Where I over-analyze a silly cartoon to make a point about story editing...
[Brer] Link from loranskunky's LJ:
A 5 min flash cartoon called The Pig Farmer by Nick Cross. **WARNING - NSFW for violence and cartoon boobies (cartoobies?)**
Okay, this is JUST a cartoon, I know that. And what I say below the cut is going to sound nutty, but it is illustrative of the importance of story, if nothing else. **WARNING - Contains politics**
To me, this comes off strongly as a right-wing/libertarian anti-liberal screed, and here's why:
1) We start with an oversimplified, idealistic depiction of the perfect hard-working self-made pig. He gets up early, does his chores with a smile, eats his toast and drinks his coffee black. He's an American dammit, happy and self-sufficient.
2) The sanctity of his perfect self-reliance is plundered, to which he responds by grabbing a gun. (Okay, this is what a farmer does to predators that are stealing your livestock. I'll give him a pass on this one.) The perpetrators turn out to be foxes. And here is where it loses me. The foxes are not hungry, or even just EVIL, but free-love (dog-whistle for "Liberal"), drug-addicted hedonists. And to put the icing on the cake this poor farmer is FORCED into the drug culture. He doesn't even get "tempted" to do so of his own will.
4) Then he goes on a wealthy suburban rampage, murders socialites, and goes to jail at the hands of the foxes (no jury of our peers here, apparently -- IMHO because right-wingers like to feel they are put-upon and all alone in a sea of liberal injustice), who profit in the end from buying his farm and building a housing development.
Okay, now, I'll admit that there are hundreds of interpretations I COULD make that I didn't:
- It COULD be an indictment against drugs, though that sort of falls once you get the "jury" and "evil developer" angles. Neither of those seem to be indicative of the underground drug culture.
- It COULD be a reversal, with the pig as liberal underclass farmer and the foxes as evil corporate America, but why then the drugs and free love angle? Granted we all know that wealthy society has a WAY worse drug problem than the underclass, it's just more "respectable", but I don't see them dancing naked in the woods to bongos.
- It COULD even just be nothing at all. The pig is a farmer because that makes sense in a cartoony way. The foxes are evil and crafty and hedonistic because that the creators interpretation of the species and/or is a tried-and-true cartoon device. It's not a funny cartoon, but an ironic, tragic one -- and the plot fits the mold.
Regardless, my point of this entry is that if the creator intended it to be what I saw it as, then he succeeded in communicating that to me. If he didn't, then this is an illustration of the unintended consequences that can come about if you are incautious with your storytelling.
If your desire is to reach the broadest array of people you possibly can, then you should run your story by as many DIFFERENT (as in different from YOU) groups of editors as possible. Not only will they potentially catch things like this, but they will also catch little things that may be apparent to a niche audience (who know the in-jokes) but are baffling to people who don't have your shared background.
The goal is not to ensure no one ever mis-interprets your message, as that is impossible. Alopex is as liberal as I am (maybe more so in some ways) and didn't interpret the story AT ALL like I did, so I may very well be over-reacting. (I undoubtedly read too much political bloggage...) The goal is to limit the chances of your story reading poorly to some group of people unintentionally.
I should note in closing that this is precisely why we usually have more than one person review submissions to the Press. We seek to "average" our perception of a given story as much as possible, and avoid the risks of rejecting things just because of the interpretation of one (likely deranged from too much accounting) individual. Like me.
A 5 min flash cartoon called The Pig Farmer by Nick Cross. **WARNING - NSFW for violence and cartoon boobies (cartoobies?)**
Okay, this is JUST a cartoon, I know that. And what I say below the cut is going to sound nutty, but it is illustrative of the importance of story, if nothing else. **WARNING - Contains politics**
To me, this comes off strongly as a right-wing/libertarian anti-liberal screed, and here's why:
1) We start with an oversimplified, idealistic depiction of the perfect hard-working self-made pig. He gets up early, does his chores with a smile, eats his toast and drinks his coffee black. He's an American dammit, happy and self-sufficient.
2) The sanctity of his perfect self-reliance is plundered, to which he responds by grabbing a gun. (Okay, this is what a farmer does to predators that are stealing your livestock. I'll give him a pass on this one.) The perpetrators turn out to be foxes. And here is where it loses me. The foxes are not hungry, or even just EVIL, but free-love (dog-whistle for "Liberal"), drug-addicted hedonists. And to put the icing on the cake this poor farmer is FORCED into the drug culture. He doesn't even get "tempted" to do so of his own will.
4) Then he goes on a wealthy suburban rampage, murders socialites, and goes to jail at the hands of the foxes (no jury of our peers here, apparently -- IMHO because right-wingers like to feel they are put-upon and all alone in a sea of liberal injustice), who profit in the end from buying his farm and building a housing development.
Okay, now, I'll admit that there are hundreds of interpretations I COULD make that I didn't:
- It COULD be an indictment against drugs, though that sort of falls once you get the "jury" and "evil developer" angles. Neither of those seem to be indicative of the underground drug culture.
- It COULD be a reversal, with the pig as liberal underclass farmer and the foxes as evil corporate America, but why then the drugs and free love angle? Granted we all know that wealthy society has a WAY worse drug problem than the underclass, it's just more "respectable", but I don't see them dancing naked in the woods to bongos.
- It COULD even just be nothing at all. The pig is a farmer because that makes sense in a cartoony way. The foxes are evil and crafty and hedonistic because that the creators interpretation of the species and/or is a tried-and-true cartoon device. It's not a funny cartoon, but an ironic, tragic one -- and the plot fits the mold.
Regardless, my point of this entry is that if the creator intended it to be what I saw it as, then he succeeded in communicating that to me. If he didn't, then this is an illustration of the unintended consequences that can come about if you are incautious with your storytelling.
If your desire is to reach the broadest array of people you possibly can, then you should run your story by as many DIFFERENT (as in different from YOU) groups of editors as possible. Not only will they potentially catch things like this, but they will also catch little things that may be apparent to a niche audience (who know the in-jokes) but are baffling to people who don't have your shared background.
The goal is not to ensure no one ever mis-interprets your message, as that is impossible. Alopex is as liberal as I am (maybe more so in some ways) and didn't interpret the story AT ALL like I did, so I may very well be over-reacting. (I undoubtedly read too much political bloggage...) The goal is to limit the chances of your story reading poorly to some group of people unintentionally.
I should note in closing that this is precisely why we usually have more than one person review submissions to the Press. We seek to "average" our perception of a given story as much as possible, and avoid the risks of rejecting things just because of the interpretation of one (likely deranged from too much accounting) individual. Like me.