Recent Trends in Media That You're Tired of Seeing

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

That's something that I tend to see more from fans than from writers. Writers usually (not always!) manage to have a bit of a more nuanced take on things, but I've definitely seen who will scoff at anything with a lighter tone and call it immature or unrealistic, which, yeah, definitely comes across as immature. It has the same sort of energy as a teenager who is desperate to avoid anything that can be seen as childish.

I broadly agree with this. While there are definitely tropes and trends that I roll my eyes at, I do usually find it pretty simple to avoid them in favour of other media that are much more to my tastes. The only caveat that I would add, though, is that it can be somewhat tricky to do so when there's a work that is mostly to my tastes, but then has one trend-chasing section that's been shoehorned in (often but not always by a meddling studio or similar). That sort of thing can be harder to avoid and does get frustrating.

Speak for yourself. My main media consumptions are games and books. For games, I mostly (maybe about 90%?) play indie stuff. For books, I do tend to skew towards more recent and towards British and American, but far from exclusively. I probably have a couple dozen or so different nationalities of authors that I've read over the last year or two, at a guess. And while I haven't read anything from 1878 recently, but I did read At The Back of the North Wind last year, which was published in 1871, and is at best the fourth most famous book sold in England from that year (behind Through The Looking Glass, Middlemarch, and The Descent of Man).

Which isn't to say that this is the right way or the best way to consume media. If all you want to do is watch the latest movies from Disney and play the latest games from Nintendo, then that's great. But if you're going to watch movies that you know are going to be bad, then that's your fault, not capitalism's. It really only requires the tiniest amount of effort to ignore the stuff that corporate marketing puts in front of you, and acting as if they're impossible to exist is crediting them with far more power than they actually have.

My point wasn't that it's impossible to ignore such stuff, in fact it's rather the opposite, it's all there and easily accessible. My point is that the vast majority of people simply won't.

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 4/17/2024 at 10:27 AM, JimmyBeans said:

This is true, and we must all do our part to spread this propaganda truth.

My super cold take of trends I dislike is retainer characters dominating the rosters. Blah, blah, blah muh world building and such things.

Why not both? Spread propaganda for the truth! What's the alternative? Propagandize lies about myrmidon supremacy?

Yeah, I agree on that. It's mostly an FE trend as far as I'm aware (I'm not aware of a lot of pop culture happenings), but I dislike it a lot. It makes the cast feel much more homogeneous and less rag-tag. It's a convenient way to not have to recruit characters since they all join with the lordlets, but I enjoyed the way you built your army by actually satisfying recruitment conditions.

On 4/17/2024 at 11:10 AM, Acacia Sgt said:

Even if you don't count the Gawain bit, there's still the fact Ike is still effectively a "Mercenary Prince". So not exactly "common" either, even if he wasn't of noble origins.

On 4/17/2024 at 11:44 AM, vanguard333 said:

Everyone inherited from their parents in the middle ages: the farmer's son inherited the farm, the smith's son, unless he got an apprenticeship elsewhere, would inherit the forge. Calling him a prince just because he inherits something is misleading.

On 4/17/2024 at 6:17 PM, Jotari said:

But Alm very much was raised as a commoner in the same way Ike was. He grew up in a tiny village without servants or feudal responsibilities. And Ike likewise is treated specially because of his connection to Greil. That's what Shinon was so pissed about.

Some people inherit a farm. Some people inherit a position of authority over others. Ike gains the latter, as Jotari points out.

People still inherit things today. If we're going with the "he's a commoner" (read: poor everyman) because he lacks a noble title, we're going with the idea that most people who inherit fortunes are in fact poor everymen.

On 4/17/2024 at 11:25 AM, Jotari said:

Well he objectively does get a noble title, and then throws it away. Better question is why should anyone really care? None of us are believers in the divine right of kings and the rightful place of feudalism. Nobility literally doesn't exist

Nobility exists as much as poverty or the IRS exist. Lacking physical units doesn't make something nonexistent.

On 4/17/2024 at 11:44 AM, vanguard333 said:

Ike was a commoner: he was born a commoner, raised a commoner, and, perhaps most importantly given the statement someone made about headcanons: the story frames him as a commoner and treats him as a commoner, so it doesn't matter what I say: the story says he's a commoner.

