The Appeal of Anti-Heroes
posted by Frank Pasquale
As The Sopranos draws to a close, I’ve been impressed by its loyal following. I watched it for the year or so I had a TiVo, and it had a certain appeal. But when you look at devotionals like Sopranos Sue’s Sightings, it’s clear that this Sunday’s finale is on a lot of people’s minds. It’s but one of many shows with heroes who consistently break the rules–from the impatient House to the hip robbers in Ocean’s 11 to 13 to recent “stop snitching” campaigns. What accounts for all these anti-heroes? Are they part of a larger cultural trend toward suspecting all institutions?
I’m afraid I can’t answer that, but I am a bit concerned about the allure of outlawry in pop (and cyber) culture. Consider this passage from an Andrew Koppelmann article on the concept of moral harm:
Any work of literature promotes certain desires and projects in the reader. Wayne Booth observes that narratives, when we are paying attention to them, tend to reshape us. As we read “a large part of our thought-stream is taken over, at least for the duration of the telling, by the story we are taking in.” Any text will imply an
author, possibly different from the real historical author, whose presence can be felt by the reader. As I read, my
thinking becomes that of the implied author: “I begin to see as he or she sees, to feel as she feels, to love what
he loves, or to mock what she mocks.”
I believe an essay in Reading the Sopranos suggests that Tony is more a reflection of his time than an outlier in an age of rampant “amoral familism.” But I ultimately find myself resisting Booth’s suggestion here. Are we really in danger of becoming bad people by reading about (or watching) bad people? Is literature that powerful? And if so, should we worry about reading so many legal cases involving sharp dealing, trickery, and crime?
June 7, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Posted in: Culture, Legal Theory, Philosophy of Social Science
Print This Post
Responses (3)
Patrick S. O'Donnell - June 7, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Figures as diverse as Plato and Freud were, I think, rightly concerned about the powerful and sometimes deleterious effects of various forms of art, but there’s so many ceretis paribus clauses we’d have to invoke for most generalizations it renders much of what we might have to say rather insipid or unhelpful. It does seem that art affects different people differently, with some of a certain state of mind or certain sort of character (perhaps prone to borderline psychopathology) that renders them rather susceptible to being influenced this or that way by what they’ve watched, read or heard. So we’re undoubtedly on treacherous terrain when it comes to making moral or psychological generalizations about art. Nonetheless, I think we might go as far as Anne Sheppard and acknowledge that “art has some part to play in inculcating values and attitudes, for it can influence the terms in which we see life,” however much this effect on our “values and attitudes is often subtle, indirect, and only appreciated by hindsight.” So, while Frank Pasquale won’t go bad by watching the Sopranos, maybe 15-year old Frankie Friendless, alienated, bitter, maltreated, at home in his small apartment obsessively watching reruns of Tony and the cast of characters behaving illegally if not immorally will be adversely affected…and that should concern all of us.
By the way, instead of the Sopranos, think about some of Shakespeare’s plays: do we have the same sort of concerns? Why not?
Patrick S. O'Donnell - June 7, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Figures as diverse as Plato and Freud were, I think, rightly concerned about the powerful and sometimes deleterious effects of various forms of art, but there’s so many ceretis paribus clauses we’d have to invoke for most generalizations it renders much of what we might have to say rather insipid or unhelpful. It does seem that art affects different people differently, with some of a certain state of mind or certain sort of character (perhaps prone to borderline psychopathology) that renders them rather susceptible to being influenced this or that way by what they’ve watched, read or heard. So we’re undoubtedly on treacherous terrain when it comes to making moral or psychological generalizations about art. Nonetheless, I think we might go as far as Anne Sheppard and acknowledge that “art has some part to play in inculcating values and attitudes, for it can influence the terms in which we see life,” however much this effect on our “values and attitudes is often subtle, indirect, and only appreciated by hindsight.” So, while Frank Pasquale won’t go bad by watching the Sopranos, maybe 15-year old Frankie Friendless, alienated, bitter, maltreated, at home in his small apartment obsessively watching reruns of Tony and the cast of characters behaving illegally if not immorally will be adversely affected…and that should concern all of us.
By the way, instead of the Sopranos, think about some of Shakespeare’s plays: do we have the same sort of concerns? Why not?
Frank - June 7, 2007 at 4:40 pm
You’re absolutely right about the differential “viewer-reception,” and I can see why we want to shield children from a lot of what’s out there.
As for Shakespeare–Koppelmann suggests that obscene material may get treated differently than nonobscene because its sexual/violent contact has such an immediate impact on viewers.
Drawing on that distinction, I would think the Shakespeare plays are sufficiently mediated by elevated language, reflection, costumes, etc. that they would not fall into the same category as the most lurid episodes of The Sopranos. But the more reflective episodes might make the two indistinguishable.
Leave a Reply