Hacker News Reader

Comment by loudmax | Hacker News Reader

We admire high achievers. Watching fictional Walter White or fictionalized Pablo Escobar build their drug empires is exciting, especially given the emotional distance alluded to in the article. A series about major capitalists or political figures could be interesting too, but not as inherently exciting without the danger of sudden violence. A story about mid- or low-level crooks might be exciting, but nobody would say we're admiring these characters.

View on HN

People admire characters like Walter White because they are blind to all the lives he has destroyed and they see only the desire to be great at something. It is the same with any capitalist. Any great enterprise looks a lot less amazing once you read the expose.

"Admire" is a bit of a leap. We are blurring the lines between fiction and reality a little. Watching a film or tv program doesn't imply any approval or admiration of the content, it means it is entertaining to watch. People do enjoy the romantic mobster world Mario Puzo created, they don't go out of their way to promote the growth of organized crime syndicates in their towns. Nobody offers to pay protection money... ("...if only Salt Lake City had a crime family I could pay protection to....")

The fiction and its interest is interesting, I mean by the end of The Sopranos, I found myself wanting Tony to not get killed or go to jail but also knowing full well that he was a sociopath. It probably has to do with the writing and how they humanized him. You get to view this very different world and lifestyle and then you see some human properties and some similarities to things you know. The difference is what draws you in, but I could relate in ways to Tony the father and Tony the husband. Maybe it is even more simple, I liked watching the stories and I knew if something happened to Tony, the stories would end.

I enjoyed Sopranos, Breaking Bad, all those Godfather movies and more but in no way do I endorse or encourage that lifestyle or those activities.

People admiring Walter White was definitely a phenomenon (does not mean it was universal among the show's fans, just that it existed), and in some ways there are aspects of Walter's personality that are admirable in an individualist society: making money based on your own talents, being extremely competent or the best, self reliance in difficult situations. They didn't care about the horrible stuff he did and the lengths the show went to to explain to you that this is not a good guy.

Well, people did care about those horrible things. That's the main theme of the story. The viewer is supposed to feel uncomfortable with the dissonance of admiring a man they know they shouldn't.

Breaking Bad did not avoid showing the damage Walter While caused. I think the reason we still watch and (to a degree) root for him has more to do with 'living vicariously through' rather than 'identifying with' or 'admiring'.

Whenever I play GTA, there are times where I just go out causing as much mayhem as possible. It's enjoyable precisely because it's not something I would do in real life.

In a similar way, I love watching Kevin Spacey on his sociopathic power-trip, Walter White and his seat-of-the-pants improvisation, Gus Fring and his controlling-but-hidden-in-plain-sight-masterminding, Tony Soprano in his violent and erratic leadership, and so on.

It's a guilty pleasure, and knowing the damage these characters only heightens the pleasure. Whether this is good or not is another question, but the reasons seem pretty obvious to me.

"The Wolf Of Wall Street" springs to mind as well. Hideous behaviour that ruined thousands of ordinary people's lives, but lots of people can't help but admire people like Mr. Belfort - at least as portrayed in the movie - for their success (myself included). It's an interesting phenomenon.

Hmm. He seemed to me like a dreadful guy. I experience this quite a bit with American films. The "hero" is a dreadful person and I'm hoping they get what's coming to them ASAP.

I couldn't shake this on watching The Sopranos. Too often really disgusting behavior was made to humorous in a way that left a bad taste.

It's not that I'm squeamish. Off the top of my head the last US film I watched where I quite liked the "anti-hero" was "There will be blood". I particularly enjoyed him bludgeoning the preacher with a bowling pin.

But Daniel Plainview was as dreadful of a guy as anyone though. A true sociopath.

Can't disagree. I just wanted him to kill the equally dreadful preacher. And he did!

I blame evolution. It's wired us to be attracted by power and fame and not worry too much about distant strangers.

s/blame/praise :0

In the end only one's own gene-survival matters.

> "In the end only one's own gene-survival matters."

Really? Speaking personally, if I could make a large lasting contribution to improve society, but had to give up my own gene-survival to do it, then I would do it. People value different things, there isn't one be-all and end-all.