Regardless of what the story says or how it tries to frame it, the substance simply isn't there. Ike is a "common man" on a strictly superficial level.

 

 

23 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

For my part, I broadly agree on "multiverse" as a narrative device being overused nowadays. It's possible to be tired of it, while still recognizing that individual works utilizing such a device can be great regardless. "Into the Spider-Verse" is one of my favorite animated films ever - in big part, I think, because of how character-centered it is.

Ooh, are we doing a summoning ritual? Ahem... "Magic Axe Wyvern builds are sorely underrated and underutilized!" If that don't do the trick, then nothing will.

Multiverse stories could be cool if they were Westerns. Just as a man could wander into town and ride into the sunset, so too could the multiversal traveler.

Sol is a good skil!

21 hours ago, Jotari said:

And here's where the cynasicism comes in. Because all that is true. And it's also irrelevant. Because you are absolutely not going to watch the latest Iranian drama no matter how good it is. Unless you have a friend who's really into it and recommends it. And while you might read the best book sold in England in 1878, you're not going to read the second best book because only scholars with a specific interest in the period are even going to know about the second most famous stuff. We are, as we've always been, at the absolutely mercy of the capitalist system and what they want to show us. All of it is there, but you're only going to watch what's put in front of you and pushed by the algorithm and marketing titans. Which means a bit of your local stuff, a bit of Britain, and lot of America, and any noteworthy foreign language work these days will almost certainly be Japanese or Korean. I think we have all seen far too many movies that are well known to be bad, well reported to be bad and then watched and found subjectively bad, but watched anyway just because they were the trend everyone's talking about.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

My point wasn't that it's impossible to ignore such stuff, in fact it's rather the opposite, it's all there and easily accessible. My point is that the vast majority of people simply won't.

I'm confused, these two positions seem absolutely at odds. How can these things be readily available to us and yet we are still at the mercy of a system? We have the means to ingest the best books of Victorian England and we choose not to.

5 hours ago, lenticular said:

Speak for yourself. My main media consumptions are games and books. For games, I mostly (maybe about 90%?) play indie stuff.

Which isn't to say that this is the right way or the best way to consume media. If all you want to do is watch the latest movies from Disney and play the latest games from Nintendo, then that's great. But if you're going to watch movies that you know are going to be bad, then that's your fault, not capitalism's. It really only requires the tiniest amount of effort to ignore the stuff that corporate marketing puts in front of you, and acting as if they're impossible to exist is crediting them with far more power than they actually have.

While I don't know your steam library, I also feel that a lot of indie games are part of the "mainstream" of video game culture. They are "indie" in funding and production but not really spread.

I'm including the second paragraph because I agree (broadly) with this interpretation of Jotari's statement (with respect to him despite this, of course).

[Jotari]

22 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I'm confused, these two positions seem absolutely at odds. How can these things be readily available to us and yet we are still at the mercy of a system? We have the means to ingest the best books of Victorian England and we choose not to.

Saying we're at the mercy of the system is perhaps a bit too dramatic a statement. But I think it should be undeniable that advertising and ease of access absolutely influence what we choose to do and see. Those things are there and aren't too troubling to get, but it is still easier than sitting down on Netflix or Youtube and watching just whatever is suggested or whatever everyone is talking about (whether they're saying good things or bad things). If I'm completely wrong then what's the alternative? That the media we choose to consume is purely meritocratic and that this is the best of the best even though we spend half the time complaining about it?

[AnonymousSpeed]

16 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Saying we're at the mercy of the system is perhaps a bit too dramatic a statement. But I think it should be undeniable that advertising and ease of access absolutely influence what we choose to do and see. Those things are there and aren't too troubling to get, but it is still easier than sitting down on Netflix or Youtube and watching just whatever is suggested or whatever everyone is talking about (whether they're saying good things or bad things). If I'm completely wrong then what's the alternative? That the media we choose to consume is purely meritocratic and that this is the best of the best even though we spend half the time complaining about it?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for either of those questions, neither lent nor I have implied that you're completely wrong or that more popular media is better (either necessarily or probably). What we are saying is that, if we watch cape-crap, it's our own fault. The most reasonable alternative would be to read and watch things you expect to actually be good.

