#I think there’s a difference between having critical discussions about media and trying to analyze it deeper | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kitkatopinions · 5 months

Text

When discussing the idea that RWBY has the difference between the heroes and villains be their choices, my problem isn't that the characters aren't real and therefore don't technically 'choose' anything. I think that when analyzing media, there has to be some discussion of characters having traits, doing things, making choices, etcetera. Yes, everything a character does, says, or chooses is something they're puppeteered to do by writers, but within the context of the narrative, in the story the writers are trying to tell, the characters will do things and say things and choose things. When talking about Ruby, we can say she chose to be involved in the fight with Salem, and the fact that she's fake doesn't change that.

So if someone says "the RWBY villains made choices that led them to where they wound up" my problem isn't going to be that they didn't choose anything, because they did. In the story, in the narrative the writers are trying to employ, they choose things, Ruby chooses things, her team chooses things, etcetera. My real problem with the idea that RWBY is presenting us with a choice based villainhood whereas the good guys choose good things is that I think it's very badly done if that was even the intended goal, which I'm not sure it was.

In media that wants to make a point of choices being what leads people where they are, there are two things that I think are very important. 1. That the world they establish is either free from systemic bigotry and classism, or that the villains aren't that impacted by the bigotry or classism, or that the system is acknowledged as a driving force that the narrative and the characters within the show are actively against and want to make better. And 2. That the heroes parallel the circumstances of the villains very closely but are shown to make the right choices whereas the villains do not. And I think RWBY fails at both of these steps.

Let's talk about the first one. RWBY is a show where not only is systemic discrimination against the Faunus a thing, but classism and capitalism are both things as well. And both the tendency of the writers to just write what they know (Weiss saying that her asking Neptune out is unorthodox, May talking about her family,) and the writers own bigotry (very few women in leader positions of power, Jaune and Neptune's behavior, the 'joke' about Jaune wearing a dress) make it clear that other forms of bigotry exist in Remnant. On top of this, there are child slaves (Cinder, Adam in extended content,) there's kids living on the streets (Emerald, Nora,) corruption in the Hunter Academies (Dee and Dudley, Qrow's 'shady' colleagues he talks about in V3 and tries to contact in V5, Leo,) and racist and/or sadistic badge carrying law enforcement officers (police in Vale, Cardin training to be a hunter, Coco training to be a hunter.) Weiss's house is the size of the entirety of Menagerie and yet we see houseless people in V7 (iirc) and people living in slums.

The system they invented in the show is inherently unfair, and often heavily impacted the characters we see that are evil, whether that's Cinder being raised as an abused child slave, Adam being raised as an abused child slave and facing discrimination and the systematic oppression of his people, Emerald being a homeless teenager, Ironwood with the weight of a government on his shoulders, Mercury and Neo not having anyone help them while they were abused by their parents, or even the mere implication that Roman grew jaded as time wore on but hadn't started that way. Along with the Brother Gods' hands in the stories of Salem and the Curious Cat, many of the RWBY villains have been severely impacted by conditions outside of their control, the system and hurt caused by others. And RWBY as a whole and the RWBY writers seem not only completely unwilling to delve into criticism of the system and acknowledging the way it contributed to the way villains got to where they are, but at times they even seem to approve of it (Corrupt hunters being treated as bad apples in an otherwise good system, Ironwood being treated as a bad apple in an otherwise good system, Jacques being treated as a bad apple in an otherwise good system, etcetera.) It makes the 'they're defined by their choices' argument feel like a lazy excuse to not examine and even to uphold the corrupt and bad system. It's impossible to say that evil characters are only evil because they chose it when circumstances so frequently pushed them on that slippery slope in the first place, and putting all the blame strictly on how they didn't perfectly handle the horrible situations they were in rather than bothering to ask why those situations happened and how they can be prevented in the future can often boarder on victim blaming. "Adam let his anger consume him" is technically true, but "he shouldn't have been so angry and upset over getting branded in the face after he spent time as a child slave working in a dust mine in horrible conditions as a member of an in-universe oppressed minority group" is very victim blamey!

Now onto the second point. It's much easier to believe a story is specifically about choices if we have a comparison in a very similar situation who chose differently. For instance, Jaune and Salem both lost loved ones that were close to them that were romantic partners. But Pyrrha was not the only person Jaune had as Oz was for Salem, and Jaune hadn't been abused and locked up by his parental figure before that, and after losing said loved one, Jaune wasn't cursed with immortality in punishment for doing something perfectly logical and then watched all of everyone in the world die after trying to rebel against the gods that cursed him. As someone who hates Salem and does think that she's responsible for her actions, it still isn't convincing to put her against Jaune and say 'they both suffered in the same way and yet Jaune made good choices and Salem did not' because... No, they didn't both suffer in the same way. Holding Weiss up to Mercury doesn't work either because they may have both been abused, but all we've seen Weiss get was a slap from a cold father figure whereas Mercury's father was implied to be the reason behind Mercury losing his legs, his dad used to beat him, raised him to be an assassin, and he'd stolen Mercury's semblance, and also Weiss had Winter and Beacon and a support system and all Mercury had was Cinder and Salem and Evernight Castle - Also they seem to be in completely wealth classes. Same with comparing Blake to Adam, same with comparing Neo's loss of Roman to Qrow's loss of Summer, or comparing Cinder's upbringing to Nora's or something. The only really convincing ones are comparing Ruby to the hints about Roman (vaguely implied loss, vaguely implied that he used to be bright eyed and bushy tailed, vaguely implied that the world beat him down in time, which is similar enough to what we've seen with Ruby,) comparing Nora to Emerald (both grew up seemingly on the streets and found their solace with one person,) and comparing Weiss to Watts (both lived in Atlas while they had plenty, both struggled with jealousy and feeling passed over.) People being defined by their choices only really works if we can see them offset against people who shared their circumstance who did make the right choices, and in RWBY, most of the time the villains have gone through far more than the heroes with very little exception to that rule.

Another thing is that the idea of people's villainy stemming from their choices is that imo it only works if we see them get options that are a viable way out, that they ignore. That's also really lacking in RWBY as a general rule. We don't see Mercury and Emerald get a moment before the Fall of Beacon where they had a clear good way out and they didn't take it. We don't see anyone offer Neo a chance to do the right thing and she doesn't take it. We don't see Cinder offered a hand that she rejects. We don't see Ironwood presented with a better plan in V7 that he refuses to try. We don't see Adam ever extended the same sort of grace and chance that Ilia was given and spit at it (TO BE CLEAR I am not saying Blake needed to give him a chance,) etcetera. The story is largely uninterested in giving any villain opportunities for change outside of Hazel, Emerald, and Ilia. Which leads me to believe that the show actually isn't interested in a narrative where the villains are the way that they are out of personal choice, because they only offer them a real choice if they already know they're going to take it.

So yeah, I do not like the offered idea that the RWBY villains are villains out of personal choice, because I don't think the writers did that.

#rwde

25 notes · View notes

cyberdragoninfinity · 8 months

Note

I feel like a lot of people who hate on the yugioh dubs just follow the thought "difference is bad" when discussing it without actually thinking about the differences between sub and dub and wither or not the differences cause genuine impact. For example : the shadow realm is a harmless change, meanwhile hayato GX is a negative change. It is rather telling on someones views when asked about what changes exactly they dislike, because more often than not its aesthetic changes and not quality changes they get mad about (I am a dub lover

EXACTLY!!! god that's such a good point

i Love genuinely sitting and analyzing the changes and differences between the sub and dub because the scope of them goes so much further than just the "well the DUB didnt 1:1 translate the sub 100% exactly perfectly!! therefore it's inferior media >:(" type endless refrain. Sometimes you just get these Actually Really Interesting changes that give an added facet to the characters or the plot (i.e. Zane telling syrus he loves him and is proud of him in the gx dub, still one of my favorite dub additions,) and then other times you have harmless changes like the Shadow Realm (OR EVEN BENEFICIAL CHANGES. LIKE MAKING THE GIRLS' SKIRTS LONGER IN THE ZEXAL DUB. 4KIDS WAS SO REAL FOR THAT SORRY LMAO), and then still OTHER times like you said you have actual negative changes that would benefit from being discussed with a critical eye--I love hayato/chumley he's a fantastic character but oh my fucking god why did the dub do that To His Everything!!! THEY FAT JOKED HIM. AUGH.

(i mean i know why. teehee funny american cartoon fat joke character LAWL XP) (ugh) (thats another element, with the 4kids dubs, that i never see anyone actually talk about--the way a lot of the localization choices come from trying to emulate popular american cartoon character tropes from the era. ESPECIALLY gx. yugioh gx dub is about as 2006 as a dubbed anime could possibly be) (but that's it's own tangent.)

anyway YEAH! so many bad faith dub hater arguments just go after the surface level bullshit and it's like. ok but really how much did the fucking Shadow Realm existing tarnish your enjoyment of the story. honestly now.

#again ive said it before but like. @ this type of person: are you so fucking 15 years old that you cant see merit in the media #unless it says ADULT words like DIE and KILL and has BLOOD in it!!! like be for real with me.#anyway this is a fantastic point shaking hands with you and all my other dub lovers. WE OUT HERE #ygo posting #asks #anonymous

28 notes · View notes

princeescaluswords · 1 year

Note

One thing I don’t think I saw much of in the pushback against ‘the curtains are just blue’ refusal to analyze media is how much of those spaces had been filled with extremely forced meta. So much of tumblr had seen the ‘there’s going to be a REAL final episode/season of Sh3rlock here’s the clues!!!’ Bad faith analysis on here that it’s the least shocking thing to me that people turned against it. But I love analysis, and am so glad to see accounts discussing media, themes and characterization honestly.

Having said that, the intensity of st3rek shippers trying to force readings on the movie is… very indicative of why I distrust a lot of so called fandom academics.

I have two anecdotes that might provide insight into how I approach "bad meta" which might be useful to you.

In second grade in music class, I got into a meaningless argument with a classmate about the Bible -- I think it was about the proper day of worship; he was a Seventh Day Adventist -- and it got so loud that the teacher scolded us. After class, the teacher talked to me about the right way to argue, and she said something that stuck with me. I was complaining about how me and the other boy could see two different things in the same book, and she said "People can make the Bible or any book mean anything they want if they take a small enough piece of it by itself. You can only find the real meaning by looking at the book as a whole." In other words, context matters. The blue curtains cannot signify depression unless the narrative is at least partially about the evolution of mental states.

Flash forward to graduate school, and I'm taking a course in literary theory, and out of frustration with Derrida, I ask the teacher how anyone can possibly tell if a reading has any value or not. and he replied "Ask yourself if the interpretation holds up over the course of the narrative." In other words, if the blue curtains mean something specific in a particular scene, does that meaning remain consistent?

I use these ideas when looking at media criticism. Does the proffered meta fit within the overall context of the narrative and does the proffered meta remain reliably applicable?

Let me give you an example of a meta that simply fails to meet both criteria: "Stiles helped Derek, Peter, and Isaac search for Erica and Boyd over the summer between Seasons 2 and 3." This should have immediately been dismissed as fancy but it has become almost a given among Sterek shippers.

The idea doesn't fit within any aspect of the show. It doesn't fit within the context of Stiles's character. Even if you believe that he had a change of heart about leaving Erica and Boyd with the Argents as he did in Master Plan (2x12), why would he choose to try to find them with Derek (who got them into this as well as tried to kill Lydia), Isaac (who physically attacked him and wanted to kill Lydia), and Peter (who actually attacked Lydia and used her to resurrect himself)? Why wouldn't he ask Scott? And if he was convinced that Scott wouldn't help -- even though he had several conversations with Scott about helping in the past -- why would he not tell Scott about the threat of the Alpha Pack?

