#but it's more fun to complain and critically analyze the characterization

[mrbluesummers-moved]

I'm too tired to write the full Essay™, but someone said in the tags that Stampede took away Knives' fear and it made me realize that the core issue I have with Trigun Stampede is the fact that the characters lack the emotional depth of Trigun Maximum. Like, I'm enjoying Stampede, and it's emotional, but Knives and Vash especially have had their emotional complexity watered down in comparison to the manga.

In the manga, they were as much at war with themselves as they were with each other and world around them. Knives was expressive, animated, and always playing up the megalomaniac god complex in public, but in private he was exhausted and scared and even expressed guilt towards his sisters for being careless in how he orchestrated the fall. Vash was an upbeat pacifist who was constantly fighting his own urge to take the "easy" way out and kill to solve problems.

It's what made the manga so heartbreaking. Neither of them were entirely right, but neither of them were entirely wrong. Knives shouldn't try a genocide, but he was also a deeply traumatized child who was shown how cruel humans could be to plants. Vash should try to do as much good in the world as he can, but holding onto the ideals of pacifism in a hostile environment does more harm than good and he learns that when he's finally pushed to the point where he has to choose between killing and saving someone important to him.

I don't think it's impossible for Stampede to recover in Season 2, but the foundations aren't great. Changing Nai to being cold as child seems like such a small change, but Knives starting out as the optimist who loved humanity is so central to that internal conflict... I don't know. Maybe they'll come back to the point of Rem being important to Knives and make use of the fact that he intended for her to survive and that might save it. We'll have to see.

[castlebyersafterdark]

yeah, i've got to come along and say that people who complain will is a crybaby confuse me. on the one hand, sometimes we find people to be wet lettuces and they give us the ick, but will just doesnt have that energy. he was established as a certified badass in s1 when he survived. all of his crying is very self-repressed rather than expressive and whiny. there arent really any flappy sobby characters in the show. and anyway, i enjoy seeing people all emotional and loose lmao. the more crying the better for characters who are genuinely going through it. its hard to explain, i just remember two moments from s1 when i had a feeling that will was this mysterious iconic tough little nugget packaged up like a crybaby. one of them was during the scene where they pull him from the lake and mike goes off on one. i was like... something is crack a lacking here but we probs won't find out for years what it is

and now we areeeee

its all so exciting and i love love love that my little hunch turned out to be because mike and will are in love and the whole story is kind of an ode to their love for each other in a way.

Viscerally hating the phrase wet lettuce tbh, wow that's an ick right there hahaha but I think that is an apt image for the point you've made. And that is so not Will!! Sure, he cries, and he's an emotional guy - but he's not a cartoon! He's not bursting into tears or openly weeping and whining or pitching a tantrum over things. He's emotional! I think some hate any man showing raw emotion that's not anger. As an emotional guy who's not afraid to show his emotions and yes, sometimes cries when other men wouldn't (and has been subject to bullying and being made fun of for it of course 🙄) I really appreciate the portrayal we have from Will.

I think sometimes people see Will as literally an anime character and over-exaggerate everything about him. Hear me out!! I just think a lot of people watch this show in cliches and they're not absorbing it and they get very surface level characterizations and they're fans, yes, but superficial fans? Content mill fans? The ones who've seen the show and get the references and basic plot and know most character names and they might watch some bland, uninspired "analyzing the mysteries of Stranger Things explained" etc. Youtube video essay style segments, but then those are just someone being overly critical as they loosely describe the plot of the show while making the same basic comments that every vapid person types under social media posts about the show. YALL KNOW THIS VIBE, RIGHT? Those are the same people calling Will a crybaby.

So he cried a decent amount when he was getting possessed? Or cried in frustration and total emotional destruction after the rain fight - that was a turning point (and the point I think where he dually realized he could never go back, none of them could go back, and also he wasn't like the others - the person he loved was an impossibility and him finally admitting to himself how he felt for Mike, which in that moment was gutting. ANYWAY!). And he cried when he confessed his deepest secret veiled under the guise of another person's false feelings. So he tears up under stress or fear etc. He's been through some shit, man! Give the guy some grace. And Mike cries too! We just haven't seen it much in recent seasons. Also, taking this opportunity to point out that after the failed mission to find a replacement for the DnD game in episode 1 of season 5 - Mike was totally crying a little as they sat outside the school on the wall. Rarely brought up. My poor guy 🥲

[saint-starflicker]

I started out with fanfiction in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer fandom twenty years ago. The "Big Name Fans" in transformative works were English teachers by profession and I think just so happened to want to combine their hobby with their vocation: They wrote essays about proper dialogue punctuation, characterization and relationship dynamics, how not to get confused by easily confused words (there, their, they're), and even—because the source material we were all writing fanfiction for had a lot of fight scenes—how to write a fight scene in prose.