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for either of those questions, neither lent nor I have implied that you're completely wrong or that more popular media is better (either necessarily or probably). What we are saying is that, if we watch cape-crap, it's our own fault. The most reasonable alternative would be to read and watch things you expect to actually be good.

Oh of course. We're adults. We determine what society is. Everything is our fault (not facetious). But that goes back to ShantyPete's initial comment which he deemed "toxic positivity", which I would say is just plain true (the content of the comment, not the branding of it as toxic). There isn't much merit in getting upset in trends in media when the option to just watch other media in a huge landscape of options is right there.

Edited April 19 by Jotari

[lenticular]

7 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

While I don't know your steam library, I also feel that a lot of indie games are part of the "mainstream" of video game culture. They are "indie" in funding and production but not really spread.

I play a mix of "mainstream indie" and "weird and obscure indie" (aka, "hipster indie"). Like, yeah, I'm currently playing Stardew Valley and Balatro, which are extremely and moderately well-known respectively. But then looking at other games I've played recently, there's also stuff like Regency Solitaire II and National Park Girls, which probably nobody else here has even heard of. And then the full spectrum of mainstream/obscure between the two extremes.

Though I will add as well that even for the most mainstream of indie games, they mostly tend to reach the mainstream on merit rather than through corporate marketing juggernauts. If there's a widespread buzz over some indie game, it's probably because a lot of people like it; if there's a buzz over the latest title from EA or Activision, then it's probably because they spent a lot of money advertising it. So even for mainstream indie, I do think there's still a meaningful distinction, for the sake of this discussion, from games made by big corporations.

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

My point wasn't that it's impossible to ignore such stuff, in fact it's rather the opposite, it's all there and easily accessible. My point is that the vast majority of people simply won't.

Fair enough. I wouldn't argue with that. But if that's your position, then I think you were vastly overstating it originally with the way you worded things.

[Jotari]

20 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Fair enough. I wouldn't argue with that. But if that's your position, then I think you were vastly overstating it originally with the way you worded things.

Well I did preface the rant by admitting it was a bit of toxic cynicism XD

[AnonymousSpeed]

i feel like i'm getting trolled

[vanguard333]

One trend that I'm tired of seeing, and that thankfully has diminished, is writers being obsessed with trying to surprise the audience and/or get them speculating.

Take plot twists for an example: for me, what defines a good twist is the impact that it leaves on the plot and the characters; some of my favourite twists were extremely predictable but left a huge impact on the characters, making them amazing. But, for quite a while, it felt like almost every writer was obsessed with trying to make their stories' twists as surprising as possible even if it came at the expense of the story, and it didn't help that there were almost always a ton of defenders saying stuff along the lines of, "Better that than something predictable, as predictable = bad".

Even the director of Three Houses: Toshiyuki Kusakihara, had that mindset; saying in an interview about Three Houses' development that, "I don't think there's much value to a story you can easily predict."

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

People harping about Media Literacy might wanna have a talk with the catholic church - they´d come to great understanding over Dogmas.
 

On 4/20/2024 at 3:43 PM, vanguard333 said:

Even the director of Three Houses: Toshiyuki Kusakihara, had that mindset; saying in an interview about Three Houses' development that, "I don't think there's much value to a story you can easily predict."

Damn, if only he wrote a story that hasn´t been written in the last ~5000 years. Do we count cave drawings as story? Then add a couple years. Who´s the last person who invented a completely new trope anyway?

 

On 4/19/2024 at 6:12 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

i feel like i'm getting trolled

literally you:

Spoiler

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 4/20/2024 at 9:43 AM, vanguard333 said:

One trend that I'm tired of seeing, and that thankfully has diminished, is writers being obsessed with trying to surprise the audience and/or get them speculating.

Take plot twists for an example: for me, what defines a good twist is the impact that it leaves on the plot and the characters; some of my favourite twists were extremely predictable but left a huge impact on the characters, making them amazing. But, for quite a while, it felt like almost every writer was obsessed with trying to make their stories' twists as surprising as possible even if it came at the expense of the story, and it didn't help that there were almost always a ton of defenders saying stuff along the lines of, "Better that than something predictable, as predictable = bad".

Even the director of Three Houses: Toshiyuki Kusakihara, had that mindset; saying in an interview about Three Houses' development that, "I don't think there's much value to a story you can easily predict."

