#i feel like this is too vague and soupy so i might write a sequel to this at some point lmao

[fakeosirian]

"house of anubis has bad writing"

so i have a bit of a pet peeve when it comes to critical discussions about tv, and i'm going to use house of anubis as a vehicle through which to talk about it since i think it's a very good case study of this particular problem.

it's pretty simple: "x has bad writing"

saying something has "good writing" in passing is fine -- not every conversation needs MLA citations -- but for the sake of this post not being a million words long to account for every nuance possible, let's discount those situations and suppose that this is in the context of an extended critical discussion about something, and specifically calling out the "writing" as the culprit.

the funny thing about "writing" is a lot of the time, that...isn't what's being identified in a statement like this. this is where i'm going to start talking about house of anubis so i can give you an actual example

house of anubis has what i would call strong writing for most of its run, with a few notable exceptions (that i'd like to note are localized, specific problems!). when i say this, i'm thinking about specific parameters: the coherency and structure of the story, the pacing, the tone, the consistency and fidelity of the characterization, the quality of the dialogue (doing everything possible to only consider the words themselves, not the performances from the actors), and bells and whistles/creative choices that elevate it past functional narrative and into a piece of art. that is writing.

things that aren't writing that have a huge impact on how the writing/story is digested and are heavily influential creative choices in their own right BUT are literally just. not writing. that get commonly conflated with writing: ACTOR PERFORMANCES (i would write this one 100 times if it made a difference), shot composition, editing (both cut-to-cut and structural editing), and in some cases production design (so sets/props/costumes).

house of anubis is a great case study for this because oftentimes (especially in this VERY cynical phase of pop culture we're in) people conflate things that are earnest, low budget, or camp (especially when talking about elements in the "not writing" category) with "badness" when, while you don't have to like it, if you changed the lens through which you observed them, "bad" would be...not apt as a description. that being said, house of anubis isn't a great case study just because it's camp, but because, as the strongest example here, sometimes the performances are just Not Good. i will not name names (especially since everyone has their moments/odd line reads AND you can see clear improvement over time). but hopefully you know what i mean. it CAN affect your opinion of the story as a whole in a way that like...okay if you were watching season one for the first time as an adult, i wouldn't blame you for being turned off by the pilot, or hell, even a solid 80% of the entire first season.

i've attempted hoa watches with rl friends 3 times now, very recently finished s1 with someone actually, and noticed that more often than not, it was the acting (either because it's a very characteristic/camp/borderline theatrical style that takes getting used to or because it's...roughest at the beginning) that was turning them off. sometimes that was highlighting existing writing issues, but especially during arcs like the play/patricia's kidnapping that are structurally sound, perceived "cheesiness" in the acting would leach into the perception of the writing. we actually skipped the first 5 episodes entirely to try and mitigate the parts that are a bit hard to sit through without prior investment (i showed them the recap portion of the video essay i'm working on instead because they'd seen the pilot before and quote "could not handle that again" LMAO) but i noticed something interesting: while it took them a while to come around to fully enjoying the show, there was a period before that where i could tell that something shifted -- they were invested in the story, but they were still reacting like we were watching a neil breen movie. once the acting picked up, "oh this is garbage" (affectionate) turned to "wait a minute this is good."

that is the difference between bad writing and bad [something else].

this is a post about how house of anubis has good writing more than anything, but i do have to talk about the actual bad writing to make this point. early s1 has a particular type of writing flaw that's both INCREDIBLY interesting to break down, requires good writing ability to make in the first place, and unfortunately, is a KILLER for interest in a show like house of anubis, especially when it's taken out of its original context of being released every couple weeks in runs of 4 days of a new episode each night (which side note: COOLEST release schedule i've ever seen a show do. BRING THIS BACK) and binged instead.

