Definition is what comes after the act: to define. To define is to presume meaning. The definition then is what draws out the lines, contours, and boundaries; it is what offers the meaning. So is the good/evil in the act, to define, or in the definition? Equivalently, is it in creation or in the creature? 

“Fiction” is the antithesis, of “science” and “fact.” And with that “Fiction” is unveiled or concealed, but never absent, or non-existent; to unveil it by distinction (differences beyond similarities) against the scientific and the factual; to conceal it be concealing the imaginary line separating fact from fiction as real. Equivalently: fiction is that which is not known as a fact, but just as orderly.

With fiction then comes order. And with order comes placements and patterns. And particularly through said order, fiction, like the fact, is first and foremost an imposition that lives not in a simulation rather an abstraction. Within it the critic and the director find themselves in the same placement; but where exactly? There are two ways to answer this question albeit via another question; “Where are you?” is one way; “What do you see?” is another. In describing the scene in “one of those new but already dilapidated buildings where the city’s poor now live” the critic can only echo the director for they must share the same gaze:

“This is what a visit to the people is: someone leads you, take the tram all the way to the end of the line and all of a sudden everything is in the frame: the people, which is a way for many to occupy a little space.”

The sickness. perversion, is in proportions; the many in the little; the little in the many. The devil however lies elsewhere, away from arithmetics and proportions. With the liberty “to frame” the people, the gaze incoming inwards from elsewhere outwards has the utmost liberty of creation: moralization, romanticization, theorization, annihilation.