В чем смысл?

[isanmond]

Читаю сейчас о разных литературных приемах - и не могу понять один:
Anvilicious
I'm not so sure about this. I'm afraid we won't be able to get our point across.
"Together, they'll learn: "Military = BAD. Trees = GOOD."
— Honest Trailers, Avatar

A portmanteau of anvil and delicious (or possibly vicious), anvilicious describes a writer's and/or director's use of an artistic element, be it line of dialogue, visual motif, or plot point, to so obviously or unsubtly convey a particular message that they may as well etch it onto an anvil and drop it on your head. Frequently, the element becomes anvilicious through unnecessary repetition, but true masters can achieve anviliciousness with a single stroke.
Heavy-handed for the new millennium. Extreme polar opposite of subtle.
The easiest way to be Anvilicious is through simple cause-and-effect; someone will do something the writers consider "bad" and then something bad happens as a direct result. If the writers prefer not to show the direct consequences of whatever they're crusading for or against, a common alternative is to have a character presented as completely "centred", "unbiased", and "grounded" testify. Surely if this character agrees with something, it must be the right thing to do.
Common in kids' shows, since they're less aware of subtle nuances, though not as much as writers and directors seem to think.
Bonus points awarded if the supposed message or moral has only but the most tenuous connections to the actual plot, story, or the events of the episode; or, if the consequences brought about to tell the moral are blatantly arbitrary or don't even make any sense (see examples below).
If the work goes beyond anvilicious into hectoring lectures, then it has become an Author Filibuster. Note that some works are openly intended to hammer home points, and are essentially teaching material in literary form: fairy tales, religious works, and position papers of all sorts may be heavy-handed, but that doesn't make them anvilicious. To achieve that distinction, the reader has to experience the sense that the author is foisting opinions, in the guise of telling you a supposedly entertaining story — and doing it clumsily enough that it becomes uncomfortable or irritating. Similarly, it is not anvilicious only because you disagree with any inherent message.
Ultimately, whether one considers an Anvilicious story Anvilicious in the good way or the bad way often comes down to whether or not you agree with the anvils. Although this is not always true; one can agree with the anvils whilst still thinking they were not presented in an effective fashion.
Which leads us to the deep question: Should authors try to make their Aesops subtle? Or do Anvilicious Aesops actually have a good side, i.e. the fact that people immediately see what the author is trying to do with them?
мне не нужен перевод, это было бы излишне дерзко просить, мне просто хотелось бы, чтобы в двух словах пояснили в чем суть этого приема. Я прогнала через переводчик текст, но не смогла уловить суть.
Буду ОЧЕНЬ благодарна.

Comments

[блуждающий_биоробот]

Это когда автор слишком топорно и прямолинейно продвигает какую-нибудь идею или мораль. Например, герой совершил плохой с точки зрения автора поступок, и на следующей странице ему на голову упал кирпич. Или типа мудрый и объективный герой, "голос автора", выдал тираду о том, что такое хорошо и что такое плохо. И в конце задаются вопросом, должны ли авторы всё-таки стараться быть деликатнее или в этой прямолинейности есть хорошая сторона — до читателя сразу доходит мысль.

[isanmond]

Скрытный козодой, вот оно что!
Спасибо большое за помощь!