That said, it was also emerging from a pan-fandom online culture of fanfiction criticism that...maybe had too much fun with being mean. The "Plot Protectors" and the "Fic Bitches" would trawl the hosting websites for whole fanfictions to re-post with "commentary" that is a line-by-line evisceration that was often brutally insulting to the author and a lot of us thought that was funny and educational. (One blog clique called it Sporking.) (The Plot Protectors had a whole parallel universe worldbuilding that was unfortunately very entertaining and fascinating in its own right.)

I think that a lot of young writers back then were very discouraged by that atmosphere and found it toxic.

I'm guessing that's partly how we got to where we are now, where I find a lot of outcry against complaining or criticizing anything written for free or for fun—which, well, fair points.

I think that's too far in the other extreme, though. I wouldn't want to be "heckled from the other side of the campfire" so to speak by just any self-righteous jerk on the internet—but I do also think that any text, especially any trends within a form or a genre, can be analyzed.

At the same time, I completely understand that a lot of inexperienced or hobbyist writers aren't here for getting heckled by self-righteous jerks who time-travelled from 2002 when it was really cool to be mean and to cover that up with "we're helping you to write better". There's always going to be people who offer inapplicable suggestions based on nothing but their personal biases, or who really think they're in the right when it's only their unresolved personal issues they're making somebody else's problem, and people who criticize the criticism (like the "Fanfiction University" that taught as I said mostly grammar and punctuation, would get nasty anonymous comments sent to its members that wrapped up with basically "you have the gall to tell other people how to write"). Even the compliment sandwich that was recommended back in the day as a format for feedback (e.g., "love the premise, characterization could have been less flat, this was my favorite line"), I remember that got some sarcastic comments from both readers who only wanted to get to be mean and writers whose egos could only bear to receive unconditional positivity. And there's going to be actually meaningful criticism. And no way to tell that last type from all the preceding types.

I don't really have a solution, then. I'm just happy that I was at the right place at the right moment to get what was helpful to my craft from that. Even though I benefitted from the content at the time, I wouldn't recommend a revival of Fanfiction Universities or Fanfiction Sporking Blogs, because I can predict problems arising from those too.

So right now I think of the fanficsphere like the quality/quantity pottery story, or comparable to why community theater is usually going to be bad but also nothing is more important to the art than to keep that space alive for people to be amateurs and unskilled and to try new things in.

After months of staying silent on literary discourse here on Tumblr, I finally have something to contribute.

Fanfiction is not the problem. Fanfic is a free, communal and valid form of writing which, although not always high quality, has yielded some genuinely great stories. The real problem, the reason for ‘booktok books’ and the flaws in modern literature, is fanfic being hijacked by corporations. The minute people try to make money off of it, the minute fanfic and fanfic-style stories lose their meaning. Fanfiction is written on the notes app at 3am for you and 5 friends who share your taste. It is self-indulgent, chaotic, often told through a queer and/or neurodivergent lens, and free from any pressure to be commercially palatable. The minute a few stereotypical fanfiction tropes and ideas are stolen by commercial publishers and twisted into patriarchal, heteronormative versions of themselves with no character depth beyond the romance (a problem that for obvious reasons doesn’t apply to fanfic), that is where the real problem begins.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk

[citylightsthings]

social media and the internet has tainted our consumption of entertainment. i’ve noticed that after the release of st4 vol 2 there’s been a huge surge of fan entitlement and egoism that takes away from the story telling provided at face value. everyone nitpicks at decisions made by the writers, and while criticism is completely fair, there’s a line that has been crossed. nowadays there’s so many stereotypes and tropes ranging from plot armor to bland characterization. But, i really think that only exists because we consume SO MUCH media. there is a ridiculous amount of streaming services that pump out hundreds if not thousands of shows and movies each year to the point where those tropes will develop regardless. i don’t think it’s an intentional thing, but it’s a result of how we’ve culturally developed with instant entertainment that is one click away. so what if a character is a typical “surfer stoner”, or if a character does not want to come out to his best friend at this time? so what if mike “should’ve” noticed will sobbing in the car? so what if max “should’ve” died instead of left in a catatonic state? that is YOUR egotistic perception of what could’ve happened, but didn’t. it honestly disgusts me how people will threaten and send hate to writers instead of having civil, constructive discourse. it’s so much rewarding to set aside that ego and to just enjoy the show and critically analyze the characters and the decisions they make. what do certain decisions reveal about the character that wasn’t apparent before? how does that impact the development and relationship they have with others? to me that is so much more fun to talk about. but fan/stan twitter/instagram/tumblr has taken away all of that. we post our strong opinions on what writers “should” have done because we know we will get instant gratification from the likes, retweets, reposts, and comments. guess what? the writers wrote the story they wanted to tell with the characters THEY created. and even if there were disagreements in the writing room (which, of course there is!!!) and compromises had to have been made for a group of writers to agree on, this is what happened in canon. so let’s talk about that and not dwell on what could’ve happened. i promise it is worth so much more to appreciate the story as a whole and to analyze the character decisions and interactions that exist than to complain what could/should happen in the fucked up pseudo criticism that twists facts.

