My problems with modern media criticism

[Ottservia]

Everyone's a critic that much is true. We all have our own thoughts on the media/art we consume. And with the advent of things like social media, forums, and youtube, sharing those thoughts has been easier than ever before. However, with so much discussion surrounding art and media not all of it can be good. Through my general interaction with this discourse through various people and communities, there are a number of criticisms and such that I've come to generally dislike. I feel like if you're going to criticize anything you need to be fair and respect whatever it is you're criticizing. You should not expect any form of media to pander to you and that's just something I've noticed a lot of people do.  Not only that, I just feel like a lot of common criticisms people levy at stories just aren't really that constructive. 

I've complained about contrivance on here before. And the reason for this is that when you really break it down, stories are inherently contrived. Nothing in a story happens naturally. Everything is pre-ordained by the author. Stories are artificially constructed and everything in a story is there to serve some kind of purpose. The author is god. It's their story and they can do whatever they want with it. The problem I constantly run into in regards to people complaining about contrivance is that 1. I feel like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill over shit that doesn't really matter and 2. I feel like people seem to overlook the thematic implications in regards to how the story is constructed. On the second point specifically, I feel like people are too surface in their analysis sometimes. Like they see the story go in a direction that they didn't like and call it bad because they didn't like it. That's not really constructive criticism though. This isn't your story. You're not the one telling it. The author is the one telling this story not you. Usually when I see people complain about "what should've happened" they fail to really to take into account that maybe the author wrote the story that way for a specific reason. Like take for example the infamous shounen power up. It's almost become a meme at this point. You know those moments where the protagonist is being completely overwhelmed by the villain then they have some kind of flashback to their training or friends. Then thanks to the power of friendship unlock some kind of shiny new power to win the fight. I've seen people complain about these moments so often calling it "unrealistic", "contrived", "deus ex Machina", etc. and I can't help but feel that these criticisms are misplaced. Because when it comes to battle shounen, a lot of the time these "power ups" are usually tied to some kind of character moment or thematic beats the story wants to get across. Like for example, Naruto's bijuu mode is about him finally being able to overcome his own hate by befriending his literal inner demon. It also thematically fits with Naruto's overall themes of understanding as a way to overcome loneliness and hate. Naruto is only able to unlock bijuu mode when he and Kurama are finally able to understand one another. It's probably my second favorite moment in the series for that reason. Or a better example would be Luffy's gear second. Sure, he kinda just pulls it out of no where, but the point of the power up isn't that he had to train to get it more so it's there to showcase what he's willing to do in order to protect his friends because gear second comes with pretty terrible side affects in exchange for that power. My point in all this is to say that maybe instead of criticizing a story for doing something you dislike or that you don't understand. Take that extra step to try and understand the story and what it's trying to accomplish instead of mindlessly labeling it as contrived. Because you never know, maybe there are more layers to it than you realize.

Another thing I see people do a lot that bothers is make unfair comparisons. Comparison on it's own isn't a bad thing and can be useful in critical narrative discussion. However, most of the time when I see people make comparison it's usually under the guise "A is worse than B for not being B" when instead it should be more "A and B are interesting for being A and B". I dislike the former for a couple of reasons. 1. it's just an unfair comparison. All stories are different. Each story has it's own ideas it wants to explore and how to explore them and no story is gonna explore any idea in the same way unless it's intentional. So to comparing stories like that is kind of a moot point. A had no intention of being B, so why does it have to be like B? A is A and B is B. It's like going into a grocery store and complaining that the apples don't look like oranges. Like of course apples aren't gonna look like oranges. They're not oranges. The same is true of stories and characters. And don't even get me started on comparing characters because honestly I just find that kind of gross. Bottom line don't compare the trauma of people real or fictional in that way. It's not okay. I don't care how you try to justify it. 2. you shouldn't have to throw something under the bus to make something else look good. If something is truly good, you should be able to praise it on its own merits without the comparison. The reverse is true as well. If something is bad, you shouldn't need the comparison to say that it's bad. Bottom line you can praise things you like without throwing other stuff under the bus.

[PeaceRibbon]

I think at the end of the day what we really need more than anything is to keep ourselves from letting personal objections take away from judging fiction honestly. I myself know that if I played the vast majority of M-games I'd find something upon which I'd vehemently discourage others from playing the game for moral reasons, but I also know that technically has no bearing on the quality of the game itself.

You make a good point about how we get hung up on contrivances too. If we tried to just write stories where everyone acts rationally proportionate to their ability to do so and natural forces never interceded on the events, I feel like we'd get dull stories where nothing exciting happens.

[Etrurian emperor]

36 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The author is god. It's their story and they can do whatever they want with it. 

This isn't your story. You're not the one telling it. The author is the one telling this story not you. Usually when I see people complain about "what should've happened" they fail to really to take into account that maybe the author wrote the story that way for a specific reason. 

I think one aspect that's important to note is that authors not always have full control over the story they are telling. There's always the editor or the financial department hanging over the artist shoulder, and if the author wants one thing and the management wants something else then I suspect management more often gets their way. 

Sometimes that works out. The best example is Cell from Dragonball who only exist because Toriyama's editor kept rejecting the andriods. Gero and 19 were just an old geezer and a fatso while 17 and 18 were just a bunch of brats. And so Cell was born. The transformations of Cell were also ''suggested'' by management. And since you mentioned Naruto that's also a good example. Sasuke and by extinction the entire Uchiha clan along with him also came into existence when management approached Kishi and told him that they really wanted a rival character. And considering how the Naruto story grew to heavily revolve around the duality between Naruto and Sasuke he probably thanked his lucky stars for that suggestion. 

It can also go entirely wrong. I for one highly suspect that aliens invading the Naruto world at the end was entirely due to the Naruto marketing department being desperate for the series not to end just yet. Hirokoshi from My Hero also suggested that he'd really like to put the spotlight on bestgirl Mina but that management simply doesn't allow it because she's not popular enough in Japan. 

Of the big Manga artists I suspect only Oda has full creative control over his work and it really, really shows. 

36 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I've complained about contrivance on here before. And the reason for this is that when you really break it down, stories are inherently contrived. Nothing in a story happens naturally. Everything is pre-ordained by the author. Stories are artificially constructed and everything in a story is there to serve some kind of purpose.

Its true that all stories are artificial and contrived. However the art in storytelling is hiding this from the audience. Deep down we know a puppeteer is moving the entire story forward but the hallmark of a good story, the result of real immersion is that we forget all about that when we are engaging in the story. Its typically not welcomed by the audience when we see the author pulling the strings too obviously, especially if its done to favor certain characters. 

However its strictly speaking not entirely true that everything about a story is pre ordained. Some writers change their mind midway through the project, other writers take over, or stories that were never meant to have sequels get sequels. George Lucas for instance did not know that Darth Vader was Luke's father during A New Hope and might not have done so for large parts of Empire either. 

George RR Martin leaves room for a whole style of writing where everything is not pre-ordained. 
“I think there are two types of writers, the architects and the gardeners. The architects plan everything ahead of time, like an architect building a house. They know how many rooms are going to be in the house, what kind of roof they're going to have, where the wires are going to run, what kind of plumbing there's going to be. They have the whole thing designed and blueprinted out before they even nail the first board up. The gardeners dig a hole, drop in a seed and water it. They kind of know what seed it is, they know if planted a fantasy seed or mystery seed or whatever. But as the plant comes up and they water it, they don't know how many branches it's going to have, they find out as it grows. And I'm much more a gardener than an architect.”

Both style have their merits but it should be noted that we have an example of pre ordained storytelling, or ''architect storytelling'' going wrong. The books of a Song and Ice and Fire may rely on gardening but the television show had the writers envision a very clear end for their story. The ending was pre ordained and so whole seasons were spend trying to twist and sometimes break the story just to reach that envisioned ending. And that was indeed their right, but given the hugely negative reception it could very well be argued that having the ending be pre ordained did more harm than good.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[MeynethWilder]

There are multiple stories with very natural character and plot progression, in which you can barely perceive the hand of the author. I think you're trying to imply that criticism is invalid if you dig deep into a narrative and find inconsistencies that drive the plot forward, and point them out.