In addition, none of the other characters' actions make sense in that context either. Derek "Not you." Hale doesn't act like he welcomes or believes in Stiles's help. Peter "And yet you've only had an hour" Hale doesn't mention that in their scenes together. Isaac doesn't use it when he's fighting with Stiles for Scott's attention. Vernon "But we're not friends" Boyd doesn't seem grateful, unless you think that none of his pack mates would tell him about what Stiles did for him and Erica (or you think that Stiles wouldn't remind him.) The premise doesn't fit with anything we see on the screen.

So, it's just a meaningless, harmless head canon that people do for fun, right? Except this meta -- and others like it -- turned out not to be meaningless and absolutely not harmless.

This meta and other metas like it fed into the Sterek relationship but it also transformed that relationship into a scheme designed to undermine Scott McCall's place as lead protagonist. Alongside such meta as "Ultimate Sacrifice Stiles," "Spark Stiles," and "Sinister Tree Wizard Deaton," it created a phantom dichotomy -- that the true conflict of Teen Wolf was between the usurper Scott and the rightful rulers, the Hales, and that Stiles's loyalty was the key which would ultimately determine who came out on top. These bad metas justified worse metas such as the Schism (where the central relationship of the show would end in violence) and the Anakin Complex (where the essential themes of the show -- the power of compassion and the rejection of revenge -- would be revealed as sources of corruption). It culminated in the Unreliable Narrator Scott theory, which argued with an entirely straight face that everything we watched for 100 episodes was ... not actually what happened in the story.

And they caused harm. This meta complex's desire to decenter and delegitimize a hero of color played into every unjust trend that has ruled Hollywood since there was a Hollywood. It led people to dismiss entire seasons as incapable of value because a secondary antagonist-turned-protagonist wasn't in it and made people hate the movie vehemently before it even premiered. It caused Poseygate, where the lead actor of the heroic protagonist finally came out and said those interpretations were wrong and that wasn't what the story was about and certain viewers lost their fricking minds. No one can say that real people -- including Tyler Posey -- haven't been attacked socially by individuals supported and encouraged by this supersystem of bad meta.

So, yeah, there should be more pushback against bad faith meta, against the idea that 'head canons' can never cause problems, against racist (and sexist and homophobic and decadent) ideas being introduced into fandoms, against the idea that any and all fandom behavior is permissible. And it's not an onerous request to suggest that we test meta against the standards of context and consistency.

#scott mccall defense squad #fandom racism #fandom problems #scott mccall #stiles stilinski #teen wolf meta #derek hale

48 notes · View notes

guyyuri · 1 year

Text

As I've been getting back into Black Butler after all these years, I have noticed something among the wider fan base (and among modern fan culture as a whole).

Warning, im talking about yee old anime fujoshis and sebaciel. Both these things are very bad and I will be talking about that.

The anime and the early manga (cannot speak for the manga as a whole as I have not read it all), is rife with weird fujoshi-bait fanservice moments. This is an UNDENIABLE fact. Yet I have seen so many people deny its existence outright; particularly in comments on youtube videos, tiktoks, instagram posts, etc., where people will outright say that there's nothing to have ever given people the idea to ship characters like Sebastian and Ciel together. Which is just,, flat out wrong?? Admitting it exists because you have eyes and can see does not mean you condone it or are some weirdo. Scenes like that and every other eyebrow raise kinda moment we're included for a reason, that reason being appealing to fans of that kinda content. It's a definite flaw of, at the very least, early Black Butler. Denying the existence of these scenes does not mean people who are skeeved out by it/want to address it are somehow the bad guys here.

There's a similar issue among villain characters in media as well. Just because a character, written as a villain and clearly shown to be in the wrong, does something morally fucked up, does NOT mean the writer nor the fans condone that behavior. There's a difference between romanticizing or trying to act like a characters actions are okay vs. when its clearly a villain doing villainous things. On the fandom end, there's a difference between analyzing a characters actions and condoning them. My favorite character of all time is Dio from jjba, that doesn't mean I condone all the bad shit he's done, in fact I love to discuss his motivations and actions because he has a lot of depth. Does that mean I think any of what he's done is okay? Absolutely fucking not, obviously.

It's basic critical thinking skills and media literacy that seem to be lacking amongst some fandom spaces today, and I've been seeing it more and more. But don't use this as an excuse to bully newer people in fandom, stfu we've all been there before. Just as I was a preteen kid watching Black Butler in 280p on Youtube, there are also new kids on the block when it comes to anime. The issue arises when it's people who HAVE been around the block, or are grown ass adults, trying to act like every interaction Sebastian and Ciel have had ever is completely innocent and lacked any kind of ulterior motive. Try to show someone the corset scene and tell them that there's absolutely nothing weird going on there. Yes it was a joke scene, but what was the intent?? fujobait. fanservice. THATS the joke, the joke is FOR those audiences. And yet there is so many people just flat out saying that interpreting these scenes for what it was intended to be, fujoshi bait, and pointing out how weird it is, are wrong. They're saying that only weirdos would be able to see it at all, like its a reach to say that the gross fanservice scenes are, in fact, gross fanservice.

Before I conclude this rant I'd also like to point out that there are some series that I believe are indefensible with its questionable-at-best content, and i don't think Black Butler is one of those. Black Butler actually has a plot outside of the fanservice moments, and from what I've heard about the rest of the manga, those moments are now few and far between. It's when a series has little to no plot, or a lack thereof, aside from the gross stuff that being a fan of it is inexcusable.

This is getting long but i assume you get the gist at this point. Acknowledging that something problematic is present in a series does not mean you condone it, nor is it bad for people to recognise the issues in the first place. You can address a series' flaws, it doesn't mean that you are weird for seeing those flaws in the first place. Rant over.

#if someone calls me a proshitter for this I'm gonna bang my head against the wall #read the post I'm literally talking about how gross that shit is #black butler #kuroshitsuji #fandom thoughts #media literacy #media analysis #fandom culture #anon yells about stuff

12 notes · View notes

caparrucia · 2 years

Note

💥

💥 How do you feel about criticism?

I mean...

Okay but jokes aside, I do have thoughts about criticism and fanfic!

Personally, I love criticism. Criticism is not the only way to learn, but it's definitely one of the best and fastest ways to get better. Feedback is awesome and should be encouraged!

But there's the caveat that we're talking about fanfic, and fanfic is primarily a labor of love. People do this shit for fun, and sometimes people forget that.

There's also a difference between criticism and critique, and I feel tumblr is super bad at nuance and understanding the difference. Criticism is aimed at the author, it's made with the expectation the author will see it. You're engaging the author in a conversation because you have opinions about their work and you want them to know it. Whether the opinions are positive or negative doesn't really change the fact you're actively trying to get a reaction from the writer. Critique is aimed at the work. Critique is not necessarily aimed at the writer, nor should it expect a direct response from the writer. Critique is an exercise on the reader's part to contextualize and analyze the work and it's component parts and what its effects are.

The way I look at it is like this:

"The way this fic handles death makes me sad" is criticism, "the way this fic portrays romance is a good example of the recent trend of coffeeshop AUs" is critique.

I think the difference is valid because sometimes you want to say something about a fic in its context, but it's not a comment on the work itself or for the writer to interact with, and yet people insist on throwing it at the writer anyway.

There's a very contested point of view that insists because a work is put out in the open it's free game for criticism and critique, and I don't entirely disagree. If you put your work out there, it's out of your hands and people will interpret and find meaning in it in ways you can't control. If you can't make peace with that, the only option you have is to not publish at all.

But the people who tend to go hard on that stance tend to be the people who like to abuse the concept of criticism to be abusive towards writers under the guise of criticism. So I'm also perpetually resisting the urge to remind people they're hissing and frothing over fanfic, and in the large scale of things, fanfic doesn't matter.

On the other other end of the spectrum, you have critiques about the way fanfic in specific, and on a broader sense, fan culture as a whole, reproduces systemic oppressive structures that other and ostracize fans that aren't white or cis or straight. And those critiques are super valid and important should not be just ignored or demonized as people trying to "censor" fandom. Because it's not about censoring bigotry, and that's what tends to make people frothy. It's not that you're not allowed to write bigotry in your stories. It's that writing bigotry in your stories should ideally be a choice, not an unexplored, unquestioned reflection of your biases.

Fans of color have been particularly loud in explaining how aggressively racist fandom can be, when it comes to pointing out "hey, all those slave AUs you keep churning out are super racist" and people immediately going "this is right wing propaganda trying to silence us all!" Like, critique is a great tool to start conversations about the kind of art we're making, because if fanfic wants to be considered art and people want to keep insisting they're "Hugo winners" because they post in AO3, you kinda have to be open to the idea that critique is part of that legitimized existence. You can't have it both ways: you can't claim fanfic is a niche hobby people do for fun, and also insist that it's a bastion of representation to make up for media censorship.

Mostly I just wish people could take these discussions in good faith.

Me, personally? I try to approach criticism and critique in good faith. But I'm not here to be anyone's punching bag and when people are clearly just in it to be abusive or insist on making me responsible for their choices? (Ie, I clicked on the link and it said there was porn and there was porn in your fic and now I'm traumatized, HOW DARE!) Yeah, no. Fuck that. That's what the block button is for.

#rie answers #Anonymous

6 notes · View notes

thankskenpenders · 3 years

Text

Apropos of nothing I think it's time for me to recommend another media criticism podcast that I think readers of this blog will enjoy. I got some folks into The Shrieking Shack back when I recommended that, so why not! This time I'm recommending A More Civilized Age, the Clone Wars podcast from Rob Zacny, Austin Walker, Ali Acampora, and Natalie Watson of Waypoint and/or Friends at the Table fame

This show is a response to the trend in recent years where leftist millennial Star Wars fans are reappraising the politics of the prequels and seeing that, for their many faults, they might have been trying to say some interesting things. (Key word: "try.") In particular they spend a lot of time analyzing the politics of the Republic and the Jedi Order and comparing the depiction of the Clone Wars to real world events circa the War on Terror, which was a massive influence on the show in the same way that the Vietnam War was a massive influence on the original trilogy

But! It's not all heady space politics! It's a really, really fun podcast, with the hosts all coming from different levels of Star Wars fandom - some are casual fans, while Austin literally wrote a canon short story about Dengar and IG-88. And even with the prequels already being the most dunked on movies of all time, their observations in their episodes about the movies had me in stitches. They also point out lightsaber innuendos, discuss the difference between a bug and an insect, and dig into some of the absolutely mystifying details Dave Filoni chooses to focus on in his behind the scenes featurettes. It's a great time

#tkp post

92 notes · View notes

literateleah · 3 years

Text

the paradox of emily prentiss’ audience perception and character design

some of y’all about to be real mad at me, but it must be said:

emily prentiss’ character design makes no sense: my personal opinion + an objective analysis

i think it can be challenging to separate the versions of characters we have in our little brains from actual canon content, but doing so is important for understanding what those characters are truly like, especially within the context of their environment and in contrast to others around them. plus developing a deeper understanding of the media we consume is super fun and interesting! with that being said: emily prentiss should not work for the fbi and here’s why (in three parts regarding who’s responsible: cbs, paget, and fans) (sit down and grab a snack i promise this is over 3k words)

quick disclaimer: i don’t dislike emily at all! that’s my girl, i just looked closer and realized some funky things the writers did and felt the need to analyze her of course: so let’s get into it

part one: what cbs did

cbs set the stage for emily’s introduction on the heels of the departure of lola glaudini as elle greenaway! lola has clarified that she decided to leave the show because filming in los angeles was not the best environment for her personally, and after one successful season on a major network (but not much established long term plot or drama beyond elle’s departure as a character) a consistent ensemble cast was required- particularly because the bau had been criticized for being predominantly male in the first few episodes of the show and not much development was given to penelope or jj yet. enter emily prentiss.