and this is not to say that alternative endings/decisions characters make isn’t an important thing to discuss. that is the whole basis of fan fiction! this is the door that leads into an entirely new realm to explore at the hands of the consumer. that’s the beauty of it! so let’s do better, appreciate the stories we got and criticize constructively. it is so easy to send hate to the creators in this age of technology. be kind to each other, and remember why we love these characters and stories in the first place.

[mercurialsmile]

So I went and saw Hellboy (2019) again since I wanted to get a closer look and sort of analyze it to a degree. It’s been slammed by quite a bit of people and I wanted to understand where they were coming from and have Critical Thinking Skills

Plus I finished reading the whole series (and The Wild Hunt) Sunday so I wanted to see how close of an adaptation it is.

Adaption-wise, 2019 is closer to its source material (The Wild Hunt) than the OG is (Seeds of Destruction)

It’s not a perfect adaption at all, of course. If you go by the condensed Omnibus’ as a guide, The Wild Hunt is the third book in the series. By the looks of it, they are reshuffling the events on how they happen and character timelines as well. Honestly, Seeds of Destruction would be a hard comic to adapt faithfully as it doesn’t have as streamlined a plot as Wild Hunt does but I digress.

There were a lot of changes. I don’t wanna go into each bullet point bc spoilers and also that would be a longass list. All I can say is some characters were missing, some added into the movie from different comics, the BPRD isn’t in the comics at all, obv all references to social media and the modern world aren’t in the comic, aaaaand of course: Hellboy actually fought 6 giants not 3. They nerfed him.

They also added two short stories to the movie, and they are also pretty close to the comics with some minor changes (and shortened even further...)

Fight-scene wise it seemed the flow of each fight fit in with the comic depiction of them so that was a nice touch.

If I were to give a score out of 10 for how close the movie adaptation is... I’d probably give it a 4-5. Which isn’t that bad considering just how dense TWH is and how much story leads up to it. TWH is the third book of series for a reason.

Plus some changes needed to be made due to the fact it’s a movie and they’re trying to tell a cohesive story

Hellboy, as a comic series... isn’t a cohesive story. It doesn’t have an intricate plot. That’s not the point. Hellboy is an introspective character study steeped in folklore and mythos with lovecraftian horror elements and interesting and unique monster designs.

Turning that into a blockbuster movie sounds like a bitch and I am not jealous of the writers for this movie at all.

That being said, I wanna pinpoint some issues I read some people had with the movie, add my own thoughts to that, and list what I liked and didn’t like of this movie.

No comparisons with the OG will be noted and I will not bring it up. This is a different movie in a completely different genre. Also OG is one of my favorite movies and shall always hold a special place in my heart

Music:

People noted that there were too many rock songs and not enough originally composed songs

Personally, the rock songs didn’t bother me too much. In some places they felt a little off or like I was watching a tv show rather than a movie, but it wasn’t too bad for me.

There were original songs or at least instrumentals littered throughout the movie including a reprise of the original Hellboy theme (a riff in the beginning and the complete at the end) which was nice to hear

I can see why the rock songs could bother or annoy some but for me it wasn’t that big of a deal

But I still do love original soundtracks and do wish this movie had more original songs in it

What bothered me more than the music was the quick Hellboy intro. I like buildups to my movie titles in movies like this and was a bit bummed I didn’t get to hear Hellboy’s full theme song... till the end during the movie

Exposition:

Some people complained the movie spent too much time rehashing some information. Indeed, in some places the movie felt it was beating us over the heads. In others it was more subtle, which is a bit odd

Really tho it’s a pretty small problem to fix? Only two changes would need to be made:

1. Take out the narration in the beginning of the movie

2. Cut out the adapted short story scene and have it remain as dialogue

Easy

Again, it didn’t bother me too much as the exposition issue was really only an issue in the first half of the movie? And happened only twice

However I can understand why people had an issue with it

Dialogue:

The writing is a mixed bag. Some scenes had good if not great writing and other scenes were a bit painful to listen to.