You bring Shounen as an example, specifically Naruto, and say later that you should not expect a story to pander to you. But Shounen is very much aimed at a specific demographic, and follows very stablished troupes and borrows from itself constantly. This is not bad, necessarily, but it's something that happens.

As stated above, G.R.R. Martin talks about letting your character grow, taking the story to places he didn't intended. How much of this is exagerated or romanticized is not something we know but he's a successful and acclaimed author, so don't assume every story is written the same way.

Also, comparison is not inherently bad. Consumption, and comparison is how we develop a taste. How does this things match to this other things, and what do I like about them? These are constant processes we go through daily, and it's not bad at all. I myself am watching Naruto for the first time, episode 290 I think it's the last one I watched and it's a very simple Shounen story, with very undestandable themes, and a ton of contrivances. A friends once told me Kishimoto had to write a manga issue weekly and (if it's true), you can imagine how hard it is to do so while keeping a consistent, natural story. Not all authors have the time to carefully curate their works, but that doesn't mean they're not open to criticism, even when you like what they're doing.

 

[Venger_06]

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Both style have their merits but it should be noted that we have an example of pre ordained storytelling, or ''architect storytelling'' going wrong. The books of a Song and Ice and Fire may rely on gardening but the television show had the writers envision a very clear end for their story. The ending was pre ordained and so whole seasons were spend trying to twist and sometimes break the story just to reach that envisioned ending. And that was indeed their right, but given the hugely negative reception it could very well be argued that having the ending be pre ordained did more harm than good.

It’s like “How I met your mother” : the writers planned the story with a specific ending in mind and they forced it to be the canon ending despite the fact that the story they wrote developed elsewhere. It's essentially a journey strangled by its destination.

[vanguard333]

Wow; I guess I must have discussed these topics with you a lot already, as I was able to predict some of these points before I clicked on the thread (please don't read anything into this other than what I just said; I thought it was just a neat little thing, like being able to remember the exact episode where an obscure event in a TV show happened). 

I'm going to put my points into spoiler tags to avoid a wall of text.

On Contrivance:

Spoiler

Yes; stories are obviously artificial. That said, the structure (and purpose) of a character-driven narrative is for the events of the story to be driven by the decisions of the characters, who make these decisions as a reflection of who they are, their struggles, their development, etc. It's okay for there to be coincidences in a narrative; there's nothing wrong with it. However, it is the moment that the plot is pushed forward (i.e. driven) by a coincidence, rather than by the characters, that you have a contrivance. Contrivances are a problem because they detract from the agency of the characters, they make the consequences of events less impactful, and at worst can actually detract from whatever themes the author is trying to convey through their characters' journeys.

I think the problem you are experiencing, based on your description, is people misusing "contrivance" to simply refer to the presence of a coincidence, without stopping to look at whether it's the coincidence that's driving that plot moment or the characters. 

Regarding the shonen power-up trope, Naruto's bijuu mode is a fantastic example of the trope because, for all the reasons you mentioned and more, it is driven by Naruto & Kurama and their journeys. Naruto doesn't hit his spine on a random rock to awaken bijuu mode (and only after typing that did I remember that's how Aang awakened his avatar state during his fight with Ozai; please don't mistake it for a comparison as I wasn't even thinking of that and I don't think they are comparable); it comes directly from Naruto choosing to befriend Kurama and Kurama being willing to give Naruto a chance; both of which are choices they'd naturally make given who they are and how they think and what they've been through. It's a fantastic example of a character-driven power-up, and that makes it all the more satisfying when Naruto achieves bijuu mode, as it's not just him gaining a new power, but the end-product of a character journey (for two characters at once no less). 

I haven't seen One Piece, so I can't say anything about that example. 

 

On Comparison:

Spoiler

I can understand being irritated by an overabundance of bad and unfair comparisons. As a Black Clover fan, it can be annoying whenever people who haven't really watched the show compare elements of it to Naruto as if to say it's some sort of rip-off of Naruto when it isn't that at all.

That said, while I do agree that comparisons can be used really poorly and that things should be judged on their own merits, I do think comparisons can be very important at times for illustrating and highlighting why something might work in one area but not another. Doing so of course usually requires actually going in depth with the comparison, while most unfair criticisms stop after skimming the surface, so in that regard, it can be really easy at times to tell a good comparison from a bad comparison. 

For an example, for the reasons I already mentioned, one would expect me to dislike any comparison between Black Clover and one of the various shonen anime that it's been accused of ripping off, like Naruto, Bleach and Fairy Tail. Yet, I've actually compared Black Clover to them a few times (well, really just to Naruto and Fairy Tail as I haven't seen Bleach). One particular comparison between Black Clover and Fairy Tail that I've seen a lot of people (and that I myself have made) involves comparing both shows' uses of the power-of-friendship/comradery trope:

Fairy Tail has been criticized a number of times for, and I'm quoting the TV Tropes page here: "laying the "friendship wins the day" moral rather thick"; usually in the form of having the power of friendship vaguely come across as a literal power for the hero to win against the arc villain. This was perhaps most infamously done for Natsu to beat the show's final main villain: the magic-eating dragon slayer Acnologia, to the point where Acnologia's voice actor (for the English dub) actually called it BS and said his character should've won at an anime convention. 

By contrast, Black Clover has been praised for being more subtle and practical in its approach; having the characters utilize teamwork and combining spells in clever ways to beat a stronger opponent. One of the most notable examples, without wishing to spoil too much, is in the Underwater Temple arc, where the Black Bulls, in a moment of true comradery and character development for all of them, work together to bring down a threat a lot stronger than any one of them alone. I can't go into details without spoilers, but basically they combine their different types of spells in very clever ways and work together in both imaginative and heartwarming ways. 

What is your opinion about this kind of comparison: where a person goes in depth and doesn't so much use A to prop up B so much as use how one thing didn't work for A to help highlight and illustrate why it did work for B?

What do you think of these points?

[L3xandr3]

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Spoiler

Like take for example the infamous shounen power up. It's almost become a meme at this point. You know those moments where the protagonist is being completely overwhelmed by the villain then they have some kind of flashback to their training or friends. Then thanks to the power of friendship unlock some kind of shiny new power to win the fight. I've seen people complain about these moments so often calling it "unrealistic", "contrived", "deus ex Machina", etc. and I can't help but feel that these criticisms are misplaced. Because when it comes to battle shounen, a lot of the time these "power ups" are usually tied to some kind of character moment or thematic beats the story wants to get across. Like for example, Naruto's bijuu mode is about him finally being able to overcome his own hate by befriending his literal inner demon. It also thematically fits with Naruto's overall themes of understanding as a way to overcome loneliness and hate. Naruto is only able to unlock bijuu mode when he and Kurama are finally able to understand one another. It's probably my second favorite moment in the series for that reason. Or a better example would be Luffy's gear second. Sure, he kinda just pulls it out of no where, but the point of the power up isn't that he had to train to get it more so it's there to showcase what he's willing to do in order to protect his friends because gear second comes with pretty terrible side affects in exchange for that power. My point in all this is to say that maybe instead of criticizing a story for doing something you dislike or that you don't understand. Take that extra step to try and understand the story and what it's trying to accomplish instead of mindlessly labeling it as contrived. Because you never know, maybe there are more layers to it than you realize.

 

(I hid the comment above to save space) I don't watch Anime, so I can't say anything 'bout the examples you provided here.

 

An example I can comment on is Fates and the Yato's Evolution/Self-repairing shenanigans.

Birthright - First time is because of the R. Sage buffing it with the Fujin Yumi's power, so that's fine. The second time, not so much. Ryoma had been with the party for quite a long time, yet it only Evolved when Corrin needed a power boost to beat Garon. Why? We aren't provided a reason for this. And then it gets broken by Garon-beast's slap-attack. Why does it get fixed? 'Cause of random powers. And it doesn't get broke again when Garon slaps it. Why?

