This is a good read for fans of the the show. I don’t think the central premise of redefined evil holds up, but it’s a fun read and the analysis of their characters is spot on.
But in shows like this, in quite a lot of sitcoms with more cringey aspects, the protagonist is not necessarily a good person and they are often undone by their own pettiness, selfishness etc. Certainly in UK comedy anyway. Look at Fawlty Towers, The Office... Blackadder to a certain extent.
So when the article says this -
> It’s natural when experiencing any story to identify and sympathize with the protagonist.
Yes and no - this is something that creators can play with and may make deliberately jarring. See 'Lolita' for an extreme example. The article even brings up Walter White, saying - "we are drawn to root for the primary subject of the story". If you're still rooting for Walter by the end of Breaking Bad... were we watching the same show?
By the end I was back rooting for him.
I wanted his plan to rescue Jessie (and to an extent Skyler) to work. It felt like a partial atonement[1] and allowed to show wrap up satisfyingly.
I feel the same way the same way about Tony Soprano. A terrible person with terrible behaviour but I still root for him at the end.
1. Of course nothing would really atone for his actions in reality but narrative isn’t reality.
Walt was still fascinating to watch and maybe I approved of or disliked some of his individual actions, and we definitely had deep insight to his character by then, but I don't think I'd describe myself as rooting for him or experiencing his story in a particularly sympathetic way. I wasn't experiencing the story through him by then as I might have been early on, if that makes sense.
Like you say, you experience the story through these dubious characters. Especially on multiple watch throughs you can really come to despise them but the series are so well made that the writers can bring you round multiple times.
There's something about the cognative disonence of how most people experience life there.
I was once told that most people that do bad things just convince themselves that what they're doing is actually OK.
So someone that steals from cars blames the car's owner for leaving it unlocked. That rings true for me. They're not sociopaths, they're bending their reality to justify their actions.
That's obvious criminality but I think that almost everyone is doing something like that to some extent.
For example, just look at the popularity of fast fashion that's almost certainly made with slave labour. At this point in time I don't think anyone buying from Shien[1] or Temu[2] could be in any doubt. They must know, they just don't care. They're still just everyday people.
> unlocked. That rings true for me. They're not sociopaths, they're bending
> their reality to justify their actions.
Thse are your words,
Isn't a stolen car Known as GTA or "Auto theft" ?
Where I live using the words Grand Theft Auto, with that capitalisation, implies the video game of the same name. We don't have the crime of the same name (we call it Taking without Consent).
Since there's been quite a bit in the news about video game censorship, including GTA, I mistook your comment as trying to change the topic to that. My appologies.
It was big of you to come back and discuss the way you did. Respect.
Butter the toast, eat the toast, shit the toast... God, life's relentless.