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.

I've seen some pretty fucked up horror films over the years. Lately, however, I've been avoiding things like that a bit. For example, I liked the first Saw film, but had no urge to see 2 and 3. No urge to see Hostel at all, although somebody I know told me it's not torture porn (how, I don't know).

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.

It sounds like you are advocating some kind of form of naturalism where what happens to characters should be completely divorced from their character. Which is fine, if that's your preference. But I find it weird to hear you explicitly saying it's *wrong* for an author to follow the rules for tragedy developed by Aristotle and hewed to by great literature ever since. I personally am not interested in a work where the author is permitted to create a character and then have randomly selected things happen to them, pointlessly. That's not really art-- that's just life.

For example, I liked the first Saw film, but had no urge to see 2 and 3.

I actually saw Saw 2 first (which sort of spoiled Saw a little, but no big), and I was surprised by how different they were. The first one is just two guys stuck in a room, and there's a lot more psychology to it. The second is a bunch of people stuck in a house with LOTS of rooms, and there's a lot more creativity to it. I don't know what the third one is like.

I personally am not interested in a work where the author is permitted to create a character and then have randomly selected things happen to them, pointlessly.

So you didn't like Lost in Translation either, huh? *ducks*

I think saying there are works where an author doesn't put their own opinions into the plot and characters is disingenous. That's part of writing. Even if the cause and effect isn't overt, it's ALWAYS there. It's there in choosing which actions to put onscreen and which not. It's there in the story's POV--the choice to make The Sopranos from the POV of Tony rather than the FBI or a victim of the Family is a choice which reflects what Chase is trying to say and effects how we feel about Tony.

Pulp Fiction , for another example, is a very moral film. All the gore and motherfuckers make it feel dangerous and dark, but each of the characters is faced with a choice in the film and if they make the morally "right" choice--like going back to rescue Marcellus--they get rewarded. If they make the "wrong" choice--like staying as a hitman after the Miracle--they get punished or killed. The entire film is structured to make a moral point. Tarantino's opinions color every frame, but that's what an author does.

Maybe you meant that creating characters ONLY to make a moral judgement is bad writing, and that can be true. Not always, though--most of Shaw's plays were written to illustrate theories, but he was a wonderful writer nonetheless.

As a side note: I've had nightmares two nights in a row since watching Hostel Part 2.

Yeah, that's because you DESERVE them.

Hee.

Well... I have been bad. But I haven't had sex lately so I should get to live as long as I don't say, "I'll be right back." uh oh.

Hee!