The Gaming Den

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:29 pm**

The Internet would have you believe that something or someone being angsty, even if it's justified or compelling, is the worst thing in the world and should be mocked endlessly.

I really have no idea where this mindset came from. Yes, I agree that some media took it too far but then we're stuck with the opposite problem--that characters come off as shallow or even emotional cripples because the fanbase tells them to just suck up any sadness or dissatisfaction and ignore it. Otherwise they'll be mocked as emo or whiny or whatever.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:43 pm**

Angst is apparently fine. But wangst is when someone carries it to extremes.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:03 pm**

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I really have no idea where this mindset came from.

I vote: social disapproval of men expressing emotion, and particularly of men crying.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:19 pm**

It's just a matter of semantics ... when I hear angst I don't associate it with fear, sadness or even the dread from being in a situation out of your control.

When I hear angst I think of an emotion which is just the the luxury of the rich middle aged people and teenagers. People without real problems who are masters of their own destiny if they chose to act.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:13 pm**

Because for the last 20 years, its never been justified *or* compelling. The angst itself is shallow because its a half-assed effort try to show a second dimension to Ultimate Hero who Could Defeat the Armies of Token Dark Overlord Without Even Trying.

Everything is angst in the Anne Rice mold- the characters get major benefits- immortality, strength, power, etc, and get some minor little drawback that doesn't even matter, and somehow the focus is on *that*, for page after page of mindless, badly written prose.

Its also not sudden. Angst was getting to be a tired old line when I was a kid. Han Solo was cool: Luke was a whiny little bitch. 'Whaa, my daddy's all evil, I'm going to throw a hissy about it.' Shut up.

And what MfA said: Angst is the domain of whiny teenagers with rich parents- what you're really looking for is sorrow and despair, and almost no one does those any more, because they are honestly _really fucking depressing_ and you can't sell the story of a poor African peasant girl who was raped half to death, got an arm hacked off by a machete and takes shelter in a fucking diseased slum and dies of AIDS-related complications while giving birth to her stillborn rape-baby at the age of 14. People generally don't want to hear that story.

And thats why angst is treated with well deserved contempt. Compared to real shit that actually happens, whining about living off rats while being Super Awesome Immortal Guy is both pathetic and fairly shitty- suffering really isn't the same thing as whining about a minor inconvenience a character background.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:59 pm**

Voss wrote:You can't sell the story of a poor African peasant girl who was raped half to death, got an arm hacked off by a machete and takes shelter in a fucking diseased slum and dies of AIDS-related complications while giving birth to her stillborn rape-baby at the age of 14. People generally don't want to hear that story.

My local bookstore has a whole section on "tragic life stories". It's as big as the section on regular biographies. I'm told they're popular amongst elderly women.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:13 am**

Voss wrote:And what MfA said: Angst is the domain of whiny teenagers with rich parents- what you're really looking for is sorrow and despair, and almost no one does those any more, because they are honestly _really fucking depressing_ and you can't sell the story of a poor African peasant girl who was raped half to death, got an arm hacked off by a machete and takes shelter in a fucking diseased slum and dies of AIDS-related complications while giving birth to her stillborn rape-baby at the age of 14. People generally don't want to hear that story.

The problem is that when people don't want to hear really heartbreaking suffering or tragedy (understandable), the writers have to settle for a G or PG rated version of it. That is, the story of a 13 year old orphan who was totally pissed off that he grew up eating rats and that his dad beat him.

If audiences find that kind of tragedy irritating then really, how do you put sorrow into your story? I know people don't like hearing people whine, but why is just making your characters rationalize away their problems and forcing them to grin and bear it preferrable?

That's certainly not condusive to good character development or drama, if a character's reaction to having their best friend die in a car accident is 'oh well, I'll get another one' and never brings it up ever again in future episodes. How are people supposed to sympathsize with that?

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:28 am**

I think part of the problem is expression (by the characters) and the ability of some authors (George Lucas, I'm looking at YOU) to make things come out wrong.

Stoicism is supposedly a virtue, which makes the grin-and-bear-it supported culturally (if not consciously)...but I think it is that presenting genuine sorrow requires good writing (and when relevant, acting) and something really upsetting.

In other words, there were only three Star Wars movies.

I'm not sure if that helps at all, but that (expression by characters and writing quality) is my guess.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:37 am**

I think it's also connected to "show, don't tell." When your character broods constantly over something without it changing his external decisions, he hasn't really changed, he's just become whiny.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:52 am**

Lago, do you have an example of an angsty character you feel is unjustly mocked?

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:58 am**

I don't think it's a backlash against angst or portrayals of negative emotion, but rather how it is shown.

I'm reading http://limyaael.livejournal.com to correct years of bad fiction rolemodeling for emotional portrayal, personally.

I blame White Wolf partially, but also years of collecting Poe and Lovecraft rather than Howard or various translated Norse mythological tales.
Ah, high fantasy!
Anger > Sadness and Confusion. At least you get things done.

