Quote:
Originally Posted by Charred Knight
I kept on writing a bunch of different type of posts, but the same question just kept on coming back to me.
What?
I mean that's all I can say
What?
I mean your answer makes no sense
You mention that the millions Charles would have killed are fictional than you spout nonsense about how Charles is a realist when you just said that Realism didn't matter. because if realism did matter than the 50 million people he just killed would matter.
|
I should have been more clear. The 50 million people being fictional was for your benefit. I honestly don't see the sense in condemning a fictional character because of their atrocities. They can't help it, after all: they just do what the author wants them to do.
Charles' ideology/actions/motivations are unique, believably developed by his backstory, and actually interesting (his realist perceptions being part of what make them so). That's what matters to me in a work of fiction.
Quote:
Than the crap about the Amestrian Government which was incredibly depraved.
You can't have it both ways
You can't condemn characters for being idealistic while excusing characters for their actions because "it wasn't real".
|
I'm not condemning Roy for being idealistic, I'm condemning him for being a boring character (well okay, his flame alchemy is pretty badass) whose emotional core just isn't compelling or accessible. Honestly, any character who for one lacks enough perspective to go into 'I'll hurt even my friends for revenge' mode, only to subsequently change his mind due to their self-righteous preaching, is just plain weak. And going back to my first point again, I can hardly believe you can take some fictional dream of a 'golden Amestris' (this is exactly the bullshit politics is made of, btw) seriously enough to actually find it moving.