Conquest - First time it's 'cause Leo joins Corrin and co. The question is, why did it wait until after the map to evolve? The second time is the same. Why did it wait until until just before the fight with Garon to evolve?

Revelation - First time R. Sage again. Second time - Wooo, look at that! Random powers strikes again! The Royals have been with you for, what, like 9 Chapters? Why did it wait till now?

Are all of these perfectly logical and not contrived? No. 2 of the examples above do make since - the R. Sage boosts. 

 

In summary, you are correct about all 'power-ups' not being Deus ex Machina. But there still are those that are.

 

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Spoiler

Another thing I see people do a lot that bothers is make unfair comparisons. Comparison on it's own isn't a bad thing and can be useful in critical narrative discussion. However, most of the time when I see people make comparison it's usually under the guise "A is worse than B for not being B" when instead it should be more "A and B are interesting for being A and B". I dislike the former for a couple of reasons. 1. it's just an unfair comparison. All stories are different. Each story has it's own ideas it wants to explore and how to explore them and no story is gonna explore any idea in the same way unless it's intentional. So to comparing stories like that is kind of a moot point. A had no intention of being B, so why does it have to be like B? A is A and B is B. It's like going into a grocery store and complaining that the apples don't look like oranges. Like of course apples aren't gonna look like oranges. They're not oranges. The same is true of stories and characters. And don't even get me started on comparing characters because honestly I just find that kind of gross. Bottom line don't compare the trauma of people real or fictional in that way. It's not okay. I don't care how you try to justify it. 2. you shouldn't have to throw something under the bus to make something else look good. If something is truly good, you should be able to praise it on its own merits without the comparison. The reverse is true as well. If something is bad, you shouldn't need the comparison to say that it's bad. Bottom line you can praise things you like without throwing other stuff under the bus.

 

Different stories are different. Who'd of thought. You can still compare them and point out what's better between the two. Don't decry it just because they're different.

It's like comparing people, cows, trees, or whatever. Each one is different. But there are still traits that can be compared between them.

 

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I feel like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill over shit that doesn't really matter

I don't intend to sound hostile, but if that's the case, why do you keep making it an even bigger mountain? If it doesn't matter, then why are we debating this? Is it that people arguing annoys you? I'm trying to understand why you made this thread, not to try and offend you. Are you trying to say we shouldn't argue because it's Fiction?

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Yes; stories are obviously artificial. That said, the structure (and purpose) of a character-driven narrative is for the events of the story to be driven by the decisions of the characters, who make these decisions as a reflection of who they are, their struggles, their development, etc. It's okay for there to be coincidences in a narrative; there's nothing wrong with it. However, it is the moment that the plot is pushed forward (i.e. driven) by a coincidence, rather than by the characters, that you have a contrivance. Contrivances are a problem because they detract from the agency of the characters, they make the consequences of events less impactful, and at worst can actually detract from whatever themes the author is trying to convey through their characters' journeys.

This is what I mean when I say people are making mountain out of mole hills. Like if we go by the argument of contrivance being coincidences then you can call most anything contrived. Oh Deku just so happened to run into his idol on his way from school and was able to see his crippled state. Oh the bottle containing the villain just so happened to fall out of his pocket as he was jumping. You see the problem with that? You can basically use it as an excuse to nitpick anything to pieces and it’s extremely easy to do. Real life is fucking contrived. It’s like at the end of the day how much do those coincidences really matter to the overall experience. It’s mostly just suspension of disbelief at that point which is personal. Just because it broke your suspension of disbelief doesn’t mean it will break mine. It’s entirely subjective so it can’t be used as an objective measure. 
 

Honestly, if you haven’t already, you should play persona 5 royal as I feel like that game’s story is probably the best example of a narrative where contrivance based on coincidences don’t really matter. The entire first and second arcs of the game are built on a mountain of contrivances/coincidences yet that doesn’t seem to take away from the themes and messages the story tries to convey through its narrative. Those coincidences don’t take away from the arcs or struggles of the characters or anything. The story is just as compelling even if you see the coincidences right before your eyes.

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

and only after typing that did I remember that's how Aang awakened his avatar state during his fight with Ozai; please don't mistake it for a comparison as I wasn't even thinking of that and I don't think they are comparable)

It’s funny that you bring this up because it’s actually a pretty good example to get across my point. Again in that instance there is a thematic reason for why Aang goes avatar state there. It’s basically Aang at his limit. One of the main conflicts of Aang’s character at that point is that he doesn’t want to kill Ozai because he’s a buddhist monk a pacifist. However, in the fight, Ozai pushes him to a point where he just can’t take it and is forced to retaliate. It’s there to show that Aang could kill Ozai if he wanted to but he doesn’t in order to stay true to his principals. Then again it’s been a while since I’ve watched the show so maybe I’m misremembering things.

 

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

What is your opinion about this kind of comparison: where a person goes in depth and doesn't so much use A to prop up B so much as use how one thing didn't work for A to help highlight and illustrate why it did work for B?

I’m fine with these kinds of comparisons but you have to be careful. In the case of fairy yeah it’s blunt with how it utilizes the power of friendship and I mean extremely blunt but what’s wrong with blunt? I mean if you wanna talk blunt and overt just take Obito for example. There is literally an entire episode/set of chapters where he directly outright word for word explains the entire point of his character to the audience(well in context it’s to Naruto but still) hell even Naruto outright explains most of it(as to why Obito is considered a bad villain to some despite how overt Kishimoto is being here I will never know). Like there’s nothing wrong with being blunt and overt also there are much bigger issues with fairy tail’s narrative trust me. Back to the original point though, you have to be careful with these kinds of comparisons because you run the risk of comparing them in a way that’s far too subjective. Like just because fairy tail explores its themes in a more overt way than Black Clover that doesn’t make fairy tail worse than Black Clover. These comparisons can be useful but you have really be careful with them.

 

5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its true that all stories are artificial and contrived. However the art in storytelling is hiding this from the audience. Deep down we know a puppeteer is moving the entire story forward but the hallmark of a good story, the result of real immersion is that we forget all about that when we are engaging in the story. Its typically not welcomed by the audience when we see the author pulling the strings too obviously, especially if its done to favor certain characters. 

 

See my above example about persona 5. Even so is that not the point of critical analysis to figure why the story is written the way it is? Like Personally I want to see the guy behind the curtain and each finger movement that goes into the performance. Knowing why each movement is necessary is what makes me appreciate the performance even more because I know how much effort went into it. Storytelling is no different. I want to know why the author his story in this way and not any other. It makes me appreciate the story more because I know how much thought was put into it. 

 

5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

6 hours ago, Ottservia said:

 

I think one aspect that's important to note is that authors not always have full control over the story they are telling. There's always the editor or the financial department hanging over the artist shoulder, and if the author wants one thing and the management wants something else then I suspect management more often gets their way. 

 

For as true as this is, they’re still part of that creative process. Naruto is just as much the editor’s story as it is Kishimoto’s. However the story is not yours specifically. You’re not the one telling it. It’s the people behind the curtain that are. I don’t know about you but I personally find it to be a tad rude to suggest that you understand the story more than its own author. You may not agree with every decision the story makes but at the end of the day it’s not your story. It’s not the story’s fault for not being to your tastes.

[Armagon]

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

This isn't your story. You're not the one telling it. The author is the one telling this story not you. Usually when I see people complain about "what should've happened" they fail to really to take into account that maybe the author wrote the story that way for a specific reason.

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

However the story is not yours specifically. You’re not the one telling it. It’s the people behind the curtain that are. I don’t know about you but I personally find it to be a tad rude to suggest that you understand the story more than its own author. You may not agree with every decision the story makes but at the end of the day it’s not your story. It’s not the story’s fault for not being to your tastes.

Honestly, i from what i've seen, i think you have a tendency to put the author on too high a pedestal and this causes a fundamental difference in how you approach criticism compared to how most people approach criticism. Maybe i'm wrong but that is what i get from these two quotes.

