I feel like I'm arguing with people who lack the basic ability to read into a situation and draw their own conclusions. It's like I'm arguing with people whose media consumption is filtered entirely through Cinema Sins.
"UMMMM, actually it simply makes no sense that this character would suddenly do harm to someone they considered a friend. As the narrative provided no explicit justification, you must have simply overlooked it! *sniff, sniff* Now, please sit back for my treatise on why we should know what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction."
Like, do people realize that the gross majority of assaults happen between two people that are known to each other? Like, what the fuck are we doing here? I feel like I'm arguing with people who are just really bummed I toned down the first chapter, and if they wrap their frustration up in the most spurious of arguments, I'll eventually concede.
I don't know if this is supposed to be intentional misrepresentation of what people are saying for the sake of misguided mockery, or if it's genuinely how you fail to understand what is actually being said, but don't worry -- i doubt if after display like that anyone will still bother to provide their take on this.
I get the frustration of having your work criticized and watching swine fail to appreciate the subtly polished pearls you've thrown their way, but this was rather poor way to handle it.
It’s more like, “A handful of people are being willfully obtuse, and demanding explanation for things which don’t actually require them.”
Are people willingly obtuse, or maybe they genuinely think what they're saying, and what you've written isn't actually reaching them in the way you thought it would? Either because the presentation is lacking, or they're indeed less intelligent or operating from different sensibilities than you'd presumed, or some combination of those? Or maybe there's some other reasons for it. Could be worth a thought...
Just kidding, your mind is clearly set on this.
But there was no non-shitty justification in either version. Maybe guy just realizes that now that he's wealthy he can do things that he couldn't do before and get away with it. I don't know. Yes bad people usually have a "justification" for doing bad things but that's all it is. It's not something that makes any sense to most people, and certainly not something that excuses their behavior. People are basically asking Neon to hand them a reason to be " shitty, misogynistic, and gross" (his words) on a silver platter. The reality is that he never did. He just made it clear, with the remake, that Nicky does not give you any reason to treat her that way.
No one is saying that Guy's justification for his behavior should be, or that it even could be non-shitty for a normal person. What people are saying is that where previously such shitty justification could be induced pretty clearly, in the current version, as you acknowledge yourself, this was removed and there isn't anything in the story as it's presented that could be interpreted as Guy having some shitty self-justification for his behavior in that particular moment. Even though, as you recognize, having shitty excuse is generally part of shitty actions, even for psychopaths.
You admit yourself that in the current iteration you can't even begin to guess why Guy could feel self-justified to act the way he does -- you can only throw up your arms and conclude "i don't know". And that's because the circumstances which previously were present (never mind if they were served on a silver platter or otherwise) are no longer here, as you
also note yourself. That
is a change in the game's narrative if any --even flimsiest-- doubts/excuses the protagonist could make were excised from it.
Now, some people feel this makes the revised iteration worse, and given this is largely about tastes than objective qualities i think they're entitled to it, instead of getting told "no, you don't need it and if you think you do then you're just
dumb". Which is, well. A bit conceited, perhaps?
.
