Bajaj shouldn't be grey - Page 7

Originally posted by: najma123

I relate to everything you have said. Except that, if you do understand Literature, you'd know that ITV and a lot of movies, stereotype good and bad into some classes and compartments. For example, a good woman wears Mangalsutra and sindoor, a good man does this. Not necessarily. But these are how they are represented. And TV's representation of good and bad is shoddy as hell, especially EK's. Is it that easy to compartmentalise good and bad from the point of view of literature? This is a question to you, coz you mentioned it. I am not a literature student though I'd have loved to be one. Aren't good characters shaded too? Aren't bad characters shaded too? And who defines grey? Is there a definition of grey? Doesn't it depend on each person's moral compass? There are loads of instances when murder has been held morally correct, I am NOT saying it is so here. But, at the end of the day, white, black and grey are all shades. And sometimes the shades can get blurry. White from some angles looks grey, grey from some angles looks black. And black when shining brightly can appear white. When mere colours can represent so much, how can people be classified into categories? A grey person today can perform a good act tomorrow.  A white person can perform a grey act. Doesn't change their core, just gives them more vibrant shades. 

P. S. Here white and black represent the nature of people. No racism or anything. 😆

I am not vindicating B or incrinimating A. Just asking some questions. XD 

To answer that bold part, I think I do understand literature pretty well and because of that I do know that Itv and movies, in fact literature too stereotypes people that way. In my comment that you replied to I said that all characters fall into certain tropes and that means characters fall into stereotypes and are compartmentalized into good, bad or somewhere in between. So I hope that answers your doubts about what I said. I believe there's a lot of literature out there so while some stories are pretty black and white, others leave room for interpretation and moral ambiguity. It all depends on what the author intended while writing and what the person experiences while reading. There's many different philosophical schools of thought, some believe that morals/ethics are strict universal codes and some that believe it differs among individuals. It's really up to what you want to believe and interpret. You ask a lot of really valid questions about morality and if I'm being honest even I have those same questions, but I'm certainly no deciding authority on what those answers should be. I don't believe that in real life people are black and white at all but I think that as humans we've all got a basic moral code that we operate by, I mean why else do we have laws and rights if we didn't have some common beliefs about the way we conduct ourselves in society? While humans are grey, the common moral agreement and the laws we all live by do dictate that some people are better or worse than others. However, I don't think these discussions about our sense of morality or our philosophies apply to ITV the way they apply to our real loves. ITV provides a very fictionalized, oversimplified and sanitized version of our lives so I don't apply my morality to it. I just watch, enjoy and occasionally come here to discuss my thoughts on it. But I don't think we should in any way think it is representative of real life. I hope that answers atleast some of your questions :)

Originally posted by: Nostalgia3997

To answer that bold part, I think I do understand literature pretty well and because of that I do know that Itv and movies, in fact literature too stereotypes people that way. In my comment that you replied to I said that all characters fall into certain tropes and that means characters fall into stereotypes and are compartmentalized into good, bad or somewhere in between. So I hope that answers your doubts about what I said. I believe there's a lot of literature out there so while some stories are pretty black and white, others leave room for interpretation and moral ambiguity. It all depends on what the author intended while writing and what the person experiences while reading. There's many different philosophical schools of thought, some believe that morals/ethics are strict universal codes and some that believe it differs among individuals. It's really up to what you want to believe and interpret. You ask a lot of really valid questions about morality and if I'm being honest even I have those same questions, but I'm certainly no deciding authority on what those answers should be. I don't believe that in real life people are black and white at all but I think that as humans we've all got a basic moral code that we operate by, I mean why else do we have laws and rights if we didn't have some common beliefs about the way we conduct ourselves in society? While humans are grey, the common moral agreement and the laws we all live by do dictate that some people are better or worse than others. However, I don't think these discussions about our sense of morality or our philosophies apply to ITV the way they apply to our real loves. ITV provides a very fictionalized, oversimplified and sanitized version of our lives so I don't apply my morality to it. I just watch, enjoy and occasionally come here to discuss my thoughts on it. But I don't think we should in any way think it is representative of real life. I hope that answers atleast some of your questions :)

I asked those questions based on what you said. I totally enjoy ITV, and what I don't enjoy I don't watch. 😆 I love BajRag scenes, I watch them. I thoroughly enjoy them and sometimes it's fun to be here as well coz different people express their own takes. But, here stuff gets serious so soon and there's deep stuff getting discussed, my enjoyment wanes down in comparison. 😆 So, I'd rather stick to my own enjoyment. Thanks for your answers. 