for the duration of seasons 2-3ish, emily was framed as a chip off the block that was elle greenaway, just slightly…richer? in her first few episodes emily was hesitantly polite but ambitious, clean cut, intellectually concise and held her own within the team. she seemed equal parts intimidated and frustrated by her male superiors (gideon, hotch) but certainly proves herself among other profilers. her childhood was explored only within reference to her strained relationship with her mother (which was only ever referenced once more after the fact) and we received a short overview of her educational and career history in her first few episodes. emily fit right into the hole elle had left, and didn’t have many major storylines yet.

seasons 4-6 brought a bit more development and depth to emily’s character! she begins dropping more snarky remarks, one liners, and socially deepening her relationships with the other team members. this seems more within the lines of elle’s design, but emily arguably took more time to grow into her place within the team. during the foyet arc she was vulnerable and supportive, and the doyle arc gave her some independence and agency she didn’t have previously. this era also solidified her appearance and persona as more edgy, which falls in line with general fanon perception of her character (especially when compared to jj or penelope). i can’t address this era or season 7 without mentioning that cbs was actively trying to remove paget from the cast, similar to how they did to aj cook as well. paget has spoken about this instance before, and i believe it slightly affected her portrayal of her character, and “lauren” was somewhat of a goodbye for both paget and emily (thus why she wished for mgg to direct since they were best friends).

season 7: in my opinion, one of the best seasons for emily. she was wisened and deeply wounded by her experiences with doyle, which was understandable of course. she returned to the team she loved and learned to appreciate life in a different way, remaining mature during this time period as well! though her departure was a bit less than graceful and sudden at the end of this season, it made sense compared to some other exits the team had seen.

now *sigh* all the rest.

paget as emily appears in two separate guest appearances (once in s9 and once in s11, and she is referenced offscreen as well) before permanently reprising her role as unit chief of the bau. these appearances were most likely to boost ratings and get the team back together (i.e. 200) or just to pepper in international cases (tribute). emily’s personality remains pretty consistent here, just more mature and comfortable in leadership positions (seeing as she is running an entire branch of an international law enforcement organization). then season 12 hit.

upon the departure of thomas gibson as hotch, cbs reached out to paget to see if she would be interested in fulfilling her role as emily within a longer term unit chief position. i’ll get into why this is wack in a few paragraphs, but the remainder of her time on the show is spent on a mature portrayal that seems very distant from her previous versions. emily is more authoritative, gives orders with ease, and has no qualms about leading a team of agents or even receiving promotion offers as director of the entire bureau.

thus concludes a general summary of the canon content cbs gave us as viewers. now let's talk about what they didn’t give us, regrettably

the primary aspect of emily’s design that comes to mind for many is her queer coding. though not much was to be expected from cbs, a prime time cable tv network, each of her relationships on the show (all with men) seemed oddly forced, and without much chemistry as compared to the SOs of other main characters. rumors of scrapped plotlines have floated around about what may have been, but the ultimate lack of acknowledgement of any queer characters in the main ensemble still leaves a feeling of disappointment to audiences, and leaves more to be desired as for how emily navigates social bonds.

part two (sidebar): what paget did

i think it could be agreed within audiences that paget brewster’s portrayal of emily made the role what it was! her dry witty delivery and emotional prowess combined with sitcom acting experience made her performance a mainstay for years. i think she did the best she could with a confusing and at times flat characterization, and brought the role to life.

paget also heavily contributes to fanon indirectly with her comments outside of the show (press, cameos, twitter etc). her general continued interest and fondness for the role post production affects fan perception, particularly in what she chooses to elevate and comment on. she and aj have both spoken about viewing jemily content, and paget and thomas have both also commented on hotchniss. most cast members feel free to comment on their characters in the appropriate timing, and seem open to discussing fanon ships and theories outside of canon!

part three: what fanon did

as we can tell from this fan space as well as the presence on insta, tik tok and twitter, fans LATCHED onto emily super quickly. she’s remained a favorite over the years, and this fan persistence is what brought her back so many times after leaving (so many times). in my opinion, queer coding and a bolder female trope (in contrast to her female counterparts) are the main pulls because they resonated with so many fans- new and old. with that being said, newer fans of the show in the past year in particular have been heavily influential in fanon, solely because of the large influx of fan content and popularity of it.

fan content began to take coding and bite size moments and snippets from the show as canon, and cemented it into much of the content and discourse they created. these small pieces of emily’s character are significant, but have become magnified by how easily they are to share and edit. for example, a collection of catchy one liners from emily over the seasons makes for a great video edit intro, or gifset! there’s absolutely no problem with this content, it just all combines to create a certain fanon perception no character escapes (this isn’t a phenomenon limited to emily or the cm fandom!)

these droves of content also solidified emily’s personality as much more defined, but at the same time, simplified it in a way that’s slightly harder to explain.

fanon: more emo/goth than canon basis

fanon: more introverted/anti social than canon basis

fanon: more violent/chaotic when canon emily is relatively well mannered and doesn’t start many conflicts (particularly in the workspace)

fanon: much less maternal when canon emily displays desire on multiple occasions (even crossing professional borders) for children, particularly teenage girls (possibly projection)

(again, nothing wrong with this interpretation at all and it still varies! This is just a generalization based on most of the popular content i have seen)

part 4: why it doesn’t work

let me start with this: emily prentiss does not like her job.

we don’t receive much in depth information about emily’s internal feelings and thoughts towards her mother beyond resentment. this stems from wanting to make it on her own, as a professional and as an individual (cough cough college deposits). this makes emily’s insistence on proving herself to authority figures in her earlier seasons is interesting to watch in different circumstances. she cites her experience and denies help from her mother when justifying her placement in the bau to hotch, she is extra vigilant about being helpful on her first case with gideon, etc. nevertheless, emily forges her own path outside of diplomacy and becomes a successful profiler and agent, with the help of her privilege, wealth and name whether she likes it or not. but if we read between the lines and fill in the blanks cbs neglected, these ambitions may subconsciously be oriented towards pleasing her mother.

example one: emily’s authority issues go further than just “rebellion” or “anarchy”, she frequently questions the ethics and sustainability of the work that the bau does. every team member does this, but emily much more so than anybody else.

in “amplification”, emily almost breaks federal protocol to inform civilians of anthrax threats. she butts heads with both hotch and rossi on this front, and ends the episode with having a conversation with rossi about the ethics of lying in their line of work. emily resigns to a solemn “it be like that” and moves along, accepting this reality.

on multiple different occasions emily laments to derek about the darkness she sees on the job, and it’s shown that this gets to her quickly on particularly bad cases. this is another contradiction of the design that she can supposedly “compartmentalize” better than others on the team, when she cannot unless the lives of others are at risk (doyle arc, s7 finale).

emily also responds in this way to many cases involving children, a similarity to jj many don’t notice upon first watching the series. “seven seconds” and “children of the dark” come to mind, during the latter in which emily is prepared to cross multiple professional lines to adopt a teenage girl left orphaned by the case, until hotch stops her and establishes that her emotions can’t rule her judgement on the job. regardless of hotch’s thoughts about her attempted caretaking abilities, these actions and impulses deeply contradict the typical bureaucratic pathways of the work the bau does.

the looming reputation of her mother’s diplomatic history hangs over emily, and after going to law school and working for the cia, she most likely did want to forge her own path as far away from being a socialite: being a spy. her inner nature doesn’t always reflect this profession, and leads me to believe that with her knowledge of psychology, law procedure and care for children: emily prentiss might be more inclined to working in social work, placing suffering children and teenagers in homes they deserve.

and finally, the hill i will die on: emily prentiss was an bad unit chief

this wonderful post touches on my general sentiment, but there were many reasons as to why emily prentiss’ career arc makes little to no sense (plot holes included).

first: her background. emily attended chesapeake bay university as well as yale and achieved a ba in criminal justice. keep in mind that though timelines evidently don’t exist in the cm universe, emily prentiss is ONE YEAR older than aaron hotchner (for context). in her first episode, she professes that she has worked for the bureau for a little under ten years in midwestern offices- something the audience laters knows to not be true. emily worked with the cia and interpol as a part of a profiling team and undercover agent up until roughly TWO YEARS before her canon introduction. plot holes and time gaps aside, this makes me wonder, why didn’t she just say the cia was a backstop without revealing the highly confidential nature of her work with doyle (similar to jj’s state department backstop and cover story)? penelope or hotch could have easily accessed her file and seen that she did not in fact have experience with the bureau in midwestern offices recently, and given the fact that erin strauss set up her bau placement, i’m presuming these formalities or references were overlooked.

second: her experience within the team. emily worked as a part of the bau with the bureau for roughly 6 or 7 years. after this, she is invited to run the entire london branch of interpol, one of the most renowned international law enforcement organizations. i’m surely not the most knowledgeable on requirements or standard timelines for such matters, but with the fact that emily had never led a team in her life (not in the bau or interpol previously) and had roughly 10 years of field experience, i don’t believe she would have ever realistically been considered eligible to run the whole london department.

third: her return to the bureau. fanon depiction of their relationship aside, if you believe aaron hotchner’s last wish before going into witsec was to entrust his team to emily prentiss, you’re dead mistaken. bringing emily back was clearly a pull for ratings after the loss of two main characters (hotch and derek), but logistically a bad decision. let’s suppose emily has had 4 or 5 years of experience in london now, this established authority position would be unlikely to change at the drop of a hat, even for old teammates or friends. also considering how close they were after a decade of working closely in bureaucratic and field contexts, i firmly believe hotch would have referred jj for the job of unit chief but that’s another discussion for another time.

emily’s reign as unit chief is odd, because of the many chaotic storylines crammed into it. but amidst bad writing and viewings plummeting, emily’s character is completely flattened. completely. emily is unrecognizable, both in appearance (that god awful wig) and personality. at times she acts as a complete wise authority, giving orders and delegating local authorities as hotch did. but at other times she makes multiple illegal, emotional, and incorrect judgement calls based on personal circumstances that lead to further chaos (deleting the recording of her and reid’s mexico conversation and reprimanding luke in “luke” for the exact same thing she did in season 6 even though she enabled her to do so come to mind).

i’m not sure if this is due to paget trying to find her footing in the role again, or the writer’s bad decisions towards the end of the show wrecking any previous design for their ensemble. then, there’s the infamous “wheels up” scene in s13e1. notoriously cringey, this seems like a vague caricature of something rossi would say many years in the past (the same goes for her pep talk in “red light” in the hunt for diana reid). these moments are meant to mature emily in the audience’s eye, but instead completely removed her from who we understood her to be, and made her an unreliable leader.

part five: and why it does

in theory, emily was a bolder foil to jj, similar to elle who she arguably replaced at first. she came into her own, and stands as a more uniquely developed character than almost any other in the main ensemble. she isn’t as maternal or domestically inspiring as canon jj, less bright and sunny than penelope, not quite as stoic or intimidating as derek or hotch. And yet at the same time, she’s a fairly blank slate. stripping fanon content away entirely, canon emily has few defining traits (all of which are constantly changing), and that may be the key to why we love her so much.

#long post #emily prentiss #ITS HERE #and its a doozy #read if you'd like #leah writes #if there's typos i apologize #this was a fever dream

187 notes · View notes

a-shakespearean-in-paris · 3 years

Text

Why Cullen?

