#incorrect meatbun novels quotes | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hamliet · 2 years

Note

So, this person mentioning your 2ha metas made me get curious about it so I wanted to look for them but then the first thing I found was this: "I think 2ha had the potential to be as rich in complexity as MXTX's works, but instead settled for a more traditional black/white version of the morality" and now I'm actually more curious about this line 🤣

You see... I've alway failed to get the whole hype regarding mdzs and its morally gray this, morally gray that. And it doesn't help that the Chinese fans I know also complain about it, they're like "wwx is the hero, why western fans are so obsessed to change this? Why they don't do the same with their heroes?"... And they also comment on how mxtx is pretty clear about the morals of their characters and I feel like I get both sides but again, not really the obsession with the matter. Because then there's the fact that, while I agree with meatbun not treating SQT well, I don't feel like MXTX did it better when it was only literally wwx the one having his happy ending... Everyone else is dead or condemned to be forever alone for some reason... and even someone as jc is someone who, imo is pretty clear, MXTX thinks doesn't deserve anything but loneliness (the fact there's no woman who wants him according to her, he has no friends, he has no real bond anymore with anyone...). So, honestly, I don't feel like if MXTX wasn't clear about who are the morally correct and the morally wrong in her stories just as I don't feel she was any more fair with her secondary characters for the sake of wangxian happy ending. The same goes with her other works where all the characters that are antagonists in different levels, just like in mdzs, get what "they deserve" 🤔

Ahhh okay, I've seen this argument floated a lot, and it's become a bit of a pet peeve for me, so I'm going to take a bit of time to respond to this... There is a lot here to respond to.

For starters, I would caution you about categorizing of "Chinese fans" as if they are one monolith; they are not. They are also not different than western fans in terms of being human; they are closer to the cultural context of the story, but that doesn't inherently mean every interpretation is correct or textually supported. For example, I haven't seen at all your claims about WWX being the hero (I saw it from a western person, and if the Tweet is what you're referring to, they took the quotes shockingly and almost laughably out of context): while I'm sure Chinese fans do say this... so do western fans. A lot. In fact, Jiang Cheng is very not popular among Chinese fans in polls, while Jin Guangyao is. The point is, you can't say Chinese fans vs Other fans in a simplistic way to make any claim of substance.

As for MXTX's statements, I literally do not take authorial interviews into account in analyzing stories, nor do I really understand why people do. I'll quote Dostoyevsky here: “Don’t let us forget that the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent explanations of them.” Authors explain things in overly simplified ways, and explaining a novel that runs on complexity simplistically is never going to be satisfying. You also have to look at the full picture: she's said pretty cold things about Xue Yang (much worse than about JC), but has also defended him from antis, calling him "my son" and saying that she loves him more than any readers because she created him. I don't doubt this is the same for Jiang Cheng.

"jc is someone who, imo is pretty clear, MXTX thinks doesn't deserve anything but loneliness" I do not think this is true. The notes about Jiang Cheng's dating life are humor. You may not find them funny, but they're clearly intended to be humor. Framing matters (I'll discuss framing in a bit.) It is also factually incorrect to say he has no real bonds. He clearly does. Jin Ling is a bond.

Everyone else is dead or condemned to be forever alone for some reason... I also don't see what you mean by looking at the story, or whom you might be referring to. Song Lan went to restore Xiao Xingchen's soul, to heal it. The juniors went from being antagonistic to being friends with each other. Wen Ning helps Sizhui with his heritage. Lan Qiren accepts Wei Wuxian as Lan Wangji's husband.

The ones where I can kiiiinda see people assuming this are with Jiang Cheng and Lan Xichen, but I also don't think the framing is taken into account. Jiang Cheng has Jin Ling, and much like with Lan Xichen, I think people expect spoonfeeding where nuance works better. The trajectory of the novel--towards healing, towards the younger generations doing better than the older ones--indicates that there will be healing that continues beyond the main story. Not everything needs to be spelled out. I doubt Lan Xichen will be in seclusion forever like his father; his father had Lan Qiren (a flawed if well-intentioned man), but Lan Xichen has Lan Wangji, and I highly doubt Wei Wuxian is going to leave brother-in-law miserable. I do think Jiang Cheng and Wei Wuxian will form a new bond, because they are both clearly involved in Jin Ling's life. Neither of them are really good at cutting off bonds (like even after WWX's death, Jiang Cheng was looking for him). I wrote more on this here.

