ita:

Is the argument that no one deserves torture, but that other negative things can be deserved, or that writers shouldn't write characters that deserve negative things, period.

From my side, the writer should write characters and leave thoughts of what they deserve to the portion of their audience or readership that happen to entertain them.

the writer should write characters and leave thoughts of what they deserve to the portion of their audience or readership that happen to entertain them

Do you think it happens often? I see it mentioned that the writer should set their own interpretation aside and let the audience come to their own conclusions about stuff--but I think the reason it's mentioned so often is that it doesn't happen easily.

And I think that can stand independently from the quality of the finished work.

From my side, the writer should write characters and leave thoughts of what they deserve to the portion of their audience or readership that happen to entertain them.

leaving Roth out of this, I'd think you'd want to limit this statement more. It's like saying Oedipus shouldn't marry his mother in Sophocles' play because the playwright shouldn't determine what he deserves after killing his father. Crafting a fate for the very characters you are responsible for creating is an essential part of storytelling, and their "deserts" is a critical piece in that. The concept of hamartia is a fairly well-established one in art after 2500 years, I'd think.

Can someone explain the appeal of horror/torture flicks to me, please? I'm trying not to be a jackass, but I read the moviespoiler thing on Hostel and was, frankly, revolted and appalled. I mean, I can read Oedipus and god knows what other horrendeous myths, but this goes beyond the pale for me.

Maybe it's that I can accept the concept (mythmaking ugliness) but not inflicting it on real people (actors.) Or...no. I can't even make that divide, honestly. I'm still freaked out by a mtv video I saw as a kid...

I don't see why he would refer to the men as 'dicks' rather than 'men who objectify others'

That bad things should happen to people who act poorly is a traditional aspect of horror I find to be poor writing. I find Roth, as a traditionalist in that respect, writes poorly. And as those last two sentence attest, I know a thing or two about poor writing.

I'm assuming the "should" there is deliberate, and I don't know where it's coming from. I didn't say "should." Neither did Roth. "Because" is about cause & effect, not some righteous judgment. The fact that Janet Leigh got slashed in a shower as a result of stealing from her boss doesn't mean people sat in the theater thinking, "Well, serves her right."

Like the man said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

And to echo bon bon... An artist's opinion is certainly not definitive, but it seems a bit much to suggest that the artist should (or for that matter, can) avoid forming any opinion at all about their own creations.

Can someone explain the appeal of horror/torture flicks to me, please?

Well, can't say I'm fond of torture flicks, but I like (what I consider) good horror movies (and there is a differnce, IMO, even if it's comparable to ye olde pornography vs. erotica argument). I'm a big believer in catharsis: that which I see on the screen that scares, disturbs and otherwise shakes me up helps me deal with the mundane day-to-day a little better.

Honestly, the thing that gets me is that other than the WAY the gore is turned out these day - that is helpless bound victims vs. the stalk and slash variety - nothing here sounds that much beyond the original FRIDAY THE 13TH, which was SERIOUSLY nasty. Stalk and slash, when it was totally gory, seemed to me just as much "torture" as a bound victim in terms of the sadism in these movies - instead of some character making distressed noises while bound, they were making them while running or being caught unawares. I'm more curious why the MPAA has gotten so lenient on this, considering they cracked down after they let Ft13th slip out with an "R" back in the day.

I don't care how well-done it is, I'll never see a torture-related film. Ew ew ew. I prefer my horror the way I prefer my TV - all fantasy, all the time. Monsters? Sure! Ghosts? Hell yeah! Actual flesh and blood killers? Outta there.

Actual flesh and blood killers? Outta there.

And yet? Some of favorite movies, even my favorite scary movies? About real flesh and blood killers. The realness of it being part of what made it good.

the MPAA has gotten so lenient

so very much this. I was appalled that (ferinstance) the opening sequence in Pirates III was considered perfectly acceptable for a PG-13 but if Jack and Will had fallen in love and kissed it would have been slapped with an R. (If they kissed as a joke it would still be PG-13 material) We saw Anakin Skywalker's flesh burned away in a PG-13 flick. I am aware that society changes and twenty years ago "bitch" got the same reaction that "cunt" gets nowadays and I wonder if The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover would be rated R today no problem. Sorry for the ramble, I just realized I have no idea where I'm going with this. I just wanted to chime in that I think the MPAA is far too tolerant of violence these days while I see no equivalent relaxing of their rules regarding sexuality.

Do you think it happens often? I see it mentioned that the writer should set their own interpretation aside and let the audience come to their own conclusions about stuff--but I think the reason it's mentioned so often is that it doesn't happen easily.

I think we're talking about two different things. The interpretation the author has of his or her work isn't my concern but rather their personal and dishonest inflections in it. For me, the two primary qualities of a good fiction writer is to strive to represent things as they are and to do that evocatively. When Playwright Joe or Novelist Mary excise or limit characterization, emotional resonance or a simple honest depiction of an experience so we can better enjoy their sticky end or to make some jerry-rigged point or whatever, I call foul. That's not to say I won't enjoy the piece overall (I really liked Pan's Labyrinth but it's political substance was off in fantasy la-la land) but I'll count it as a fairly serious flaw.

leaving Roth out of this, I'd think you'd want to limit this statement more. It's like saying Oedipus shouldn't marry his mother in Sophocles' play because the playwright shouldn't determine what he deserves after killing his father. Crafting a fate for the very characters you are responsible for creating is an essential part of storytelling, and their "deserts" is a critical piece in that.

I'm probably being obtuse but I don't see how my statement suggests that I think writers shouldn't control their characters' fates. I think that writers should have enough fidelity to and respect for their creations that they'll let them be free of authorial intrusions; I want to hear the characters' stories, not the author's inbred thoughts on the characters' stories.

I'm assuming the "should" there is deliberate, and I don't know where it's coming from.

Excuse me, I should have written "that bad things should happen to unsympathetic characters is a traditional aspect of horror I find to be poor writing." Janet Leigh's death is, I think, outside that tradition. The death of, say, the Italian detective in Hannibal is within it.

"Because" is about cause & effect, not some righteous judgment.

I wouldn't argue otherwise. What I would argue is that sometimes people are messy speakers and that sometimes values are implied without words like 'should' or 'ought' being used and that a sentence's word choice and context can tell you more of its meaning than its formal structure. By using the word 'dick', he's helping to suggest that he means the sentence as something other than a cause-and-effect statement. Roth is saying that he's not a misogynist because he only created his misogynistic characters because he needed something to torture. That notion is powered by a silent 'and for being misogynists they deserved some punishment' at the end. Without it, it collapses into a non-sequitur. With it, he is being consistent with the spirit of the film which is loaded with authorial cues for thinking that they, in some part, deserved being mutilated and killed.

but it seems a bit much to suggest that the artist should (or for that matter, can) avoid forming any opinion at all about their own creations.

I don't think that an artist can fully avoid forming an opinion on what she or he created; I just think that, as much as possible, they should try not to let it be felt in their work.