Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Gotta say...I wouldn't be a crapload relieved no matter whose cat it was. Ok, so, it's not the heroine's cat, presumably, with which the audience had developed an affinity, but, still...how's it so much better if it's some other poor bastard's cat, or some feral cat? YUCK.
|
Sure, no one is expected to be happy about it, as such. But it is something that plays against people's weakness for emphasising their immediate situation (do they feel better or worse off now than they did a moment ago). It's also a common PR stunt used by governments and by companies. Tell everyone something really bad is going to happen, let them all get upset over it, then appear to relent and say it's only going to be half as bad and everyone feels better.
It's the same principle as hitting your head against a brick wall. Why do it? Because it feels so good when you stop.
(
I'm wondering if I've stumbled over some sort of ultimate truth about fiction 
. I mean, what do we do but put our protagonists in peril of one sort or another, apply lots of stress and strain to them and the reader, and then - usually - we give them a way out and everyone feels good at the end. This, despite all the mayhem, and often outright tragedy, that happened along the way. Is fiction just another way to hit our heads against a brick wall?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
There's already so much animal cruelty in the world...I don't know why we have to make it worse by putting it in alleged entertainment, and yes, I say that as someone who once tossed an entire novel's concept, blueprint (outline), etc., because I couldn't get there from here, without including it. But...well, that's my individual choice, and I'm the only one bound by it.
|
But the "already so much" argument applies to violence against humans too. Indeed, by this argument we probably should see more animal cruelty in books, if we expect them to be any sort of reflection of society.