I don't personally see any problem with people calling Bajaj either the villian or black. People can choose to call any character whatever they want. Everyone approaches a character with a certain set anticipation. People who are extremely vested in Bajaj's arc have a whole different set of expectations. And anyway. Neither 'villain' nor 'black' is permanent in my opinion. Arcs matter. And Bajaj's arc is why some of us are here. He has always been a man of extremes. I'd reserve the final judgement until his story is through. At least for me. 

Let people label characters anyway they want. What should matter is how you approach a character. 

Originally posted by: najma123

I asked those questions based on what you said. I totally enjoy ITV, and what I don't enjoy I don't watch. 😆 I love BajRag scenes, I watch them. I thoroughly enjoy them and sometimes it's fun to be here as well coz different people express their own takes. But, here stuff gets serious so soon and there's deep stuff getting discussed, my enjoyment wanes down in comparison. 😆 So, I'd rather stick to my own enjoyment. Thanks for your answers. 

Haha I love BajRag scenes too, those two have amazing chemistry and I just love the way they interact. Their sassy back and forth is sometimes the only reason I still enjoy the show. But yeah I agree sometimes on the forum it can get a little intense, so I think as long as we all stay respectful we can debate well and still peacefully coexist here

Originally posted by: Nostalgia3997

Haha I love BajRag scenes too, those two have amazing chemistry and I just love the way they interact. Their sassy back and forth is sometimes the only reason I still enjoy the show. But yeah I agree sometimes on the forum it can get a little intense, so I think as long as we all stay respectful we can debate well and still peacefully coexist here

That's literally the only reason I watch, coz I think both of them bring out the best in the other. I haven't seen them performing as well as they do with anyone else than with each other. 

Originally posted by: FleetingWishes.

I don't personally see any problem with people calling Bajaj either the villian or black. People can choose to call any character whatever they want. Everyone approaches a character with a certain set anticipation. People who are extremely vested in Bajaj's arc have a whole different set of expectations. And anyway. Neither 'villain' nor 'black' is permanent in my opinion. Arcs matter. And Bajaj's arc is why some of us are here. He has always been a man of extremes. I'd reserve the final judgement until his story is through. At least for me. 

Let people label characters anyway they want. What should matter is how you approach a character. 

All Bajaj fans.. it's time for us to play Mission Patience Patience Patience. 

Originally posted by: FleetingWishes.

I don't personally see any problem with people calling Bajaj either the villian or black. People can choose to call any character whatever they want. Everyone approaches a character with a certain set anticipation. People who are extremely vested in Bajaj's arc have a whole different set of expectations. And anyway. Neither 'villain' nor 'black' is permanent in my opinion. Arcs matter. And Bajaj's arc is why some of us are here. He has always been a man of extremes. I'd reserve the final judgement until his story is through. At least for me. 

Let people label characters anyway they want. What should matter is how you approach a character. 

I agree. His arc is the one that will decide his fate. But I have a problem with him with painted similarly as someone with basic ITV villain tropes. The surety of it that he's as basic as that and the justifications made are not in tune with his motivations but on the basis of how long they think he's here for. That's a broad sweeping statement that has logical fallacies. In fact,I would love to know what grey on ITV means according to these 'supposed' tropes. Cause as far as I can see on this forum : you're either the hero or the villain. Thats all you are painted with. 

Originally posted by: AllThatCritique

I agree. His arc is the one that will decide his fate. But I have a problem with him with painted similarly as someone with basic ITV villain tropes. The surety of it that he's as basic as that and the justifications made are not in tune with his motivations but on the basis of how long they think he's here for. That's a broad sweeping statement that has logical fallacies. In fact,I would love to know what grey on ITV means according to these 'supposed' tropes. Cause as far as I can see on this forum : you're either the hero or the villain. Thats all you are painted with. 

I've honestly always detested the terms 'grey' 'black' and 'white'. Hero and villains can evolve over time to swap places and someone's hero is someone else's villain. People who see him as a villain judge him from their viewpoint. People who see him as an antihero/hero/villainero see him from their own set of expectations. I don't think you can exactly categorize greys and blacks and whites until characters have had the full sweep of their arcs. 

The best part about books or finite series is that you get to see the whole arc in one sitting/limited time period. Which is why boxing people becomes slightly easier. With ITV, stories are dragged which is why a lot of discussions become stagnant. Moral ambiguity is a double-edged sword. Some of my most favorite characters would be unbearable/out right unacceptable for a lot of people. But for me their arcs mattered. Some people search idealism and optimism in fiction. Some of us look for relief. For the binds of society to come free and for the laws of universe to disrupt. There is liberation in darkness for so many of us. Like a fantasy. I guess I'm diverting from the discussion here. 

But the point remains that we each approach a character with a certain set of expectations and anticipation. Anticipation drives both love and criticism. And since it's different for different people. Different viewpoints are bound to exist. Doesn't negate your own.