And now to my response:

I think in a usual scenario, people know the author wrote a scene for a specific reason. But when people say "this should've happened instead" it's because they think that they author was not successful It's all in the execution. Let's take a look at Zack Snyder's Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, for example. It's clear that Snyder had a specific vision for how Superman and Batman are portrayed in these movies. I know that Snyder had his reasons for making Superman and Batman act the way they did. However, i think that Snyder executed his ideas horribly and as a result, both MoS and BvS are a hot mess. But of course, not everyone agrees. There are people who think MoS and BvS are masterpieces.

I'm not saying one has to execute their ideas masterfully but my point is that just because the author had a reason to write something the way they did does not shield them from criticism.

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

George RR Martin leaves room for a whole style of writing where everything is not pre-ordained. 
“I think there are two types of writers, the architects and the gardeners. The architects plan everything ahead of time, like an architect building a house. They know how many rooms are going to be in the house, what kind of roof they're going to have, where the wires are going to run, what kind of plumbing there's going to be. They have the whole thing designed and blueprinted out before they even nail the first board up. The gardeners dig a hole, drop in a seed and water it. They kind of know what seed it is, they know if planted a fantasy seed or mystery seed or whatever. But as the plant comes up and they water it, they don't know how many branches it's going to have, they find out as it grows. And I'm much more a gardener than an architect.”

Didn't know about this quote until now but i'm glad i saw it, it's a good quote.

I want to add, i think most writers are gardeners. I think it takes a certain kind of mindset to be an architect writer because even people who did plan something out end up changing their mind at some point. Even if what they changed was just 1% of the whole thing.

Even Oda of One Piece fame, i doubt he had 20+ years of story all planned out from the start.

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Back to the original point though, you have to be careful with these kinds of comparisons because you run the risk of comparing them in a way that’s far too subjective.

Again, i know you probably have a fundamentally different approach to criticism but i'm just gonna drop this clip here because subjectivity is the whole point of criticism.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Armagon

[Ottservia]

15 minutes ago, Armagon said:

I'm not saying one has to execute their ideas masterfully but my point is that just because the author had a reason to write something the way they did does not shield them from criticism.

Well yeah that should be obvious but that’s not my point. My point more so is that you should be more careful in how you criticize it. Like as an extreme example a somewhat common(and extremely stupid) criticism of MHA is that people say Deku getting a quirk undermines the story’s themes of “hard work” when MHA was never about hard work to begin with. Like if Horikoshi wanted to tell a story about a quirkless deku he very much would have but he didn’t and if he had the story would be far different from what it is now. When you criticize a story, you should criticize what’s in front of you not the hypothetical what if scenario that’s in your head. Criticize a story for what it wants to be not for what you want it to be. 

 

25 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Again, i know you probably have a fundamentally different approach to criticism but i'm just gonna drop this clip here because subjectivity is the whole point of criticism.

I don’t necessarily disagree but at the same time I’m not gonna criticize One Piece for being about Ninjas because I subjectively felt it was about ninjas like no that’s just stupid. It’s not entirely subjective. There is a level of objectivity to it.

[Anathaco]

...Do I wanna start the contrivance debate again? eh. I think my point has been conveyed well enough at this point. However I will add that your second point about contrivance assumes that the writer always intended their story to work that way. In some cases, sure, they may have. But writers are as prone to making mistakes as the rest of us, and when people call out contrivances in the story, it's those blunders that they draw attention to. Don't get me wrong, writing is a hard job and even experienced writers can make mistakes and cause contrivances in their plot. But I don't think that means that they should be ignored or not criticised when we notice them. Respect the author, obviously, but try and hold them to a reasonable standard, don't assume that all writers are massive big brains who meticulously plan every detail of their stories (that George R.R Martin quote is certainly proving itself useful. Props to Etrurian emperor for sharing that).

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Another thing I see people do a lot that bothers is make unfair comparisons. Comparison on it's own isn't a bad thing and can be useful in critical narrative discussion. However, most of the time when I see people make comparison it's usually under the guise "A is worse than B for not being B" when instead it should be more "A and B are interesting for being A and B". I dislike the former for a couple of reasons. 1. it's just an unfair comparison. All stories are different. Each story has it's own ideas it wants to explore and how to explore them and no story is gonna explore any idea in the same way unless it's intentional. So to comparing stories like that is kind of a moot point. A had no intention of being B, so why does it have to be like B? A is A and B is B.

It is true that all stories are different. However, if two stories do explore similar ideas I see nothing wrong with comparison. Say, in your first example, two writers both want to explore the theme of power and ambition, and how too much can corrupt people by nature. So they write Stories A and B, respectively. A does this by having a typical "protagonist goes to slay villain" type story, where the villain is a cruel tyrant who has gained too much power and become corrupted by it. So the hero goes around the world, helping people and getting stronger, and by the end he is strong enough to slay the villain, happy endings all around. Story B does it by having the same premise, but in this case the hero slowly does more and more amoral things in his quest to become stronger. He eventually gets out of hand with his quest, to the point there is little difference between him and the villain. He does eventually slay the villain, but is left as little more than an empty shell of his former self, having given up almost everything he wanted to protect over the course of his journey.

Both stories work. However, Story B (generally speaking) has a far more nuanced take on the theme, because unlike Story A it displays the fact that anybody can be corrupted by power, not just the stereotypical bad guy. In a case like this I'd argue A SHOULD be compared to B, because it helps illuminate the failures of A's exploration and how to handle it better. 

And yes, in real life, cases aren't as cut and dry because very few authors outwardly announce what they want their stories to explore. But that's kind of where criticism and analysis come in, to determine what a story is TRYING to say, and how it could be improved upon. People will all disagree on what a story is saying, which is where discussion comes in. That, at least, is how I view literary analysis as a whole.

[Lightcosmo]

I dont think people harp on the story cause they simply feel like is bad, I think they want to BELIVE in something better, and me included, know that they have the potential to put something much more concrete in the waters. 

For example: a game I really enjoy in my opinion: has near perfect gameplay. So then the devs come out with a sequel and the gameplay... isnt to my taste. This doesnt make it bad, that's me KNOWING that they can do better than simply settling with what I got. Sure you could say, well it's not X game! But when something is that amazing, you dont want to lose it, either.

Same with stories, sure some might not catch my eye, but with the right guidance, some ideas they have could massively improve. And there isnt anything wrong with some constructive criticism, imo. 

I'm not trying to make Fates into the next RD: it's just that comparison makes me see things that I didn't quite catch when judging the story/characters on their own. 

God, the last thing I want is to turn one game into another one. I've seen that, and it's sad sight indeed.

[Armagon]

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Well yeah that should be obvious but that’s not my point. My point more so is that you should be more careful in how you criticize it. Like as an extreme example a somewhat common(and extremely stupid) criticism of MHA is that people say Deku getting a quirk undermines the story’s themes of “hard work” when MHA was never about hard work to begin with. Like if Horikoshi wanted to tell a story about a quirkless deku he very much would have but he didn’t and if he had the story would be far different from what it is now. When you criticize a story, you should criticize what’s in front of you not the hypothetical what if scenario that’s in your head. Criticize a story for what it wants to be not for what you want it to be.

I don't think people criticize the hypothetical what if scenario though. They simply use it as a way of saying "i don't think this worked, this is what i think would've been better instead". Which is 100% valid. Sure, there are people who feel entitled to works for some reason but i think a reasonable critic does not think up a hypothetical scenario just to criticize that instead.

I'm gonna use Xenoblade Chronicles as an example here. That game, for better and worse, overcentralizes it's focus on Shulk and the Monado, to the point that in some scenes, characters say that they "only made it this far because of Shulk". I love Xenoblade Chronicles but considering how every other Xeno game handles it's characters, i personally feel the overcentralizing focus on Shulk edges towards the detrimental side as it helps Shulk but hurts everyone else. Where am i going with this? There's one scene where Shulk is out of commission and Dunban states during the battle that follows that "perhaps we've been relying too much on Shulk and the Monado". Immediately after he says this, the entire party gets bailed out by Shulk. Now, if it were up to me, i would not have Shulk rejoin the party this way. I would've had him in a coma a bit longer so that the game can show us that the party made it this far because they worked together, not because they had a chosen one with a magical laser sword with them. I know my scenario never has and never will make it into the game but i feel that my scenario would've been a good way to combat the overcentralizing focus that i personally feel is kinda a detriment to the game's story and characters.

