Post by Lady Ten on Nov 28, 2012 15:21:06 GMT -6
So this exists.
My jaw dropped when I first stumbled upon the wiki page for it. Writing an essay about your own book series, on such a topic as this no less, seems really... what's the word, ah, not "stupid"... freakishly egocentric? I don't know, do other authors do this? Maybe this is a regular practice among some circles. I still wouldn't expect one on such a silly question though.
But nevertheless, maybe Vicky says something of merit in here. It can be interesting to see a contributor's thoughts on a piece. Let's take a look. As mentioned before, whether a character "is" evil is not a satisfactory way to discuss characterization or choices, but if we think of it in terms of whether any of his particular actions were justified, that might get us somewhere.
So, without further ado, here is my first read-through of Victoria Holmes' essay, "Tigerstar: Heart of Evil?".
oh gosh I do not have high hopes for this.
uh
"we knew" -- is that referring as y'all, the Erins, or are you just assuming that everyone necessarily thinks the same thoughts you do? Slow down there, cowboy. Sounds like in your haste to write a vigorous introduction you made some overgeneralizations (or started talking about a narrowly-defined "we" without specifying exactly who's included).
Minor nitpicks, right? Let's see what her point in all this is.
Vicky goes on to summarize a few events of the series to highlight a discrepancy between what the reader might expect (the archetype of the hero killing the villain) with what happened in book six: Tigerstar was killed by someone else.
Alright, here she's stating her topic/subject of inquiry, and the way she's led up to it, the implication is that because a) Tigerstar was killed by someone else and b) Firestar wishes he was not killed, that calls into question whether Tigerstar was really "evil" or "the forest's biggest villain". Apparently, to qualify as a real evil villain, you have to be killed by the right character, and the hero can't be sad about you being dead.
Funny, that doesn't sound like how it works. But I'll let her finish.
I am getting really annoyed at this author's writing style. It's not her main argument, though, so I'll try to make this my last comment about it, even though it is infuriating. To be fair, this essay is probably written for a younger audience.
So Vicky raises the issue of interpretation depending upon one's point of view. Okay, that's good. That's absolutely right.
...Yesss, that's correct.
She better not be trying to say that earning the approval of the right folks means you've done the right thing. However, she does raise an interesting question: even if we don't trust StarClan's judgement, why did they give nine lives to Tigerstar?
She also adds that several ShadowClan cats seemed to approve of him too. Okay. Then she says this.
uh
Her message so far is "Some characters thought Tigerstar was bad, but some thought he wasn't bad."
Okay. That's... well, it's not inaccurate. I can't argue with you there, Vicky.
She then lists characteristics of his that are not bad, such as being a strong warrior and a proud father. So instead of investigating any possible justifications for his more notorious acts, she seems to be saying "but not everything about him is bad," which is, well, yeah. Yeah, of course not everything about him would be bad. But that doesn't mean he's not a cliche villain.
I'm not sure what inspired Vicky to write this essay -- was she getting a lot of questions about it? did she think the fandom misunderstood? -- but in light of her comments about writing so-called "shades of grey," this comes off as an attempt to characterize her approach to Tigerstar as something that fits that label. And maybe some fans legitimately don't understand that characters who do bad things aren't composed of 100% bad or undesirable characteristics, so they had to hear it from somewhere.
Moving on.
No, wait, not moving on. Stop here and focus in on this. Does this really count as "loyalty"? Loyal to whoever makes the best offer?
He did bad things, but it was also unfortunate for him to die. Okay. That's true; the other Clans could have used his help in this war. Is her implication thatif people grieve for you if people would rather you be alive, that means you don't have a heart of evil? Nevermind, silly question. There's no such thing as a "heart of evil".
uh
And thus it ends. So this is her point? Well, alright, sure, but this is one of those instances where I don't understand why anyone felt motivated to write about the subject at all, as if trying to win over a nonexistent opposing view. Are there fans out there, somewhere, who have been disputing this view, and have they been contacting Victoria Holmes? Overall, Vicky's message isn't wrong... it's just baffling that she felt it warranted an essay. I am really, earnestly curious what she had been reading prior to July 2009 to prompt this response.
My jaw dropped when I first stumbled upon the wiki page for it. Writing an essay about your own book series, on such a topic as this no less, seems really... what's the word, ah, not "stupid"... freakishly egocentric? I don't know, do other authors do this? Maybe this is a regular practice among some circles. I still wouldn't expect one on such a silly question though.
But nevertheless, maybe Vicky says something of merit in here. It can be interesting to see a contributor's thoughts on a piece. Let's take a look. As mentioned before, whether a character "is" evil is not a satisfactory way to discuss characterization or choices, but if we think of it in terms of whether any of his particular actions were justified, that might get us somewhere.
So, without further ado, here is my first read-through of Victoria Holmes' essay, "Tigerstar: Heart of Evil?".
