Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Thenamir]

I think "fascination with" is a far cry from "agreement with", but that's just me.

[Durelin]

I think a part of a person can almost "agree with" some things about some really bad dudes, because we all know there's a part to us that just wants to kick some butt. In both good guys and bad guys, we like the tough guys. We like the guy that can slaughter his enemies, whether they are "good" or "bad," because he's a mean, tough-a, killing machine...and a lot of people find that pretty *cool*. We can very much understand a selfish desire to live, we can empathize with even very nasty and bloody revenge, we can agree to living by one's "own rules" without adhering to rules like "slaughter all Hobbits, because they smell" or better yet, "because it's fun."

So, I think in a sense a person can agree with a bad guy, even when you apply their ideas or their behaviors (quirks, ways of carrying themselves - that sort of thing, I suppose) to the "real world." When it comes to their actual deeds, though? Not so much.

I do agree that the line between interest, fascination, etc., and the sort of "agreeing with" you're probably talking about, Thenamir, has been blurred beyond recognition. The blurring has been done on both sides, though, so I definitely don't think you can single anyone out for "not listening."

Sorry for the quotes abuse...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I think "fascination with" is a far cry from "agreement with", but that's just me.

How far a cry? And to risk repeating myself, why does it actually matter if a reader is 'in agreement with' a fictional character or not? It tells us precisely nothing about the reader's morality, psychology, ethics, political stance or inside leg measurement. You can discuss, agonise about & lose sleep over the question of why some readers prefer Melkor to Eru & even if you come up with an answer it'll be worth absolutely zilch. It will tell you nothing about the reader, the book or how long a piece of string actually is.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

And to risk repeating myself, why does it actually matter if a reader is 'in agreement with' a fictional character or not? It tells us precisely nothing about the reader's morality, psychology, ethics, political stance or inside leg measurement.

I thoroughly disagree. I would submit that a reader's genuine reaction to a work of fiction can, depending upon the nature of the work, tell us much concerning their morality, psychology, ethics and, perhaps, their political stance. Most probably not their inside leg meansurement, though.

Of course, we would be judging that by reference to our own conceptions of morals, psychology, ethics and politics, but that is inevitable. And I think, at least within a single society at a fixed period of time, one can establish an approximation of consensus in these areas (right/wrong, sane/insane, left-wing/right-wing etc), even if there is disagreement on some of the grey areas. But we are not really talking about grey areas here. We are talking about good an evil.

I would certainly feel that I was able to draw conclusions about a person if they genuinely sympathised with Big Brother and though that Winston Smith had it coming to him or, to use an example cited earlier by Lal, if they thought that Hannibal Lector's dietary preferences were quite normal.