#fiction analysis

[victoriadallonfan]

I know I’m like half a year late to recommend it, but The Sin Squad just put out a great video on how difficult it can be to find actual dog whistles and problematic material in fiction versus paranoid reading (aka gearing yourself up to find a reading to such things where they might not be intended)

I recommend it for everyone to at least give it a few minutes if your time because it’s some solid work and high quality analysis!

[problematic-faves-appreciation]

It's the responsibility of parents, teachers, and non-fiction to teach children about the world. Kids are told not to believe everything they see on TV for a good reason:

Fiction is entertainment, first and foremost.

[rivkael]

rowling and femininity.

the kind of literary analysis we have in Lit classes is so simplistic but it is meant to teach critical thinking.

it's just not great at it.

the perennial example: the blue curtains. Why were the curtains blue? English class will have you guess that the author was trying to create a mood, or built a metaphor. that might be true, but the real critical thinking you need is different.

let's do another example and i'll show you what i mean.

within jk rowling's novels, the Harry Potter series, there is only one named irish character, seamus finnegan. this character is shown to have a fascination with explosions and alcohol throughout the books. this is likely because during the time jk rowling was growing up, the Troubles were occuring and she would have seen a lot of news about bombs in ireland, associating the two in her mind whether she realised it or not.

thus, we see, a stereotype is born of a person's experiences. a harmful stereotype.

and if the writer did not take the time to try and write past those experiences, then their biases will shine through every time.

rowling consistently describes villainous women as 'mannish' with 'thick fingers' 'square jaws' and 'wide shoulders' - see rita skeeter and dolores umbrige especially. they are also often written as overperforming feminity with heavy makeup, bright clothing, an excess of pink, and high, irritating voices. bellatrix lestrange is another example, overperforming femininity in a more sexual way, defined of her love for an insane man.

from this, we can infer that ms rowling believes that a bad woman is someone who, despite trying to appear feminine and womanly, has manly traits leak through.

as far as we know, she has never examined this bias.

she also, just in general, dislikes girlish things. hermione granger, luna lovegood and ginny weasley are all female characters who fall into the trap of being strong, independent women while also losing their chance to be allowed to be pretty and feminine within the plot. aside from the yule ball, we never see any of these girls doing anything stereotypically feminine - they do not like children, or makeup, or fashion, they do not gossip or form 'girlfriend' groups, and just in general they all seem to be outcasts from their fellow girls. they are all loud, weird, rude, tomboys etc. and while that is certainly something to aspire to, shouldn't girls be allowed to be feminine too?

it's like ms rowling believes that femininity is alright in moderation, that it is not something to ever focus on and if you do, well, you must either 1) know literally nothing else, as seen by hermione's roommates, who are essentially defined by their love of animals, divination and gossip throughout the books, or 2) you are using it to hide a darker personality trait, as shown above.

the idea that a woman is only a 3d character if she tosses aside her femininity is reductive and antifeminist.

thus, i conclude that ms rowling has an unexamined bias surrounding femininity and who is allowed to perform it. this, naturally, leads us to the question - is this part of the reason why she fell so easily into her current crusade? and, with her cocooned away from the ordinary people, will we ever be able to reach her and show her the truth?

Donate to Stonewall UK here

[starrbar]

Nimona is proship propaganda and I mean that as a compliment!

An article I wrote to call out the many parallels I saw between the movie's queer representation and themes of demonization, and what I’ve observed as someone with “undesirable” kinks that get me treated as an Other by all the other people society already sees as “freaks”.

🚫 NOT an attempt to “replace” the true theme of the movie or to claim that the writers had “proshippers” in mind when they made it, but merely to add another perspective on top of the canon one, as a queer kinkster myself, because I just felt so intensely seen by this movie.

Full spoilers of the movie within the article! Mind the trigger warnings as well please.

[w1ldfeatherxx]

Bloodclan and Scourge being portrayed as inferior and less moral than the forest clans because they don't believe in Starclan and obey their rules reeks of a christian conservative worldview; if you don't believe in God and obey his rules your morals and way of life are inherently inferior. It will never not bother me how cats outside the clans are always "worse" than clan cats in one way or another...

[dog-rambles]

Honestly, Ive been meaning to write something about Helluva Boss for a while and uh. I'm in that Writing Mood. So here, have some quick rambles about my thought on HB and worldbuilding and stuff

They'll be under the cut just in case I write too much lol

The way HB fails [hard] with being what it wants to be

First things first: I am not a professional writer at all. I'm just some dog who can write for fun.

Ok. That's out of the way, cool!

