#So many times when I've been critiquing the games/books/films/shows I love its been to say that they don't go far enough

[doxieandthedead]

"Not actually try to assassinate the author" is a huge and many of my friends in creative jobs have talked about how it something they often think about not just in their own social media presence but also in terms of what their employers are working on. After all, how often do we see fans consider that character's morals to be the creator's or actors morals? I'm thinking of poor Jack Gleeson who played Joffrey in Game of Thrones is a massive example of this, and how more recently Neil Newbon has had fans attempt to frame him as Astarion from Baldurs Gate 3 in how they interact and understand him - he ha had to really push back against this.

We (as an online culture) don't consume entertainment with the view of 'death of the author' and separate the work from the creator anymore and I don't think that is healthy and is having a really negative impact on what creators are willing to try.

Oh this has turned into a rant sorry (not sorry).

I know Twitter isn't as big now, and I suppose its been replaced by tiktok in terms of short form takes with zero nuance and mob mentality; but how many people want to risk being attacked or ridiculed for a risqué piece of work that isn't seen as morally pure enough, doesn't have high production value, or is a risk that didn't play out? Sarah Z does a great video on this called 'sacrificial trash' and I think it really highlights to me why often it doesn't feel worth the risk for a lot of people out there.

This and the fact that creatives do not have the distance from the people who consume their content like they used to, means that it is more dangerous (emotionally and physically) to really push the boat and write about challenging characters and dark themes. Neil Newbon is an excellent example of this where he has had people harass him and be incredibly harmful in his livestreams because they cannot separate him from the character he plays, and he is not the only person who has experienced this by far. Sarah Z in the above video also talks about this, and how many times have we seen creators go offline due to online bullying, harassment and doxing? Often it is just not safe to publish what has been created and we are missing out on some potentially transformative work because of it.

Another aspect of this is how as a culture we understand villains and 'bad' characters. I am a person who ADORES a good villain. I love putting them under that microscope and seeing what makes them tick, but more and more I'm seeing characters who are described as 'bad guys' who are actually just... not?

I do think that the rise in needing 'soundbites' and '30 second clips' is a huge thing, but to me I also want to integrate this into this weird moral 'purity' culture that has been growing for years. This inability to understand that great (complex, realistic, relatable) villains can be admired because they are bad (evil, make bad choices) because "Um, don't you know that they're actually problematic and not really your woobie?" Yes. That is why I like it. Sometimes I want to read about a person who acts as monster because understanding that mindset and how they got there is fascinating. Frankly, I also think it is healthier to explore this in fiction than it is in the likes of say, true crime.

There's also been a lot of commentary recently about how so much of our media focuses on nostalgia because studios know that its going to make money, and they look for algorithms and patterns around what is going to make money, and its killed that more niche creative side that takes risks but I think that folks don't realise how insidious this is and how much of an impact the 'algorithm' has what big companies are willing to spend their money on.

So why WOULD a studio take a risk with something new when we have no evidence it is going to work? Why would you go go further and push the boundary of a story and take a risk when you know you're potentially going to lose money? I remember someone telling me that we are learning and adapting to the algorithm, instead of it learning and adapting to our behaviour, and it makes me incredibly sad.

On an uptick to this, there are actually a range of indie authors, animators, game devs and media creators who are creating amazing work that really pushes boundaries out there. It just can feel impossible to find them at times especially as so many written articles online that curate lists, tend to fall back onto using an data already compiled from an algorithm and don't use the richness of their own experiences to create these.

As I continue to purchase and consume media online, I am less likely to pick something up that isn't similar to what I've been recently reading. Going back to bookstores (both indie and Waterstones) has been great, I've picked up stories that I'd never have been shown on Goodreads or Amazon or Booktok (don't get me started on booktok, I really dislike it). We lose so much when we rely on an algorithm to decide what to show us, because it can only go on what you have previously read. Why would it show me poetry when all I've been reading is romance? Why would I see classic speculative fiction when I'm currently focused on anthropology? How I can I explore a rainbow of options if you are only showing me red and orange?

It feels like such an unpopular opinion these days but I'd much rather a story take a big swing and miss than just be a tepid, lightly-tread path. I'd much rather writers take big risks, play with expectations, subvert tropes and ultimately maybe fail a little bit than have this constant stream of content that can be summed up in trite soundbites or carved up into 30 second clips.