Today I bring you a post I’ve been in the process of mentally drafting for a while, a post that essentially analyzes the age old question in the Dragon Age fandom: Why is there always something with Cullen?

To do this, I am going to go through different “phases” of Cullen discourse. My thesis and answering the titular question: It’s complicated, and I don’t think I can answer “Why Cullen,” but “there’s sometimes recycled discourses made about his character through the years, maybe there’s a pattern.” When it comes to Cullen’s detractors, I understand the fact that it might be frustrating to see much content for someone so “boring” when there’s more “interesting” and “well done” characters (though interest is of course relevant) so it leads to a lot of vitriol from both new and old fans who think the man had too much screen time already. Furthermore, he is highly complicated man dressed as a Disney prince, and the “Disney-esque” feel of his romance creates a dissonance between coming to terms with his problematic past and reveling in the romanticism. We can have a happy medium everyone, but because of what I can only describe as “tik tok thought” it’s become looked down upon to have problematic favorites, which leads to guilt in liking something problematic, or outright revisionism.

But liking things with problematic elements doesn’t make you a bad person.

Alright, let’s begin:

The first phase truly began of course with DAO with Cullen’s crush on the female Circle Mage Warden. Some were endeared, others not so much. I cannot speak to this phase too much as I was around 15-16 and pretty preoccupied with my high school drama instead of fandom, though I played both DAO and DA2 upon it’s release and followed updates for DA2 before it came out. Despite not being an active fandom member I was what they would call, a lurker. I knew some people liked Cullen and thought he was cute, wishing for more screen time after the game and hoping he’d be in DAI through IMDB message boards (remember those?) and YoutTube comments. When news broke he’d be an advisor in DAI and a romance option, I remember seeing a lot of people in those same spaces rejoice. I’m sure there were also people who weren’t so pleased, but from what I saw, people were happy. When Inquisition did release, I actually did quite a bit more lurking on tumblr despite the fact I didn’t have a blog, because I played the romance route, really gravitated toward it, and wanted to see fanart and such. People liked the romance, liked his arc and how Bioware handled his struggles with lyrium; and found it realistic. Even in my lurking days I did see some blowback on Cullen from detractors, those who didn’t think he should have been the military advisor (which canonically it makes total sense to me why he’s where he’s at, but I won’t get into it here however.) But likely because I wasn’t fully “in fandom,” my surface level understanding of how tumblr felt about Cullen was relatively positive and there was only standard fare discourse.

Phase 2: I can speak about this phase better because I established this blog in 2017. Two years after DAI was released, you still had a lot of fans who loved his romance and character, but you also saw a lot of those fans really dive into his flaws, insisting even that just focusing on the Disney Prince aspects of him reduced his character. There were also more internal debates. Would realistically Cullen be a good father was one. One thing however was for sure, there was a strange them and us line between detractors and fans, and to many fans, myself included, oftentimes the Cullen blowback would extend beyond the valid, “hey I don’t think his characterization was handled well” or “his redemption arc isn’t that great” to outright vitriolic hate that blatantly ignored his PTSD and lyrium addiction, and even sometimes “you just like Cullen because he’s white.” As a POC fan it was a fantastic thing to be accused of. I used to be more involved with discord during this period and I remember a few discussions about this as well. Even those indifferent to Cullen didn’t get it.

Overall, I have to say the air was one where people in Cullen fandom enjoyed all aspects of him, from delving into this troubled past to indulging in the Disney prince aspects of him. It was a happy medium I think, even if occasionally I would see a Cullen fan feel bad for liking him, and feel like they needed to justify it. Heck I even did and still do feel that way sometimes, like I need to justify what I like. But we all come into fandom for different reasons. I come into fandom some days for different things. Sometimes I want smut with my favorite character, other times I want more intense thought pieces and challenging fics. Great thing about fandom is that it’s a bakery that has cherry tarts, cinnamon rolls, or all kinds of pie depending on your mood. Craving a different sweet treat, you can make your own. Or you can commission an artist or writer for something you fancy.

*(sexual assault mentions here late in the paragraph****)And now I’ve been warped back into Cullen/DA fandom through what I am calling phase three, where the general air on Cullen reads as….very different. After having one foot outside DA fandom for a while coming back and reading the air has been different. There was the bizarre nuggetgate and other things with Cullen. Now, instead of accepting his flaws and exploring him there seems to be a lot of revisionism going on, as if his past never happened or we’re supposed to ignore he was a templar. A sexually active Cullen is looked down upon but in a different way from before. Instead of smut works with him “reducing his complicated character.” it’s distasteful to write smut with him where he’s sexually dominant or even just a lot of smut because he was sexually assaulted. (***Now, it is implied that he was, if you are a female Circle mage in DAO, with “sifting through my thoughts, tempting me with the one thing I always wanted but could never have” but this is an implication. I will be honest, it is what I have implied. However, it’s not there if you’re not a female Mage. He was however canonically sexually harassed in the Winter Palace, something I will always argue, even if canon treats it like a joke, even if Leliana tells him to “just look pretty.” Just because he is a man doesn’t make it funny that someone grabbed his bottom, and if you take Cole he flat out says “Cullen is afraid.”***)

So here I am, wondering what changed and what’s going on. Here’s what I believe: Cullen is a complicated character and his flaws and his past make him interesting to me, and they are interesting to explore. However there is nothing wrong with wanting to just explore a romantic, sexual Cullen. He’s a character with many facets. He’s romantic, determined, nostalgic, stubborn, unrelenting, loyal, driven, all things that made him seem so real. Here we get to my theory: in today’s media “criticisms” I see people—particularly younger people—beat themselves up for liking something problematic. It’s like every time you engage with media that’s potentially problematic you have to write essays to yourself why it is so and hold yourself accountable. I see this on tik-tok a lot and why I refer to it as “tik tok thought.” Look at the way some young Hamilton fans talk about the musical, or heck even here, and you may see what I mean. It’s like if you don’t acknowledge the problematic aspects of the historical figures behind their fictional portrayals in the show you’re a bad person. Same thing with nostalgic Disney fans my age in younger, if you don’t clown on Ariel for “choosing a man over anything” (SHE LIKED THE SURFACE WORLD BEFORE SHE MET ERIC) you don’t get your brownie points.

I want to make it clear: being critical of media is good. I am glad I see young people and people my age think about the messages we are given in media, but somehow this is turned into ANALYZE EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. Ya’ll I’m a grad student. I’m critical most of the time, when I come to my tumblr blog’s lawn I’m here mostly to have some fun, and hey sometimes my fun is being critical. But sometimes it isn’t. You do not have to always be critical. You do not have to beat yourself up for liking something that’s problematic or write an essay about why it is as if that’s your due diligence in stanning a fictional character. I’m going to be honest I used to kind of think I had to justify my likes once, especially because of the Cullen vitriol on tumblr. I worked overtime in my early fanfic efforts to try to prove to the world I knew Cullen was problematic for fear I’d be perceived as just an idiot horny fangirl. Well, let me tell you: I largely don’t think that way anymore. If I want to just enjoy writing some smut or reading some smut with him, I am. But I think there is a second part of this in Cullen fandom currently, a revisionism of his problematic elements. Now, if you have to do mental gymnastics with a character in an effort to ignore problematic elements, perhaps you don’t like the character that much. That’s totally okay. DA has many awesome characters to write about and stan.

So, why Cullen? For so many reasons a bit of a shit show has always followed this character. There’s a divide between fans and his detractors and sometimes there’s a divide within the Cullen fandom. What I can extrapolate for now is the need to keep him squeaky clean and safe and away from anything “problematic” because his of past, his templar roots, or the fact that he’s white when there are POC characters with less content. It reads as a guilt associated with liking him. But please, do not be guilty. He’s not real. Templars aren’t real, mages aren’t real, Cullen isn’t real. Here’s my advice, something I learned while in my directing class in college. What my teacher always said was direct what turns you on, direct a story that gets you thinking, gets you excited. What gets you thinking and excited in a fictional world may be tons of conflict and dramatics, or it may be peace and love. Sometimes it can be both or more. Don’t shame others for coming to a bakery and wanting blueberry when you want cherry, and the baker has both, especially if the baker labels each pie, especially if the recipe for the pie has some salt in it and people like the salt. We can have it all and enjoy it all. What we want in our fiction doesn’t always align with something we may want real life. Lots of people write Modern girl in Thedas stories. Ya’ll if that actually happened to one of us it would probably suck. I’d probably get killed and not even get to meet Cullen and pose around the desk to get things going, so I’d rather it not happen. However, it is fun to read about.

Again, don’t be guilty for liking Cullen, please. But if you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to like Cullen, maybe you don’t like him at all. To that I say, there are many other amazing characters, or perhaps you could write your own.

#fandom critical #I spent too long on this #deleted a lot #but now it's written and I can move on #Cullen rutherford

263 notes · View notes

hamliet · 3 years

Text

Analysis tag game

Tagged by @save-tenko-and-akito :)

Answer as few or many of these as you like. Enjoy! 1. How do you begin writing your analysis: do you start writing about the first thing that strikes you; or do you step back and look at the narrative structure first; or something else?

I usually start from a question I have about the narrative; my metas usually start with me wanting to learn something rather than me having something I want to prove. I always have to be interested in the subject! 2. What do you like to keep in mind while writing your analysis/meta?

Er... nuance and empathy. ;) It’s hard to balance that in some ways because like... in literary criticism you literally cannot be too blunt. You do not say “seems.” You do not say “likely.” You say “is.” You declare. That... does not always get received well in fandom, though :P So there’s a balance between sticking to an argument and acknowledging that not every statement applies to every situation in the world, or even to every interpretation of the work.

3. Do you try to keep your value judgments separate from your analysis?

Is value akin to like or to morality in this question?

For the former, I think that there is a line between “I don’t like this” and “this is objectively bad,” but either case is okay to make--as long as you have evidence to back it up. If you can explain why X twist doesn’t make sense with the previous parts of the work, it’s not just “I don’t like this.” Also, you can think things are objectively good and dislike them, or think they are objectively bad and love them anyways (2ha’s last arc for me). You can even be a hypocrite (I disliked the end of TG and of 2ha for the same exact reason--protagonist halo--yet still enjoyed 2ha and ended up with a much harsher opinion of TGre for no other reason beyond just personal taste + life circumstances + expectations etc.) There’s a lot of shades of gray (nuance!) in there as well.

For the latter... I know based on spoilers, for example, that Qiang Jin Jiu’s ending might be objectively well done, but it doesn’t necessarily seem to jive with my particular values. We’ll see how it’s executed/framed. But that doesn’t inherently affect my view of the story’s quality.

4. Do you prefer analyzing characters, or arcs, or both?

Both, but characters are the main substance of a story for me. I have been more nerdily interested in structure lately though. I’d like to think Professor B is proud of me for how often I think back to his class... 5. Do you think receiving feedbacks/responses on your analysis/meta help improve your critical skills?

Yes! When it’s constructive and when there’s discussion backed up with evidence (whether in support or disagreement). I’ve learned a lot from other meta writers, and made some great friends! Literary analysis is always a discussion (even historically speaking!) so it’s 100% a valuable part of the experience.

The problem, of course, is that people can be rude and social media encourages less-than-stellar engagement and out-of-context understandings, which means it’s often just safer to be like “I’m not discussing this.” :/ 6. Do you consciously decide which media you want to write analysis on or does it naturally come to you?

Kind of goes back to question 1 for me; if I like a work and have questions about it, I’ll often write about it. 7. Do you prefer writing long or short metas? Which ones do you prefer to read?