Tigerstar stalked his way onstage in Book One: Into the Wild with a curled lip and his amber eyes narrowed in a sinister fashion.
oh gosh I do not have high hopes for this.
Even before Ravenpaw revealed the horrid truth about Redtail's death, we knew that this was a Bad Cat, one who would be Firestar's implacable enemy until his dying breath.
uh
"we knew" -- is that referring as y'all, the Erins, or are you just assuming that everyone necessarily thinks the same thoughts you do? Slow down there, cowboy. Sounds like in your haste to write a vigorous introduction you made some overgeneralizations (or started talking about a narrowly-defined "we" without specifying exactly who's included).
Minor nitpicks, right? Let's see what her point in all this is.
Vicky goes on to summarize a few events of the series to highlight a discrepancy between what the reader might expect (the archetype of the hero killing the villain) with what happened in book six: Tigerstar was killed by someone else.
What happened to the classic tale of good versus evil? Perhaps Tigerstar was never the forest's biggest villain after all…
Alright, here she's stating her topic/subject of inquiry, and the way she's led up to it, the implication is that because a) Tigerstar was killed by someone else and b) Firestar wishes he was not killed, that calls into question whether Tigerstar was really "evil" or "the forest's biggest villain". Apparently, to qualify as a real evil villain, you have to be killed by the right character, and the hero can't be sad about you being dead.
Funny, that doesn't sound like how it works. But I'll let her finish.
There are few things that are absolutely certain in this world. Plenty of things seem to be certain -- my dog is the cutest creature in the world, chocolate brownies are the best food ever, heavy metal music is the quickest way to give yourself a headache --
I am getting really annoyed at this author's writing style. It's not her main argument, though, so I'll try to make this my last comment about it, even though it is infuriating. To be fair, this essay is probably written for a younger audience.
So Vicky raises the issue of interpretation depending upon one's point of view. Okay, that's good. That's absolutely right.
But wait a moment! If he achieved his ambition to be the leader of a Clan, StarClan must have given him nine lives. That's a pretty big sign of approval from the warrior ancestors!
...Yesss, that's correct.
She better not be trying to say that earning the approval of the right folks means you've done the right thing. However, she does raise an interesting question: even if we don't trust StarClan's judgement, why did they give nine lives to Tigerstar?
She also adds that several ShadowClan cats seemed to approve of him too. Okay. Then she says this.
Perhaps Tigerstar wasn't entirely bad, and maybe even quite good, from a different point of view.
uh
Her message so far is "Some characters thought Tigerstar was bad, but some thought he wasn't bad."
Okay. That's... well, it's not inaccurate. I can't argue with you there, Vicky.
She then lists characteristics of his that are not bad, such as being a strong warrior and a proud father. So instead of investigating any possible justifications for his more notorious acts, she seems to be saying "but not everything about him is bad," which is, well, yeah. Yeah, of course not everything about him would be bad. But that doesn't mean he's not a cliche villain.
I'm not sure what inspired Vicky to write this essay -- was she getting a lot of questions about it? did she think the fandom misunderstood? -- but in light of her comments about writing so-called "shades of grey," this comes off as an attempt to characterize her approach to Tigerstar as something that fits that label. And maybe some fans legitimately don't understand that characters who do bad things aren't composed of 100% bad or undesirable characteristics, so they had to hear it from somewhere.
Moving on.
and his loyalty to whichever Clan gave him the best opportunity for achieving power.
No, wait, not moving on. Stop here and focus in on this. Does this really count as "loyalty"? Loyal to whoever makes the best offer?
He inspired enough loyalty among his adopted Clanmates to launch his astonishing plan to take over the whole forest, with the help of BloodClan. Part of this plan was a private battled against half-Clan cats, leading to the death of Stonefur in RiverClan, when he tried to defend Graystripe's kits. But when Tigerstar lost all his nine lives one after the other in a deadly clash with Scourge, Firestar felt nothing but grief. The biggest certainty then, from every Clan cat's viewpoint, was that the forest had lost its greatest warrior, and the battled against BloodClan might be over already.
He did bad things, but it was also unfortunate for him to die. Okay. That's true; the other Clans could have used his help in this war. Is her implication that
So much was wrong with Tigerstar's path to power, it's surprising he didn't leave a trail of bloody paw prints behind him.
uh
But one cat's enemy is another cat's hero, or at least the answer to some of their problems, and Tigerstar deserves respect for what he achieved as much as he deserves to be punished for his crimes.
And thus it ends. So this is her point? Well, alright, sure, but this is one of those instances where I don't understand why anyone felt motivated to write about the subject at all, as if trying to win over a nonexistent opposing view. Are there fans out there, somewhere, who have been disputing this view, and have they been contacting Victoria Holmes? Overall, Vicky's message isn't wrong... it's just baffling that she felt it warranted an essay. I am really, earnestly curious what she had been reading prior to July 2009 to prompt this response.
