In your mind, is this shorthand a function of audience expectation or something else? Also, under what circumstances would that shorthand change? When it's broken down like that, I see what you mean about the two kinds of evil tales. That makes sense in regard to this article. I've been wondering why the killer would bother to have a partner, since it seemed like his sexual needs were met and fed by his "activities" and being a known homosexual with a partner doesn't seem like it would throw people off of thinking he was out seducing marines, especially given the time period.It's a function of stereotyping and shorthand. Either you have a tale "against evil" or you have a tale of "finding evil." Rarely is there time for both. if the former, the antagonist must be demonstrated early and often. If the latter, the "what is evil" question is the structure of the film. Consider THE USUAL SUSPECTS.
It's not that she didn't feel emotion. It's not that she didn't have empathy. It's just that it didn't affect her. Her emotions were primarily about her and her empathy was in terms of her. Stephen King described a sociopath in It in a very memorable way; there's a kid that just doesn't believe anyone else in the world is real.
She was a lot like that. It's not that we were all there for her entertainment, it's that we just didn't count.
It's a function of psychological narrative. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are in Syria. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are in Congress. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are on Wall Street. All of these narratives are necessarily self-serving; Alawites love their children, too. The narrative might change in non-fiction. It still boils down to two choices: 'this is the bad guy" or "who is the bad guy." "kink" isn't an either/or proposition. People with lovers often adore their spouses. I had a close encounter with a known NM serial killer - my mom picked him up hitch hiking and another friend - whom I met years later - almost went back to his trailer. I thought it was this guy but the MO is wrong. Either way - the guy my mom ran across had a girlfriend who helped him; the Toy Box killer was helped out by girlfriends and his daughter.In your mind, is this shorthand a function of audience expectation or something else? Also, under what circumstances would that shorthand change?
I've been wondering why the killer would bother to have a partner, since it seemed like his sexual needs were met and fed by his "activities" and being a known homosexual with a partner doesn't seem like it would throw people off of thinking he was out seducing marines, especially given the time period.
Oh, I'm not complaining, just remarking on it. I am incredibly glad that the world is so full of surprise, even if I do sometimes wish for more clarity in certain aspects of life. I will say that it bums me out that some people get so overwhelmed by it that they get locked into a way of living and perceiving, but on the whole, yeah I agree that it is better.