quick interjection because i realized that how i define the plots in this show is not at all universal and i haven't talked about it before/released that damn video yet so you won't know what i'm talking about: until episode 9, season 1 has TWO A plots -- whatever nina/fabian/amber are doing (A1), and whatever patricia's doing (A2). at episode 9, they converge, so it's a more conventional singular A plot, but the reason i insist on it being 2 A plots before that instead of the show having an A/B/C/D plot and then A/B/C is a) for clarity's sake since the other plots don't change at all so why shift their categorization b) calling patricia's plot the D plot so you don't have to do that would imply it's the least important when it's easily the MOST important (it gets all the coolest reveals let's be real) + the C plot usually changes every episode/couple of episodes so putting a long-running plot after what is usually just a runner in the hierarchy makes things needlessly complicated c) they DIRECTLY converge in a way that's well telegraphed from the start. you KNOW whatever nina's doing is related to what patricia's doing from the pilot, and that's good.

so let's be real here: the A1 plot kinda sucks. not because the content itself is bad on its face -- that part of the writing is fine -- but because the individual scenes and what information they drip-feed the audience are poorly paced. the most egregious scene is the one in episode 5(!!!! FIVE) where fabian finally notices the eye of horus in the stair railing (by getting his shoelace caught on the doorknob somehow -- don't get me started), shows nina, and they come to the EARTH-SHATTERING realization that robert frobisher-smythe was really interested in egypt! 💀 it's not so much about them...coming to an obvious conclusion...even if that was what caused my ??? kneejerk reaction, but more that we spent an entire scene on this information (that even to a kid wouldnt bear stating), and it's not the first (nor the last) time that something like this happens in the A1 plot. meanwhile, in the A2 plot, patricia is learning something LEGITIMATELY earth-shattering once or twice a scene, and with multiple scenes in an episode for her, it's difficult for the A1 plot to keep up in terms of intrigue/information weight. the audience can tell that nina's the main character and that whatever she's doing is the "main point," but it gets increasingly difficult to make that case when patricia is getting gangstalked while they're visiting sarah over and over without learning anything new.

the real rub here isn't even in the comparison itself but in the fact that they're still, ultimately, both the A plot, and the characters in each need to get to specific places in the information they have/things they've experienced before their plots can converge properly at victor kidnapping rufus. when you compare them, there's a discrepancy pretty quick: patricia has way more things she has to piece together than sibuna do. thus, the sibuna plotline is artificially sandbagged with repetitive scenes, reveals that don't deserve the fanfare they get relative to the actual content of the reveal, and contrivances (see: fabian shoelace doorknob scenario) so it won't outpace things going on in patricia's plot and undermine the reveals there. when you add in how the B/C plots tie in and have impacts on the A plots or vice versa, it makes sense that something would end up being sacrificed in the pacing department. it seems kinda nuts that it'd be A1, but at a certain point of fiddling with events/moving stuff around, i can see why it had to be A1 that got this treatment.

i'll add that while it was airing, i didn't mind that and even liked how things felt ""sort of normal"/not that supernatural relative to where it was going to end up for a WHILE so when, say, the elixir is introduced and alfie gets trapped in the cellar and they REALLY start using their effects budget, it feels like a considerable shift in the setting. a mystery story that lets you get used to some sense of normal first before yanking the rug out from under you is the best kind, but striking a balance between "something weird is going on here that needs my urgent attention" and "but it's still not THAT weird" so the reveal is both shocking but entirely appropriate and satisfying is VERY difficult. (it's also a move that improves the rewatch at the expense of the initial watch, which i can't help but have a soft spot for as a certified Pretentious Bitch.) that's what i mean by it being a problem that comes from a good writer -- they're trying something! it might not be working perfectly but they're trying and to me, that's far more interesting than technically "clean" but very unambitious writing! but i digress lol

something neat that scene i ragged on early does do is the presentation of the information, though, and it makes me trust this was a particularly thorny structural issue and not amateurish writing. it seems to us that the takeaway is that they need to look into egyptian mythological sources for further information, and that the rollers likely belonged to the frobisher-smythe family. what ends up actually being relevant, though, is a) the naming of the eye of horus for the scene later where rufus asks patricia to look for them (specifically the locket, as we find out later, but he doesn't give that away, same as the scene not giving away why it used the eye of horus in the railing to clarify ^ the above dubiously useful information) and b) the subversion of the audience's attention. i'm not sure if this was intentional, but there's something magical about the way it primes the audience to be dismissive of nina and fabian's discoveries and investigative ability early on. for one, it makes the scenes where nina makes fun of amber for investigating every nook and cranny extra ironic in a way that i love (yes! giving your prototypical blank slate audience insert main character hints of a personality that ends up commenting on the nature of blank slate characters/how their behavior would actually come off if they were real people later down the line!), it makes the audience more likely to get invested in making connections/speculation independent of the characters solving the mystery (audience engagement is critical in a good mystery!), and by hiding the "most important information" in plain sight, it reinforces the illusion that this is a living, breathing world where everything is interconnected in unexpected ways. sure, it's cheesy and may feel cheap, but through that, it hits something real.