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not gonna criticize One Piece for being about Ninjas because I subjectively felt it was about ninjas like no that’s just stupid. It’s not entirely subjective. There is a level of objectivity to it.

...people don't do that though? I mean, maybe some do but they usually wouldn't be taken seriously. 

[vanguard333]

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

This is what I mean when I say people are making mountain out of mole hills. Like if we go by the argument of contrivance being coincidences then you can call most anything contrived. Oh Deku just so happened to run into his idol on his way from school and was able to see his crippled state. Oh the bottle containing the villain just so happened to fall out of his pocket as he was jumping. You see the problem with that? You can basically use it as an excuse to nitpick anything to pieces and it’s extremely easy to do. Real life is fucking contrived. It’s like at the end of the day how much do those coincidences really matter to the overall experience. It’s mostly just suspension of disbelief at that point which is personal. Just because it broke your suspension of disbelief doesn’t mean it will break mine. It’s entirely subjective so it can’t be used as an objective measure. 

Um... what? I think you might have misunderstood what I said, as it sounds like you're disagreeing with me even though my argument you were responding to was literally me highlighting that there's a big difference between contrivance and coincidence, and the "mountains out molehills" thing you're experiencing sounded to me like people saying contrivance when there was a coincidence but that coincidence did not cause a contrivance. 

The My Hero Academia examples you use are absolutely a case of a coincidence not being a contrivance and reinforces my point: the coincidences merely created circumstances that then got driven by the characters: Deku chooses to to grab onto All Might when All Might leaves; desperately wanting to ask All Might if he thinks someone quirkless like Deku can be a hero, and that's what leads him to seeing All Might's crippled state. If I recall correctly, Deku's actions there were also the reason the bottle fell, but even if it were a coincidence, it still merely sets the stage for Deku choosing to try to save Bakugo, and All Might seeing Deku do this and choose not only to save them both, but also later on make Deku his successor. Coincidences happened, but the true driving force was the characters. 

I know I'm far from the best at communication, but it sounds like you read what I said about the difference between coincidence and contrivance and somehow read, "coincidence is the same as contrivance and it's all bad because immersion", when that's almost the opposite of what I was saying.

 

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Honestly, if you haven’t already, you should play persona 5 royal as I feel like that game’s story is probably the best example of a narrative where contrivance based on coincidences don’t really matter. The entire first and second arcs of the game are built on a mountain of contrivances/coincidences yet that doesn’t seem to take away from the themes and messages the story tries to convey through its narrative. Those coincidences don’t take away from the arcs or struggles of the characters or anything. The story is just as compelling even if you see the coincidences right before your eyes.

I have a bunch of other games I want to finish, but I'll probably get Persona 5 Royal at some point as I've heard it's really good. 

 

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

It’s funny that you bring this up because it’s actually a pretty good example to get across my point. Again in that instance there is a thematic reason for why Aang goes avatar state there. It’s basically Aang at his limit. One of the main conflicts of Aang’s character at that point is that he doesn’t want to kill Ozai because he’s a buddhist monk a pacifist. However, in the fight, Ozai pushes him to a point where he just can’t take it and is forced to retaliate. It’s there to show that Aang could kill Ozai if he wanted to but he doesn’t in order to stay true to his principals. Then again it’s been a while since I’ve watched the show so maybe I’m misremembering things.

Ugh; I literally asked to ignore my mention of that scene as I don't see that avatar scene as contrived. There happening to be just a bit of rock sticking out is a bit weird, but overall, the scene was a classic case of setup-and-payoff (or Chekov's Gun) involving the scar on Aang's back from when he got zapped by Azula during his attempt to go into the Avatar State. The setup is the scene far earlier in season 3 where Katara tries to heal some more of the damage, uses her healing-waterbending on a pressure point in that area, and Aang briefly reconnects to the Avatar State before the connection is lost. So, when Aang is backed into the corner and hits his back on the rock, the audience is supposed to remember what happened earlier during the healing session and realize what's going on. 

 

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I’m fine with these kinds of comparisons but you have to be careful. In the case of fairy yeah it’s blunt with how it utilizes the power of friendship and I mean extremely blunt but what’s wrong with blunt? 

1) I agree about having to be careful; that's why I talked about needing to be specific and go in-depth with the comparison.

2) "What's wrong with blunt" Here I can definitely where I messed up with the communication. Bluntness was not my intended criticism, but the, "[power of friendship] vaguely come across as a little power pulled in the second half of a fight for the hero to beat thee bad guy without really taking the time to establish it", hence the Acnologia example. 

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with being blunt and overt; sometimes it's even necessary to ensure it gets across to the audience. I'm just saying that I was not complaining about bluntness, despite how it may have seemed like I was.

 

By the way, regarding the "don't blame a work for not being to your tastes" thing that I saw you bring up somewhere in this thread, I agree that one should should separate "this was not my cup of tea" from other criticism; in fact, I do it all the time. With something like Death Note for example, where I couldn't even get through the first episode because that show was definitely not to my tastes, I just say, "I tried it; it wasn't my cup of tea, and I didn't get far enough to really say anything else about it" and leave it at that, with anything else I might say about the show coming either from pop-cultural osmosis or from my brother who has seen the show.

However, I do think one can criticize a story that wasn't up to their tastes if the criticism is things that don't have to do with their taste. For instance, I don't like Zach Snyder movies; they're not my cup of tea. But, I can still safely say that Man of Steel and BvS are still garbage for reasons outside of personal taste (well, not BvS since I haven't actually seen it, but Man of Steel definitely), and I agree with Armagon that, when people say, "[x] should've happened instead of [y]", it's usually that they're saying the point behind [y] failed in execution for some specific reason and they're offering up [x] as something that could've fixed the problem.

For instance, I really, really dislike the... Euphemia Incident near the end of season 1 of Code Geass for its many, many issues, to the point where that moment killed my interest in the show completely. And I'm far from alone; it's one of the most widely-despised scenes in the entire show. When I say, "We should've seen Euphemia's idea play out and fall apart on its own rather than have the stupid scene involving Lelouch's accident", I'm not saying I'm better than the writers of the show, nor am I making a statement about personal taste; I'm saying, "The scene failed; here's an alternative that wouldn't have had its problems." 

[Ottservia]

17 minutes ago, Armagon said:

I don't think people criticize the hypothetical what if scenario though. They simply use it as a way of saying "i don't think this worked, this is what i think would've been better instead". Which is 100% valid. Sure, there are people who feel entitled to works for some reason but i think a reasonable critic does not think up a hypothetical scenario just to criticize that instead.

You haven’t seen shounen discourse, have you? Cause that MHA example is something I have seen people say unironically. It’s like all the people who say Rock Lee should’ve been the protagonist of Naruto because he better serves the themes of “hard work” when Naruto was never a story about “hard work” to begin with. I swear to god if I hear anyone unironically say that I will barge into your house and smack you with some weird looking fish. Regardless my larger point though is that when people criticize a story for “what should’ve happened” you need to be really careful because even the smallest changes can drastically alter how a story plays out and in some cases change the message and meaning of the story entirely. 
 

Your Xenoblade example is a good criticism though. The story brings up an idea only to completely go back on and ignore it for seemingly no reason(I still need to finish Xenoblade, I’m only like 2 hours in). So altering the story to better explore that idea would only prove beneficial to the story.

7 hours ago, Anathaco said:

Both stories work. However, Story B (generally speaking) has a far more nuanced take on the theme, because unlike Story A it displays the fact that anybody can be corrupted by power, not just the stereotypical bad guy. In a case like this I'd argue A SHOULD be compared to B, because it helps illuminate the failures of A's exploration and how to handle it better. 

