/lit/ - Literature

>>20508691
Or, you know, they’re just not characters with a strong christian upbringing.
Or they’re aimed at the shifty teenager market, not the hall monitor scold type of kid

Dostoevsky is inferior writer who cannot create a compelling protagonist then.

>>20508708

>>20508805
I'm glad you're not afraid to say it anon

>>20508691

This is totally wrong. Most of the great works of literature throughout history center upon severely flawed figures. Pretty much everyone in the Homeric epics would be considered war criminals by modern standards.

The crutch of modern writers tends to be the opposite. Generally, any "moral ambiguity" explored in popular works tends to not be ambiguous at all. Even when the characters do bad things, hack writers seldom give their characters a choice but to do such.

Genuine moral ambiguity is when characters have choices to do something else, but don't wish to make whatever personal sacrifice is demanded, so they choose the wrong thing out of temporary personal expedience. Othello chooses to believe Iago over Desdemona and Emilia because of his pride. Romeo chooses to pursue Juliet rather than keep waiting for literally any girl his family isn't feuding with because of his lust. Shylock chooses to torture Antonio to death even after he's given his money because of his greed.

There's certainly exceptions to this. But they require writers who are comfortable exploring characters who do bad things for the wrong reasons when said characters have a choice to do good things for the right reasons, yet don't, or at least don't at first, because the latter's harder, and because their personal flaws overshadow their virtues. Such thing is heavily dicouraged in the Current Year, but there's those who manage all the same. Vince Gilligan's quite good with this. As is George R.R. Martin.

Kentaro Miura also did this to an extent, but if you look at the story more closely, I think his true specialty was the opposite. For all the awful things Guts did, the easier choices for him would've meant surrendering to evil. But he never did. He never considered taking advantage of the Apostle's powers. Nor of joining forces with any of the countless monsters he fought. He pushed through against them to the very end, no matter the cost, and in a weird way's the most moral character in the series. He's cruel and violent, but almost totally incorruptible. It's like if Harry Potter were ass-raped as a child.

>>20508691
Who are some great characters without any moral ambiguity

>>20508691
And you? Chronic masturbator.

I'm tired of both positive morality and moral ambiguity, show me the virtues of evil.

>>20508691
no but they are quite often utilized by bad writers

>>20508925
>But they require writers who are comfortable exploring characters who do bad things for the wrong reasons when said characters have a choice to do good things for the right reasons, yet don't, or at least don't at first, because the latter's harder, and because their personal flaws overshadow their virtues.
this is boring sorry. i don't find assholes interesting, there are enough of them irl

>>20509607
just read juliette by sade

>>20508691
It takes just as much effort if not more to make a good morally ambiguous character. That's why so many are just cringy edgelords.

aince you're spamming I'll repeat myself:

Only in the sense that they're usually only morally ambiguous compared to a saturday morning cartoon hero or villain.
anti-hero also changes definition depending on the context. An anti-hero in the classical era was essentially just an ordinary guy, but now that's the norm. In modern pop media it's somebody whose crawling in his skin, with wounds that will not heal. Frankly, given how common edgelords are nowadays, antiheroes should be the opposite of that, a driven and highly moral knight of faith.

>>20509667
That's just seething at the church and violent hedonism, I said virtues.

>>20509776
>evil
>virtues
are you retarded?

>>20508691
Who's Dostoevsky's favorite Helltaker girl?

>>20509793
Isn't the purpose of good writing to synthesize difficult ideas? I don't just want edgy shlock or two bit "WHO WAS THE REAL BAD GUY HMMM"ism.

>>20508805
He is, anon.

>>20509369
Jesus Christ, from the Bible.

>>20511097
>Jesus Christ
not a good character

>from the Bible.
not a good book

>>20508691
Correct

>>20509852
anon, virtues are by definition good. If it is virtuous it isn't evil
read something other than light novels and chinese fantasy books