So... Helluva Boss, amirite? I think the frustration a lot of detractors/critics have over it (and frankly, I'm amongst these) is how much *potential* it has. It exudes it, and like, if you read 5 different HB rewrites, they will all grab different stuff and run with it, because there's many, many things to tinker with that, in the hands of a well planning writer, could make the series just. Brilliant!

But, let's be real, the series doesn't do that. I'm not original in saying this but, from a plot perspective, HB sucks. It falls flatter than a metal sheet (is that a phrase?) And, hypocritically, it's obvious how Viv prides herself as writing it as revolutionary in ways that the story doesn't even (and forgive me for this) have the balls to be in.

It prides itself in having raw portrayals of queer folks, yet it only lets itself write the same overused "gay ppl + sex = funni" jokes over and over again, it goes and compares it's protagonist Blitz to Bojack Horseman, yet in Helluva Boss the plot bends itself backwards to lift any sort of responsibility that Blitz has for his actions (which is, y'know, NOT what BH does, at all), prides itself of being a female centered plot even though it's obvious how underdeveloped the female characters are compared to the male ones. I could go on and on.

And, in the most sincere, nice way I can conjure, this isn't just the creator being a hypocrite, this is straight-up a symptom of what I think dooms not only this series, but most of the works Vivziepop has done: The story of the thing doesn't know what the fuck it wants to be

Helluva boss is, at least in theory, supposed to be a dark comedy about demon hitmen. Simple concept, lots of stuff to tinker and play with! A lot of ways and directions to take it to, too. But then it tries to be a musical every few episodes. And then a family drama. Sometimes it's an episodic story and sometimes it tries very hard to fit into a season-long arc, depending on the mood. It gives characters some sort of growth just to take it away, and then give them another sort of growth. It defangs and villanizes it's antagonists in a way you just can't help but feel bad for them, because it takes away what made them interesting. The protagonists fuck up and the plot let's you know they fucked up, but then... The consequences of their actions never come!

Blitzo indirectly causes permanent scarring, disability , and trauma on his childhood friend and it causes such a rift that they don't talk in fifteen years, but it's fine! Look! Fizz forgives him in the span of a day after a little chat and now they're friends again :] don't think about it at all :] this is perfectly A-OK and totally not a way of making our poor little Blitzy a victim and Fizz the cunt for not forgiving him until now :]]]

Don't get me started on Barbiewire

Helluva Boss biggest sin is not it's lack of character growth, or it's dumb sex jokes (they ARE bad btw. I'm dying on that hill), or any of that sort. There's many good shows that can pull stuff like that and still be, y'know, good. Or at least mid. It's greatest mistake it's in the way that not only doesn't know what to do with itself, but also wants to do everything without understanding why and how to do it. To bite more that you can chew, if you know.

I have way too many thoughts and criticisms around this funky web series, and I'll probably do more rambles around this specific problem. But I think this is it for me and for now

[mai-komagata]

Look im all for shipping, right

I have my otps and my crack ships and my these two people are hot and all that.

But I think people forget what romance is *for* narratively. I've seen this done by people "who hate shipping" and people who love it. They think if two people get together in a narrative (or if they flirt, or kiss, or break up) it is about fanservice only or pairing up people.

Romance in a narrative should serve a narrative purpose, and I don't mean, advance the plot necessarily (most romance will not defeat the villain, although sometimes, in fantasy, it really does!). It should tell us about the characters and about ourselves. Because romance is part of the human condition. As are breakups. As are "toxic" relationships. It's a way we learn about love and loss. It is a way we can learn about queer identity as well. (even for ace people this can be the case, not all romances are sexual, not all sex is romantic, not everyone is born with a perfect understanding of their sexuality).

Anyway, I've seen people be like "who is this ship for"? Most of the time, the answer is it's for the *character*. Not that this is their happily ever after and they deserve it, but that they need to learn something about themselves from interacting with this person in a romantic or sexual way. Sometimes the audience *should* be cheering for them to break up and this is *intended* by the author. Or the audience should be heartbroken they broke up b/c they haven't learned those lessons yet. Anyway, canon should never stop you from enjoying your ship, doomed or not. And you are welcome to cringe when a romance you don't like is on screen. But remember writers are trying to tell you a story via the romance plot, it isn't pointless fanservice, in fact, it might be the opposite -- a painful lesson the character needs to learn.

(fyi this is how i distinguish in my head "ships i want to be canon" and "just characters i ship", some of them are integral to my understanding and motivations of the characters, and I think the story becomes richer and multifaceted when interpreted that way. Vs. the other is just for fun and i don't give a rat's ass if its canon. )

PS. Also this isn't to say the writers don't get this wrong, sometimes. Sometimes they add or subtract a romance for reasons external to the text. Or they don't notice something added by the actors performances or societal nuance that changes the interpretation of what they created. And that is when it jarring.