I did read this movie had some issues being developed due to creative differences and being shuffled around a lot... and in some places it shows. In others not so much. The middle of the movie is def where the weakest writing lies, I think

CGI:

This movie was an utter gorefest and had quite a bit of CGI. In some places it looked fine, I think. In other places it looked really cheap

I have no idea why the look of the CGI bounced around so much? Maybe they stretched their budget a bit too much, who knows

There was only one scene where it looked god awful and honestly that shot didn’t need to be in the scene to make it effective. Which is annoying I agree

I’m starting to sound like I disliked this movie huh? I’ll get to what I liked about it. Wanna say what other things I personally disliked:

* Professor “Broom”’s characterization

* Hellboy knowing less than he does in the comics for... drama?

* Honestly the entire father subplot

* The entire scene at the bunker. Ugh

* Some of the shots were... bad. Trying too hard to please the 3D crowd ig

* The fact that the Blood Queen didn’t have her raven helmet. that thing is badass

* Some tonal problems but it wasn’t too distracting

But there was a lot of things I also liked?

* All the monster designs! Especially the titans

* David Harbor’s performance

* No love triangle and no romance subplot in general. Nice

* Anung un Rama’s design

* Character costuming

* A lot of the shots, especially in the beginning and the end were interesting

* Baba Yaga. Her and that entire scene.

* The pig of course!

* Some of the dialogue was clever

* Got to see Hellboy riding a dragon. Nice.

* I actually liked the violence and gore. Even if it was pointless in some scenes. I like gory movies. Fun

* They made Alice a bit more proactive in this movie which was a good change

* Also the transformation during the pig battle.

* The main plot of course

Overall I think this movie is mainly getting slammed by fans of the og which... is expected honestly

I love the OG. If I could trade this movie in for the third of that trilogy I would. But life doesn’t work like that and I’m happy to see more Hellboy content in general and who knows,,, maybe we’ll get a finished trilogy this time?

I think this movie stands alone decently enough. Interestingly enough it seems those who read the comics are a lot less harsh on it than others? Well, for the most part from what I’ve seen.

This movie is campy, funny, full of action, with unique monster designs... which is what Hellboy kinda started as?

It has issues but don’t all movies? It’s not perfect and I still prefer OG but I ain’t gonna knock this movie because of that.

This is not a drama. It is a horror/action/comedy. And it plays itself as such and isn’t overly serious, which is okay.

Actually I’m hoping it gets a sequel. Hopefully it’ll be better than this movie, with betting marketing, and I think they’re gonna develop Conqueror Worm next And I loved that entire storyline a lot so! If they are going that direction (which is to say backwards in the comics...) I look forward to it!

[velveetacrackncheese]

Thoughts on that Gillette Ad

I didn't disagree with the message of the ad, but I did have issues with how the issue and message was addressed and delivered. It could've been delivered better and it should've addressed the power structures being perpetuated by the way our society functions on the basis of social hierarchy and environmental influences. Should men hold themselves accountable? Sure. How? Gillette would probably just rub their heads and say "Um.. just don't do the bad thing.. y'know?" Obviously men should want to be better, but if they aren't aware of how our society is built and engineered to consistently establish a power structure that will inevitably bring up these same issues in a new form, then what's the point? 

Initially I wasn't very critical of the ad (Albeit, I did point out that it was just part of a marketing strategy and the creators of the ad didn't give a flippity floppity fuck about issues revolving toxic masculinity) but I had to think critically and acknowledge that... Because it is a company delivering this message, they probably will never address how men are conditioned to behave in a certain way due to the way our society is built around social hierarchies that perpetuate power struggle. They can't because then they'd be forced to address other forms of hierarchy that also proves to perpetuate power struggles, and Gillette as a company is a prime result of hierarchy that fails to justify itself. It's why you'll never hear woke ads address anything involving social hierarchies, and when they do, it's often a very watered down message added with feel good quotes and motivational words that's just a cover up for any real substance that would be spoken about otherwise. Ever notice how whenever ads feature MLK it's always revolving around his "I have a dream!" quote and literally nothing else? Nothing regarding his beliefs of capitalism and how he didn't particularly care for it, and nothing about him addressing his own distaste for 'The White Moderate."

 Companies appropriating progressive language, and then watering it down to the typical basic "liberal understanding" is harmful because then you begin to give companies the benefit of the doubt. You start to view them as a living entity, and not simply an "it". Start looking at companies as things with beliefs, and truly wanting to best for people, when the reality is that they simply appropriate progressive language just to earn more profit and appeal to liberal consumers. It's companies' way of attempting to legitimize themselves, and them trying to distract everyone from actual criticism of the mere existence of large companies. Commodification of liberation movements may seem like they're spreading good values, but they're doing it to benefit themselves. They see a movement that's picking up steam, they'll go in, water down the message, and then use their watered down message to sell products, and to benefit themselves. And when companies talk about donating to a good cause, they only donate maybe a very, very, very small percentage of their profits. Think about companies and how they saw pride parades as a way to advertise themselves and act like they genuinely cared about gay rights.