15 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Damn, if only he wrote a story that hasn´t been written in the last ~5000 years. Do we count cave drawings as story? Then add a couple years. Who´s the last person who invented a completely new trope anyway?

"There is nothing new under the sun" - a book older than civilization

Firmly agreed on this. Good twists work even once you know them. The re-contextualization is what makes them effective, which means they must still produce sensible context.

15 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

literally you:

Hey!

I am not a furry.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

6 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

"There is nothing new under the sun" - a book older than civilization

Rip history, time for herstory.

Also, are we under the sun? Or besides it? Or over it?

6 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Hey!

I am not a furry.

Dawg... that´s what a furry would say.

I expect pipebombs by tomorrow morning.

[AnonymousSpeed]

15 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Also, are we under the sun? Or besides it? Or over it?

Under.

15 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Dawg... that´s what a furry would say.

I expect pipebombs by tomorrow morning.

Dang, I feel like I've played myself. Am I still being trolled?

I'm having trouble getting them through the mail. Can I request an extension?

[lenticular]

On 4/20/2024 at 2:43 PM, vanguard333 said:

Even the director of Three Houses: Toshiyuki Kusakihara, had that mindset; saying in an interview about Three Houses' development that, "I don't think there's much value to a story you can easily predict."

I'm entirely in agreement with everyone else saying that twists for the sake of twists are terrible and that there are no truly original stories. So I have to wonder if something was lost in translation here. Because, honestly, this kind of just makes him come across as a bit of a bozo. It just makes me assume that there is some sort of context or nuance that isn't coming across.

On 4/19/2024 at 1:24 AM, Jotari said:

My point wasn't that it's impossible to ignore such stuff, in fact it's rather the opposite, it's all there and easily accessible. My point is that the vast majority of people simply won't.

I was thinking about this some more, and realised that there is a pretty notable exception to this general trend: music. Sure, the absolute most basic and milquetoast taste in music is just to listen to whatever happens to be in the charts at that the time, but listening to decades old music is pretty common and unremarkable. If someone is really into 60s music or 80s music then that's not likely to raise eyebrows in the same way as someone who's really into 60s movies or 80s novels.

I wonder if this is just because of the relative time commitments. Watching a movie takes about 2 hours. Reading a novel takes maybe 5-10 hours. Listening to a song takes about 3 minutes. This means that most of us are going to be listening to a whole lot more songs than we are watching movies or reading novels, so maybe that's what encourages us to be a bit more diverse in our consumption?

Back to the main topic, I've also thought of another trend that I am weary of: endless sequels, prequels, midquels, remakes, demakes, remasters, reimaginings, spin-offs, adaptations, extended universes, cinematic universes, alternate universes, and so on. Which isn't to say that media franchises are inherently a bad thing. I mean, we're sitting here having this discussion on a fan site for a game series that has seen somewhere between 14 and 25 games, depending on how you count. Any individual new game or movie that's part of a bigger franchise isn't really the problem. Rather, the problem is the absence -- or at least the paucity -- of original stand-alone titles.

[Jotari]

26 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I'm entirely in agreement with everyone else saying that twists for the sake of twists are terrible and that there are no truly original stories. So I have to wonder if something was lost in translation here. Because, honestly, this kind of just makes him come across as a bit of a bozo. It just makes me assume that there is some sort of context or nuance that isn't coming across.

I was thinking about this some more, and realised that there is a pretty notable exception to this general trend: music. Sure, the absolute most basic and milquetoast taste in music is just to listen to whatever happens to be in the charts at that the time, but listening to decades old music is pretty common and unremarkable. If someone is really into 60s music or 80s music then that's not likely to raise eyebrows in the same way as someone who's really into 60s movies or 80s novels.

I wonder if this is just because of the relative time commitments. Watching a movie takes about 2 hours. Reading a novel takes maybe 5-10 hours. Listening to a song takes about 3 minutes. This means that most of us are going to be listening to a whole lot more songs than we are watching movies or reading novels, so maybe that's what encourages us to be a bit more diverse in our consumption?

This is true. Or, at least, it is more true than it would be for other forms of media. There is definitely a stereotype when it comes to music of old people not being able to relate to youths and being shocked when young people have never heard of a given band that was popular several decades ago. Not sure I explained that well, so I'll just post a Simpsons clip that encapsulates what I'm talking about.