Perhaps the tendency towards pathetic tragedy goes back to Greek arts?

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:51 am**

sigma999 wrote:Perhaps the tendency towards pathetic tragedy goes back to Greek arts?

Pathetic comes from Pathos, which is distinct from Tragedy in the Ancient Greek theatrical system. Tragedy is a generally awesome individual brought down by a single flaw. Pathos is a generally flawed individual struggling with the limits of their own nature.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:59 am**

And Pathetic is a generally flawed individual letting their limits define them.

-Crissa

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:36 am**

MartinHarper wrote:My local bookstore has a whole section on "tragic life stories". It's as big as the section on regular biographies. I'm told they're popular amongst elderly women.

I'd think most of those are like "how I lost my arms and my loving family helped me overcome it", instead of, say, giving half of an idea about how things work in a genocide. BTW, that reminds me of a book praised in Brazil, about a guy who became paraplegic in an accident caused by being a marijuana-smoking imbecile. It's said to be a story of overcoming limits and so on. The kicker: he doesn't stop being a marijuana-smoking imbecile ...

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The problem is that when people don't want to hear really heartbreaking suffering or tragedy (understandable), the writers have to settle for a G or PG rated version of it. That is, the story of a 13 year old orphan who was totally pissed off that he grew up eating rats and that his dad beat him.

If you don't wanna hear about suffering, don't hear about suffering; it's as simple as that.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That's certainly not condusive to good character development or drama, if a character's reaction to having their best friend die in a car accident is 'oh well, I'll get another one' and never brings it up ever again in future episodes. How are people supposed to sympathsize with that?

I don't think recalling a lost friend automatically qualifies as angst, or that people who lose friends really act like a lot of whiny emos.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:50 pm**

Let me put up some examples of fictional people doing angsty things and see what people's takes on them are:

Example 1: After being disrespected by his nominal commander, Akhilles refuses to participate in the war effort. This is described as 'sulking in his tent.'

Example 2: After his right-hand man and best friend whom he has relied upon for decades is revealed to have been a sleeper agent for the enemy, Adm. Bill Adama goes to his quarters and has a weeping, drooling, emotional breakdown.

Example 3: After his parents are murdered in an alley, Bruce Wayne makes a yearly visit to the site of their murder to leave a pair of roses on the spot where they died.

Which of these do people find character-building and sympathetic, and which do people find stimulate 'get over it' to rise up in their throats?

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:41 pm**

Example 1: Needs to get over it.
Example 2: Weeping=fine. Drooling emotional breakdown=not fine.
Example 3: Fine. I could see normal, sane people doing that.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:58 pm**

Example 1: Cope.
Example 2: You have 2 days of being fucked up, then get back to life
Example 3: That is paying your respects, not angsty whatsoever.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:05 pm**

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Let me put up some examples of fictional people doing angsty things and see what people's takes on them are:

Example 1: After being disrespected by his nominal commander, Akhilles refuses to participate in the war effort. This is described as 'sulking in his tent.'

Example 2: After his right-hand man and best friend whom he has relied upon for decades is revealed to have been a sleeper agent for the enemy, Adm. Bill Adama goes to his quarters and has a weeping, drooling, emotional breakdown.

Example 3: After his parents are murdered in an alley, Bruce Wayne makes a yearly visit to the site of their murder to leave a pair of roses on the spot where they died.

Which of these do people find character-building and sympathetic, and which do people find stimulate 'get over it' to rise up in their throats?

1=sulking. It's not an endearing character trait. Not every character has to be perfect. If it doesn't grow to unrealistic proportions, then it won't ruin the story.
2=fine. Real people have emotional breakdowns, and sometimes take ages to recover. The story shouldn't dwell overly on the breakdown, though, because it probably won't be that interesting.
3=fine. Slightly ritualistic, perhaps, but people do that stuff.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:12 pm**

1. Sulking is fine if you still hold up your responsibilities. I find it's best to chill for a few minutes if you think you're about to lose your cool. I'm not familiar with the story, but as long as Akhilles took care of business when he was done, then no harm, no foul.

2. Again, depends on if it interferes with his life from then on out. Everyone's allowed a blowup now and then, but dwelling on it doesn't solve anything.

3. A little dramatic, but not really out of the ordinary.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:21 pm**

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:1. Sulking is fine if you still hold up your responsibilities. I find it's best to chill for a few minutes if you think you're about to lose your cool. I'm not familiar with the story, but as long as Akhilles took care of business when he was done, then no harm, no foul.