And that’s where you lose me because there is no “right way” to do a theme. No story handles “handles a theme better than another”. Even if they explore similar themes A had no intention of being B so why is A worse for not being like B? If A wants to explore its themes in that way, then it should be allowed to do that. It doesn’t have to be like B to be good. They’re both interesting in their own right. A is A and B is B. It’s like comparing mental health. You don’t do that like ever because it’s not okay. You can’t sad better than someone. Like it’s just a little invalidating if you ask me. I’m sorry you’re depressed well too bad because Billy also has depression and he handles it far better than you. Why can’t you be more like Billy? You see the problem? Don’t compare mental health it’s not okay.

[German FE Nino]

29 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No story handles “handles a theme better than another”

I apologise if I annoy with suddenly invading, but let's take a story about physical abuse. One story has the character constantly be saved by being beaten up and the other story shows that it is harming them. In both stories, they push against it and go out of it. I would dare to say that story A is less good about doing what it wants to than story B, unless it *wanted* to teach a lesson that is harmful.

I know this is an oversimplification, but I just wanted to speak my mind here.

When it comes to mental health, I think you are reaching for a diffrent point than is intended here. Someone handling depression better than someone else is not less depressed, they are both ill. But if someone is not depressed, they are likely of better mental health. The entire concept depends on comparison, just that we should not be antargonistic about it.

[ping]

16 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its true that all stories are artificial and contrived. However the art in storytelling is hiding this from the audience. Deep down we know a puppeteer is moving the entire story forward but the hallmark of a good story, the result of real immersion is that we forget all about that when we are engaging in the story. Its typically not welcomed by the audience when we see the author pulling the strings too obviously, especially if its done to favor certain characters. 

Pterry has made a comparison between author and conjurer to a similar effect when talking abut Neil Gaiman, which I quite liked: [all copied from the Good Omens paperback, so typos are all my own]

"Well he's no genius. He's better than that.
He's not a wizard, in other words, he's a conjurer.
Wizards don't have to work. They wave their hands, and the magic happens. But conjurers, now . . . conjurers work very hard. They spend  lot of time in their youth watching, very carefully, the best conjurers of their day. They seek out old books of trickery and, being natural conjurers, read everything else as well, because history itself is just a magic show. They observe the way people think, and the many ways in which they don't. They lern the subtle use of springs, and how to open mighty temple doors with a touch, and how to make the trumpets sound.
And then they take centre stage and amaze you with flags of all nations and smoke and mirrors, and you cry: 'Amazing! How does he do it? What happened to the elephant? Where's the rabbit? Did he really smash my watch?'
And in the back row we, the other conjurers, say quietly: 'Well done. Isn't that a variant of the Prague Levitating Sock? Wasn't that Pasqual's Spirit Mirror, where the girl isn't really there? But where the hell did that flaming sword come from?'
And we wonder if there may be such a thing as wizardry, after all . . ."

The bolded (by me) part in particular stuck out to me - the art of making people look elsewhere. If the audience sees through the trick, the trick has failed, no matter how technically impressive it was. If the authorial intent is too immediately obvious (X is acting this or that way to increase the drama / make the protagonist look good / to clarify that they are good or evil / to justify an exposition dump), it's usually to the detriment of a scene.

Pratchett also was firmly on the "gardener" side of that spectrum, although I don't think he used that picture and I don't have a nice quote ready. But when he talked about writing, he liked to say that he just had to see how this character would grow and how that story would work out. He and Neil also joked (?) that there are parts of Good Omens that both of them were convinced the other one had written.

[Armagon]

45 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I agree that one should should separate "this was not my cup of tea" from other criticism; in fact, I do it all the time. With something like Death Note for example, where I couldn't even get through the first episode because that show was definitely not to my tastes, I just say, "I tried it; it wasn't my cup of tea, and I didn't get far enough to really say anything else about it" and leave it at that, with anything else I might say about the show coming either from pop-cultural osmosis or from my brother who has seen the show.

However, I do think one can criticize a story that wasn't up to their tastes if the criticism is things that don't have to do with their taste. For instance, I don't like Zach Snyder movies; they're not my cup of tea. But, I can still safely say that Man of Steel and BvS are still garbage for reasons outside of personal taste (well, not BvS since I haven't actually seen it, but Man of Steel definitely), and I agree with Armagon that, when people say, "[x] should've happened instead of [y]", it's usually that they're saying the point behind [y] failed in execution for some specific reason and they're offering up [x] as something that could've fixed the problem.

I just wanna add that, at least in my experience, people do specify between "not my kind of thing' and "i think this is bad regardless of my tastes" since i do feel that's an important distinction. Hell, sometimes something can match up with your tastes and but still be bad in your eyes. An example of that last one, i'm a Kaiju fan, especially Godzilla. And yet i cannot stand the Godzilla anime trilogy. Three of the most boring-ass movies i've ever seen.

20 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

You haven’t seen shounen discourse, have you? Cause that MHA example is something I have seen people say unironically. It’s like all the people who say Rock Lee should’ve been the protagonist of Naruto because he better serves the themes of “hard work” when Naruto was never a story about “hard work” to begin with. I swear to god if I hear anyone unironically say that I will barge into your house and smack you with some weird looking fish. 

Tbh, i stay away from a lot of anime fanbases, especially shounen, because a lot of them are honestly pretty insufferable. The MHA fanbase is particularly bad.

25 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Regardless my larger point though is that when people criticize a story for “what should’ve happened” you need to be really careful because even the smallest changes can drastically alter how a story plays out and in some cases change the message and meaning of the story entirely. 

While true, sometimes the problem extends beyond a single bad scene. Sometimes it's a snowball effect where the bad execution of one scene ends up negatively affecting later scenes. The Rise of Skywalker is a great example of this. Palpatine coming back from the dead was a massive mistake that hurt the whole movie and i think the movie would've fared a lot better if there was no Palpatine. And at least for me, the biggest problem with Palpatine coming back is that it made Rey his granddaughter and i much preferred Rey being a nobody because it made the Force mystical again. But no, all the powerful Force users have to have bloodlines somehow. 

I personally would've rather had the Duel of the Fates script that was leaked a while back be the movie we got. That one still has problems but i would've much preferred it over what we actually got in the end.

39 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No story handles “handles a theme better than another”

If you mean objectively, then you are correct. There isn't a science to prove that this story handled it's themes better than that story.

However it's up to the audience to determine which one they feel was better. "This isn't what happened. This is what happened to me". Criticism of the arts isn't really about convincing the other guy. When you debate someone with differing views, it's to share your thoughts and see how they compare and acknowledge the other's point of view. Maybe you do change their mind or maybe they change yours but that's not what criticism should be about.

Of course, some people forget the civility of it and just result to yelling at each other about how the other is wrong but that's neither here nor there.

[vanguard333]

2 minutes ago, Armagon said:

I just wanna add that, at least in my experience, people do specify between "not my kind of thing' and "i think this is bad regardless of my tastes" since i do feel that's an important distinction. Hell, sometimes something can match up with your tastes and but still be bad in your eyes. An example of that last one, i'm a Kaiju fan, especially Godzilla. And yet i cannot stand the Godzilla anime trilogy. Three of the most boring-ass movies i've ever seen.

I agree; I can't really think of any time I've seen anyone fail to distinguish, "Not my cup of tea" from "bad". 

 

4 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Tbh, i stay away from a lot of anime fanbases, especially shounen, because a lot of them are honestly pretty insufferable. The MHA fanbase is particularly bad.

The Black Clover fanbase seems pretty friendly from what I've seen; probably because the show is a bit of an underdog. Just, don't say "Black Clover is a rip-off of [insert shonen anime here]" in front of them, both because it isn't true and because the show's been accused of it a lot and fans are tired of it.

I agree that the MHA fanbase is rather insufferable at times, and I say this as someone who enjoys MHA. 