[wildfeather5002]

A genuine question to proshippers: if it doesn't matter how things are portrayed in fiction, is analyzing fictional books, movies, tv shows etc. totally meaningless then? If a person belonging to a marginalized group criticizes how marginalized people are portrayed in a piece of media, should they be ignored because "it's just fiction and therefore doesn't matter"?

[cat-scarr]

In Defence of the Superhero Boyfriend: An Analysis of the Questionable Romantic Subplots in Ben 10 (& Masterpost of All My Points) | Catgirl (2022)

No, Ben is NOT a “Bad Boyfriend” (2018) Revamp

Literally half the fandom:

Well, I beg to differ.  

Because, this argument is insisted far too often when most of what I’ve seen points to the opposite. If you’re familiar with previous writing at all, you should know that Ben is my favourite character from all of fiction. So, while I’ll admit my bias (and by extension, motivation for writing all of this), the facts of the matter do not lie.

The following episodes supposedly prove the argument in question correct. I disagree. So, to make sense of why that is, let’s tear them apart, shall we?

Pet Project. + Don’t Fear the Repo. 

I won’t call out specific critics, but I did want to call attention to this episode first because it introduces the basis for all conflict between these two for the rest of their relationship. And that is a misunderstanding of perspective. 

Ben: “But why would the Forever Knights want to steal Ship?” Kevin: “Please. It can turn into anything it touches. It’s like a cup of instant weapon.”

After this exchange of dialogue, the screen cuts to this shot of his expression. 

This is where I’d like to remind you that this episode takes place before the episode where Max is revealed to be alive (“Voided”), and after several similar situations where Ben thought he would lose those closest to him (Secret of the Omnitrix, and “The Alliance”). More on this here.

My point is that because of his past experience, he sees where this is going. The idea that being proactive is somehow “wrong” is already backwards.

Next, as has been stated and argued several times on this blog, SHIP IS NOT A DOG. Ben is right to see Ship for what he is. And in doing so, by extension, it proves he cares that his girlfriend is in possession of what could be highly dangerous alien weaponry. And, let’s not forget, she has very little experience with it. 

All of his experience with alien technology has been shown on screen. On top of that, due to the alien tech literally strapped to his wrist 24/7, he even has the same powers as Ship. He knows exactly what that species can do. He would know what he’s talking about. At this point in the plotline, Julie doesn’t even know the half of it. She should realize that he’s looking out for her.

This same conflict is brought up again next episode (“Don’t Fear the Repo”), proving that as much as it can be used in her own self defense, it can absolutely be a lethal weapon. He shouldn’t even need to go halfway across the galaxy for that to be obvious. 

Duped. 

This is the beginning of something strangely recurring during the rest of the series. And that is making Ben out to be the bad guy unreasonably. 

Following his rise to intergalactic fame after “War of the Worlds,” by Ultimate Alien, Ben's name has spread across the earth itself. And, becoming famous on that level changes a lot. The most obvious thing being the fact that he can’t go anywhere without recognition. And, considering why that’s even happening, he shouldn’t be villainized for it. 

This episode isn’t generally regarded as good because of the way Ben is written. And, despite trying to put him in a negative light, he split himself into three to try to make everyone happy in a situation where making the “right” choice was practically impossible. So, he didn’t choose. 

The fact that his solution was to try to deal with everything at once should show you his true intentions. 

In this episode, he can be quoted saying, “[I was] trying to be sensitive to everyone’s needs.” Later in the same series, he can also be quoted saying, “Now I can help everybody at once.” Previously, he can be quoted saying, "It's in my interest to help anybody who needs it." Evidently, the fundamental basis of his job is to be of help, and excels at that job due to the fact that the basis of his character aligns with it.

What kind of bad guy does something with good intentions? 

Hero Time.  

It's justifiable to be angry when someone else kisses your significant other. However, I think his reaction to the kidnapping of his girlfriend speaks for itself.

In regards to Jennifer, it was very clear that he was only hanging around her because it gave him the opportunity to meet his childhood hero. It seems to be forgotten that, since then, she has actually tried to kill Ben twice, along with Nemesis. 

Which brings me to my next point: how damaging must it be then to look down at your childhood hero, defeated by you? Watching him become a villain, who would have killed two people if a real hero had not intervened?