Though, to counter my own point now, I think as time goes on "who" made a piece of music becomes quite irrelevant compared to the actual music itself. Which might play into that perception. An old person might be agahst that some youngesters don't know who the Beetles are, but if you play a few songs they will probably recognize the most iconic ones. For my own direct experience of that, I've asked some Japanese kids if they know who Queen is and virtually none of them do. But tap out "We Will Rick You" and they'll recognize it instantly.

So, uh what am I trying to say with all this. I... don't really know to be honest. Your time investment point is probably correct though and my final addition would be that as young people age and start making stuff like TV shows and movies, they often carry along the music of their youth with them and put them in soundtracks. Music is also so emblematic of a specific decade, at least for the 20th century, that it's often used to set the tone for a scene set in the recent past. It's easier and impactful for visual media to play a recognizeable 60s song than it is to show off a book or movie from the era to set the mood (though they do do that in occassion too).

26 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Back to the main topic, I've also thought of another trend that I am weary of: endless sequels, prequels, midquels, remakes, demakes, remasters, reimaginings, spin-offs, adaptations, extended universes, cinematic universes, alternate universes, and so on. Which isn't to say that media franchises are inherently a bad thing. I mean, we're sitting here having this discussion on a fan site for a game series that has seen somewhere between 14 and 25 games, depending on how you count. Any individual new game or movie that's part of a bigger franchise isn't really the problem. Rather, the problem is the absence -- or at least the paucity -- of original stand-alone titles.

To defend our taste in fictional universes, Fire Emblem is much less a franchise than most franchise. Since it entirely changes it setting and cast every five years. Sure we have fifty something versions of ghost cameo Marth, but by and large each new Fire Emblem entry (or every second entry) is a new story and not a sequel or a reboot. It is a franchise in the technical sense, but compared to other franchises Fire Emblem functions more of a brand name than a real franchise.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

Add the idea that everything happening in a story must contribute to the story, to the pile of garbage that ought to get taken out the back and the idea that everything must tie together, both of which is a sign of a weak spirit yearning for a complete, safe and sane world.

Put random shit in stories! Makes it greater than woohoo, you´re gods favorite chosen specialz and the evil guy is actually your mom.

6 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Dang, I feel like I've played myself. Am I still being trolled?

I'm having trouble getting them through the mail. Can I request an extension?

You literally call someone a furry in that thread, not even with a questinmark... yeah, sus af.

Not just a furry, but an inept one? Fine, just give them here. 

[Nauriam]

7 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Add the idea that everything happening in a story must contribute to the story, to the pile of garbage that ought to get taken out the back and the idea that everything must tie together, both of which is a sign of a weak spirit yearning for a complete, safe and sane world.

Put random shit in stories! Makes it greater than woohoo, you´re gods favorite chosen specialz and the evil guy is actually your mom.

I think this point has some merit, but it depends on what kind of media you're consuming. There's a lot of media out there that desperately needs some world building, time for minor characters, etc. However, if someone is creating a piece of media, and their goal is to create something that could be considered literature, I truly believe that every single thing in that piece of media should contribute to the story and messages at hand.

The first piece of literature that I experiences this with was a book called Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison which I was forced to read for AP Literature in highschool (many years ago). That book had a ton of random stuff, but for the first time in my life every metaphor was explained to me in a way that actually stuck, and it made me realize that the story was this beautiful constructed and meticulously crafted message where every word in that book serves towards the greater narrative. Not every story is like this,  but many notable stories, say Neon Genesis Evangelion, are constructed in a way that *almost* every single piece of dialogue and camera framing and voice acting is serving the purpose of the themes of the show (lots of times comedy is added to shows to lighten the mood, which doesn't really progress the narrative). I'm not saying that stories like this are objectively the best for everyone, but for stories that are too focused on singular people or singular threads, there are plenty of ways to explore new people and ideas while still tying everything back to the narrative at hand. Think something like Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood which has tons of variety in its characters and settings, but no time is ever wasted just doing something random.

No hate if you truly just want random things to happen in stories. You're allowed to enjoy whatever media you want. I think the frustration might just stem from stories really unimaginatively trying to push their theme, rather than using any form of subtlety or literary techniques.

