I will say that in my opinion "Murder Mysteries" is highly flawed as art, one of the weakest of Gaiman's stories. Part of it is that I don't think the comparison of the two murders works well. Part of it is that I think the characters are driven by plot rather than the other way around. The angelic murder does not seem to me sufficiently driven by the character of the angel. And we really are not shown enough in the man the leads to the murder. Of course insufficient motivation is one of the points that Gaiman is making - a flaw in everything (but not one that lets the light in). But by making the point in this particular way he weakens the story. If you show a character is boring by giving him or her a long boring speach you still bore the reader. If you make a didactic point by having characters act without sufficient motivation you still weaken the story by having the charactes act without sufficient motivation.
Heh. In essence I'm arguing that this story has some of the same flaws as propaganda when it is NOT good art. It subordinates art to message; as a result both suffer. (Yes, in this case "message" is artistic rather than intentionally political - but the result is the same.)Gaiman is not Shaw, He can be an intellectual writer, but privileging ideas or arguments over story or character is not his talent.
I will say (and you by quoting Jilli also implicitly say) that being able to make good art that is also propaganda or advocacy is much rarer than being able to make good art.
This is true by definition. Art that is X and is also Y is going to be less common than art than is X.
But I think it is also pretty easy to argue that most, if not all, art is advocating something.
Coming late to the discussion. I guess I'm uncomfortable because of the contrast of the generalization of what writers *should* do vs the very personal experience I have when I read. And write. I'm quite happy and comfortable saying 'no, not for me.' I'm comfortable asking questions about what the narrative did and didn't do. Those are personal things. Not general expectations or a philosophy that I hold up to writing in general, because I've read long enough to know that writing will find a way to show me a different side to those expectations or philosophy.
I'm just going to sum up like so: I see the treatment of the female characters in the story as fitting into a pattern of marginalization, and seeing that pattern(plus some of what Typo talks about above) damages my ability to enjoy the story.
That's all. Anything that sounds like I'm telling writers how to write is just me blowing hot air.
Chris, I kind of struggle with that stuff a lot. Because I love crime shows, but in my real life, I try to be all about civil liberties and things like that.But it would have been a boring show if Raylan Givens(whom I'm all about lately) had read Tommy Bucks his rights, or worse, did what he would have to do in real life, admit he had no jurisdiction.On that level, him killing the mobster is horrifying and abuse of power and whatnot.But I have to admit, when it happened on the screen in LeonardWorld, I was all about it. See, also, Ava making her husband a nice dinner than blowing his head off cause he hit her that one time too often.
Wow. Interesting.
This just rocketed up my list of books that I won't actually read soon but intend to. I'm not sure if the issue is that you're "not supposed" to tell that part of the story, or in how you tell it. Also, there are many levels of authorial endorsement you may or may not get from the telling of any story, and I'm not seeing from anyone that Gaiman wrote it like he though tit was nifty and everyone should give it a try, or even like he endorsed it in any way.
Gaiman wrote it like he though tit was nifty and everyone should give it a try
Is everyone too distracted by Natter to point out this typo? PEOPLE I AM DISAPPOINTED IN YOU.
OMG, who hasn't tried tit that's going to because Gaiman said it was cool? That's totes played out.
Yeah, not that much of a Gaiman fanboy.