In the end, this episode serves to display the ways in which intergalactic fame can complicate life. From excessive attention, to unexpected rivalry, and how that has the potential to take the hero down a less than heroic path. It’s supposed to show the things that could go wrong - all the ways in which the life of a superhero isn't so black and white - and, again, display how the hero instead chooses to do “the right thing.” As established by the end of the continuity, despite obviously being disappointed by those he looked up to, Ben went on to surpass his own heroes. 

In case it isn't registering, all this conflict was introduced in order for it to be overcome by the hero thereby proving himself as a hero by continuing to do the "the right thing" in the end. The story does not end with the fact that his relationship has issues. What counts is how he resolves them, and that he does try to at all.

The Transmogrification of Eunice. 

(That episode which some people had very...concerning opinions on. More on that here.)

At this point (two seasons into Ultimate Alien), Ben doesn’t have much time for a stable relationship. This isn’t entirely his own fault. Prior to this, he was dealing with Aggregor threatening the galaxy, and subsequently, Kevin losing his mind. So Ben was, in fact, very busy. Regardless if you view him as sixteen or seventeen by the end of Omniverse, all the battles he fights from this point until the end of the continuity happen one after another.

During this part of the series alone, all this had happened: 

In “Map of Infinity,” Aggregor almost kills Ben and his team while they are trying to prevent power from falling into the wrong hands. 

In “Deep,” Ben’s team initially thinks he dies by sacrificing himself to save a planet. 

In “Where the Magic Happens,” the whole team actually does get killed temporarily by Charmcaster. 

Obviously, his team was there, too. So they can, and should, back this up. 

Considering the experience they already have with aliens and especially alien criminals (some of which I have just outlined), why should they even take anything Eunice says as the truth? 

But wait, look at that - the main hero doing “the right thing.” Again.

Ben: "You can't just store a human being." Azmuth: "She's not human. She's a construct. No more alive than any of your transformations. She's not real." Ben: "Who are you to say that? My transformations are real and she's way more human than you are." 

And that’s besides the fact that he was under the impression he had been broken up with. I doubt his stance on the matter would change, regardless.

Eye of the Beholder

My original arguments on why this episode actually portrays him as a good boyfriend can be found here. Once again, the entire episode’s plot is about how he is actively trying to do “the right thing” because, once again, they’ve set him up to be a character inclined to do good.

I mean, imagine being so morally correct that you can't even tell a lie without your eye twitching. (Ben 10: Alien Force - “Good Copy, Bad Copy.”) He’s so morally correct, in fact, that it is an inconvenience to him and sometimes a threat to his life. He will literally die to do “the right thing.” (Ben 10: Ultimate Alien - "The Perfect Sacrifice") And consistent with his moral code, Ben is doing the opposite of everything an actual “bad boyfriend” would do when confronted with issues in their relationship.

In fact, I’ll give you a list:

The screen deliberately shows his face to prove that he immediately regrets being even remotely rude to Julie, and half a second later beginning to go after her to imply that’s what he would have done next.

Give him an entire monologue talking about how Julie really matters to him, despite all the problems rising up between them. Here it is, word for word.

“So I let her go. I guess I shouldn’t have. But I still had Forever Knights to trash! And after that, there’s always the press. But you know, they’re ditch-able. Kind of. You don’t have to do their interviews but they’ll still trash you on their stupid cable shows. I guess there’s no way to escape the things that really matter…like Julie.”

Showing him then proceeding to go after his friends (who ditched him) by literally flying into space, because he wants to communicate, instead of ignoring them the way they had done to him.

Staying with them once he catches up despite constantly being disrespected. No, not rightfully, because he’s literally in the process of righting his ‘wrong’ behaviour and is still being treated like he’s doing something wrong.

Taking initiative to own up to his mistakes and acknowledge how he might have made Julie feel, whether intentionally or not, and literally making a promise to try to do better just like she asks. And, might I add, keeping that promise in a later episode.

Seriously, how many of us actually go out of our way to do all of this after a petty argument?

All of this happened to begin with because of his job. She threatened to break up with him because being a superhero is a 24/7 job. It’s what he always wanted to do, and now it’s destroying his relationship. That’s a valid reason to be upset.

Revenge of the Swarm. + The Perfect Girlfriend. 

You know that scene I just mentioned where he promises to try to do better? Here he is doing exactly that.

This episode uses it’s conflict to display how the hero chooses to do the right thing (again) instead of losing themselves to power - how it had unfortunately played out for Elena, whose story is used (at least in this episode) to portray that idea.

And, the next time she shows up, the only reason Elena gets caught is because Ben was trying to be a good boyfriend and do something with his girlfriend that would make her happy in return for the sacrifice he thought she had made for him. 

