Go Cowboy!

all fascinating stuff, in all msgs. but what i'm beginning to wonder is how we got to "evil" as topic, how we went from a question about "balance" in story making, to a question about PURE EVIL (in red) in fiction? while we might want eventually to get out to PURE EVIL, isn't it more likely we're intrigued by the more supple stuff of making a story that feels equitable,that is, it's fairness, interpreted generally, accounts for some or all of its value to reader. and, as corollary, deviation from that "fairness"produces dissatisfaction?

On a large scale take Travis's last story. Issues with the story seemed to center not only around the literal rape but first around the authorial use of Africa as itself a kind of rape, a tasty meal tarted up with tiny,misshapen bananas [OK]. The actual rape in the story raised a second question about the character, which was something along the lines of Go,Cowboy!, or Who's he (character, then author) kidding?, and thus called the question: Is the story mortally wounded by centering on this character who hasn't enough sense (or restraint) to recognize (alcohol or no) that Amy's rape is not a solution, but a rationalized excuse for his own pleasure taking (see Ryan's prior remarks in this area). Or, as Travis himself has written viz the Heath Ledger deal, "When are you making art and when are you just being an asshole?"

and we as readers are key parts of the problem, because we enjoy the horror of the rape, I think. We want the rape in Travis's story because it's big and dramatic, the victim is relatively "pure" (making the rape more exciting), the rape is wrong-headed but sense-making (in the sense that we can readily construct its explanation), etc. etc., so we're "allowed" to have it as readers, and we take the pleasure as offered. We are complicit,in other words.

So, does "fairness" even come into play when we're getting satisfied by the rape at the end of the story? Or (But?) are we thrilled exactly by the unfairness? This works against original thesis, saying that unfairness,gotten away with by sleight of hand, is a richer pleasure. Or maybe that's just a trick, too? A kind of easy "turn it on its head" deal that produces the quick buzz?

Setting that aside (while waiting for the msgs to come in about the Thomas Glave story we passed out today), go back to the original question: In a story with no large scale wrongdoing, are you interested in "balance" or overall "fairness" in treatment of character and subject, where balance &fairness are taken to mean something about the composite effect of the story being either non-nihilist or post-nihilist (i.e., there are reasons for doing things that are not rooted in whether or not existence has objective meaning)?

Or, in short, must we write "good" stories? And add to all the possible responses to that, the old (but new again, perhaps, mindful of Glave, for example) idea why is there a hierarchy of "quality" in art, why is deKooning better than John Doe, the motel moon-over-beach-art guy? Seems as soon as you accept the idea that some writing is better than other writing, you've got a problem that requires a fairly serious effort to evaluate all writing.

[originally posted by Rick]