TLDR: The trope in media that is tiring is bad writing

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

2 hours ago, Nauriam said:

I think this point has some merit, but it depends on what kind of media you're consuming. There's a lot of media out there that desperately needs some world building, time for minor characters, etc. However, if someone is creating a piece of media, and their goal is to create something that could be considered literature, I truly believe that every single thing in that piece of media should contribute to the story and messages at hand.

The first piece of literature that I experiences this with was a book called Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison which I was forced to read for AP Literature in highschool (many years ago). That book had a ton of random stuff, but for the first time in my life every metaphor was explained to me in a way that actually stuck, and it made me realize that the story was this beautiful constructed and meticulously crafted message where every word in that book serves towards the greater narrative. Not every story is like this,  but many notable stories, say Neon Genesis Evangelion, are constructed in a way that *almost* every single piece of dialogue and camera framing and voice acting is serving the purpose of the themes of the show (lots of times comedy is added to shows to lighten the mood, which doesn't really progress the narrative). I'm not saying that stories like this are objectively the best for everyone, but for stories that are too focused on singular people or singular threads, there are plenty of ways to explore new people and ideas while still tying everything back to the narrative at hand. Think something like Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood which has tons of variety in its characters and settings, but no time is ever wasted just doing something random.

May chaos take the world.

How to make something feel extra artificial. Life isn´t hyperfocused on a single thing (i think, but I´m only 1/8billions). The idea that everything must contribute, is in my eyes born from the limitations of the medium - a book can only be so big, a film only be so long etc and not the telling of a story by itself.

You won´t ever truly know why the artist [Disclaimer: term used broadly, describing people making stories] thinks something belongs in their creation.

Edit: To be clear here, this isn´t an opinion formed from consuming media, but observing discussion about media, where people all too easily, in my opinion, jump to the idea that something was superfluos, unnecessary, didn´t add anything, and more of the likes of phrases, indicating the obsolence of something the author decided to put where it is.

Noone gets to judge that, especially not when the majority of opinions seemingly conflate the enjoyment/satisfaction they derived from consuming said media with the reason it might be there in the first place - which would require intimate knowledge about [Everything the Author TM].

Edit 2: But, I suppose, much of this is witnessing discussion Social Media style and not a more proper forum.

Edit 3: And Edit 2 probably puts quantitative doubt on the wholt thing.

Edited April 26 by Imuabicus der Fertige

[Revier]

3 hours ago, Nauriam said:

The first piece of literature that I experiences this with was a book called Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison

Isn't that the Bible book that's borderline pornography? Not trying to belittle the point, just find the bit funny.

Edited April 26 by Revier

[vanguard333]

34 minutes ago, Revier said:

Isn't that the Bible book that's borderline pornography? Not trying to belittle the point, just find the bit funny.

Same name, different book. Incidentally, in my Bible, the book that you're referring to is titled, "Song of Songs".

[Nauriam]

13 minutes ago, Revier said:

Isn't that the Bible book that's borderline pornography? Not trying to belittle the point, just find it a funny bit of coincidence.

Yeah there are some parts of the book that I could see people calling pornographic, but it's really not that bad. It's been a while, but if I remember right it's mostly related to the main character's mother, and possibly his girlfriend? I'm too lazy to look at sparknotes and remind myself of all the characters. There is definitely a lot of sexual brokenness in the book though, as that is one of the major things that the themes are exploring. I wasn't aware of its reputation though, and I thought it was fine for a highschool literature class.

To be fair, if you're reading a book called Song of Solomon, you should expect that though. The Songs of Solomon in the Bible are quite explicit love poems. The Bible itself is probably less suited for young adult readers than Toni Morrison's book. Both books are portraying reality as it is, and not sugar coating what life is like.

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

Same name, different book. Incidentally, in my Bible, the book that you're referring to is titled, "Song of Songs".

In the Bible it is either called Song of Songs or Song of Solomon. Depends on the translation. The name of Toni Morrison's book is directly referencing the book of the Bible intentionally.

1 hour ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

May chaos take the world.

How to make something feel extra artificial. Life isn´t hyperfocused on a single thing (i think, but I´m only 1/8billions). The idea that everything must contribute, is in my eyes born from the limitations of the medium - a book can only be so big, a film only be so long etc and not the telling of a story by itself.