The Flame Keeper’s Circle. 

This one has a very similar conflict to a previous episode, (“Pet Project,”) and, big surprise, a similar response from the main hero.

Despite meaning well, Julie gets herself into trouble with none other than one of Ben’s most dangerous enemies - Vilgax. And, Ben spends the entirety of this episode trying to cooperate with her so that she could understand that his past experience gives him the credibility to say when she’s in danger. It should go without saying that he disagrees with her stance for her own good. You can read my full analysis of this episode here. 

Rules of Engagement. 

In which Ben learns that he’s been dumped based on a complete misunderstanding (and hypocrisy, considering the insistence you “may as well be broken up” is not a break up, apparently, but a distracted phone call, where Ben clearly tells her that what he is saying is NOT directed at her, is supposed to be one in her mind). 

Take a good look at this scene. Ester gets thrown across the room, her limbs literally tangled in knots, and in the process knocks Julie over. In response, what does Ben do? 

Specifically runs over to his now ex-girlfriend (who can absolutely get up by herself) to help her up and remains there on one knee with his arms around her in this protective position while he argues with Looma about how what she’s doing is wrong. You know, his usual behaviour. 

During the confrontation, Ben can be quoted saying, “You need to put this right." and "You’re hurting people.” 

I don’t want to hear another word about how horrible he is.  

Dare I reiterate the obvious? Since the writers are clearly attempting to write a character inclined to do good, they even allow Julie to have a moment of doubt when she comes to the realization that her ex-boyfriend isn’t actually all that terrible. But, most importantly, she realizes that his dedication to his hero work also shouldn’t have been seen as wrong. (Neither should being successful in his career, or confident in his accomplishments, for the record.)

In her own words, “At the end of the day, he does a lot of good. So cut him a break.” 

Have you ever considered that, based on their individual careers and lifestyles, they just weren’t right for each other? Being a bad partner and living up to someone's specific standards are two different things. If your partner wants you to be someone you're not, or can't be in Ben's case, it's not your responsibility to change your entire life to suit what they want. That's exactly what Elena was doing in "The Perfect Girlfriend" and, as was established in that episode, it's unhealthy. 

Catfight

If he isn’t boyfriend material, explain to me why then, does he have so many girls fighting over him?

The logical answer is that there must be a reason. The idea that the existence of so many girls in his life lends to the argument I’m fighting misses the reasons why they’re even there - out of their own volition. He didn’t deliberately go out looking for them. They came to him. And, the more famous and successful he becomes, the more of them there are. 

I don’t personally like the…questionable reoccurring focus on forced marriage. However, it does bring up a valid point. Every time this is a plot point, it ties back to his job. And that’s because he and his work represent something. On a galactic level, his name carries a sort of weight. And, anyone married to someone of that legacy - a living legend, if I may - is tying themselves to something extremely important to the entire universe, for better or worse.

That being said, I will resist the urge to reiterate how much neither of these two nuisances princesses deserve him, but I will present to you this quote. 

Ben: “Listen to yourselves. You’ve both defeated me at some point or other. Neither of you need some trophy guy hanging on your arm. You’re both strong, capable leaders on your own. And it’s high time your four-armed and froggy followers respectively, well, respected that.”

Wow, Ben 10 just said “respect women” to women who don’t respect him. You hear that, fandom?

Fight at the Museum + The Most Dangerous Game Show

With these two final episodes, the series continues to stress that a lot of girls are willing to fight over him. So…don’t you think it’s slightly nonsensical to villainize the guy that several girls are apparently fighting over? 

And that’s disregarding the quality of these “love interests,” mind you. Ester particularly has a reputation in the fandom for being the “best girl” out of all the love interests despite taking the side of another problematic character.

According to Kai, her work is for the purpose of uniting humans and aliens by showing them how they are similar, right? Well, because of all Ben has done, by Omniverse, humans and aliens live together in harmony already. It’s extremely stupid to act like he doesn’t realize the importance of what he has already done. He’s the reason all the people visiting the exhibit - human and alien alike - can peacefully stand in the same room. 

And yet, despite all of that, the plot continues to prove my point. When confronted with conflict, it is made apparent that time and time again, Ben tries to “do the right thing.” Azmuth even said so himself that Ben keeps ultimately “doing the right thing” in the end, because - as this is a story about how and why he remains a hero - that was the whole point. 

The romantic subplots are there to expand the universe of Ben 10. And, as the universe exists within a story about a superhero, it is important to take into account the conclusion of each conflict instead of solely the conflict alone since a hero's job is to resolve conflict. Again, that was the whole point.