 "Oh. but it still spreads a good message and spreads progressive ideas!"

 Except when consumers see liberation activists pushing for more progressive ideals, and then people learning the watered-down ideals become angry with the activists for "asking for too much" or "you already got what you wanted, just shut up already! 

"Gays have equal rights now! They have no reason to complain!" 

 Watering down the messages and issues being addressed hurts the movement itself due to how it's in a way, a deradicalization of ideology. So when you have liberation movements demanding what they were initially asking for in the first place, they're now considered extreme. Can't challenge the status quo too much, now. Anyone can preach equal rights without acknowledging ALL the things that restrict said liberty and equality. How many companies have addressed legal LGBT workplace discrimination, or housing discrimination? How many have addressed the overbearing representation of violent crimes committed against trans-women of color? How many have addressed how class struggle further perpetuates systemic oppression towards literally anyone who's considered part of a marginalized group? It's one of the bigger issues I have. The reliance of companies delivering progressive messages is very ineffective, and actually stagnates progress. Our reliance on faceless companies and big figurehead celebrities, delivering any sort of truly progressive message doesn't make sense because their place on the societal hierarchy is one that also perpetuates power struggle, particularly class struggle, but I digress.

 Only way to really enable progressive messages to be spread is to let actual activists have the stage, and allow them to speak the message they deserve to deliver. That message shouldn't be shifted to faceless corporations and rich individuals. (Ask yourself how these wealthy individuals are negatively affected by our society's power imbalances, and chances are you'll realize that they're doing pretty damn well for themselves.) 

 The ad targets individual men, without realizing that many men that exist are simply a result of social conditioning built upon the basis of a harmful status quo. You can ask individual men to change, but unless you acknowledge the way our society enables the harmful ideals that men end up falling victim to, the same issues remain existent. They just change, evolve, or become hidden. If more people acknowledged where our societal issues derived from, maybe we could actually make some quick progress. But no, instead many are infatuated with advertisements and the messages they deliver, rather than acknowledging that our societal issues run very deep, and maintain prevalence because we fail to address those in particular, and we fail to criticize companies for delivering messages that were never theirs to ever deliver in the first place. If men want to be the best they can be, they should not only acknowledge that their behavior perpetuated by social hierarchies is harmful, but they should also ask where these toxic ideals derive from, why they’re still prevalent, and discuss ways to dismantle these hierarchies.They ought to question the foundation our society is built upon, and work to change those or simply get rid of them. They should question the way men are conditioned, and they should be addressing these issues themselves, and not relying on corporations to speak for them. Although, I will say that witnessing men, anti-sjws, incels, and manbabies having an aneurysm over the ad and stating “MASCULINITY ISN’T TOXIC” was pretty fun. Hard to criticize others for being overly offended when they lose their shit over a dumb ad lol. However, I will say I am a bit annoyed with the lack of critique from the opposition. I say that because this ad certainly is not perfect, and people acting as if the ad was perfect and delivered what it needed to should honestly analyze it further and realize how disconnected it is from the real issue that plagues societies across the world. It’s easy to say how toxic masculinity is bad. How you provide context and address the origins of these awful behaviors that benefits literally no one (except the ruling class) is another thing entirely. The ad dilutes the actual message that needed to be expressed, and it shows when the ad shapes individual men as the ones entirely responsible for all the wrongdoings of other men, and failing to acknowledge how men are conditioned to even be that way. Yes, men can be better. Yes, men should strive to be the best they can be. The issue comes down to how society dictates what “best” is and whether or not the hierarchies that perpetuate the flaws being addressed, should be dismantled, and how that message, is also being addressed... Or rather, the lack there of.

I don’t stan Gillette. They’re a company with their only goal being earning profits. Nobody should be worshiping and characterizing a company as something with “ideals and beliefs.”

[kingofthewilderwest]

Hello! I was wondering if you've seen The Last Jedi and if you have, any opinions on it. Thanks!

I have seen it! Thanks for asking! :) Heads up, in case people missed my first comment on it the day it came out, I don’t have an enthusiastic perspective toward The Last Jedi. I don’t dislike the film, but it also didn’t grip me. It’s “okay”. So for those of you who are looking for an excited buddy to scream with, I am not your person. But if you are looking at having a fun, thoughtful discussion about the pros and the cons of the film, I am happy to do so with you.

In truth, I think one of the things I enjoy most about the new Star Wars trilogy is the discussion coming out of them. I was at a party a few days ago where we all got into such a long, deep, fascinating, and passionate discussion that we had to pass around a key, and whoever held the key could talk, and everyone else had to listen; we all had that many opinions on it, and it was cool to hear. There were many things we agreed with, other things we didn’t, but everyone’s perspective in the conversation was uber cool. I love that. I love to discuss the new SW movies more than watch them!