You won´t ever truly know why the artist [Disclaimer: term used broadly, describing people making stories] thinks something belongs in their creation.

Edit: To be clear here, this isn´t an opinion formed from consuming media, but observing discussion about media, where people all too easily, in my opinion, jump to the idea that something was superfluos, unnecessary, didn´t add anything, and more of the likes of phrases, indicating the obsolence of something the author decided to put where it is.

Noone gets to judge that, especially not when the majority of opinions seemingly conflate the enjoyment/satisfaction they derived from consuming said media with the reason it might be there in the first place - which would require intimate knowledge about [Everything the Author TM].

Edit 2: But, I suppose, much of this is witnessing discussion Social Media style and not a more proper forum.

Edit 3: And Edit 2 probably puts quantitative doubt on the wholt thing.

Yeah, you've got some good points here, and to be fair, the value of author intention in literature is still a highly debated topic.

I think when you have something like an MMO, or Final Fantasy game, or things like that, you should definitely add a lot of things that just don't matter to the main character. If you're trying to tell a concise narrative with themes (aka making literature, no matter the medium), everything that happens should matter to the main character or align with the themes. For instance, the beginning of A Tale of Two Cities starts with a completely unrelated happening where a barrel of nice wine is spilled onto the streets and people are lapping it up from the ground. This is totally random, but it encapsulates all of the themes of the book into one descriptive image. It wasn't "random" per-say because the author was really careful to craft the scene exactly how he intended, but it does have nothing to do with the direct plot.

To address people talking about how scenes or parts of media aren't necessary like you mentioned; If the author is to be trusted you should initially assume that any and every scene has a purpose. If the scene doesn't contribute anything to the plot it is probably contributing something to the themes. And if it doesn't contribute to either, it is probably just fanservice, or in some cases I guess the writer could just be filling up space. And in the end, fanservice is fine too. Lots of people don't want to consume literature all the time, and would rather just engage in interesting world building, or action, or whatever. The issue is most authors of things want to make literature of some sort, so we end up with a bunch of half-baked narratives that have poor storytelling and poor world building.

[Revier]

I think a finer version of that point would simply be, "Not every scene/dialogue in a story needs to have deep meaning or purpose." While there's certainly an expectation from fiction to not "waste" the reader's time and to get them engaged as soon as possible, there's also not an obligation for every single scene to be meaningful or interesting on its own. Some scenes exist just to connect bits of plot, or raise suspense, or build anticipation, or set the mood, and that's perfectly fine.

[lenticular]

On 4/26/2024 at 7:48 PM, Revier said:

I think a finer version of that point would simply be, "Not every scene/dialogue in a story needs to have deep meaning or purpose."

Agreed, and I'll add to this that not every part of a work has to have the same purpose. It's perfectly fine for a single piece of media to have one part that is deep meaningful commentary about the futility of war, another part that is a fluffy romance story, and another part that is just fart jokes. In fact, I'd say it's generally better if not everything about a story is a part of a single unified focus. For anything longer than a short story, if you don't have these tangents, then the work as a whole will tend to get very tedious and repetitive. A good story should be able to make multiple points or evoke multiple emotions.

On 4/26/2024 at 5:54 AM, Jotari said:

To defend our taste in fictional universes, Fire Emblem is much less a franchise than most franchise. Since it entirely changes it setting and cast every five years. Sure we have fifty something versions of ghost cameo Marth, but by and large each new Fire Emblem entry (or every second entry) is a new story and not a sequel or a reboot. It is a franchise in the technical sense, but compared to other franchises Fire Emblem functions more of a brand name than a real franchise.

Yes and no. While the settings and casts do change, a lot of the other baggage stays the same. The game mechanics mostly just see minor tweaks and refinements, and a lot of tropes and themes get reused time and again. Nobody is going to be surprised if the next Fire Emblem game has a setting that feels vaguely like medieval Europe except with magic, has dragons that lose their minds as they get old, and has a protagonist whose dad dies. As fans, we can easily point out the differences, but I imagine that's true for fans of pretty much any other franchise. A fan could probably tell me why Big Brother 24 was actually totally different from Big Brother 23 (they have a completely different cast, after all!) but as someone who isn't a fan, the differences are meaningless to me. All I see is yet another series of a show that I don't care about.