In conclusion, if this still is what you believe makes up a bad boyfriend, then I suggest you take a look at people who have done significantly worse. Yes, they exist. Shocker.

Perhaps he was right to laugh, then…calling him a terrible BF really is a joke. 

[halogenwarrior]

Just as somewhat of an add on to my post about the criticized trope of "villain who threatens the status quo" and its many manifestations, and when the framing is actually giving a harmful message and when the nuances of the story make it not so and the objections to it is a "false alarm" - one thing I also notice when people talk about stories' relationship to the status quo within their world is this equation of "natural = immutable" and "manmade = mutable". Like along the lines of "this story is bad because it depicts someone wanting to change a manmade social phenomenon as bad, and they need to accept and find peace instead, when that trope is actually supposed to be used for things like people who want to stop things like natural death or an earthquake". And look, I get why the "treating unnatural things as natural in the narrative" is highlighted as it is by some people, given the long history of social Darwinists and the like justifying their preferred (oppressive) politics and social organization by saying it's about evolution or human nature - they created this association between natural/immutable and manmade/mutable, not people talking about fiction on social media, and people understandably want to defeat these people's arguments on the ground they set because they very much can be defeated on the ground the social Darwinists etc. set.

But... this dichotomy is absolutely not true of real life, and just falls into the naturalistic fallacy. There are lots of natural, bad things that can and have been changed - diseases that have been cured, even the fact that scientists already have plans (and have practiced) the idea of diverting an asteroid before it hits earth and causes massive damage. Every manmade social structure can be changed, but the inverse is not true.

So I feel like instead of having this paradigm for when a story "should" feature the problem in its world being fixed as coming down to whether it is natural or not, it should be based on what would be right for that specific story. There can be good stories about people confronting a disease or natural disaster without being able to "do anything" about it, and good stories about people curing a disease or, like with the asteroid example, preventing a natural disaster. Likewise, there can be good stories about rebelling against an unjust social system, and there can be good stories where that unjust system is effectively a constant that the characters have to deal with, suffer in, and perhaps find happiness or little victories in spite of it. Just because the system can be changed doesn't mean that a given set of characters in the specific situation they are in reasonably could (unless you want to get into a lot of victim-blaming), any more than you would be mad at a story where the characters deal with an epidemic disease for not ending with them all being vaccinated, because you know that is a possibility in the long run, even though those characters in that situation wouldn't feasibly be inventors of vaccines.

Now this comes with a few caveats. First of all, what about the extent to which seeing stories where people don't do anything about the systematic problems they face will encourage people to underestimate their own power to change things? Well, I really don't think the main obstacle to people taking social action in their community is that they sometimes watch fiction where characters don't do that. I feel like people spend more time wondering why a fictional character who is mostly powerless in front of a greater force before them spends time trying to help themselves, their family and friends as best they can rather than figure out some way to destroy the system entirely (again, see the "why didn't they invent a vaccine" example), then actually questioning their assumptions about THEMSLEVES, in the real world, being powerless and how much more they themselves would be really capable of.

And some people might also object along the lines that making things about human interests and small victories can deflect things away from the social issues, like an American news segment that praises a 9 year old for raising money for a parent with cancer through some cutesy sale rather than talking about the problems with the USA's health care system. But here, the criticism isn't that it's wrong to praise the kid for going out of their way to do something so selfless, or treat those individuals who do brave and kind things in a harsh system can only be seen as victims and not also as heroes (yes, a kid like that would absolutely deserve to be praised and admired!). The criticism is that focusing on these stories allows people to subliminally want the bad systems to stay in place, so humans will keep being morally tested and show heartwarming nobility, that they will think the world is a just one because, even though it is unjust, it creates those "nice moments", and that they might believe that people are so kind that there will always be some individual person to carry the load for someone else, so there's no need to change the system, in the process ironically not treating the acts of kindness as extraordinary and heroic enough, in that people are expected to do them and in such quantities that the problem somehow stops existing altogether. And I don't think any of these criticisms really apply when you are talking about fiction, at least fiction depicting completely made up (if based on reality) social injustices and not journalism. You could make an argument for fiction depicting an injustice in the real world featuring someone doing something "heroic in the small scale", but I really don't think in the end there is harm in a fictional story where a person has little power to change the system they are in but still does as much good within it as they can.

So I've talked about stories where the system is depicted as bad, but even though changing it can be done theoretically by people in general, for the character's being followed it's unfeasible and for all intents and purposes it's just something they have to live with and work within, and how that's likely not sending some noxious message on how we should worship the status quo. But what about stories like the ones I alluded to at the beginning, where wanting to change things is villainized, treated as hubris and sign of a mind that doesn't have the inner peace to accept things?

