The NI Series - Blog Posts

The NI Series (3): Madame Breakup Is Not Quite a Phantom!

Admin’s Message: After a long break, the noble idiocy trope is put under the microscope again! In this third installment, Vietnamese Canadian Mawiie, a drama reviewer who has also delighted K-drama fans with her clay figurines of popular characters, enthusiastically shares with us how her background has shaped her reaction to variants of the trope involving characters’ closest tribe members.

I need to start off by saying that my opinion comes from a second-generation Vietnamese Canadian who grew up with very liberal parents, but extremely conservative grandparents.

As a child, my grandparents (with whom I spent a lot of time - my grandpa was the one in charge for my education) would constantly talk about filial piety. They were expecting me to get high-paying jobs so I would be providing for them AND my parents. I was the eldest sibling, and also the most motivated for school, so they had extremely high expectations for me to help the whole family out.

So coming from my own experience, when I see family-related noble idiocy issues on the screen, I can believe that they are realistic, especially in a country like Korea where Confucianism is still highly valued, But I also think that, like 0kuo0 has said, the issues have been highly exaggerated in some dramas. I am mostly thinking about those crazy dailies. Are they rooted in some truth? I don't doubt it one bit. But are they always resolved with Niagara Falls level of tears and major life-altering decision sending one character over the Pacific? I sure hope not.

Now, like I have said, while my grandparents were very conservative (”How dare you take a job as a college student? That means that you will quit school! You have to forego a social life and your personal needs for money so you can study to be a doctor and buy us a house where we will ALL live together!"), my parents were pretty cool. I got to do what I wanted, as long as it was reasonable, but my parents would still bend to all the demands of my grandparents.

It was really weird and frustrating to see my parents tell me one thing, but not dare to do it themselves. So I always get super frustrated at characters in drama who can't stand up for themselves when they did no wrong!

TLDR: Growing up with conservative grandparents, I recognize many of the examples in k-dramas. I think that for most part, it's pretty accurate with some exaggeration in dailies. On the other hand, in the West, the Confucian way of thinking kinda decreases with new generations, so while I understand why the characters are acting the way they are, I can't get over the fact that OMG YOU ARE A GROWN ASS MAN/WOMAN, JUST TALK TO EACH OTHER AND DON'T LET YOUR MOM RULE YOUR LIFE.

The NI Series (2): Noble Idiocy and Ignoble Surgery

Admin’s Message: Here is the second installment of this more casual series of posts on the interaction between culture and drama writing. This time, 0kuo0 from C-drama blog Cfensi, whose ethnicity is Chinese, sees the noble idiocy trope as more of an instance of the literary tradition of exaggeration, rather than culture. He does not reject the trope altogether, but cautions against misuse of it.

written by 0kuo0

It is undeniable that the noble idiocy trope is sometimes linked to ideals such as Confucian values and concepts like love, loyalty, etc. but I am not sure if I would say they are intrinsic to those ideals.

I like to conceptualize it as more of a part of the artistic and literary tradition of exaggeration for dramatic effect. We see this successfully employed in various forms of art and it seems natural that this might be an extension of it. However, most of the time I start feeling like it is employed not for thought-out dramatic effect but due to examples of success in previous dramas and the pursuit of viewers and profits. These tend to make you feel like it was more of a cut and paste job. It feels rough and abused.

Don’t get me wrong. There are definitely those media forms that get it right and lead the audience to accept the triumph of symbolism of logic and a normal thought process and the fact that these types of media tend to ignite a rabid following is probably only encouraging their overuse. It is kind of like more recent but as of late, seems to be dying trend of having unreasonably conservative parents that run counter to the couple or main characters randomly dying near the end of sudden circumstances to make it “touching.” There are the successful examples and those that are just trying to ride the tail-coats of the trend.

You cannot say that such an interpretation is completely illogical because people are not perfect and we should not expect characters to be either. These “tropes” do tend to have a thought process behind them but the question for me is if it fits into the new story it was put in. Was the transplant something that would work or something going to cause an immediate rejection? Does it make the most logical sense in the new story and given the new dynamics? Sometimes no because the character personalities or story background is probably different and that would make this otherwise touching act seem really dumb like having some great sacrifice happen after having the characters know each other for years versus just a few weeks.

I guess my point is that it is usually something that is cherished when it is done right and has some reasonable backing or progression to lead us to it but there are those stories that simply insert dramatic elements without properly analyzing and building up the progression of the story to that point and that is when it tends to get tiresome and overused.

The NI Series (1): Noble Idiocy Is Neither Noble Nor Idiotic

Admin’s Message: Hello Tumblr followers, thank you for reading The Asian Drama Philosopher (A-Philosopher)’s Chair all this while!  As a special treat for everyone, the Chair is inviting bloggers from different backgrounds to share their views on the relationship between culture and drama writing. First up is well-known K-drama commentator samsooki, who is of Korean heritage. Enjoy his breezy writing and express your support for him. 

written by samsooki

Well, you know it was coming.  It is episode 12 or 13 of your favorite k-drama romcom, after all.  The other kdrama shoe known as “noble idiocy,” must drop.

The Setup.  It has taken a dozen heart-tugging episodes, and a half of a lifetime from the time they attended the same elementary school, but the protagonists (let’s pick names – Bob and Mary) have defeated both (a) the evil scheming uncle who wants to take over the chaebol board of directors, and (b) the crazy ex-boyfriend/girlfriend who won’t take no for an answer.  After weeks of Wed-Thurs cliffhangers, Bob and Mary have finally become the OTP (One True Pairing) that we always hoped would happen!  Ooooh, but what twist hath fate wrought upon our starstruck couple!  The protagonists suddenly find themselves in a quandary – an unexpected and inexorable something (probably a dormant cancer, orphanage secret, and/or a chaebol proxy fight) is standing in the way of their happiness ever after!  What, if anything, can be done?