 

9 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Well yeah that should be obvious but that’s not my point. My point more so is that you should be more careful in how you criticize it. Like as an extreme example a somewhat common(and extremely stupid) criticism of MHA is that people say Deku getting a quirk undermines the story’s themes of “hard work” when MHA was never about hard work to begin with. Like if Horikoshi wanted to tell a story about a quirkless deku he very much would have but he didn’t and if he had the story would be far different from what it is now. When you criticize a story, you should criticize what’s in front of you not the hypothetical what if scenario that’s in your head. Criticize a story for what it wants to be not for what you want it to be. 

Funny enough; his original plan for MHA was for Deku to remain quirkless; he scrapped it after realizing it wouldn't really work for the same reason non-powered heroes usually have similarly non-powered villains. 

This doesn't really have to do with your point; I just thought it was rather funny. 

[Armagon]

6 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I agree that the MHA fanbase is rather insufferable at times, and I say this as someone who enjoys MHA. 

Same (although my interest in MHA has waned after S3, to the point that i haven't really started S4).

It really does suck when your a fan of something but then the fanbase is insufferable. 

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Um... what? I think you might have misunderstood what I said, as it sounds like you're disagreeing with me even though my argument you were responding to was literally me highlighting that there's a big difference between contrivance and coincidence, and the "mountains out molehills" thing you're experiencing sounded to me like people saying contrivance when there was a coincidence but that coincidence did not cause a contrivance. 

The My Hero Academia examples you use are absolutely a case of a coincidence not being a contrivance and reinforces my point: the coincidences merely created circumstances that then got driven by the characters: Deku chooses to to grab onto All Might when All Might leaves; desperately wanting to ask All Might if he thinks someone quirkless like Deku can be a hero, and that's what leads him to seeing All Might's crippled state. If I recall correctly, Deku's actions there were also the reason the bottle fell, but even if it were a coincidence, it still merely sets the stage for Deku choosing to try to save Bakugo, and All Might seeing Deku do this and choose not only to save them both, but also later on make Deku his successor. Coincidences happened, but the true driving force was the characters. 

I know I'm far from the best at communication, but it sounds like you read what I said about the difference between coincidence and contrivance and somehow read, "coincidence is the same as contrivance and it's all bad because immersion", when that's almost the opposite of what I was saying.

if I misunderstood, then I apologize. Still, though There aren't many poor examples of a story completely relying on coincidence to move it's plot forward. More often than not when I usually see people complain about that it's usually over something small that personally I can overlook. Not to say you are wrong for not being able to overlook it. It's just that suspension of disbelief isn't really that weighty of a criticism. Yeah you mention the Euphemia example but changing that moment in the story would change a lot of what I loved about happened in its aftermath so personally I can overlook such a thing happening because changing that would mean changing a lot of the narrative beats that happen afterwards(then again it's been a while since I've watched code geass so on a rewatch my opinion might change). Another point to bring up that we've discussed before is in the Boruto movie. Where Naruto fails to keep his promise in attending Himiwari's birthday celebration. I don't mind it because that moment in the story is supposed to be the sort of straw that breaks the camel's back for Boruto and further divide their relationship. Naruto went back on his word and it didn't work out. He was punished for it because he did something he shouldn't have. He contradicted himself and bad things happened as a result. It's not like he was rewarded for this behavior. Y'see even small things like that can have more thematic nuance than you realize.

 

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

1) I agree about having to be careful; that's why I talked about needing to be specific and go in-depth with the comparison.

2) "What's wrong with blunt" Here I can definitely where I messed up with the communication. Bluntness was not my intended criticism, but the, "[power of friendship] vaguely come across as a little power pulled in the second half of a fight for the hero to beat thee bad guy without really taking the time to establish it", hence the Acnologia example. 

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with being blunt and overt; sometimes it's even necessary to ensure it gets across to the audience. I'm just saying that I was not complaining about bluntness, despite how it may have seemed like I was.

I mean even then do things have to be pre-established? I would argue not really. Things in stories can be surprising and also retconning isn't inherently a bad. Naruto is full of retcons but a lot of those retcons are actually more for the story's benefit. Side note: in regards to retcons(and this is mostly a manga specific thing and also long running seasonal TV shows) is that in regards to manga these authors are on a weekly or monthly release schedule. They need to write and draw 20-40 pages of manga for each week/month. Once they put a chapter out there, anything that was established chapter is a part of the story forever whether they like it or not. They can't go back and rewrite it if they think of something better because it's already published. If they want to fix it they kind of have to retcon it. But again, things can be surprising. Not everything needs to be foreshadowed. Obviously a lot of it needs to be judged on a case by case basis but my point is is that it's not a hard universal rule that applies to all stories.

47 minutes ago, Armagon said:

If you mean objectively, then you are correct. There isn't a science to prove that this story handled it's themes better than that story.

However it's up to the audience to determine which one they feel was better. "This isn't what happened. This is what happened to me". Criticism of the arts isn't really about convincing the other guy. When you debate someone with differing views, it's to share your thoughts and see how they compare and acknowledge the other's point of view. Maybe you do change their mind or maybe they change yours but that's not what criticism should be about.

Of course, some people forget the civility of it and just result to yelling at each other about how the other is wrong but that's neither here nor there.

I mean that's fair but if you suggest that Naoto is trans then I'm gonna have to break your kneecaps because that is just straight up wrong and completely goes against the point of her character. Her arc, yes, does touch gender identity but the conclusion her arc reaches is that she doesn't need to change herself in order for others to take her seriously. She is just fine the way she is.

1 hour ago, German FE Nino said:

I apologise if I annoy with suddenly invading, but let's take a story about physical abuse. One story has the character constantly be saved by being beaten up and the other story shows that it is harming them. In both stories, they push against it and go out of it. I would dare to say that story A is less good about doing what it wants to than story B, unless it *wanted* to teach a lesson that is harmful.

I know this is an oversimplification, but I just wanted to speak my mind here.

When it comes to mental health, I think you are reaching for a diffrent point than is intended here. Someone handling depression better than someone else is not less depressed, they are both ill. But if someone is not depressed, they are likely of better mental health. The entire concept depends on comparison, just that we should not be antargonistic about it.

I mean my point more so was that a story isn't worse just because it handles it's themes in a way you personally disagree with. Like just because someone copes with their mental hang ups in a different way than I do that doesn't make my coping mechanisms any less valid. People will respond to stress and mental health differently and just because you better understand one way people cope with it that's not the only way people cope with it. It's why I despise when people compare the mental health of fictional characters cause that's essentially what they do. I have legitimately seen people say  Severa is a bad a character because she's more toxic in the way she deals with her traumatic experiences. Where as the other kids cope with similar issues in not so abrasive ways like Owain's chuunibiyo antics for example. Like no Severa is not a worse character for handling her trauma in a way you disagree with in fact the way she handles her trauma is something I personally find incredibly relatable. It's just a little invalidating when I hear people say that because just because you don't understand it that doesn't any more unrealistic or poorly written. Everyone deals with mental health in different ways. One way of coping is no more valid than another.

[Samz707]

20 hours ago, Ottservia said:

. This isn't your story. You're not the one telling it. The author is the one telling this story not you. Usually when I see people complain about "what should've happened" they fail to really to take into account that maybe the author wrote the story that way for a specific reason

 

Yeah but it's also possible to think the Author wrote it for a bad reason.

Tomb Raider 2013 long story short, has a scene at the start which is essentially ment to give rape-y vibes while staying juuuust far enough from it so they can claim otherwise (Not that it stopped someone involved outright claiming it was attempted rape before the game came out.), it's ment to pile onto the torture porn of "Wow, look how terrible life is for Lara isn't shes so relatable and don't you care for her?" while for me it was an incredibly hollow attempt at shock value/trying to make me care for a character entirely by just making them suffer.

So yes, they wrote that scene for a reason, I still think it's god-awful and the reason is part of it.

Or how FE Awakening clearly wants you to think Emmeryn is a wonderful, peaceful ruler while I see an incomptent unlikable ruler who seemingly refused to even have an big enough army for self-defense despite all the warning signs from Gangrel, therefore making her a horrible ruler and assuming Gangrel's early game antics caused any civilian deaths, she's almost just as responsible for them iMO in a form of Murder by Inaction that means the game trying to emphasis how such a wonderful person she is pisses me off. Her scenes are clearly written in a "Oh look how pure of heart and pacifistic and wonderful ths ruler is" while I frankly see an unsympathetic idiot who's in a way responsible for just as much as the battles such as saving Maribelle.

