Horse Voice vs. the Status Quo (Story Spoilers) · 5:30pm Nov 23rd, 2015
Bad Horse's latest article brought up a lot of good points about common unintended themes in genre fiction, and when he got to Horror, the blood drained from my face. Here's what he said:
Most of our movies, TV shows, and commercial novels are conservative. The protagonist’s life is good at the start of the story. Then something bad happens. The bad thing must be fixed and normality restored. [...] Stephen King has written or talked several times about the conservative ideology of horror. In Danse Macabre, his analysis of horror, he wrote that "The writer of horror fiction is neither more nor less than an agent of the status quo." I think this same argument applies to many genres--certainly to action stories, crime fiction, and a great deal of fantasy. People write fantasies about restoring the rightful king, not about overthrowing him.
"Say it ain't so!" I said.
Of course, for every genre, there are now books and movies subverting that genre. Those are literally the exceptions that proves the rule.
"Thank goodness," I said.
So here, I've listed the intended themes from my standalone Horror (or close enough) stories to see how often I've defended the Status Quo without fully realizing it. Be warned: It's thematic spoilers from here on.
The Savage Way: Nature doesn't care about your precious Status Quo, and when things get bad enough, neither will you. This may come across as an indirect endorsement of the Quo, but then again, common decency precludes eating your fellow man, and you don't really need a Quo for that. (Aside: I just found out this is the second-highest-rated Thriller on the site! Woo!)
Verdict: Neutral.
The Writing on the Wall: The Status Quo won't help you against the Unknown, and can in fact make things worse. Now we're talking. Everyone in this story (even the nominal villain) does what they always do, and don't properly re-evaluate when it doesn't work. Don't get too comfy in that bubble, folks, 'cause it may be your undoing.
Verdict: Rebellious.
Biblical Monsters: Your efforts to protect the Status Quo may make things much worse than the perceived threat ever could. I'm legitimately proud of this one. In my effort to make a statement about the danger of irrational fear, I seem to have also said that people trying to do good by protecting the Quo often do more harm than good. Am I right? As always, judge for yourself.
Verdict: Rebellious.
Wild Fire: When the Status Quo makes your life miserable, you owe it nothing but animosity. Ask yourself: How many people and institutions try to convince you that you owe them something, while they consider you disposable? Be honest.
Verdict: Rebellious.
Johnny Never Knew What Hit Him: In the face of destruction of the Status Quo, (and everything else) the truth is still important, even if it may not seem that way. That was my intent, anyway. But as a metaphor for the (lack of) morality of World War II, I don't think it holds up well.
Verdict: Pro-Establishment.
Leviathan: The belief that your own Status Quo is superior to others' may have dire consequences. Here, I seem to have a pragmatic outlook on Status Quos: If someone else's is different from yours, there may be a good reason.
Verdict: Neutral.
Long Live Sonata Dusk: You'll die someday, so if there's something in your life that needs changing, now is the time. It's scary, and it has a theme of self-improvement. A lot of artists grow to dislike their past work, but I don't think I'll have that problem with this one.
Verdict: Rebellious.
The Visiting Hour: The universe may or may not be full of unspeakable horrors that could descend on us at any moment. No dispute here: Status Quo has it that Equestria is happy and free, but scary monsters are coming to ruin it. A pity, since I've rarely been able to put so much scariness into so few words.
Verdict: Pro-Establishment.
Not bad, but without Bad Horse doing the Bad Horse thing, I wouldn't have even thought about these things. And now this will inform a lot of people's future work. It makes me wonder, in what other fandom can you learn--or teach--so many things? At times, I've felt like leaving. But today, I can't express how glad I am to be a small part of this art movement.
Because that's what it is, you know.
Cheers,
HV
You all make me feel so bad that my blogs are just stuff I copypasted from Wikipedia.
I'm intrigued that I've read all but the last one of those. :3
I've said that "horror" is when a story says that there's evil outside, and "dark" is when a story says there's evil inside. As in, Heart of Darkness. I don't know if that's a useful definition, but conservative horror is the former, and your stories are the latter.
I'm working on a bunch of blog posts on the topic of conservative vs. subversive art. As I see it, most of the history of art is a tug-of-war between people who want to use art to ask questions, and those who want to use art to stop people from asking questions.