The Western Solution.  From a Western structural standpoint, the path toward Bob’s and Mary’s resolution includes:  (1) forthright communication, (2) working together to assuage each other’s fears, (3) gaining mutual strength for the Final Showdown, and (4) ending the cycle of individual misdirection by forgiveness and trust.  Seems pretty self-explanatory, doesn’t it?  All they have to do is work together!

The K-Drama Response. Noooo, we must be far more complicated. Bob and Mary must be cliven asunder by a unilateral and preemptive decision made by one of them as a dramatic score plays in the background, followed by heartbreaking preview scenes of “why isn’t he/she answering my texts” angst.  The first of Bob and Mary to blink away his or her single, pretty tear must leave Korea, forever, or at least a very long time.  Further, there must not be any further communication of any kind for at least a year, perhaps three.  Finally, each must suffer and cry alone while reminiscing through montage clips, wondering if fate will be kinder in future lifetimes.  And in the end, what appeared to be a noble effort to cause less pain, has now caused more, idiotically.  Let the sardonic eye-rolls, the knowing sighs of disbelief and cynical anti-tropist over-reaction commence.  Yes indeed, it is the kdrama trope of noble idiocy.

Surely, the kdrama’s PD (the production director) and the writers can do better? But maybe, what we believe to be a crutch for unoriginal writing isn’t what we think it is at all.  Perhaps the writers are merely introducing and then reinforcing an Asian principle that Koreans have long since internalized.

 What is going on here?  

 a.              Western Perspective – Y’all Are Noble Idiots.  The Western view, of course, is based on perspectives heavily influenced by individualism and discrete ethics.  In the Western view, each person is responsible for his or her actions and no more.  The Westerner would look at Bob’s silly actions and argue that, even if Bob initially believed that his own happiness would be greater if Mary is not burdened by Bob’s problems, how can Bob leaving the country without a word to Mary be the proper method for achieving such happiness?  And if Bob were acting in such a way for Mary’s happiness, surely Bob would not believe that he would be making Mary happier if he left her in a frozen state of uncertainty for years, perhaps forever? Pure madness and counter-productive!

 b.              Korean Perspective – You Don’t Understand Our Worldview. Surely, then, Koreans with their 5,000 year history, would know better by now!  Hmm, perhaps they do, though?  By way of background - the Korean worldview is framed by a Confucian philosophy integrally woven into every part of Korean society.  On whatever level, the general principle is the same – a person’s highest duty is to take responsibility for those who follow such person.  This is true of familial relationships (parent to child, spouse to spouse, sibling to sibling), educational and corporate relationships (seniors to juniors) and political governance (ruler to subjects) as well.  This worldview dominates Korean thinking.  It is the reason why one’s age is so important, and why honorifics are critical to conversation, even between family members.  One must always know who should be taking responsibility for whom, and likewise, who should be following and who should be leading.  It is the reason that students address one another by titles like sunbae (one’s senior) and hoobae (one’s junior) and that words like oppa and noona mean so much more than their literal meaning.  Family, friendships, corporations and even nations are held together by this principle of taking responsibility for those who follow you.  Is it any shock that this principle also applies between lovers as well?

Of course, one can argue that romantic relationships should not necessarily follow the Confucian philosophy, especially not in the post-modern age. My counter is that as true as that argument might be, Bob and Mary are not yet a couple at this stage in the kdrama.  As such, each of Bob and Mary is likely to fall back upon traditional relational notions to deal with the other of them.

Taken to its logical conclusion then, Bob cannot simply ask Mary to (1) share in the burden of the obstacle, and (2) work together to deal with the OTP crisis.  Such a request would be nigh on unthinkable because one of Bob or Mary must take responsibility for the other, and cannot share or delegate such duty.  And this kind of relationship is not unique to Eastern philosophies.  The concept that certain duties cannot be delegated is not just an Eastern concept, but it is part of the bedrock of Western jurisprudence as well.  A fiduciary duty is the highest level of obligation that a person can owe to another – and such obligation cannot be shared.  Just as an agent must act solely for the benefit of the principal, and a trustee cannot halve his liability by delegating half of his duties, Bob cannot breach his obligation to Mary.

It would be alarming then, for Bob, in the face of an obstacle that appears unsolvable without the help of Mary, to confess his burdens to Mary.  If Bob were to share his burdens with Mary, Bob would be abdicating his role as Mary’s protector.  Bob cannot have it both ways – if Bob has any designs on remaining the kind of person that Mary could rely upon, Bob cannot ask for help from Mary. Taken on a macro level, such an action would turn society upside down.  Bob’s only choice, therefore, if indeed Bob is the one who takes responsibility for the problems besetting our OTP of choice, is to remove himself from the situation entirely.  

Note that this is not because Bob thinks any of the problems is insurmountable and will inevitably hurt Mary, but because he believes he is not (yet) strong enough to deal with the issue. Note as well that even if Mary also stepped up and declared responsibility for Bob, each of Bob and Mary would be forced to take action unilaterally because of the impossibility of sharing duties under the Confucian way of thinking.

In Korean thinking, harmony in society, whether on a macro or micro level, depends upon the ability of those who take responsibility for others.  The good leader will cause his or her nation to prosper, and the good parent will cause her children to become good adults. Likewise, the person who capably wears his or her mantle of leadership will permit harmony to exist within the relationship.  And it is within this context of harmony that love can truly exist and flourish.

 Hope that helps quell the anger of anti-tropists out there seeking another noble idiot to skewer!