Or Warrior's Realm, which is written as a quirky fun excuse for a battle, that to me and friends, came off as making the Shepards look like remorseless killing machines and same with the Ferox Guards, the fact it's only brought up once after and with the kinda dialogue that used to call back to a minor comedic inconvenience, means that for me and my friends, it's actually not "wacky fun excuse for a battle", to us it came across as more "Wow, this cast of characters are a bunch of unlikable gits with no regard for human life that isn't someone particularly close to them.", yes I know what it was written for, a dumb excuse for a battle despite the fact we literally have dumb time travel zombies for that exact god damn reason but to me and my friends it's part of the reason why Chrom, Robin and the rest of the Shepards frankly come off as awful.

Or how Robin is written as a "Great Tactician" but I legitimately see more of a Tactician in Ricken since he's the one who actually displays initiative and any IQ higher than 1 when Maribelle is held as a hostage while Robin is just a warrior, was that the author's intention? no but that's what I actually get out of how the scenes are written.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Samz707

[TheGoodHoms]

I know I'm a little late to the party, but if I may be so bold, I think this discussion incorrectly assumes that themes are one of the most important subjects of art criticism when in reality themes can't be held up to any sort of standard which makes them practically incompatible with the fundamental goal of criticism. To accurately critique art it needs to be judged according to it's objective qualities, in the case of film these qualities would be things like story structure, writing, dialogue, characterization, performance, cinematography, lighting, and sound. For video games we could also add in interactive elements like level design, controls, and gameplay mechanics. All of these things can be objectively analyzed to determine a work's quality, but themes on the other hand cannot because they inherently subjective.

This is not to say that themes don't actually exist in media or that they can't enhance your enjoyment of something, but I am saying that themes can't be objectively measured against other themes to determine it's quality. For example, lets say there are two films with underlying themes about environmentalism, one asserts that environmentalism is a good thing that needs to be supported and another says that it's a hoax and that we shouldn't waste resources perusing it. If I asked you which film is objectively better based solely on this information you wouldn't be able to because neither stance is objectively right or wrong since it's a matter of perspective. However, if I told you that one of these movies has a tightly written narrative and eloquent dialogue and the other has a meandering plot and vague dialogue you could immediately tell which is objectively better because we know that eloquent dialogue conveys information the audience needs to know to understand the story better than vague dialogue which is more likely to leave the audience confused.

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about themes in media because I actually like discussing them quite a bit myself, but we need to be mindful of the fact that criticism should be based on objective standards to provide a fair and accurate assessment of a work's quality, free of as much personal bias as humanly possible.

Edited December 10, 2020 by TheGoodHoms

[vanguard333]

2 hours ago, Armagon said:

Same (although my interest in MHA has waned after S3, to the point that i haven't really started S4).

It really does suck when your a fan of something but then the fanbase is insufferable. 

I see. Season 4 is really good; it starts off with one of the longest and most serious arc so far, then has a small and lighthearted school festival arc that's pretty good, and Shoto's dad starts developing as a character in a rather interesting way with a ton of potential. 

 

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

if I misunderstood, then I apologize. Still, though There aren't many poor examples of a story completely relying on coincidence to move it's plot forward. More often than not when I usually see people complain about that it's usually over something small that personally I can overlook. Not to say you are wrong for not being able to overlook it. It's just that suspension of disbelief isn't really that weighty of a criticism. 

(I'm responding to the whole paragraph but cutting it so my reply doesn't get too long)

My personal go-to example of a story that relies heavily on contrivance is The Force Awakens. Because JJ Abrams is a hack writer-director, huge and important events in the plot are propelled solely by coincidence rather than by character so the story can have specific scenes: usually either action scenes or scenes meant to evoke one thing in particular: nostalgia. The film being a pile of nostalgia-bait at the expense of the plot and characters is a separate but interrelated issue. 

Honestly, regarding Code Geass, I'd be more than happy with later events of the plot changing as a result of not having the Euphemia Incident happen, but I'm also of the opinion that Code Geass overall was a writing trainwreck. 

As for that Boruto scene, I don't see it as contrived, but I do see it as out-of-character for Naruto, especially in the anime compared to in the movie or the manga.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean even then do things have to be pre-established? I would argue not really. Things in stories can be surprising and also retconning isn't inherently a bad. Naruto is full of retcons but a lot of those retcons are actually more for the story's benefit. Side note: in regards to retcons(and this is mostly a manga specific thing and also long running seasonal TV shows) is that in regards to manga these authors are on a weekly or monthly release schedule. They need to write and draw 20-40 pages of manga for each week/month. Once they put a chapter out there, anything that was established chapter is a part of the story forever whether they like it or not. They can't go back and rewrite it if they think of something better because it's already published. If they want to fix it they kind of have to retcon it. But again, things can be surprising. Not everything needs to be foreshadowed. Obviously a lot of it needs to be judged on a case by case basis but my point is is that it's not a hard universal rule that applies to all stories.

I was just explaining that the scene in ATLA is an example of setup-and-payoff; I was not saying that it's universally good or that retcons are universally bad. Setup-and-payoff is simply a very basic writing tool that helps keep things from being jarring for the audience and helps them follow along with events. My point was simply that that specific scene largely avoids being contrived by making what happens to Aang a payoff to something that had been set up.

A similar example would be Frodo's mithril coat in The Lord of the Rings: we see Bilbo give Frodo the coat, we hear Gandalf talk about how Bilbo had no ideal that the mail coat Thorin had given him was made of mithril, then when the group's attacked by Orcs in Moria, Frodo gets stabbed in the chest... but he's okay because of the coat.

If you want an example of a story that fails setup-and-payoff in a way that is detrimental to it, I'd recommend Folding Ideas' video on the editing in Suicide Squad (link below). The video's really good and points out a lot of the film's problems.

Spoiler

The Art of Editing and Suicide Squad - YouTube

 

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Samz707 said:

Or how FE Awakening clearly wants you to think Emmeryn is a wonderful, peaceful ruler while I see an incomptent unlikable ruler who seemingly refused to even have an big enough army for self-defense despite all the warning signs from Gangrel, therefore making her a horrible ruler and assuming Gangrel's early game antics caused any civilian deaths, she's almost just as responsible for them iMO in a form of Murder by Inaction that means the game trying to emphasis how such a wonderful person she is pisses me off. Her scenes are clearly written in a "Oh look how pure of heart and pacifistic and wonderful ths ruler is" while I frankly see an unsympathetic idiot who's in a way responsible for just as much as the battles such as saving Maribelle.

I feel like you’re being too biased in your analysis though. Ask yourself this, Do good things come out of Emmeryn’s pacifism? Aside from death in chapter 9, I would argue no. Hell it was her very pacifism that got her captured in the first place. Because she refused to act, Chrom did and that’s what started the war in the first place. And even then you’re ignoring a lot of context. Whether or not Emmeryn is a good ruler(at least politically and technically) is besides the point because awakening as a story isn’t really interested in exploring those ideas. The point Emmeryn as a character is supposed to represent is the idea of the cycle of hate and learning from the past. She is fully aware of the kind of man Gangrel is but refuses to go to war simply because she does not want to repeat the mistakes of her father. Which again, contrasts with Gangrel who is using the wars of the past to rally plegia to action as retribution for what her father did. This also contrasts with Chrom who is also stuck in the past and is fully willing to give Gangrel the war he wants but a war would only perpetuate the cycle of hatred and thus only cause more suffering. Emmeryn’s sacrifice proves that what people want is peace not revenge or war because as Emmeryn herself states revenge earns you nothing in the end. That’s the story awakening wants to tell when you break it down. All the aspects of the story are in service to telling that story and when you look it a specific way it all comes together and makes sense.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Ottservia