#I'm sorry if this was a huge winded ramble it's way past midnight but I really wanted to write this out

[kitts-mechanix]

@jetravenex I hope you don't mind sharing this here, I just didn't want to leave a looooooooooooooong reply on an already long post so I'm going to put my thoughts here:

You are right, everything does have a message/something to be drawn, but it's not necessarily activism. I've noticed a lot of people tend to use those words interchangeably (and looking at my tags again I realise I didn't specify that, my bad. I had a long work day and am tired, so sorry!)

To rephrase, my issue isn't people drawing messages, it's when they INSIST every form is media is some kind of activism. And sure, there's definitely such media out there, but unless the creators come forward and confirm it, I don't like it when people insist something is "political" or "activism". Where is the line of "this is up to interpretation" and "this is straight up propaganda"?

The relatable thing, though, is where I get a bit iffy, because my issue with a lot of modern writing is they try to make the characters too relatable, i.e. one-dimensional and pushed around by the plot. Now I'm not saying they are ALL like this, because I think good character should be one YOU can relate to without the character being 100% exactly LIKE YOU, if that makes any sense (I relate to Cruz from Cars 3 despite not being Hispanic or a car). I mean, I was almost a little scared by how much I related to G1 Starscream in OG Transformers, and even asked myself "why do you like him so much, he's clearly a narcissistic character and you've dealt with narcissistic abuse". Then I realised it was because Starscream went through abuse similar to what I experienced, just more physical. That was how I could relate and sympathise with him--despite him being a fictional cartoon robot who turns into a jet.

I feel some writers make relatable characters as flat as possible so it's easier for people to see themselves in a character by not giving the them a strong base. A good character is someone the audience can relate to without being exactly like them. Hence how I related to both D16 and Orion Pax in Transformers One.

That being said, I don't think all characters need to be relatable, sympathetic or even likeable. What I care about personally is if the character is interesting or engaging. I don't have to relate to a character to enjoy the movie. I mean, I don't relate to Finn McMissile from Cars 2 or KITT from Knight Rider, but I still love them immensely.

(I realise I probably just over-analysed that and I'm terribly sorry).

But as I said before, I think one of the reasons I was so drawn towards Transformers when I finally got into it, was because the common theme across all the generations was a criticism of a corrupt system, war themes, internal battles, etc. and it was crazy how much that spoke to me, as someone living in a place with lots of political unrest and someone who deals with inner demons. (I could go into a whole essay about this).

There are many cases where people will use a medium to get their opinions through, and it's obvious they're trying to push a certain agenda (those adult cartoons like South Park come to mind) and there may be subtle themes/biases in other media, but I guess what I'm trying to say is don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Like when people jump to the assumption that Cars 2 was anti-alternative fuel/EVs, or Transformers One was some giant US election warning. I often wonder if Glen A Larson, who created Knight Rider, was very pro-AI vehicles/a major critic of the police force and government. And I have no doubt all three of those I mentioned have subtle biases from their human creators: but they are not political allegories/propaganda. Sure, there's a message to be drawn from each one, but sometimes I feel people cling too hard to that message (or what they drew from it personally) and try to blow it out of proportion.

JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis were both devout Christians, and they definitely translated their beliefs into their works (Lewis more so, because The Chronicles of Narnia is essentially an allegory to the Bible, however it wasn't in a preaching way: it was a story Christians and non-Christians could enjoy, appreciate and draw something from. He didn't write it convert people; it was meant to be a story to draw people in, something they could draw a meaning from, religious or not). But their works were not religious propaganda. Both stories have meanings that anyone can draw from.

I know I always say people need to stop reading into things so deeply, but the truth is, I do that too. Like when I kept pulling all these deep messages out of G1 Transformers episodes even when I kept telling myself "lady, it's an 80s cartoon, you're projecting way too much" yet I was drawing SO MANY conclusions and life lessons out of it.

It's kind of like what you said about how sometimes those meanings aren't necessarily intentional, but it's what people draw. And that's the beauty of storytelling and art; seeing what other people draw from that.

Same goes with character interpretation. There's something so beautiful and personal in that. Filling in the spaces with how you see them, often drawn from our own experiences.

Now as for what the OOP said (and I thank you for getting me the full text because I might have been looking at it out of context):

It is true that fandoms have always been a place where people can make hot/controversial takes with little to no policing. Slash shipping, for example, is something that's been around pretty much since I first started reading and writing fanfics. Go back to the first Cars stories published on FFN in 2006, it's 50% slash. Now for stuff like Star Trek, I can understand where people might draw political/activist themes from it since it did push boundaries for its time. I'm personally not sure why people draw so many slash ships from media like Cars, Transformers or Hetalia (excluding the fact the majority of their characters are male), but I can respect the fact that maybe there was something there that spoke to them, and just not to me.

But at the end of the day, I realise that you have to curate your own experiences in fandom. It would be wrong for me to police others work telling them what they can and cannot draw from or make for media. I'm a library technician (certified) and I cannot stress the importance of "No Censorship" (unless it's protecting minors from accessing age-inappropriate content)

The last part about banned books was beautifully said, and it actually brings me back to something I see everywhere: the "Fiction Affects Reality/Fiction Does Not Affect Reality" debate.

No, fiction does not directly affect reality. Writing about a dragon won't make a dragon appear in real life. But fiction can be influential, perhaps even change one's mind on something. Make people think. Dare to hold a different belief.

And that's what scares the people who want to ban books and other media.