those interpretations as two sides of the same coin, inseparable from one another. The only difference is where one focuses their attention. And since Joon is focusing his attention on protecting girls instead of treating men as disposable, that's where the reader's attention is also focused. The idea that those two aspects of sexism in modern culture somehow can't coexist and be acknowledged simultaneously seems pretty absurd.
But yeah, maybe next time instead of just assuming someone's politics and saying you disagree with them without any explanation until repeatedly prompted, you might want to consider leading with some more open-ended questions to clarify the situation? I mean this submission alone has already had one comment thread about the importance of clarity and not making assumptions on the internet, yeah? Food for thought.
u/Eryemil [+1] (2 hours later)
You mean the one where the poster is a condescending, antagonistic twat?
u/None [+2] (2 hours later)
Yeah, that one! Man, that guy sure is cool and handsome and smart. I hope I can be friends with him someday.
u/alexanderwales [+1] Time flies like an arrow (2 hours later)
This post was removed by Automoderator after having passed a threshold for number of reports. I was going to reapprove it (and possibly wait for one of the other mods to come make a decision, because I have conflicts of interest), but it's been deleted.
Generally speaking, I think discussion of works falls well within the purview of this subreddit, though I'd prefer if it were somewhat rare, especially since the web serials already have so much more of a presence than shorter works, and they're the ones that will tend to dominate discussion. I also tend to hold these discussion topics to a higher standard than I do posts about fiction, since it would be easy for this subreddit to be swamped by low-effort discussion posts; the less thought and effort you're going to put into criticism or commentary, the more likely it should go into some other thread, especially for the web serials, which have threads posted at regular intervals. (And don't forget to be mindful of spoilers, since not everyone reads or has read whatever you might be posting about.)
u/Accord_ [+2] Chaos Legion (3 hours later)
Why do you find discussions like this valuable after a work is beyond a certain threshold of popularity? If this really was an issue it would've been echoed long before in each chapter's thread.
I could see how this would be valuable in an attempt to figure out why a story failed to gain popularity but otherwise..?
You as an author shouldn't feel the need to satisfy or even give much thought to this minority point of view because if you did then you would make the story worse for your main readership and make yourself feel bad because you might feel you were wrong to write it the way you did. Which you were not.
u/alexanderwales [+4] Time flies like an arrow (3 hours later)
I didn't find this post to be particularly valuable to me, but I also don't think that it was meant for me. It also falls a little too much in the "this is a thing I didn't like" rather than being "let's talk about the themes and messages of this work" (though this is subjective, and I can't reread the post to see how much of that might be me projecting).
If I were going to make a post about a work, especially one meant to stand on its own, it would be something along the lines of "What are the sexual politics of Worth the Candle?" with a bunch of citations from the text, reading of sub-text, etc., and I would find that valuable, because understanding how people read a work is an important part of getting better at writing, especially if it gives you a chance to see where people have misread things. And if it were for a work other than my own, I would probably also find it valuable as a reader, because I'm into that sort of analysis.
u/dalitt [+5] (14 minutes later)
This post should be marked as containing spoilers. I also suggest moving it to be a comment on one of the WtC posts, instead of a post itself, which would target it more at people who read the story. (This isn’t the WtC subreddit after all.)
(I also feel this way about the other recent post of this nature, but it’s more of a gray area as that post is also about the nature of rational fiction in general.)
u/Accord_ [+4] Chaos Legion (21 minutes later)
I am genuinely curious about your motivation for making this post.
Are you curious about the community perspective relative to your own? If so, why? How is that knowledge useful to you?
u/Eryemil [-4] (26 minutes later)
Are you serious? Reddit is an online discussion board. I put up a post I wanted to discuss. Your reply is all kinds of fucked up.
It's a niggling thought I've been having while reading the story and wanted to hear from other readers to see if they're having the same experience.
u/Accord_ [+1] Chaos Legion (an hour later)
If this is so important to you that you felt the need to make a post about it then can you say you like the story in general? If you find such a central element of the story so off putting why are you even reading? If your only reason for reading is because this is one of the most popular stories in this subreddit then I suggest you stop. This is one of the most popular stories in this subreddit and thus you can assume that the general audience is not put off by such a big element of it.
When I read something that takes a wrong turn I simply stop reading, I don't see the point in making a post about why I don't like it. I find such discussions bad in general, it doesn't help the author, it doesn't help the readers who are fond of the story. It only "helps" the few who dislike it and by help I mean you create an echo chamber of negative emotion which isn't helpful to anyone.