Well, I would say that these stories generally send a "bad" message, but, because natural really isn't the same as immutable, they send a bad message whether the thing the character tries to change is natural or unnatural! So yeah, I don't like stories villainizing the horrible audacity of someone to want to end slavery or something, and I also don't like stories villainizing the horrible audacity of someone, say, wanting to revive the dead, because things are better as nature made it. That's not to say that all stories about hubris and the value of acceptance and equanimity are bad, just that whether they are "problematic" comes down to the framing rather than whether the thing the character wants to change is natural or unnatural. And by framing, I mean this: if the character is framed as hubristic because they believe they, as an individual, are so intelligent and talented that they can change some complex aspect of life for the better without any nuance or carefulness or input from others, that has potential to be a great story, and it's a flaw many people have in real life that has caused no end of suffering in the real world! But if the character is framed as hubristic for believing that anyone could or should change that aspect of life, that it's too complex or more often too inherently good or just "sure it's not moral, but it's natural, so it must be worshipped", then no. Kill that idea with fire.

Likewise a lack of acceptance can work when it's clear it's not saving anyone, it's just hurting by not letting go. Like a "don't revive the dead" story can absolutely work if the equivalent real-world metaphor is someone's family keeping them on life support and using CPR over and over again, even when it's painful and humiliating and it's clear they aren't going to ever get better. That's something horrifying that does happen in the real world! But not so much when the character actually wants to save another person, in a way that will definitively help them if it's done right rather than just harm the other person but make the "reviver" feel better about themselves and escape their own personal grief. And for someone who isn't accepting their own death and is villainized: is the villainization coming from them lashing out and making themselves and others miserable even though there's nothing they can do about it (fine) or for them wanting to save themselves when they legitimately have a change (not fine)! Now it might be that in your fictional world, the way to save or revive yourself or someone else involves hurting or killing other people, in which case they very well might be bad people for it, but again, the key is in the framing; are they portrayed as bad people for causing a greater harm for a smaller good (fine), or portrayed as bad people because wanting to defy nature is not good in the first place, and even if there wasn't all the harm they should just "accept death (or whatever other bad thing there is in question)"?

Now I usually try in my posts on Tumblr to stick out of discussion of politics that is not directly related to media, not because I obsess over media as being the basis of everything but because that's what I come on this site to do, and would go elsewhere to just talk unabated about politics. Though still, I can't help but notice that when you have a debate where side 1 is like "we have to change this horrible thing, and have the imagination to see the possibility and strive for it", side 2 is like "it's more complicated than that, don't act as if you know everything and can fix everything that easily", and side 1 again is like "It's not complicated, that's just the excuse people make for themselves", what groups of people are on either side tends to flip depending on whether the thing to change in question is natural or manmade. If it's natural, it's typically the rationalist techno-optimist groups cheering on change (see all of the support for anti-aging research you see there) and left wing (and some parts of the right wing) people who are skeptical for how it may lead to social inequalities (to which, again, the proponents would argue that the potential for downsides is no reason for the harm by neglect that comes from not trying), while if it is manmade it's left wing people are are arguing strongly for change and the supposedly "open minded" dreamers of the aforementioned rationalist techno-optimist crowd are suddenly saying you shouldn't change anything because it's complicated/perfect as it is. In reality, I think the right attitude for both is trying to open your mind to the possibility of change and be dedicated to trying for it, while maintaining carefulness and skepticism about the effects of it being done "wrong".

[colombinna]

I feel like the worst feeling to have towards an own voices project is when the creators make the oddest choices that you can't for the life of you understand or empathize with. It's one thing when an own voices projects is bad or harmful, but it's even worst when regardless of quality of the final project, there's bad choices that you can't understand

[problematic-faves-appreciation]

I'm so tired of addressing the same arguments from people who believe in the Hypodermic Needle Theory. Well, here we go again...

Gonna try to keep this post short.

• "Uncritically consuming content"

Media audiences aren't passive absorbers of messages, even when they watch a movie casually and don't go write a meta post about it on Tumblr or Reddit.

• "Your brain state"

• Subliminal messaging

You're the one who hasn't heard of subliminal messaging, buddy:

"They can't make you go buy something you don't want or vote for a political candidate you don't like," Zimmerman said. "The messages just aren't that powerful."

• Propaganda

• The Birth of a Nation — This is on par with Jaws being used as a "gotcha," but much more annoying.

