the afterglow

equating humanization with “apologia” and “manipulation” is treating the audience like they are morons. i want art to trust me enough to understand that i can reckon with characters not being black and white caricatures while sustaining my ultimate conclusion about them and their crimes

“it gives ppl ammunition to…” i kinda dont care. sounds like a them problem. i see what is in the text and if the reality of the rest is also properly there that is what matters to me. i do think that what i want most out of fiction is for it to try to reflect truth, and then trust me to think for myself with it

“but the audience are morons” well that is not my problem

All of this and the fact that most conclusions, judgments, statements exhortations about characters in narrative are solipsistic and empty (moral) sentiment meant not to create a discourse which brings those involved to a new understanding of the world and the various concepts within it (that is, to say something about, for instance, sexism), but to validate the multitude of projections (often derived from spectacle rather than discourse) a reader or viewer might overlay onto the work. One does not always have to brand a character (or a narrative in general) as "good" or "evil" because, like it or not, not only are those concepts are very amorphous, the judgment itself can easily be dismissed by asking, "So what?" When brought to an actual conclusion, such judgments fall apart, because they don't actually have a conclusion.