doctor_fangeek (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
doctor_fangeek) wrote2011-09-27 06:38 pm
doctor_fangeek) wrote2011-09-27 06:38 pm
Oh, JE, why do you do this? (WC meta)
So I had an interesting conversation with another WC fan a few weeks ago, in which we agreed that we would buy the idea that *Neal thinks* he was "born bad," but (IIRC) disagreed as to Jeff Eastin's take on it.
They said they didn't think he really believes that this is something that is true of the character, and that when he says that he's probably talking about the character's perspective. I maintained that he seems to be pretty clear on the fact that he actually conceives of being "born bad" as something that *is* true of the character.
Which, btw, I find to be an extremely frustrating view of things. This is both because I don't think it fits with the way people, for the most part, work, and because I think it oversimplifies a complex character. I would posit that, except for perhaps some rare extreme cases, people aren't simply born bad. We are a product of *both* our genetics and our environment, and we are capable of change. I have also said, in previous posts, that while I understand the need for continued tension in terms of the storytelling (e.g. Will Neal ultimately choose to be the con or the man?), I don't think one needs to invoke some sort of predestination to have that tension. Change is *hard*. Habits are hard to break. It can be hard to learn to let people in if you have had to fend for yourself (or if you've been "burned" in the past, etc.). No "born bad" is required.
Anyway, I just came across the following Twitter exchange, in which JE is pretty clear:
Fan: To you, was Neal born bad, or does he believe that he was born bad?
Jeff Eastin: Both.
So, yeah. Argh.
They said they didn't think he really believes that this is something that is true of the character, and that when he says that he's probably talking about the character's perspective. I maintained that he seems to be pretty clear on the fact that he actually conceives of being "born bad" as something that *is* true of the character.
Which, btw, I find to be an extremely frustrating view of things. This is both because I don't think it fits with the way people, for the most part, work, and because I think it oversimplifies a complex character. I would posit that, except for perhaps some rare extreme cases, people aren't simply born bad. We are a product of *both* our genetics and our environment, and we are capable of change. I have also said, in previous posts, that while I understand the need for continued tension in terms of the storytelling (e.g. Will Neal ultimately choose to be the con or the man?), I don't think one needs to invoke some sort of predestination to have that tension. Change is *hard*. Habits are hard to break. It can be hard to learn to let people in if you have had to fend for yourself (or if you've been "burned" in the past, etc.). No "born bad" is required.
Anyway, I just came across the following Twitter exchange, in which JE is pretty clear:
Fan: To you, was Neal born bad, or does he believe that he was born bad?
Jeff Eastin: Both.
So, yeah. Argh.
no subject
Jeff Eastin is STILL a poopyhead.
no subject
That was almost the subject header of my post.
Then again, I guess on the bright side there's the fact that the character we get on screen is more complex than JE's misguided mindset. I wonder what Matt thinks of the whole thing? Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, new icon. ::grin::
no subject
I saw that tweet and wanted to slap the crap out of him.
no subject
no subject