Long for both, I guess, but honestly it depends on the topic and what it requires! Some short blurbs are great, and concise. I am in general not concise. 8. Which are your favourite analysis/criticism/meta blogs?

@linkspooky @aspoonofsugar @redphlox @haleigh-sloth I know I’m forgetting many great people. 9. Which shows/movies/media do you think deserve to have more analysis done on them?

Hmmmm.

Qiang Jin Jiu--it’s a novel fans are really sleeping on (at the same time, that ,means there is no Shen Zechuan discourse which is inevitable if it gets popular, so I get to love my stabby son in peace). It’s also quite rich in themes.

RWBY. There actually is a fair amount of content for RWBY, but less analysis, which I’d love to see more of! I think the story is really well done so far (not perfect, but good) yet a lot of the hot takes about RWBY are... they kinda misrepresent the show, which is a shame.

Scum Villain. It often gets overshadowed by MXTX’s other works and while it definitely does have more obvious flaws (it’s a first novel and that’s clear), it’s no less thematically rich than MDZS or TGCF, and also just as clever. I also think its being a different genre plays a role in it being overlooked; a lot of critiques I see are exactly the point (like Binghe’s over-the-top behavior being designed to make you question tropes, the cringe sex scene is cringe for a reason, etc)..

10. According to you, what are some prerequisites for good quality analysis?

Simply put, you’ve gotta be deferential to evidence. Support your claims, and also answer the “so what” question (ie why does x point you’re making matter?) Also, be willing to change your mind based on evidence, and also stick to the work. Which doesn’t mean you can’t empathize or theorize about why x people like y or how culture/authors impact work/the perceptions of a work, but that you should do so with self-awareness and humility. Fiction and reality have a nuanced relationship.

Oh, and don’t be afraid to be wrong or to change your mind. I’m wrong all the damn time. You learn through doing, right or wrong!

#fun memes #tag game

21 notes · View notes

jojotichakorn · 3 years

Text

my thoughts and opinions on "lovely writer": criticizing the critic

tw for discussions of age gaps, rape, and sex

before i turn into the mean and constantly dissatisfied archer that we all know and hate, i just want to say that i liked this show. i think it's great, actually! gene and sib are appropriately cute, the premise is nice, and the attempt at criticizing the industry is... well, an attempt, which is better than nothing. moreover, "lovely writer" came with gifts because it gave me my new favorite character, so you can't go telling me i'm trying to completely obliterate it or something.

besides, this specific post isn't going to get into analyzing the show as a whole anyway. i won't be talking about any irrelevant plot points, cinematography, sound design, or anything like that, though i could probably write a post just as long as this one about that side of things as well. however, i am here to specifically look at the problematic things that were both criticized by the show and included in the show without any criticism. i'm going to talk about the more serious side of things here, which means i'm going to get serious. and i'm going to be harsh. very harsh.

gene and nubsib: yes's and no's

overall, the relationship between gene and sib was a fair attempt at showing something complex, yet ultimately quite healthy, which i appreciate. there were some things i was especially glad about. the fact that sib dated other people before settling on getting together with gene, for example, makes the whole situation a little less codependent. however, as much as this show prides itself on not wanting to romanticize problematic relationships, there are at least two major problems with genesib.

the age gap (and why it was not needed)

i've tried my very best to give this entire concept the benefit of the doubt. at first, i was convincing myself that they were simply close childhood friends, then i was trying my best to believe that even though sib did have a sort of crush on gene (which sometimes happens to little children), gene only saw him as his younger brother, but eventually, the show gave me no choice, but to deem the entire storyline problematic, because they did their best to romanticize that relationship - from gene's dad seeing the "early signs" to the counting and kissing the cheek turning to counting and full-on lip-locking in the last episode.

i could go into how this could all easily be mended if little sib was shown as kind of obsessed with his older friend, but gene was shown as not being anywhere near interested in the kid. but the real question is - why was the age gap needed at all?

i've researched the age of the boys during the flashbacks to the best of my ability and it seems that gene is 11 and sib is 6 or 7. if sib was the same age as gene (or maybe just one year younger, but not any more than that), not only would none of it feel weird, it would also be quite appropriate to explore that first glimpse of romantic feelings some of us experience exactly around that age. i don't think it's necessary for sib to be much younger than gene (children can be just as impressionable at 11 as they are at 7, and as for gene being surprisingly nice and helpful and the other kids not wanting to play with sib, he could have easily been - for example - bullied by his peers instead, which would have the same effect).

moving forward to the present, i don't think the lack of an age gap would affect the storyline that much either. even if they desperately needed sib to be a university student, they could have that one-year difference i've talked about before, which is not as significant. sib could be in his last year of uni, while gene could have easily written his very first novel during his university years, which would actually make more sense (since that guaranteed him employment and freedom to write after he finished uni; and i would rather believe that he had time to write his first novel in-between classes than in-between shifts at work, which he would surely need to have if he started writing after finishing university).

so that brings me back to my initial question - why was it needed? and much like the show often does, i will leave this one up for your interpretation because i do not have any sensible answers myself.

the issue with sex and consent

"but archer!" - i hear you exclaim - "lovely writer is known for explicitly denouncing rape romanticization in bls, how could there possibly be any problems with consent here?" and i hear you, my dear reader. and you aren't incorrect, "lovely writer" is indeed very explicit at calling out bls for having rape scenes (and i do appreciate that). however, as i'm sure you know, there are different ways in which consent can be taken from a person, and there are different non-consensual acts that someone might perform. for example, there are many different forms of coercion, such as the person being persuaded until they feel like they have no other choice, but to say yes. touching someone or kissing someone without asking for permission are also non-consensual acts. i can go on and on, there are many examples outside of what so many people consider rape.

now, what if i tell you that though there (thank the gods) has been no rape present in "lovely writer", not all scenes with gene and sib are consensual? well, that's what i'm telling you because it's the truth. both the first kissing scene and the scene where gene and sib "try out different poses" have clear coercion in them. the entire "joke" of the scene before gene and sib's first time is literally built upon the concept of "a person is trying to run away from someone, who wants to have sex with them" and it is NOT funny. the later reveal of gene actually looking up how to have sex seems to be there on purpose, to show that everything that's happened is "ok" because gene was thinking about it. as a sensible person, i will only accept actual enthusiastic consent and not someone possibly maybe probably considering it. not to mention that right before having sex, sib asks gene one last time if he is sure, which is great, except it is immediately followed by "i'm not going to let you change your mind anymore", which - daily reminder - you are allowed to stop having sex at any point during the act if you start feeling uncomfortable with it. that's absolutely normal.

now the problem that we seem to run into here is that "lovely writer" appears to think that it's ok to push someone to the limit until they either finally agree or confidently and loudly disagree. the drama has repeatedly shown us that actually forcing someone to have sex is not ok; however, persuading and otherwise coercing someone, as well as taking an approximate guess of them wanting to have sex based on some marginally related factors, is ok. i would like to once again remind everyone that all of that is not ok.

one more issue i want to bring up in connection with sex is something i wish was common knowledge: it is NOT supposed to hurt during your first time. whether you are planning to have vaginal or anal sex for the first time, it should not hurt. and if it does, something has definitely gone wrong and you need to stop. you are not supposed to experience any pain or discomfort during sex, including your first time (outside of desired and therefore intentionally inflicted pain, but that's not what i'm talking about here). i have seen this misconception brought up many times in bls along with the other person "thanking the person who got hurt for bearing the pain to bring them pleasure" and absolutely none of that is normal. stop. please, just... stop.

criticism of the BL industry

there are certainly quite a few things i liked about the way "lovely writer" criticized the many problems that surround bls. i think they dealt especially well with the fan aspect. the breaches of privacy that are considered normal, the toxicity of social media that encourages people to comment on other people's personal life, harass and stalk them - all of that was shown in its full glory (or rather horror) and clearly condemned. it was also interesting to see how easily everyone around sib fell into the routine of having to hide genesib's relationship, just because "that's what's supposed to be done in these situations" - even tum did that without thinking twice.

however, i have not spent the past three years hating gmm for a show trying to criticize the industry not to focus on criticizing the production company and everyone professionally involved with the making of bls. don't get me wrong - they didn't completely overlook that side of things, but i found the way they approached it dissatisfying.

like yes, tum fights with his sister (aka sib's manager) and calls her out for her terrible actions, and the publisher (bua) eventually apologizes for what she did, but all of that feels a bit too... personal. i do not care about these individual stories. i care about you saying that the whole system is broken because it very much is. i wanted manner of death but with the bl industry, and instead, i got an "uwu the fans are demanding we do this, and our hands our tied" (which is a lie) and "uwu i'm just trying to make money" (which i mean... if you feel ok milking even more money than you already have by doing something unethical and immoral, then be my guest, but also go fuck yourself). besides that, i didn't see any criticism of tabloids or exploitative celebrities either (both of which we had examples of in the show), and that was kind of disappointing.

coming back to the fans for a moment, i also think that the criticism of real people shipping was entirely unsuccessful. we basically mostly got an "oh, what if this person's partner thinks they are actually dating", which... if a bunch of people on the internet who do not know your boyfriend personally and make all their judgments from screenshots and their imagination can convince you that your boyfriend is cheating, i've got some bad news for you and also a number for a therapist. partly i know why it was so complicated for them to get into it properly - the issue with real people shipping is an issue of privacy, boundaries, the perception of celebrities, acceptable interests, and many other complex topics. however, it's better to not criticize something than to criticize it badly and inaccurately (because the latter usually leads to even more encouragement of whatever you were attempting to criticize).

aey: the flamboyant villain

aey certainly starts as a promisingly complex character, but the farther we go from his backstory and his family, the less complex and the more evil he gets. eventually, the trauma he goes through is no longer enough to give him a get-out-of-jail-free card, and he loses all remaining sympathy after sexually harassing gene and pretending to drug sib. and i did start this post by saying that i am not to analyze any plot points or characters from the show here; however, i'm saying all this to prove a point that aey is a clear villain in the show. this is further cemented by the fact that by the end of the show he loses the only two people who cared about him, and the very last moment with him in the show is literally just him crying for about 3 minutes. there was no redemption arc, no pity, no revenge - he was left alone and broken, clearly punished by the narrative. and i've got a bone to pick here as well.

one of the first things that we find out about aey is that he is gay, and quite openly so. he is repeatedly described as very feminine by many characters, he flirts with men, he talks about being good in bed, and his entire character is built upon being gay (half of it directly, and the other half due to the fact that his entire backstory and therefore personality is also built upon the fact that he is gay). he is - for the lack of a better term - the gayest character in the show and the only one who is loud about being gay not because he is in love but simply because it is a part of him and he doesn't want to hide it. and he is the villain. not the disgusting publisher or the terrible manager - no, this guy was specifically chosen to ruin everyone's lives. and i can't say i'm particularly happy about that. *british voice* seems a bit homophobic love

not quite queer enough

as i said, aey is openly gay. gene and sib also eventually say that they are gay, gene's father teep is queer, so are tiffy and mhok. but it just doesn't seem to come up as much as it would in real life. the only time anyone has a problem with any of the characters being queer is when we deal with the parents. but knowing actual queer thai actors in real life, we are all aware how hard it can be for them, but it has not come up even once for aey, gene or sib (with genesib only being a problem because they are a "non-shippable couple"). being queer is far from being a non-issue in the industry, and i found it incredibly weird that it was never brought up (and i would also prefer if they brought that up instead of showing the unaccepting parents plot for the millionth time).

