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!

I have to agree with Robin and Bon Bon. The idea that a writer should have no say or opinion, expressed in the work itself, on any character they've created, is ridiculous. That's what all of writing is about.

Also?

I want to hear the characters' stories, not the author's inbred thoughts on the characters' stories.

I'll make a note to stop sleeping with my sister before I write again. Maybe that will help.

Question: Even though Hostel may not be torture porn, they are definitely marketing it as such. Okay? Not okay?