On 4/26/2024 at 5:54 AM, Jotari said:

Not sure I explained that well, so I'll just post a Simpsons clip that encapsulates what I'm talking about.

I am absolutely that person, with the exception that what I was with was never it to begin with.

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 4/26/2024 at 2:21 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

You literally call someone a furry in that thread, not even with a questinmark... yeah, sus af.

Not just a furry, but an inept one? Fine, just give them here. 

Dang, I can really feel Alexa disintegrating my emoji with this one.

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

Agreed, and I'll add to this that not every part of a work has to have the same purpose. It's perfectly fine for a single piece of media to have one part that is deep meaningful commentary about the futility of war, another part that is a fluffy romance story, and another part that is just fart jokes. In fact, I'd say it's generally better if not everything about a story is a part of a single unified focus. For anything longer than a short story, if you don't have these tangents, then the work as a whole will tend to get very tedious and repetitive. A good story should be able to make multiple points or evoke multiple emotions.

This is a semantic point on the whole "not everything has to have a deeper meaning chain", since I agree that small side-beats can add a lot to something.

The fact that we like these things and think they make something better indicates that they serve a purpose ("serve" rather than "have", it doesn't really matter if the author was deliberately considering the benefits so long as they ultimately exist). They don't contribute directly to the main plot, but they clearly contribute something.

[Jotari]

To get even more meta and deconstructive with it, what even is a main story? For example, in the Third Doctor run of Doctor Who, the actor, Jon Pertwee (also know as the best Doctor, don't @ me on that unless it's unconditional praise) insisted on several scenes at the start of the story where the Doctor is teaching his partner something. He (the actor) called them "Moments of Charm". Said scenes almost never come back for the "main plot" being the monster of the week. And if they did then it'd feel a bit choreographed, like James Bond getting the exact gadgets he needs. Which isn't bad, just different. But the point is, what is the "main story" of Doctor Who? Because while these Moments of Charm don't contribute to the story of the then monster of the week episode, they do contribute to the over all character arc of the Doctor and the relationships he's building with humans while exiled on Earth. So what is the main story? The main episode (or rather series of episodes as classic Doctor Who serials was always several episodes long before a new story started) or the overall series long story of the protagonist? This might seem like a niche example but it's also kind of not. Every story of sufficient length is going to be broken up chapters, maybe even whole books. Even individual scenes are going to have their own flow and intention. Like, if I write a paragraph about the weather, it is not contributing to the main story (unless the story is about metrology or something), but it is contributing to that individual scene to set the tone and possibly invoking emotion. It's making that scene work and that scene should be making other scenes work in tandem. And we can argue about what those collection of scenes mean for a main plot (is Shadows of Valentia about killing gods and man standing up for themselves or is it about finding a balance between hedonism and tough love, or is it saying religion sucks. All of those? None of those because they contradict? For it's failings at least there's a discussion and different perspective and interpretations to be had), but what's ultimately important is if the individual scenes and moments are engaging. I don't think I've ever walked away from a story saying "man I hated every individual scene of that but the overall work really spoke to me"*. At best I'd say "I got what they were going for but the execution fell flat." On the other hand I have definitely walked away from something saying "that was bad overall, but that one moment was really great." One of my favorite writers, Kurt Vonnegut, lacks what you could easily identify as a Main Plot in most of his books. He usually just has some interesting characters with a themeactially interesting scenario. And in one book, his most famous, Slaughterhouse V, he has an alien character describe their alien literature by saying

"There isn’t any particular relationship between the messages, except that the author has chosen them carefully, so that, when seen all at once, they produce an image of life that is beautiful and surprising and deep. There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time."

Which not only ties into the stories own themes of the story's approach to time but perfectly describes how the book is structured.

so tl;Dr I fully agree every scene has to have a reason and purpose, but I reject the notion that a story has to have a main plot, or that a main plot is even something necessarily important.

 

*Okay I can think of one work where I walked away saying individually nothing worked but I liked the overall product, and that's the first Devil May Cry game which thought had a lot of issues but managed to come together into something greater than the sum of its parts. Though that's almost entirely gameplay related and not narrative as it barely even has a story.

Edited April 28 by Jotari