I can’t go into every thought I have on the movie now, but I’m happy to share some overarching thoughts! Ya’ll are free to ask for more specifics or opinions on certain things with TLJ, of course! 

Note: there are spoilers in the commentary below!

Plot in TLJ

Personally for me I felt as though the plot were strangely scaffolded. Maybe I’ll alter my opinion following a second viewing. But what I felt was that the plot was more cartilaginous than something with good backbone. Rather than having sound structure, with clearly defining points, it had a strange flowing, river-like structure that didn’t altogether convince me.

There were also some unnecessarily long parts to the plot. I’ve seen this mentioned two billion and five hundred sixty three point four times already, but I do agree with it: the casino run with Finn and Rose, while having some charm, was unnecessarily long compared to how it needed to be told. Technically story-wise you could have cut about ninety percent of it and lost little of what needed to be overarchingly told. 

I also think the drama with Holdo was unnecessarily complicated and tangled. Simple communication could have solved three plot twists. While there is totally feasible reason to withhold information, the writers never demonstrated that reason, thus leaving it all contorted.

Another big plot gap is something people have talked about a lot: Snoke dying without us knowing anything about him. Some of my friends have talked about how this can have a deep philosophical meta meaning, how it illuminates that we as viewers expect villains and villains of a certain vein, and get caught off-guard when it doesn’t happen that way, etc. But personally for me I feel as though it’s shaky writing. Viewers shouldn’t come away with so little satisfaction about a character who was meant to be a contending force; if the viewers leave like that, it means the execution - whatever the intent - was unsuccessful.

So the truth is, Snoke died without us knowing ANYTHING about this character. Where did he come from? What were his motivations? What’s his background, his… anything? He’s just this vague villain bad Sith guy that Kylo has killed and that’s it. Is there more to this villain that we can show without getting into the books and extended universe material? They really should have given us more by this point in time in the story. They can rectify it through Episode XI, but at the moment, it’s shaky plot-writing ground. 

Originality of TLJ

One of the big criticisms of TFA (something I constructively criticized myself) was that it rehashed the plot of A New Hope. Lots of people now seem disjointed because TLJ seems so original - or at least, that’s what I’ve heard from many people. TLJ being more original was refreshing for me.

I would say that it is original enough and that is good. Nevertheless, it’s still not as out-in-the-blue as I’ve seen some other companions of mine claim. In both TLJ and Empire, we have: 1). A rebel base being cornered; rebels having to fight; rebels having to flee, 2). A powerful, Force-sensitive young individual seeking out a Jedi recluse for training and assistance, 3). That Force-sensitive individual receiving some training after resistance, but ultimately making choices the Master finds questionable, 4). Characters being chased by ship by their enemies while the good guys’ ship(s) are in poor quality and need repairs, fuel, etc., 5). The characters go to a well-to-do location to find someone to help them in their rebel efforts, but that assistant turns out to be a traitor and turn them in to the Empire/First Order, and…. yeah. There are still lots of parallels to be made between TLJ and Episode V.

Another thing one of my friends pointed out is that many audience members might feel confused because TLJ ends in an analogous point to not The Empire Strikes Back… but Return of the Jedi. For ROTJ is when Luke is tempted to join the Dark Side and Darth Vader kills his master. We see that parallel with Kylo Ren and Snoke and Rey. But if we’ve already had that big plot event from ROTJ in the middle chapter of the new series… what’s next? That could be a reason why many people are thrown off by what was done in Episode VIII.

But personally for me, the ending material in Episode VIII was the best. The three scenes that stand out to me are: 1). The silent moment, 2). Luke being a badass in front of Kylo, and 3). Kylo killing Snoke, Kylo and Rey fighting together, but Kylo stilling holding onto the Dark Side and taking Snoke’s position. Those were all good moments that I quite like.

Oh. And the visuals. I loved the visuals throughout the movie. Very aesthetically well-done film.

Characterization in TLJ

Characters ranged from really well-written to… the writers randomly flapping hands. 

Poe and Kylo Ren were great highlights to me. I found them to be very well-written, founded on good motivations and well-established character. I do feel as though Kylo Ren is one of the more complex characters, who has layers of reasons and emotions, so every decision he makes is well-founded with who he is. And every scene with Poe was one that I appreciated.

Rose was good and what they did with her writing-wise works, and technically you don’t need more background or anything with her… but I would have liked more. I have seen some criticisms on Rose and understand the validity of those; I moreof am saying that Rose as a character is written consistently, with fun personality, and with some fun interest. I liked her on screen. Sniffed out the romance plot a while away and don’t think it was necessary-necessary, but don’t mind it either, because of course that happened, like it does with every other movie out there.