You're not familiar with the Iliad? Achilles was the strongest guy in the Greek camp during the Greek war on Troy. He was really badass and could not be wounded except on his heel. As a result of Achilles sulking in his tent, the Greek God Apollo cursed the army he was with with a pluage. Then Hector, top guy in the Trojan camp, killed Achilles best friend Patroclus. Achilles gets mad and chases Hector around the walls of Troy three times, caught him, killed him and dragged Hector's corpse around behind his chariot for 9 days straight. Since he stopped sulking after his friend died, the pluage was lifted. Then Paris from the Trojan camp got a poisoned arrow and show him in the heel, killing him. The end.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:53 pm**

Ah, so Achilles was being a douchebag then. Screw him.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:11 am**

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Ah, so Achilles was being a douchebag then. Screw him.

According to Badass of the Week's lionization of Hector...

Now the Greeks had badasses like Odysseus fighting on their side, but all told their secret weapon was the invincible warrior Achilles. Now a lot of people familiar with Trojan War are probably wondering why I have Hector here but not Achilles. Well the truth is that Achilles was a fucking bitch. Sure, his armor and his weapons were forged by the god Hephaestus and he was unequivocally the strongest and toughest of all the Greek warriors, but he honestly spends like two-thirds of the fucking Iliad sulking in a corner pouting about some stupid shit or another. Like when some jerk stole his girlfriend, Achilles decided he didn't want to fight for the Greeks anymore so he just ran back to his tent and pouted while listening to Third Eye Blind. What the fuck? If you're that pissed, just kick the fucking dude's ass and get your girl back. As a military commander you've got an obligation to your people, and instead you're sitting around smoking pot with your thumb up your ass while your compatriots are out there getting spears jabbed in their eye by real badasses like Hector. Sheesh.

Anyways, the renewed round of combat came at the time when Achilles has locked himself in his bedroom with his fingers stuck in his ears screaming, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" whenever Odysseus or somebody tried to reason with him. Well with Achilles out of the picture, Hector and the Trojans started whipping asses all over the place. There are seriously like two entire books of the Iliad dedicated to in-depth descriptions of Hector slaughtering every warrior he meets using everything from his spear and his sword to cleverly executed headbutts with his helmet and shield charges that busted jerks' heads open. He flipped out like a ninja and pushed the Greek army back to the ocean, where he went to work trying to set the Greek ships on fire.
Defending the Greek ships were the Myrmidons, an elite unit that served as Achilles' personal bodyguards. While Achilles cried into his beer, his men did battle with Hector, and he crushed their balls up and down the coast. Finally Achilles' best friend/gay lover Patroclus put on Achilles' magical armor and went to try and stop the Trojans. Now Patroclus was a badass warrior, so he rallied the Myrmidons and went kicking asses and slaughtering Trojans all over the place, eventually coming face-to-face with Hector himself. After a brutal steel-cage Hell in a Cell duel Hector put him down like a Kenny Loggins record and stole the Armor of Achilles (Bronze Plate Mail +5, +3 STR, Damage Reduction 50%) for himself.

[copious swearing skipped to the part where they fight.]

No matter how badass you think you are, there's pretty much no way to win, especially considering that fucking Hera, Zeus and Athena were all using their powers to give Achilles more of an unfair advantage than an entire syringe full of HGH. Achilles also knew that there was a weakness at the neckline of his old armor and took advantage of it, planting a spear right into Hector's throat. After Hector crumpled to the floor dead, Achilles strung him up by his heels and dragged him around behind his chariot, screaming insults at everyone and giving Jesus the finger. Achilles was a fucking dick.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:36 am**

Akhilles' position is a little more defensible than that. Greece at the time was a strongly face-based society. Disrespecting a person was a big deal. Agamemnon was the High King and nominal commander of the besieging forces, but Akhilles' prowess made Agamemnon feel very small in the pants, so he played all kinds of alpha-male head-games on Akhilles. For instance, on more than one occasion, he 'forgot' to invite Akhilles to the after-battle party where the warriors split up the spoils.

Apollo sends the plague on the Greek camp because one of the slaves the Greeks have taken is the daughter of a priest of Apollo. She'd been divvied out to Agamemnon, and when Agamemnon gives her back to her father to get the plague off of his army, he demands one of Akhilles' slave girls to replace her.

So when Agamemnon makes this demand, it's merely the last in a long line of Akhilles being screwed with. He's had enough of being treated like dirt while being the star player, so he effectively goes on strike.

It's also worth noting that while almost everyone else there was held by two oaths (of fealty to the high king, and as suitors of Helen), Akhilles was not. He was fighting on a strictly volunteer basis, so he wasn't exactly shirking any particular responsibilities.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:44 am**

If you say you're going to help, help. He doesn't. Which is why the gods abandon him and he dies on the battlefield, a loser.

Such is the difference between being able to get over it and not. He's an example of taking adversity and letting it own your ass.

-Crissa

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:52 am**

It's important to note that the descendants of the Trojans wrote the Iliad, which is why all the characters who aren't assholes are Trojans. Other than maybe Odysseus.

The Gaming Den

What's with the sudden hatred of (w)angst?

What's with the sudden hatred of (w)angst?

Re: What's with the sudden hatred of (w)angst?