“People were primed for the message. Hard to argue this was a distortion of history when the history books at that time said the same.” — Paul McEwan, film studies professor at Muhlenberg College

The film was made during a time when Jim Crow laws — based on white supremacy ideology, which had existed long before the film's creation — still enforced segregation in the United States.

The film reached people who were already racists, and would've continued holding those anti-black beliefs, with or without The Birth of a Nation.

I'd go as far to say that the civil rights movement alone would've probably pissed racists off into reviving the KKK — if the film hadn't inspired William Joseph Simmons.

Ergo, The Birth of a Nation itself did not turn people into racists. They were already that way due to the time period they were living in:

And their education:

[aviandistressmachine]

Chapters: 8/8 Fandom: Star Wars - All Media Types, Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, Star Wars Original Trilogy, Star Wars Sequel Trilogy Rating: General Audiences Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings Characters: Luke Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Owen Lars, Beru Whitesun, Leia Organa, Rey (Star Wars), Anakin Skywalker, Temiri Blagg, Bail Organa, Breha Organa, Grogu | Baby Yoda Additional Tags: Character Analysis, Character Study, Suicide, Implied/Referenced Suicide, Childhood Trauma, Child Abuse, Past Child Abuse, Canonical Child Abuse, Torture, Implied/Referenced Child Abuse, Implied/Referenced Self-Harm, Movie: Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Movie: Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, Movie: Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, Movie: Star Wars: A New Hope, Movie: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Movie: Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, Movie: Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Movie: Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Movie: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Fusion of Star Wars Legends and Disney Canon, i just messed around with lots of random things and pulled this out of my brain, i wrote this instead of sleeping and studying for my masters degree, don't examine this too closely idk, or do, just dont be mean i have devoted hours of my life to this, lucasfilm please hire me to write about luke skywalker, its the only thing i want from this life, Star Wars: Leia Princess of Alderaan References, Luke Skywalker Needs A Hug, Star Wars: Leia: Princess of Alderaan Compliant, Star Wars Legends Compliant, Star Wars Disney Canon Compliant, this is an essay not a story, Essay, Star Wars essay, i went full academia for an essay about a guy from space, Star Wars - Freeform, References to Star Wars Legends, Star Wars: Obi-Wan Kenobi TV Spoilers, Episode: s01e06 Part VI (Star Wars: Obi-Wan Kenobi TV), Post-Episode: s01e01 Part I (Star Wars: Obi-Wan Kenobi TV), Star Wars: Shadow of the Sith, Spoilers for Star Wars: Shadow of the Sith Summary:

An in-depth character analysis of Star Wars' original protagonist which offers a cohesive and compelling framework by which to understand and write his character. Read the tags for content warnings.

Updated to include Obi-Wan Kenobi (2022) and Shadow of the Sith (2022).

[emeryleewho]

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.

[w1ldfeatherxx]

Things wrong with Warriors - Foxes vs Cats

There's lots of things wrong in the Warriors books, one of them is how foxes are portrayed as german shepherd sized monsters that shred full grown cats to pieces with ease. In reality, they're only a little bigger than your average cat and are no match to cats in fighting most of the time. Here's pictures of real cats and foxes together:

Cats are known for their ability to defend themselves against much bigger animals. In Warriors, they should be even better at it, because they get combat training for Hell's sake! So why don't we see more of cats beating the crap outta foxes, dogs, badgers etc. in the books? It makes zero sense to me...

[taiey]

The curtains were blue because everything in the room was carefully colour coordinated, reinforcing the character's stylish and controlled characterisation. The curtains were blue because everything in the room was a different colour, reinforcing the character's eclectic and globe-trotting personality. The curtains were blue because the character is elsewhere established to hate the colour blue, subtextually implying that their deceased spouse was responsible for that decoration choice.

The curtains were blue because throughout their filmography the director consistently uses cool tones to mark moments of distance between characters. The curtains were blue to tie the events in that room into the broader oceanic motif of this particular novel. The curtains were blue because the assonance evoked a contrast with the following stanza of the poem.

Even the curtains looked expensive: floor to ceiling velvet drapes, in a flawless royal blue. She tucked the saucer up on the windowsill and tied back faded blue curtains with a loop of string. The narrow blinds were the same navy blue as the pinstripe suit of the man who served eviction notice that sent them to this office.

The curtains were blue because the author's childhood home had blue curtains, which they discussed in their letters related to their feelings of comfort in that place. The curtains were blue because the author's childhood home had blue curtains, which they discussed in their letters related to their feelings of grief in that place.

The curtains were blue as an allusion to the contemporary joke about literary criticism, an extension of the author's autocritical approach that will be further discussed in section seven.

The curtains were red, as a pun on;

The curtains were read.