#but the korrasami handhold was still monumental and should be applauded as such

[pandoratheprocrasticreator]

idk how to word this well but i feel like a lot of media critique is read as too personal to the author? obviously the intentions of the creator is important and the circumstances they made the thing in is important to discuss but i feel like that should be like. context. an explanation of why the story is like that but not a way to shut down further discussion.

like for example a lot of critique of tv shows is rebutted with "well the network cancelled it/forced it to keep going beyond its natural end/threw in a bunch of stuff to fuck up the creator's vision so it's not the writer's fault." and like. who was blaming the writers? yes maybe the network fucking with the creative team made the show turn out bad but that doesn't mean the show isn't still bad! it's just that now there's a conversation about network interference and how that affects the final product.

and i think outside factors that affect the story should be discussed!! i think networks are often unfair to its creatives hence why they're striking now. i think censorship is often limiting and prevents writers from telling the stories they want and (tumblr focuses more on this) having good representation. i think the identities of the creators and their beliefs and abilities have massive implications on a story and i think all of it should be discussed as the context the story was made in. i just don't think we should stop the discussion there. we still need to talk about what did and didn't work in the story itself.

when i say "the plot/rep/format of the story had X problem because it affected the story/audience interpretation of the story in X way" and someone says "well the writer's boss forced them to make the plot/rep/format like that," i think it's important to know as a part of media critique. but if they refuse to discuss my initial statement and just ends the discussion there because the problem wasn't caused by the writer, i don't find that interesting or useful to think about.

the only purpose of saying this and only this is to tell me that no, the creative team isn't at fault for this specific thing. i shouldn't get mad at these people that i will likely never meet whose only relationship i have with them is consuming their work. and like. you shouldn't harass people for writing bad stories regardless but if you need to be told that specific creators aren't to blame for a thing you disliked to stop you from doxxing them then that's one purpose of that.

but for that to be the only discussion point is ignoring the actual story. forgive me for assuming but i feel like most people would want to talk about the actual media when they do critique, not the personal/political drama involved in making the media. this is an online discussion about something published by strangers, not a writing workshop with your friends.

and i think talking about the problems that arise in a story because of outside influences can bring more awareness to those influences! if you say "the publisher told them to not make those two gay" and refuse to elaborate people just think "oh :( well i bet a hypothetical book where those two were gay would have been cool :)" if you say "these two have character arcs that would make more sense in X ways if they were gay but because the publisher told them not to make them gay it falls flat in X ways" people would think "holy shit! the publisher's prioritizing their homophobia over telling a good story! i hope next time they have a book like that they'll just let them be gay!"

pointing out exactly how outside influences hurt a story will show audiences not only how these factors fucked over the creatives career-wise, but also their own enjoyment of the story. most people won't affect the way creative teams of media they like are managed, but in the rare instance that they do, "it makes the story worse and therefore less profitable" is a better talking point than just "don't interfere with the writers because it'll make the writers sad."

basically if i point out a problem with a story and you reply "this problem was caused by X external factor," the next sentence should be "and here's how and why X external factor affected the story in these ways." it's shouldn't be "and you shouldn't blame the writers for it because it was someone else's fault." pointing out that capitalism and bigotry exists should not be the end of the conversation. you need to say something its effects on the story in tangible ways. otherwise the conversation has no value.

and i want to reiterate that i know a lot of limitations studios and publishers place on creators are frustrating to the creators themselves. it must feel horrible to see people be dissatisfied with your work, especially if some of the things they critique wasn't your fault. i cannot stress enough how much i dont think less of a creative team's skill unless i know for a fact that they chose to make something bad without any outside influences, which is incredibly rare. if i criticize something, i am not placing blame on anyone unless i outright say "i blame the writer/studio/publisher for this."

when i talk about my thoughts on a story, it's entirely for me. i'm not holding out hope that hollywood executives will see my opinions and tailor-make something for me so i'll stop complaining. i talk about and criticize media i like because it's fun. it's how i engage with media. i don't know the creators of 99% of the things i enjoy, and they will almost definitely never know me. while it's interesting to learn about the production process of a piece of media, even if i don't know who's "responsible" for a part of a story i don't like, i won't get angry at the creators for that. i don't connect the value of the writer to the value of the story in that way.