same goes for the lack of conversation around queer people on set. i think we all have a wonderful example of how much better a bl can get simply when it involves a queer director and/or screenwriter (gods bless p'aof), gay actors, etc. i also thought it was a missed opportunity that gene being a gay man writing a bl novel was never highlighted. if anything, everyone made a big deal out of him being a man writing a bl - never mind that he is a gay man that is far more qualified to write bls than a straight woman.

in conclusion, there are simply not enough queer issues talked about here for a show that is about queer people facing difficulties while making a queer drama.

tiffy and tum: the good, the bad, and the ugly

overall, tiffy and tum are quite cool. outside of my own personal feelings, i really liked the clear reversal of gender roles they have going on: he knows lots about make-up, she knows nothing about it, he knows how to sew, she knows how to repair a car, etc.

tiffy is also a nice addition to the precious few queer girls we have in bls. however, the way her being bi is executed... it isn't great. when she first talks about dating girls to tum, she says things like "even though i look like this" (implying queer girls have a certain look?) and "maybe it seemed normal because i was at an all-girls school" (which wtf does that even mean?). i think the worst thing, though, was when she assumed tum was gay. my best guess is she thought so because she initially thought that tum and gene were a couple; however, she should be the first person to know that just because he likes men, it doesn't mean that he doesn't like women or any other gender. even though there was nothing explicitly leading me to make this conclusion, this whole thing did kind of feel like the old "flipping the switch" stereotype (meaning, she used to like women, but now she likes men, and both of them can't happen simultaneously).

make it make sense

i think i've never been more confused in my entire life than when i found out that the director of "lovely writer" also happens to be the director of "th*arnt*pe". and if at first, i was asking a lot of questions about this peculiar individual, who went from working on the worst rape-romanticizing show we have ever had to a show that explicitly states that rape is not normal. but the more i thought about it, the less i was interested in him, and the more i was interested in whoever made the decision to hire him. there are dozens of different directors that have worked specifically on bls, and even more that haven't. yet out of all those, you decided to choose this one. the dude, who before your show has only directed the show with the biggest rape-y vibes. that casts a particular kind of shade on the entire show that i simply do not like.

conclusion

at the end of the day, i think what "lovely writer" tried to do was very interesting. it succeeded in some ways and failed in others. frankly, i think this show could have easily been made better if someone queer was involved in making it. that's always true, but especially so, when we try to talk about the issues of making a queer drama. either way, it's certainly a good start to this conversation; however - as i said - i'm still waiting for my manner of death but with the bl industry. this was unfortunately not it.

#it is here it is queer it has some controversial hot takes #archer speaks #lovely writer

20 notes · View notes

alatismeni-theitsa · 3 years

Note

(1/2) I know this is some controversial topic and that you sometimes cover US politics, but what do you think the american left needs to improve to reach to more people and be taken more seriously?; It's unbelievable that in the very 2021, apolitical folk are still fallin into the whole "the leftist are a bunch of crazies" narrative, we may do some pushback the last three years against conservative politics.

(2/2) But it's still not enough; on your personal opinion, what fundamental core value needs to be changed to engage to these apolitical people and that leftist want politics to improve the quality of life of the population without being labeled as a "petulant, whiney children" There's some greek-flavored advice that we can apply to our discourse? Thanks in advance :)

========================== END OF ASK ======================

Ooooo… Great question! And by “great” I mean “Do you want me to go down in flames and get cut a thousand times with pitchforks??” xD But it’s very interesting so I will answer it! And you will be subjected to an essay of 3.200 words 😘💅 (I want to be meticulous, don’t come at me)

Please assume the tone is light and conversational. I am not in a very serious or dramatic mood, and I don’t want to estrange any group by assuming the role of an all knowing tutor or someone who always has the high moral ground. This is just 1am blabbering.

I am not against leftists. On the contrary, I know their side so well that I think I have a solid opinion on its flaws. (I have friends who are left- okay I’ll stop xD) Needless to say, the right side also has flaws and the two sides often share flaws. But right now, we are only talking about the leftists. And of course, #notallleftists xD I recognize that leftists are ordinary and diverse people with empathy and capability of critical thinking and problem-solving (Did I mention I have friends who ar--) Jokes aside, I think my following is quite left leaning and I am not bashing them here. I am criticizing the movement as a whole and trying to see where it can be improved.

***** Anyways, I will generalize the bad traits for the sake of everyone’s time, it’s what I am saying! So, when I say “they” I will probably mean “some” or “the bad apples” etc. *****

To begin, US leftists don’t want to, but they are accidentally imperialist xD Unfortunately, they don't know much about other countries, and they don’t usually have knowledge of countries they are talking about if they don’t have an immediate connection to them. Not knowing things is fine, but when people on this site are like “ugh Americans” this points to an ignorance and a sort of entitlement that doesn’t occur this often in other countries. My internet cycle is overwhelmingly leftist and yet I continue seeing willingness for ignorance all around - and when I check it’s not by conservatives.

Leftists think their (social and not) politics apply to every country and culture, that people in different countries classify themselves as they do in the US. And when people from those countries talk about their problems, there is always an American that wants to give input based on American politics, and without knowing the situation in this other country they want to talk about. Ironically, the last one is a behavior of conservative politicians. Conservative politicians and citizens sometimes think it’s fine to intervene in other countries for “the greater good”. Well, leftists do the same but on the internet. It stalls conversation and makes it messy and force foreigners to apply to American standards.

Because leftists don't understand social differences between countries, they project their own politics, and that can make them seem obsessed with skin color and blind to cultural diversity. They act like only Americans or certain countries have every lived through colonialism and suffered slaughter and slavery. (Because they don’t feel the need to study and learn further.) To an American that might not be the case, but when Americans converse with foreigners about foreign issues, they seem to have a blind spot.

They act as if only white, cis, straight people can be perpetrators of imperialism. Booyyy I have news xD Yes, of course white, cis, straight people can be perpetrators of imperialism, but the attitude that they are the first to blame, always, it’s faulted. I have many experiences, but let’s start with a very simple one, of an Indian American young woman who thought only a lota can clean you with water in the toilet, and that Europeans haven’t heard of bidets or any other means of cleanliness (or that they have the bathtub RIGHT THERE xD) One of the highlights was a Black woman insisting “Medusa was Black because my grandma told me” despite what Greeks were telling her.

Another thing that stuck with me was the case of a Greek who wanted to write about the people who happen to be a minority in the US (you would call them poc I guess). Many people from those countries were enthusiastic about the project and aided the writer as much as they could, sharing culture and realizing how many things in common they had. But it was from same populations in the US that the writer found people who blamed them for daring to write something outside of their culture. (To explain, most US Americans were fine, but only in the US were some who were hostile). Or, I have seen Chinese Americans being offended by a certain thing (I think it was something about fashion) saying “this is an offense to Chinese culture” meanwhile Chinese people from everywhere else in the world (99% of Chinese, I’d say) said “I don’t understand… this is fine!”

Many US American poc categorize all light skinned Caucasians of the world as White Americans and the rest are the “cultured” Black or Brown people. US Americans are now learning that Slavic cultures exist and it’s… something else to watch leftists realizing light skinned people can have great embroidery and they are not actually stealing Mexican traditional clothing xD (reference to an obscure “calling out” comment on tik tok).

I don’t specifically target US poc here, I am just mentioning that everyone conveniently forgets them as if they are untouchable and never said anything ignorant, while they are as active on social media causes as other Americans. In fact, if most poc are aligned to a side, that would be the Left. They are a very big part of the progressive movement – and that’s why I am giving so much space here for them – but then it seems they can’t have a share of the “bad” things of the leftist movement, only the good. Which is humanly impossible, to be always correct.

That’s one of the problems of leftism, that in a way pardons certain minorities and by doing that it not only lets the problematic bubbles grow but also infantilizes those minorities because it passes the message that “they can never do anything wrong”. While background matters when having an opinion, I see that skin-color goes ridiculously above opinion on these matters, which is not very egalitarian. When I argue with a person, the last thing I see is the person’s skin color. When someone says “ancient Greeks were actually a Black nation ad then they became White” I don’t care how this person looks like. No matter your skin color, you must take responsibility for the misinformation you are spreading. I won’t assume that because someone is a poc that they can’t study and learn more about the matter of discussion.

So… the “issue” doesn’t come from being white, cis, straight etc but from being raised as a US American. I don’t imply by any means that being a US American is bad. The last thing I want to do here is enforce guilt. (If you are feeling guilty already I must be mistaken in my wording so I am sorry for that). I am talking about certain beliefs that come with raised as a US American. Similarly, many beliefs a Greek can have are because of their environment. Everyone is affected by their background in one way or another.

American leftists believe that even the piss poor British farmers benefited from colonialism – and still benefit perhaps on a systemic scale. So, with the same logic, even the lowest layers of the US American society benefit from imperialism and war crimes overseas. (Truth is the quality of living in the US is great and extremely progressive compared to most of the world, because of the US’ politics. I had analyzed this in a previous post). But American leftists never mention that when it comes to THEIR case, because it doesn’t give them an advantage.

To tie it up with how American leftists see the world, there is youtuber I like, who is a US American woc and one time she said “My country is bombing Brown people” in an annoyed tone and it just sounded so offensive I closed the video. It’s obvious the youtuber doesn’t support the bombing, but it was just the phrasing which left a bitter taste in my mouth the whole day. It was the fact that 1) she could make a statement in an annoyed/joking tone 2) people in those countries don’t identify as “Brown” outside the US (and you are talking about them now) 3) your country is indeed bombing them so maybe at least categorize them as they wish?? They have a certain ethnicity, so mention that and stop categorizing them like dog breeds! They already have the bombs, do you want them to hear Americans categorize them like that?

Moreover, many US leftists think they care about other countries while, in actuality, they don’t. They just want to make other countries have the exact progressive US politics - because that’s the only “correct” political system they know. That shows even in kind of superficial matters. In a movie about Greek mythology, they will make sure there is an American Arab, an American Black person, an American East Asian person etc (which would be a cast that would reflect American diversity, not Mediterranean) and are hesitant to cast Greeks or ask Greeks how the portrayal of the story and figures could be better and respecting.

Another thing, they take everything too personally. They think success and failure of a movement is highly dependent on them as an individual. It’s difficult for them to approach a harsh past or present situation in a levelheaded manner because they don’t realize this situation has been universal. So, they feel a special kind of guilt and that makes them over apologetic but also overzealous (like a righteous self-flogging zealot) and that is what drives people away. They combine that behavior with ignorance about the rest of the world, and you can see why a non-US American might want to keep their distance.

I had some Americans apologizing to me because their ancestors did something to Greeks and just… don’t. I know you have the best intentions, but it makes everyone – even me – feel bad. There is no need for apologizing because 1) you and your family did nothing wrong 2) it was centuries ago 3) this bad shit happens/happened literally everywhere. You might as well apologize for your people knowing how to cook. It’s FINE, really, it’s FINE. For instance, do you think I have a grudge on YOUR people running a slave trade six centuries ago while there was dozen active slavetrades in the area, and while Greeks of the Byzantine empire probably bought slaves some decades before they were sold to slavery themselves? Do you see what a mess this is? Not only it doesn’t fix anything, but you also put unnecessary weight on yourself, as an individual. It’s fine to be aware and trying to fix past mistakes - if it’s possible - but there is a certain delicate process that must be followed. Not… whatever this is.

To continue on the extreme individualism, leftists think it's the end of the world if they have done or said something controversial (and that's also because they have cultivated a culture where any small transgression is a potential danger to the whole society :p aka "the left eats itself"). Around them people feel they must tread on eggshells just in case they phrase a thing wrong or post something that could be linked to a person the Left doesn't like.