If our ancestors had thought like that the human race would not exist as we know it. It's very much the exception to the rule to value 'societal progress' over one's own family.

Not really. We'd still exist, even with the same attitude. Sometimes increasing the size of the population is beneficial to society, but it's a different situation in today's world.

I understand why the idea of bringing life into the world is appealing, but let's not pretend that's the main reason for living.

Agreed.

My own gene survival is of zero interest to me personally.

Your genes programmed you to believe that your "own gene survival is of zero interest to [you] personally." They did that because they found that exhibiting that belief was a good way to get themselves into the next generation.

Some substantial number of people who go around thinking that they aren't just acting as machines to propagate their genes find that their independence from gene control just happens to lead them to have a nice large family because their unselfish spirits love their spouses and children.

And the genes giggle triumphantly at your independence.

This seems like an unfalsifiable set of statements. Anything someone can say to the contrary just gets wrapped up in "But your genes programmed yourself that way".

Hint: There's not a whole lot "Gene survival urges" can do about 2 pellets of appropriately placed titanium and some surgical knives.

> Your genes programmed you to believe that your "own gene survival is of zero interest to [you] personally." They did that because they found that exhibiting that belief was a good way to get themselves into the next generation.

This is a compeltely meaningless statement, with no basis in fact. Genes do not consciously 'trick' you.

It's also a logically problematic. How would my developing to experience no paternal instinct actually lead me to have children? Short of me being irresponsible during sexual encounters (which I'm not) it won't happen.

> Some substantial number of people who go around thinking that they aren't just acting as machines to propagate their genes...

I never claimed otherwise and a I actually agree with that.

However the urge to have sex is very different from the urge desire to have children. You might want to look into that.

> ...find that their independence from gene control just happens to lead them to have a nice large family because their unselfish spirits love their spouses and children.

Again, no basis in fact.

This is very patronising and condescending as well. You're claiming to know my own mind better than I know it myself which is the asbsolute height of arrogance. You're also indicating people are selfish if they don't have children, which is competely contradicts what you said above about people just being machiens for genetic propagation.

I'm not even sure what to say to this other than you sound like a horribly shallow and judgemental person with a high degree of cognitive dissonance.

You might want to accept that fact that there are millions and millions of people across the globe that consciously decide to never have childre, for a variety of reasons. It may also come as a surprise to you that these people do not suddenly break down and end up with large families because their genes 'tricked' them into it.

Spot on.

I think it's the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing. He can purse his dreams and we should be building society so that other lives don't have to be ruined in pursuit of happiness.

> A series about major capitalists or political figures could be interesting too

'The West Wing' for politics and 'Mad Men' and 'Suits' for business comes to mind.

The West Wing didn't even strive to be realistic. It often was intentionally optimistic. I agree you need a TV show centered on how politics really works, probably closer to House of Cards when you think about it.

If you've ever seen how politics really works, you would know that Veep or Parks And Rec are the realistic ones.

Agreed, I forgot about Veep. If I recall correctly, VP Biden has said that is actually what his job is like.

But Mad Men is more like regular soap opera sprinkled eventually with business, isn't it?

It's not just exciting--it's cathartic.

Walter White is a smart guy who is put into a desperate situation, and overcomes that situation. In the process, he kinda turns into a monster as his problem solving outstrips his morals but not his insecurities, but still, it's impressive to watch him stand up and win.

Pablo Escobar (as portrayed in Narcos) started out with a small family smuggling business, and built it up into a multi-billion-dollar-a-year business. He did so while helping the common man, bringing revenue into the country, and generally being of the people in a nation segregated by race and wealth. Arguably, it was only when the US decided to intervene and the old guard of Colombia became threatened by political aspirations that the business became violent.

Especially in the latter case--being based on a real person--we see an individual taking a stand against a system with arbitrary rules, fighting for the success of his business, and taking care of his own people (sorta).

In contrast, we see them fighting against large bureaucratic machines, organizations without personal ties and human agendas. It's not hard to see that the human despots in gangster narratives are more sympathetic than the abstract almost-forces-of-nature they're competing against.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com