Finn’s characterization was… like the last movie… very rough. Poorly defined. Haphazard. Inconsistent. Wild writer hands flapping willy nilly. John Boyega’s good acting covers that up as well as it can, and makes Finn “feel” like a consistent character. But if you actually look at his choices and motivations across the two films, there is very little pattern, rhyme, or reason to it. Finn is a nice character when you don’t analyze him, though, so I wish that they’d done a better job with his personality and personality arc. That character deserves to be written well.

Now. For Luke. I agree with Mark Hamill on this one. Luke’s characterization was given justification and reasoning, and I get what they were trying to do, but… I don’t think it works. One reason it doesn’t work is that Luke has already learned the lessons he was struggling with in TLJ: he was tested by Yoda for the Dark Side and failed, he saw that someone turned to the Dark could be restored, he saw that giving up would never lend good results, and on and on and on. These aren’t just lessons that he’d need to relearn, but things smashed into the core of Luke’s personality and philosophy and core. And Luke’s struggle is very obviously working against a lot of common sense, which Rey delivers in a few sentences, and then Luke starts being turned to being convinced (there is a slow turn for him, but still). And lots of this goes against most of what we know about Luke’s established character, even when we consider how peoples’ personalities and views change over time. Last.. Luke’s internal conflict felt very unrealistic for his age and maturity. That sort of struggle he was going through I’ve seen lots of people in their mid twenties already have a firm grasp and understanding of. I shouldn’t be out-wising Luke Skywalker. I’m twenty-five.

That said, Mark’s acting was altogether fun and compelling to watch. He delivered very well.

Overarching Opinion

Personally I never felt “caught up” in the excitement of the movie - not that there wasn’t action, but I couldn’t get invested enough to worry or be pulled in. There was never a point where I was grumpy or angry at the movie… just didn’t get dragged into the adventure. It’s one of those movies that I came out of feeling it was “okay” but not astounding. I don’t dislike the movie and I’m not in the wave of complainers or haters or anything. It’s just not something that clicked greatly with me. There were some scenes I quite liked, some elements I quite liked, and lots of things that I’ll always love to debate about. It’s just not the movie that was made-made for me.

[academiablogs]

Book Reviews as Blind Dates—Not Diary Entries

(Image source)  The great (but largely forgotten) composer Max Reger (1873-1916) received more than his share of bad reviews. After reading a nasty review of his Sinfonietta, he wrote the following response to the critic in question: “I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me!” This little witticism reflects the pose that many artists adopt—a pose that is only skin deep. For even if you toss the review behind you, or into a convenient trash can, the words don’t go away. A bad review is a bad review forever, haunting the writer, or composer, or artist with the thought that he/she simply isn’t good enough; that he/she really doesn’t have any talent, and that the critic has seen through his/her facade to the ‘real’ man or woman beneath the mask. We’ve all heard the saying, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Clearly these words were not written by an author—or anyone remotely involved with the creative arts. Reger, or someone much closer to their art, might have revised this to read, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will cut my throat!”

If reviews were bad in the early 20th century, imagine what Reger and his contemporaries would have thought of our modern review culture, where anyone, qualified or not, can dash off a review and publish it for all to see. Indeed, Reger only had to face a handful of critics who were carefully cultivated to pass judgment on the arts. For all their flaws—and they were just as biased as the rest of us—they at least understood the history, traditions, and genres in question. They were, in a word, experts. But the 21st century review isn’t necessarily an expert; while some are aficionados of a given author or field, most are just casual readers, haphazardly encountering a book and all-too-often disappointed. The most common one or two-star reviews on Amazon and Goodreads often reveal this kind or reader, complaining that a book is “too slow,” or “not the kind of book I like reading!” Even worse are the reviews that read “Seller shipped me the wrong book” or “came later than expected!” Not the kind of review Reger had to deal with, I imagine.

So what is the purpose of a review by the common reader, one who isn’t necessarily an expert, but wants to share his or her impressions of a just-read book? For most readers, reviews are like traffic signs: they tell you whether to proceed, or to proceed with caution; whether to yield or to stop altogether. Seeing a book with 500+ positive reviews might be the very thing that gets you to click the ‘buy’ button. Likewise, a book with word-of-mouth but only a handful of reviews, and some of them negative, could drop it in a wish list but little else. In short, reviews are designed on the internet to be skimmable or—ironically for books—not even read at all. Often, the title says it all: “Great Debut!” or “Great Plot, Disappointing Characters” or even “How Did This Get Published?” On Goodreads, many readers simply award the book in question a handful of stars and race to the next book. Simple as that.