The left is also on the extremes, so I have to put 1000 disclaimers every time I say something. (I guarantee that the example with the Chinese people will be translated by some Americans like “Theitsa promotes Asian hate!!”) Do you know who doesn't annoy me if I don't put 1000 disclaimers? Certainly not Conservatives. I had more harassment from leftists than I had from actual nazis, even though my blog is not conservative or (god forbid!!) supportive of nazism or any type of supremacy. Even nazis completely understand my beliefs before they send hate. (It might be odd but I never had one not understanding my point xD) But the leftists who sent hate misinterpret stuff, or they don’t bother reading actual posts. The funny thing is that I usually agree with these progressives in 99% of issues but they don’t care asking or learning, they just decide our morals are opposite. I mean they don’t have to like me, but many leftists don’t even read the basics.

On top of that, leftists rarely want to have a conversation with a conservative. I don't say go and AGREE with a conservative, I say just talk. (see? I feel the need to clarify here because many leftists might say “Theitsa wants us to go and AGREE with conservatives! Does Theitsa want us to become nazis and homophobes???”) How does one feel they have to be sooo righteous and then cauterize every member of society who disagrees with them? Why do leftists rarely want to have a conversation? Some people were ready to attack me for referencing a meme which referenced Steven Crowder, as if that shows I am his supporter 😩 (Guilty by association is strong on the leftist side and it’s very reminiscent of authoritarian tactics, another thing that needs to be improved, to my opinion.)

I don’t support Crowder (I know Crowder has done awful stuff) but I shouldn’t be scared to admit I like the “change my mind” episodes. (Flash news, leftists, you might like a part from a person’s work and not 100% support that person!) I like the episodes because both sides are heard, the conversation is civil (for the most part xD) and I can see the thought process of the two speakers as they explain their worries and what solutions are out there.

Most of all, in those episodes I see how BOTH sides CARE about the SAME problems, it’s just the perspectives that differ. And those conversations highlight the issues the left hasn’t studied very well, so it helps the leftists understand what they need to learn in order to better society. But where the “immaturity“ of the leftist side can show is in the unwillingness to approach the “opponent“ as a human just like them.

(They might instead prefer to call Mexicans white supremacists and claim that “whiteness” has no color because quite a few poc voted Republican, as some leftist news sources have stated)

What is more, is it just my idea or conservatives understand leftists better than leftists understand conservatives? Of course both sides jokes about the other one but I am talking about the serious talks. Leftists just describe conservatives as horrible people who want all minorities to perish and we must not talk to them while, surprisingly, the conservatives are the ones who stereotype less the opposite side. (I am talking about the normal, moderate people). From what I have seen, most simple people who are conservatives DON’T want the US’ ethnic and sexual minorities to perish. They are worried about problems they don’t have a good understanding about. And the only way to make them understand it’s to… talk to them, show them what good the left to offer.

Some leftists think conversation is “emotional labor” but 1) that applies to actual labor as in… jobs, so stop invalidating doctors, nurses, teachers etc, 2) yeah, sorry, sometimes things get difficult and you have to explain your side. (As non US-Americans endlessly have to do for US-Americans). That was, is and will be life until the sun swallows us all. You can’t be THAT militant on social media with 100 posts per day and remembering 50 different campaigns about social issues but the moment someone genuinely asks you for directions on your side you shut them off with “why do you demand labor from me? Do your own research” (hint: most likely they have done their research, but they are stuck, and you don’t help them like this).

If you are very tired and don’t want to explain (as it is your right) you can be polite about it and not blame the individual about their circumstances when they are trying to learn. If you DO want to explain but you get tired, be more organized. Have posts and F.A.Q.s ready, or send them to someone else (a friend, a blog, a youtube channel, an article, whatever). Instead of leftists arguing their positions, sometimes they are like “Do more research and realize I am right.” Yyyeah the other person is not gonna do that – especially because you haven’t pointed them anywhere or supported your position with arguments. Moreover, leftists can have the attitude of “I stand for PROGRESS, how can I ever be wrong??” Weeell things are not black and white and me, you, everyone has the potential to not have a not that beneficial to society position at some issues no matter where we stand on the political compass.

For the “petty whiny children” thing, I believe a lot of people might think that because the youth is usually making noise about progressive issues on social media. It’s true that oftentimes in social media discussions their emotions get the best of them (it’s happened to everyone) but combined with the lack of life experience they may have about the world, the argument sounds silly. (I heard one leftist university student say that the US shouldn’t have borders because borders are bad but then they realized they don’t want people to come and go as they please in the US, so she said there should be SNIPERS in the borders to shot everyone who tries to get in…….)

And, as I mentioned, the leftists are very quick to cancel and attack for the slightest transgression so people prefer to deal with the conservatives who can, at least, take a slight misstep, than meddling with people who are going to cancel them for doing or not doing a small, insignificant, but not ‘woke enough’ thing. Leftists are constantly checking each other to see if they are doing better and better (even in silly issues) and that can be intimidating to someone who is new to politics.

Some leftists get REALLY turned on by righteousness (Frollo villain style) and instead of trying to unite the society, they aim to divide it further. They don’t want to create bridges but burn them and find themselves on the “right side“ of morals.

And, last but not least, they don’t realize leftist propaganda is a thing. Malicious people are EVERYWHERE and they don’t just magically avoid the left. Leftists are not automatically super virtuous people. There are some manipulators and bullies around, so one has to be cautious even with leftist sources. (Cross-examine stuff, always. You might have the best intentions but accidentally share something nonfactual because you trusted a source).

Ok that was all, I think. To anyone who comments, PLEASE keep the tones down, have a conversation, take it slow, remember it doesn’t help us being hateful towards each other. (And causing serious friction wasn’t the purpose of this post). Oh, and if you need a clarification on something I said, before gossiping with your friends about how awful I am, do me the courtesy of first asking me what I meant xD

#answered #leftism #leftist #us politics #progressivism #progressive #long post

34 notes · View notes

shoezuki · 3 years

Note

okay but about that thing on people just switching their sides up. I actually have a whole critical thing of the fandom that I'll never write post in my head that like.... I think comes up with an explanation on it. but I wouldn't be posted cuz it would be super critical of Twitter as a whole and i don't wanna die lol.

but also I was talking about this in zablrs rant-chat a few hours ago, and like. I think part of it is that people are very much emotion first. and with Twitter, tumblr, and twitch chat being the way they are with live tweeting/blogging/chatting what have you, you get all these emotional reactions first. which. fair. thats how people react, ya know? in a sense, that's what you're supposed to do/how you're supposed to feel.

the real problem, imo, is the people who get their ideas/views second hand from these platforms. like, esp with Twitter since the way trending works it really, really can push out bias and misinformation really fast. so the non-viewer is seeing this influx in "oh this character bad now" or "this character redeemed now!" and instead of looking for it themselves they fall into the mob mentality and go with it.

that means later, when the stream is done, people who reacted emotionally at first and now have time/distance enough to think logically don't. because now they're the ones falling into the mob mentality. I mean, even people who haven't watched the current stream agree, so maybe it has more basis than just the one stream!

so people then get the idea that those emotional responses are logical and so when someone comes in with a different perspective, they think "now hold on a second" and they argue against it. because, logically, they're in the right, so obviously you're wrong!

(don't even get me started on that. there is no concrete right and wrong, only what is, what isn't, and what should be and should not be done. but thats a whole other post)

and then people, because theyre arguing instead of having proper discourse, the literary definition which is literally just another word for discussion NOT argument, people are getting emotional again. and it's been proven time and time and time again that when you're responding based on emotion you're less likely to respond well to someone who's trying to tell you something else because it feels like you're invalidating their feelings.

(and boy, oh boy, don't get me started on how much this has created a divide between NT and ND viewers of the smp. because it feels, to me, that when a NT is feeling emotional and a ND is trying to speak to them with logic, they're being told they're heartless or something which is just hhhhh)

so we never get anywhere in the fandom. we're stuck in the same emotion-mob mentality-logic-mob mentality cycle and it's honestly just exhausting at this point.

tiny you’ve hit it right on the head. like. youre so fucking right here.

i talked a how twitter is Built in a way that sucks before Kinda like this n it REALLY plays a part in like. mcyt fans over there n information n ppls reactions to things. like. it REALLY shows in there n usually when im arguing that ppl are so Quick to React to things its over There moreso than here like. ofc Everywhere but anyways like,

emotions are FIRST. its what ppl immediately feel in response to stimulus. like its a Whole Thing. how ppl can get angry and lash out then later will be like thinking it over and digest it better. and a LOT of dsmp stuff esp w tommy’s character appeals to emotions. like when we see ppl liveblogging its never dissecting or commentary on the flow and function of plot. its Always gut reactions

n like you said on social media it lasts SO LONG. the trending page on twitter is always fueled by in the moment thoughts and responses. things like ‘HE DIED’ and ‘SAM NOOK’ will get trending because ppl r livebloggin n freakin out about it. but it just drags all of it out too and creates like a domino affect.

idk how to say it without sounding like a dick either tbh but a lot of people will cling onto emotions and gut instant reactions, and will React and Speak according to that without thinking logically on analyzing things. so they’ll jump on ‘sam is a horrible person’ which sets off Other people and gets Others emotional and it spreads from that. mob mentality at its finest is how ppl will act in a Group and have the Same actions/thoughts largely because of emotional responses and Yeah It Do Be Here.

n ppl jus will cling onto it so hard???? even when what others say is more rational and has logical backing its like. will just Stand Firm and can react badly and interpret criticism/analysis as Hatred and its WEIRD.

like you mention the NT and ND aspect. and youre right like. not to lean on myself so heavy but i dont liveblog much or react In the Moment because im. like. not emotional. a part of my autism is i sometimes just Dont feel things or its not so Strong or i dont Get others emotional responses. easiest for me to feel is anger skjgfskg.

n especially w philza n techno how ppl r so Reactive n Emotional about them in terms a them being ‘bad’ like. a lot a ppl i see defendin em and makin Hot Takes (comrades) r ND.

#but absolutely i feel ppl r Very emotional n it doesnt feel right to say 'too much' but #yeah.yeah.hyeah #hard boiled takes #tiny #tinydemondragon

42 notes · View notes

reflections-in-a-critical-eye · 3 years

Note

Thank you for answering my question. I also have to ask, do we know for sure that BTS had no insight into Ed Sheeran's thought process with PTD? Is your point that there was no communication at all because they stated they never met in person? They are separated by a pandemic and a language barrier, yes, but that does not mean there was no exchange between them, even if it involved a third party transmitting information. I don't know the answer. Maybe none of us know? It seems a bit extreme to call the Weverse writer or any BTS members dishonest because of this. What they said isn't "laughable" from my prospective. It reflects the process of an international collaboration.

When it comes to criticism and would be critics, whether they consider PTD or any other song artistically bankrupt is a matter of individual opinion. There is no objective way of measuring artistic quality. What is artistic quality? In the words of RM on the AGUSTD track Strange:

'you think got taste? O babe, how do you know?'

Even music that has "stood the test of time" has been helped along by western cultural hegemony, institutionalized gatekeeping, sexism and racial bias. Criticism usually comes off as a judgement in value. This is why people like me get in our feelings about it sometimes. BTS are the first Asian band to achieve this level of global success so it does matter, to me, where the criticism is coming from. Over the past few weeks I have read a lot of criticism from western platforms that make judgements about authenticity, americanization and commercialism. I have never felt the need to make any kind of comment on social media up until PTD came out. It has highlighted how unable many western critical voices are to understand the outsider's perspective. I wonder, why aren't they digging so harshly into other pop acts?

