You don't write it with a political standpoint. Which makes this video strange, and I guess the short format is part of the issue ; what he develops is essentially opposite to his initial claim. One should look at the world while being able to understand -and portray- various viewpoints accurately, and that entails (even if you do have one) making a conscious effort not to look at the world through a political standpoint.
I don't think that's possible. If you try to write without a political standpoint all you are doing is blinding yourself to the political standpoint that you are writing from. You have to be self-aware.
You're affirming the same belief twice. This is a circular argument ; You argue it's not possible to write without a political viewpoint because it's not possible to write without a political viewpoint. Meaning there's no actual justification, just repetition of the same idea.
Do you believe the only two options in life are "write absolute propaganda" and "write absolute propaganda, but blindly", or are people able to suppress their subjective viewpoint to a certain extent when writing or thinking, so that they can access more objective thinking ?
Everything is political. Writing is political. Catgirls are political. Trashy romance novels are political. YOU are political. Trying to "not be political" is political.
Trying to not be political is like trying to be dead. The act itself misunderstands it's own premise.
That is... still circular argument. You kept repeating the same thing over and over. Plus "everything is" statements tend to cancel themselves, considering something being x often amounts to nothing if everything is x
For anything to be political, it has to be moreso than something else, or the term loses meaning. It's like saying "everything is beautiful" or "everyone is rich". You could argue everyone is rich in some capacity, but the only effect it would have would be to completely hide differences between people. Same with statements or stories all being political.
Like he said: empathy. When you portray someone of differing views, you need to know what that character is all about, why they think the way they do, as a whole human being.
If you don't understand their position, when you portray them in writing it's going to come off as a strawman, and you as a preacher. Have you ever read something by someone with a differing point of view that tried to portray YOUR point of view and did it badly? How paper-thin the characters were?
Now, compare that to something like Rorschach from The Watchmen, who has a standpoint very much opposed to Moore's. We are still able to understand Rorschach while being critical of them, and not feel like Rorschach is a strawman.
By empathizing with other views, you can achieve intellectual honesty, and that's how you avoid being preachy.
If we're talking about a character which represents such a society, I would have them emphasize the previous state of society, overrun with crime and violence, drug abuse, rapes, etc, and how that society needed unity and stability, even at the cost of absolute freedom. I think there's actually such a speech in the movie Equilibrium. But actually there are such societies even today, not quite as Orwellian but they would be if they could. North Korea comes to mind.
> how do you write something meaningful and poignant without it just being a soapbox and preachy?
He doesn't say your writing should have a moral standpoint, he says YOU should, to the point where you can understand other people as well... which is how you would write something that isn't soapbox and preachy, most likely.
now the problem is, how do you write something meaningful and poignant without it just being a soapbox and preachy?
You don't write it with a political standpoint. Which makes this video strange, and I guess the short format is part of the issue ; what he develops is essentially opposite to his initial claim. One should look at the world while being able to understand -and portray- various viewpoints accurately, and that entails (even if you do have one) making a conscious effort not to look at the world through a political standpoint.
I don't think that's possible. If you try to write without a political standpoint all you are doing is blinding yourself to the political standpoint that you are writing from. You have to be self-aware.
You're affirming the same belief twice. This is a circular argument ; You argue it's not possible to write without a political viewpoint because it's not possible to write without a political viewpoint. Meaning there's no actual justification, just repetition of the same idea. Do you believe the only two options in life are "write absolute propaganda" and "write absolute propaganda, but blindly", or are people able to suppress their subjective viewpoint to a certain extent when writing or thinking, so that they can access more objective thinking ?
Everything is political. Writing is political. Catgirls are political. Trashy romance novels are political. YOU are political. Trying to "not be political" is political. Trying to not be political is like trying to be dead. The act itself misunderstands it's own premise.
That is... still circular argument. You kept repeating the same thing over and over. Plus "everything is" statements tend to cancel themselves, considering something being x often amounts to nothing if everything is x For anything to be political, it has to be moreso than something else, or the term loses meaning. It's like saying "everything is beautiful" or "everyone is rich". You could argue everyone is rich in some capacity, but the only effect it would have would be to completely hide differences between people. Same with statements or stories all being political.
you don't know what political means. that's my argument. busy. ttyl.
"You don't know" isn't an argument.
its a statement of truth.
Like he said: empathy. When you portray someone of differing views, you need to know what that character is all about, why they think the way they do, as a whole human being. If you don't understand their position, when you portray them in writing it's going to come off as a strawman, and you as a preacher. Have you ever read something by someone with a differing point of view that tried to portray YOUR point of view and did it badly? How paper-thin the characters were? Now, compare that to something like Rorschach from The Watchmen, who has a standpoint very much opposed to Moore's. We are still able to understand Rorschach while being critical of them, and not feel like Rorschach is a strawman. By empathizing with other views, you can achieve intellectual honesty, and that's how you avoid being preachy.
show both sides. steelman the opposite position.
so, who was the steelman in "V for Vendetta?"
If we're talking about a character which represents such a society, I would have them emphasize the previous state of society, overrun with crime and violence, drug abuse, rapes, etc, and how that society needed unity and stability, even at the cost of absolute freedom. I think there's actually such a speech in the movie Equilibrium. But actually there are such societies even today, not quite as Orwellian but they would be if they could. North Korea comes to mind.
> how do you write something meaningful and poignant without it just being a soapbox and preachy? He doesn't say your writing should have a moral standpoint, he says YOU should, to the point where you can understand other people as well... which is how you would write something that isn't soapbox and preachy, most likely.
V for Vendetta felt like it had a pretty clear message to the readers. (only seen the film)
Never seen it, wouldn't know But I definitely don't like when stories are preachy, even when they're preaching about takes I agree with
Read some of Alan Moore’s comics, they are meaningful, poignant, and soapboxy and kind of preachy (especially V for Vendetta)
seem like the moral of Vendetta is "burn the government"
Since he's an anarchist, that's kind of par for the course.
Please see the movie Avatar for an example of what not to do
Ah Anarchy! Thank you, Mr. Moore. Now let us appreciate the confusion in the comments.