to sum up, i can see why if you're just turning this show on expecting a straightforward supernatural teen drama you wouldn't see this stuff first (especially since that genre is predominately cynical in tone right now and house of anubis is reminiscient at first blush of the type of show that a lot of other shows in the genre are...making up a guy like and parodying (badly)) and feel inclined to call it bad, especially without watching season 2. if you're someone new to the show, hi! i hope i haven't scared you off! if you don't mind spoilers, i did a writeup about a scene in late s2 that's an example of both good acting and EXCELLENT writing, both in dialogue but most importantly on a structural level. while it is a standout phenomenal scene, it's only that good because of the writing around it supporting that level of subtext in the first place, and the bones of that are present even in early s1.

i'm holding myself back from writing about cynical vs. earnest media because that's better saved for another post (specifically the fabled s3 writeup i will do someday i promise), but i cannot overstate how much of an impact that has on this, too. to state that conclusion as concisely as my verbose ass can manage: you need both cynical and earnest media in your media diet, elsewise your taste and critical skills will just Be Bad. too much cynical media, in particular, can trend towards a lack of appreciation for the earnest media it needs as reference material to respond to, and at that point, you're just adulating hatred ("intelligence") over loving, y'know, love. earnest media can suck, but at the very least, it's less insufferable to argue with.

(also, sidebar that's been said a million times, but these are TEENAGERS!! so many teenagers on tv are written like adults who make bad decisions, but there's an inherent corniness to being a teen that IS sorta "cringe," and you can't take that out without ruining the experience. i'm a super risk-averse person, but i'd be willing to bet a considerable amount of money that if you wrote up some early-ish s1 dialogue in script format (incl. action lines, etc.) of a scene with all kids and compared that to a scene of just adults, so stripping out the performances/keeping those from interfering in your interpretation, the dialogue that comes off "cringe" would read like perfectly fine, age appropriate language/cadence. i HEAVILY respect a show that doesn't pretty that up, even at the risk of coming off "amateurish.")

in conclusion, i asked my friend when their opinion of the show shifted from essentially "well i'm having fun watching it with you at least" to "ok wait a minute this is actually good," and they said the last four episodes of s1. while i'd place the "officially Good" marker for myself somewhere around episode 9, maybe a little later, i can see exactly why it'd be far later (and at that point specifically) for someone else, particularly someone that hasn't taken...extensive notes on every single moment of s1 and poured over them like it was my job for a solid couple years.

episode 23 and onward has: jerome and alfie getting more complex material to work with AND get to play off one another (and thus two of the show's best actors get to show us that), the rube-goldberg-machineification of the plotlines is setting in (the scene where mick and mara are playfighting while doing the dishes (as a result of their relationship turmoil up to this point??) and spill water on victor right when jerome chases alfie into the kitchen with the drawings of the ankh pieces?!?!?!??!?! LIKE!!! YOU CAN'T CALL THAT BAD WRITING...); reveals are paying off; stakes are high without spiraling out of control; actors in general are refining what elements of their characters work the best/need highlighting; beyond that the characters have weathered enough conflicts that their choices are cropping up to be consistent and solid characterization with a direction; it's clear that this is a campy endeavor with writing chops to back up the cheese.

the way that manifested in my friend's reaction was "wow, that was a good scene." "wait, that was acted really well. everyone did a good job there." "oh my god, they're not. theyre not doing this. oh my god, they are."

that is the essence of house of anubis, i think. it's not for everyone, but "bad writing?" a bit unfair, if you ask me.