What is missing from most of these discussions is framing. framing, framing, framing. It tells you what to think about a story's events. Yes, Jin Guangyao and Xue Yang die, but how is that framed as "what they deserve?" Xue Yang dies with a candy in his hand, which if you want to rely on MXTX’s statements, she literally said she did that to show that he was not a heartless monster. Which is indeed what the text implies. For JGY, you have Jin Ling bawling and realizing his uncle was good to him too, Lan Xichen tricked into killing him when he wasn't doing anything, Wei Wuxian realizing how wrong it was and that they are the same. That's tragic framing, not "haha got what he deserved." The literal point of tragedy is that it shouldn't end this way. Tragedy is not "justice." Tragedy has injustice as its main point. You are supposed to be sad.

I've talked about tragedy in media before, and will quote Arthur Miller's "Tragedy and the Common Man" here:

The possibility of victory must be there in tragedy. Where pathos rules, where pathos is finally derived, a character has fought a battle he could not possibly have won. The pathetic is achieved when the protagonist is, by virtue of his witlessness, his insensitivity, or the very air he gives off, incapable of grappling with a much superior force.

Pathos truly is the mode for the pessimist. But tragedy requires a nicer balance between what is possible and what is impossible. And it is curious, although edifying, that the plays we revere, century after century, are the tragedies. In them, and in them alone, lies the belief-optimistic, if you will, in the perfectibility of man.

What is the "much superior force" in MDZS? It's society. And yet, because things are gray, society is not fully evil. Like with Dostoyevsky's novels, people need each other. They need each other to heal and to fully live; seclusion is not a Good Thing. But also, playing the political game kills, so society also corrupts. See here.

What is society if not a reflection of the human being? Born with tendencies towards good and towards evil. Someone who can corrupt, and hurt, and also heal others. Someone who can comfort an orphan with a dog and also torment his father to death. Someone who can kill thousands of people and also risk his life to save others. People who are complex.

By saying "gray morality," I'm not saying that there is no good or evil, but instead that context determines much of this; empathy matters as well, and so what is evil to one person may save another person. That said, there is an overall moral implication that people living is good, and empathy is good. Gray morality has never ever meant moral nihilism. It just means that instead of thinking "there is no right choice sucks to suck"; it should be "there are no choices that will heal without hurting; hence, let's empathize with those who make those choices instead of condemning them." Black/white morality is exemplified with Nie Mingjue's character, who ends up stuck in a coffin for 100 years after being used like a puppet to kill innocents. I think black/white morality is pretty clearly condemned.

Imo, claims that only Wangxian got a happy ending and everyone else was sacrificed for this are based off of personal projections and impressions, not off careful analysis of the text that takes culture, literary allusions, tone, framing, and the like into account.

Wangxian are a gay couple, aka already challenging societal understandings on love. They leave society to heal and then return to help others, which is as far from a "f*ck you got mine" attitude as you can get. It's an old trope used as far back as the Bible: after some time away, you return to go into the world and save. The salvation isn't religious here but it's empathetic. They want to be a part of their loved ones lives.

Wei Wuxian never thinks that he didn't deserve death for what he did, even if the context leading up to it might well justify him feeling that way. He does not think Jin Guangyao deserved what happened to him, at the same time. He does not think everyone else's sacrifices were justified. If WWX is supposed to embody morality, as black/white people claim, then why do they disregard chapter 113?

It's fine for people to prefer things to be more spelled out (they are in TGCF, for example!) but I think MDZS is a novel that is heavily based in nuance (like, that's a central theme), and so when people approach it with an attitude of expecting spoonfeeding, they end up confused.

#ask hamliet #rants #mdzs #mdzs meta #wei wuxian #wangxian #lan wangji #lan xichen #jiang cheng #jin guangyao #jin ling #jiang wanyin #wei ying #lan zhan

291 notes · View notes