Kinda writing this off the cuff and wondering if it's purely drawn from anecdotal evidence, here goes nothing.
Basically, I'm just wondering when this kind of audience reaction came from. Discussing the existence of writing tropes as an indicator of quality and asserting a subjective interpretation onto the text regardless of the story's themes or the context in which actions are expressed, particularly in cases of applying real life morality and sensibilities to fantasy scenarios.
Like you watch something where a villainous character gets to redeem themselves and it's not about their character development or the quality of the story and if the redemption feels like a coherent and natural part of the story and its universe. They're a Karma Houdini and that's a trope and that's bad, and it's super problematic and wrong that they get redeemed because it's like saying actual abusive people need to be forgiven by their victims. That sort of thing, I guess? It's an attitude and approach to experiencing a story I don't understand, where when drama happens in stories driven by character drama, you get bitching and moaning that the characters are being stupid and they should do the right and smart thing, which, yeah, that's why it's a story about people doing things; so drama happens. You're reading for drama, not to see the ending happen sooner thanks to the protagonists doing everything correctly.
It feels like trying to get one over the story itself, where you're not engaging with the universe, characters, writing, and themes anymore and coming to interpretations about what it means to you, it's about finding a hard, objective read based on what's supposed to happen and what it all means even when that hard, objective read is drawn entirely from individual subjective interpretation to begin with, and then eventually those reads become loud enough that they start having to be justified in the actual, official works themselves, that you can tell the story you want as long as you apologize for it first. The hero should kill the villain or else the villain will keep doing it and it's the hero's fault. The character with magic powers or a big science brain should use it for the benefit of society and not to go on a fun adventure. A character lashing out due to some form of trauma or even just being in a bad mood makes them an asshole because "just because you can explain it doesn't mean you can excuse it" so whatever's going on in their heads doesn't matter and the resolution is apologizing for being a bad friend.
And these are all good concepts for stories, actually! But the existence of stories ripping on genre cliches doesn't necessarily mean that genre has to start following that self-awareness, 'cause now we got superhero movies where superhero characters go into big exciting fights and go "wow, this is crazy, it's unrealistic, it makes no sense. Awkwaaaard."
In closing, writing this has been kind of difficult because I don't know if I'm vocalizing something tangible or if this is all anecdotal and I should go touch grass. Thanks for reading.
Basically, I'm just wondering when this kind of audience reaction came from. Discussing the existence of writing tropes as an indicator of quality and asserting a subjective interpretation onto the text regardless of the story's themes or the context in which actions are expressed, particularly in cases of applying real life morality and sensibilities to fantasy scenarios.
Like you watch something where a villainous character gets to redeem themselves and it's not about their character development or the quality of the story and if the redemption feels like a coherent and natural part of the story and its universe. They're a Karma Houdini and that's a trope and that's bad, and it's super problematic and wrong that they get redeemed because it's like saying actual abusive people need to be forgiven by their victims. That sort of thing, I guess? It's an attitude and approach to experiencing a story I don't understand, where when drama happens in stories driven by character drama, you get bitching and moaning that the characters are being stupid and they should do the right and smart thing, which, yeah, that's why it's a story about people doing things; so drama happens. You're reading for drama, not to see the ending happen sooner thanks to the protagonists doing everything correctly.
It feels like trying to get one over the story itself, where you're not engaging with the universe, characters, writing, and themes anymore and coming to interpretations about what it means to you, it's about finding a hard, objective read based on what's supposed to happen and what it all means even when that hard, objective read is drawn entirely from individual subjective interpretation to begin with, and then eventually those reads become loud enough that they start having to be justified in the actual, official works themselves, that you can tell the story you want as long as you apologize for it first. The hero should kill the villain or else the villain will keep doing it and it's the hero's fault. The character with magic powers or a big science brain should use it for the benefit of society and not to go on a fun adventure. A character lashing out due to some form of trauma or even just being in a bad mood makes them an asshole because "just because you can explain it doesn't mean you can excuse it" so whatever's going on in their heads doesn't matter and the resolution is apologizing for being a bad friend.
And these are all good concepts for stories, actually! But the existence of stories ripping on genre cliches doesn't necessarily mean that genre has to start following that self-awareness, 'cause now we got superhero movies where superhero characters go into big exciting fights and go "wow, this is crazy, it's unrealistic, it makes no sense. Awkwaaaard."
In closing, writing this has been kind of difficult because I don't know if I'm vocalizing something tangible or if this is all anecdotal and I should go touch grass. Thanks for reading.