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

There is no way to know for sure if BTS had an insight or not into Sheeran's thought process. What we do know is that he participated in writing a song that was then bought by Big Hit for BTS. Was he specifically asked to do it for the band? Were there other songwriters who did it and Big Hit chose the best one? That's an option. Or was the collaboration with Sheeran an exclusive job? Again, we don't know. If he actually gave a nod to what Yoongi said during 2018 Festa, I see this as a type of information that could easily be shared during the promotional interviews, but there's barely any mentions of Sheeran. BTS are following some talking points and they stick to it in interviews, which is why most of them sound the same, with a few exceptions.

For the second part of your ask, I'm going to get a bit more didactic and explain just for a bit what is the deal with criticism, judgement, and values.

I want to start by saying that criticism does not automatically have a negative connotation. Analyzing a piece of art, be it a song, novel, painting, film, that's all criticism, usually based on theory, but not always. When someone writes a review, they don't need to go really in depth, all they do is make a general assessment of what they write about and then we have the bigger, deeper side of analysis for a more nuanced piece, gathering references, what others have written, if there's something that's missing that they can provide with a new perspective. Criticism can lead to a negative judgment of value or a positive one. We should not be afraid of the word. It does not mean what people usually think it means and I believe a lot of confusion has its origins in that.

BTS are considered a global band at the moment (although I would use the word glocal), with fans all over the world, so of course there is discussion on Western platforms as well. The judgments from those platforms in regards to authenticity, Americanization and commercialism come from the fact that people were used to a certain type of music from BTS (which always had a Western influence due to the nature of K-Pop, but it was never just Western), but they saw a change in the trilogy which focused on delivering music, concept wise, closer to American imagery (PTD) and with a sound that is deemed as commercial because it sounds just like American Pop. Perhaps people can be quite harsh in how they express themselves and social media is not the place to expand on our thoughts and sometimes people post their first thought immediately, but I don't believe we should ignore it all the way. We should acknowledge it and try to understand how come there was such a reaction once we got to PTD. This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think it came out of nowhere, I think it was influenced by the fact that it was already the 3rd song in a similar fashion to what they released before (Dynamite and Butter), combined with the reasons behind it.

Now, we get to the motivation part. Of course it's important and incredible that a band such as BTS has achieved global success. I also understand that despite our feelings and opinions, the American market and the so called important awards are American. It's Western hegemony, just as you said. Do I personally agree with it? No, but it's the reality. That does not mean that we should stop and just accept it as if this is just the way things are. It's about changing the perspective. Seeing Parasite winning the Oscar for Best Picture is a moment for the film history books and an achievement, but after also winning several other awards, including the Palme d'Or at Cannes (which is a better example for promoting a more international, global cinema), then the Oscar does seem to look like a local, American award (I think this is how it was said by Bong Joon-Ho). Unfortunately, the Grammys are not the same, they are still considered the ultimate goal for musicians and for an Asian act to win, it would be huge.

American culture is not the center and the rest is a periphery. It was thought to be so, but there are so many attempts made, especially through criticism, to move away from it. I want to borrow a concept from Dudley Andrew which talks about an atlas of world cinema which could help us move away from hegemonic tendencies, to not look at a center that influences all others, but we should look at influences from different time periods or different places. Perhaps we could use this when we talk about music in global terms. Unfortunately we're not there yet.

I hope I explained a bit better my own perspective on why there is an aversion when people judge the songs because they sound too ''American''. Of course, not everyone has the same thoughts as me, but this is how I try to make sense of it.

There's a lot to talk about this, and your questions are relevant and worthy of further discussion, but for now, I leave it here.

When it comes to criticism in general, I will expand on it, as I said from the beginning, so it becomes a bit more clear what I mean by it when I use the word.

#asks #bts #media criticism #critical thinking

9 notes · View notes

linkspooky · 3 years

Note

how did you get so good at analyzing media 🙏 i'm trying to get better at understanding plot points and all that good stuff but no matter how much i reread some things they just dont make sense

I’ve been asked similiar things before, and I gave an answer here. You don’t always have to be good at noticing things or reading on your own. Reading can be a group effort. That’s what the discourse is for when it’s not terrible. The things you miss when you’re reading, you can learn by sharing with other people and learning from the way they reads things. Everyone reads things in a slightly different way, and notices different things on a readthrough. That can be a good thing. If someone has an entirely different take from your own instead of rejecting it right away because it’s different, you can spend time learning about “why” they think that way.

Basically, keep an open mind during discussion. Don’t let other people tell you that their opinion is more correct than yours, or just base your entire opinion off of somebody else’s, but critical thinking is the ability to basically think these things through. What made them think that way, what made me think this way when I read it? If both opinions are subjective, they can both be right and wrong about things, and you kind of learn to be a better reader by filtering in this in between area. Other people’s reading can inform your reading, and you can inform other peopel’s readings. Basically, discussing things with people can help, that’s my advice.

#askspookies #Anonymous

26 notes · View notes

angels-heap · 4 years

Note

Okay hello I feel like you are Wise and Know things... it’s kind of hard to explain but is it wrong to just... Enjoy Things? With all the HL pisscourse going around it’s making me nervous about liking things like TF2 and missing something critical and huge in the media I consume and being labelled as a bad person for doing that. ESPECIALLY for liking characters like GLaDOS or Wheatley from Portal. I want to just Enjoy Things but there’s guilt tied to not being critical about every single detail

Thanks for reaching out, friend, and I’m so sorry to hear the current nonsense has you feeling this way. I have a hunch you’re not alone, and although I don’t claim to have all the answers here, I hope hearing my thoughts on this helps alleviate some of that guilt. This got long and I’m not putting it under a cut because it’s important.

The short answer to your question is no; it is not wrong to just enjoy things. You don’t have to constantly examine all your favorite media under a microscope and incessantly highlight or dwell on its faults to be a good person or a good consumer of media, and here are a few reasons why:

(CW for brief mentions of all the squicky/potentially triggering things that tend to come up in ship discourse conversations.)

1. It is virtually impossible to find a truly unproblematic piece of media.

And that’s okay! Media is both created and consumed by people, and people are notoriously imperfect and complex. Sometimes creators choose to explore dark or taboo themes that are always going to squick some people out, no matter how well (or poorly) they’re handled. Sometimes content creators are actually terrible people who deliberately try to perpetuate their messed-up ideas through media. Sometimes creators’ deeply internalized prejudices seep into a work in a way they may not even consciously realize. Sometimes consumers’ experiences or prejudices color the way they perceive a piece of media and may lead them to a very different interpretation than what the creators intended.

Point is, there are a lot of shades of gray here. We should always strive to do better as creators and consumers, but the goalposts for “perfection” are always moving.

There’s almost always going to be something about your favorite media—no matter how benign it is—that rubs some people the wrong way, or (perhaps unintentionally) perpetuates harmful stereotypes, or starts out okay but doesn’t age well down the line. Period. That’s an uncomfortable truth that we all have to sit with. But don’t despair, because…

2. It is still okay to engage with and enjoy media that you know is problematic. Even if it’s really problematic. For real. I promise. The media you consume does not determine your worth as a person.

Since you specifically mentioned Valve games, I’ll start out by clarifying that (as of July 2020), Valve games and their fandoms are pretty benign overall. Perhaps in the future, more of the humor will start to age poorly, or Valve will make some extremely questionable design choices with their next game, or Gabe Newell will be outed as a prolific serial killer, or whatever, but for now, there’s really nothing about Valve games that should make the average person go, “holy shit, you’re into that?!” when you bring them up in polite company. (And anyone who insinuates otherwise re: Half Life shipping discourse is either very confused about the definition of certain words or is maliciously trying to stir up controversy.)

That said, everyone has a different threshold for what they do and don’t want to see in media, and those boundaries are totally valid! But it is absolutely possible to enjoy even notably problematic media (e.g., Game of Thrones, the new Star Wars sequels, old movies where the directors were huge assholes to the female cast members, etc.) without being a bad person or a bad social justice activist. Instead of rambling about that at length, I’m going to link you to this excellent blog post on the subject.

The big takeaway here is that you can love a piece of media while also acknowledging its faults. In fact, I’d argue that a key part of loving something is being able to think critically about it and trying to hold its creators to a higher standard whenever possible. However, that doesn’t mean you have to be constantly analyzing it or prefacing every single public acknowledgment of your love for it with an “I know this is problematic and I swear, I just like it for XYZ” disclaimer, because…

3. Tumblr’s black-and-white thinking about media consumption is not healthy, “normal,” or (usually) present to the same degree in other virtual or real-world spaces.

I think most of the people on Tumblr who seem to be on a constant (and ultimately futile; see point 1) quest to find the One True Unproblematic Media have good intentions. I really do. And I applaud them for actively trying to understand and un-learn their own biases while becoming critical consumers of media.

Unfortunately, for a bunch of complicated reasons I still don’t totally understand and won’t get into here, some online communities tend to take these things to such an extreme that, in their quest to create a safe and/or inclusive environment, they actually end up creating an even more hostile one. To reference the recent drama again, nowhere is that more apparent than with “pro-ship” vs. “anti-ship” discourse.

Basically, “pro-shippers” believe that fiction is entirely separate from reality and therefore, “problematic” content (up to and including p*dophilia, inc*st, noncon, etc.) has just as much of a right to exist as any other content; this makes some sense on a purely intellectual level, but in the real world, obviously things are much more complicated than that. “Anti-shippers,” on the other hand, claim to be specifically against the aforementioned Big Three Bad Things in theory, but in practice, they’re basically the fandom purity police; they strive to criticize and shut down any media or fandom activity that could be even remotely construed as problematic, because they seem to have a (perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately misguided) perception that discussing anything “bad” in fiction will glorify/condone/promote it in real life and that all creators of “bad” fiction are inherently malicious. Often, they’re willing to twist definitions and jump through some very strange hoops to justify why something is “bad.”

The truth lies somewhere between those two extremes; fiction absolutely can (and does) impact reality, but not in such a clear-cut cause-and-effect way. People can see or read about dark/complicated/problematic things without condoning or enjoying them in real life, and conversely, people can dislike even relatively benign things without having to have an extreme, profound reason for feeling that way. People can also enjoy “bad” media while being fully conscious of what’s wrong with it and taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t negatively influence them, or they may lack the knowledge/context to understand why something is “bad” at first and change how they engage (or don’t engage) as they learn. There’s a lot more nuance to this issue than Tumblr is willing to acknowledge, and as a result, a lot of innocent people who just want to enjoy things in peace get sucked into some truly absurd drama that can be really hard to deal with. And that sucks. A lot.

So, TL;DR: Almost all media is at least a little problematic, but that’s okay, because the media you like does not determine whether or not you’re a good person. (And especially if your primary interests are Valve games... you’re good, mate. Seriously.)

The fact that you’re even asking me this question shows me that you’re being a thoughtful, responsible consumer of media, and that’s all anyone can reasonably ask of you without being a gigantic hypocrite—because whether they’ll admit it or not, everybody who’s perpetuating this discourse both on and offline likes something “problematic.” It’s impossible not to, unless you live under a rock and consume exactly zero media. Take care, and try not to let the discourse get to you! Go forth and enjoy things! (As always, my inbox is open for follow-up questions.)

ETA: Here’s another excellent tumblr post on this topic! And another one!

#asks #anon #fandom #ship discourse #sorry it took me so long to respond to this #I'm sure I left things out but here are some thoughts to get you started #long post

51 notes · View notes