(They are busy readers, after all, judging from memes like this.) However, books are rarely that simple. Most people who write reviews do so for a specific reason: either the book pissed them off, or they loved it so desperately that they want to start a new religion. Books then become extremely personal diatribes that are so wrapped up in the reader’s experience that it can be hard to discern the actual book. This is the problem I find in my own literature classes in college: students place themselves before the book; that is, they try to imagine themselves as the main character, and failing that, they often reject the book entirely. While it’s always exciting when a student finds themselves in a book—and much less so when they don’t—this isn’t the best place to start a review. Why? For the simple reason that it becomes almost impossible to write an objective, analytical review when you begin with yourself.

Uh-oh, analytical! Sounds like the early 20th century critic that trashed Reger. However, even though today’s reviews tend to be more off-the-cuff, anyone can be analytical without much effort. After all, a review, by it’s very definition, suggests an analysis. Not a personal response, and not a diary entry, but a slight unpacking of how the book affects readers—the very mechanics of the prose (or poetry) itself. The great failing of most reviews is that the reviewer never gets to why the book is great or terrible, but simply states that it is. Take, for example, an excerpt from a typical 2-star review of H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine on Goodreads:

“ It was sooooooooooooooooo long and drawn out, with so many descriptions and so many needless details that my advanced future brain just wandered off in search of shiny things. “

Is this a review of the book or a review of the reviewer’s attention span? It’s hard to imagine a book that is barely 100 pages being “sooooooooooooooooo long and drawn out,” and full of “needless details.” Couldn’t the same be said of the average Brandon Sanderson novel (clocking in at 1,000+ pages)? Does this reviewer even enjoy reading books—or does he/she prefer playing with “shiny things?” After reading it, I know next to nothing about The Time Machine other than the reader didn’t like it and found it a tiresome read. But the question remains, why? Why were the details “needless”? Would I find it long and drawn out, or is the reviewer simply new to late 19th century novels or British literature in general? Maybe he/she hates science fiction and would respond the same way to a novelization of Rogue One?

In my classes, I encourage students to practice the art of close reading. This means training yourself to avoid saying what you feel before you explain why it made you feel this way. A literary scholar has to analyze the actual words to understand how an author creates plot and characterization. Novels don’t write themselves, after all, and each word, each sentence, and each paragraph is a wrestling match between the author and the English language (and if a translation, the wrestling becomes even more furious!). While a casual reviewer on Goodreads certainly doesn’t have to see him or herself as a literary scholar, they should consider what it means to read a book. For a book isn’t the same for each reader, and in essence, we all read a different book (which is what makes literature live beyond the moment of publication—and in some cases, over a thousand years).

Consider it like a blind date: some go smashingly, and you’re up all night talking and flirting. Others don’t even make it past appetizers. But if you went home and explained this date to your best friend, he/she would want details: why was it so wonderful or boring? What did your date say? What jokes? What details about his or her personal life? And what did you say in return? For example, a play I enjoy teaching to undergraduates is Shakespeare’s early, gory, and completely ludicrous play, Titus Andronicus. For those readers expecting a prim and proper masterpiece, step aside; the play is quite messy and borderline disgusting, though it still betrays Shakespeare’s trademark wit and language. To help students see the irreverent humor in the piece, which is always making fun of itself, I might point out the following passage spoken by the “villain” of the piece, Aaron the Moor:

“Then, Aaron, arm thy heart and fit thy thoughts

To mount aloft with thy imperial mistress,

And mount her pitch whom thou in triumph long

Hast prisoner held, fettered in amorous chains.”

Here, the meaning is less in what he is saying than how he says it. Note how he uses the word “mount” in this passage: he wants to “mount” the tops of power and love with his “imperial mistress” (Tamora, the captive Queen of the Goths), while at the same time “mounting her.” Yes, that means exactly what it sounds like: he wants to become powerful by shagging her. And he even says it foully: he wants to “mount her pitch,” meaning her field of play, her nether regions, her darkness. He’s also bragging here, noting that she has been a “prisoner” of his love, in “amorous chains” even longer than she’s been a prisoner of the Romans. What a guy, this Aaron!

While this kind of analysis might be exhaustive in a Goodreads or Amazon review, a little bit goes a long way. Help the reader learn something about how you read or experienced the book. Quote the language, let us ‘hear’ a specific passage and understand how the book plays into our ideas of language, or genre, or storytelling. Otherwise, we simply learn that you didn’t like a book and that it was “sooooooooooooo long.” And yet, I bet The Time Machine reads much quicker than such an uninspired and thoughtless review.

And one final note: in the case of living authors, thinking of him or her wanting to hear from living readers. What made you stay up into all hours of the night reading the book? Or what made you hurl it across the room? Have a conversation with the writer as if he or she is actually in the room with you. Tell them what worked, what might not have, and why you would—or wouldn’t—read this book again. Books continue to live for one reason alone: we keep talking about them. So continue the conversation in your review...the less you say, the less chance someone else might add their two cents to the discussion, and fall in love on their next ‘blind date.’