3564858
While I think that's an interesting lens to view the history of art through, it seems like an oversimplification from here.
I'll be interested in seeing your arguments for this, though.
3564858
John Carpenter (if I recall) said something similar, with this difference: both were sub-types of Horror. The difference may be semantic, but regardless it seems to me that pointing out the evil within is not only more important for the audience's enlightenment, but also more innately scary.
If those posts are as enlightening as your latest, I'll look forward to them. But I have one question, which may be useful to consider: Is it possible for a piece of art to be neutral, and take some sort of middle ground? For instance, the theme might be that societies have a place for some sort of Status Quo, but not if it makes things worse for people.
I think the question is important, because it may be self-limiting to view art through a black-and-white dichotomy. (If I've misunderstood, I apologize. It's quite early where I am.)
3563868
The good thing about being a fan of Horse Voice is, it's easy to be a completionist.
The bad thing about it is... the same.
3565430 There's no such thing as an oversimplification, only an oversimplification for a particular purpose.
Perhaps we can call a summary of a phenomenon an oversimplification if someone given just the summary would be unable to summarize an instance of the phenomenon using it. In that case, it's an oversimplification.
Strong central rulers establish strict control over art, and outlaw art that threatens them. This is a cultural universal. Most of recorded history has had strong central rulers, and stylized, propagandistic art.
waterstoneatwellesley.com/sites/waterstoneatwellesley.com/files/egypt%20art.jpg
kidspast.com/images/zeus-statue4.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/_7RSqrb2BaWs/TL3igs_BaKI/AAAAAAAAAdU/7sXve3MiyPc/s1600/monreale_5235.jpg
cx.aos.ask.com/question/aq/700px-394px/were-major-accomplishments-louis-xvi_fd5ccc42d9263667.jpg
images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/nazi-war-propaganda-poster-daniel-hagerman.jpg
Changes in artistic style begin when the ruling class loses power to some competing class. These changes always begin as a violation of the existing rules of art, are seen as subversive, and are subversive in some way. But then the artists start reacting to each other, and often don't see the big picture, and classify the new style according to its artistic techniques or its typical subjects rather than to its message. Or the rebellion is a turning to a new master. Or the new style is a recollection of an older style without most artists understanding its political implications. Like neoclassicism during the Enlightenment, which many people at the time saw as reaching back to a more empirically-enlightened age, but was actually reaching back to sculpture and architecture made for the conservative powers of that age. Or like romanticism after it, which was initially an unruly, rebellious individualism (Beethoven, Lord Byron) that made disquieting art like this stuff:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Carl_Gustav_Carus_Die_Ruine_von_Netley_Abbey_im_Mondlicht_1844.jpg
... but was invaded by artists who made art using the new techniques and subjects, but filled it with old, soothing neo-classical meaning, like Keats, and like this stuff:
genealogyreligion.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tk2003bmakeawishcottageij0.jpg
The third faction, which I haven't mentioned, is the artists and academics, who want neither to support the status quo, nor to attack it, but to become famous. They don't care about the content; they just need to change the style or theory, or nobody will notice them. The easiest way to change a style is to make it bad by dropping some rule or over-emphasizing some aspect or technique. That gives us modernism, and Mannerist painting.
3565641
I'm sure it's possible, but can such art become popular? I'm considering the idea that such art only becomes popular during periods when no faction is strong enough to control which art becomes popular. That would include 5th and 4th century B.C. Greece, 15th century Europe, Elizabethan England, and Western Europe from 1800 up until about 1925. I suspect that Bach wasn't popular during his lifetime, but became popular later, not because people were stupid in the 18th century, but because much of Bach's music is disturbing in a way that wasn't considered spiritually elevating in the strict 18th century, but matched the spirit of the 19th century.
3565842
All good points. I'm pleased to note that subversive art seems to be--dare I say it?--darker and edgier. No surprise, then, that such artists are often only recognized posthumously.
Of course, that was back then. Times have changed because of technology. No matter what you have to say, you can get it out there, and someone will listen. So fingers crossed the Internet remains a free place.
Oh, and I'll remember what you've said about central rulers, because it may help to convince neutral parties that critical theorists (as distinct from legitimate critics) are establishment shills.