#however op seems to be talking about issues relating to hateful groups specifically so this may not be relevant.

[bondsmagii]

Please give me the forbidden Goncharov discourse 👀

so for context, this comes from a post by tumblr user lastoneout that reads:

turns out tumblr does have reading comprehension and the ability to analyze a complex text through multiple frameworks and have a nuanced discussion while doing so but apparently we were all saving it up to have nuanced discussions about a fake movie with no actual text to analyze

and then my tags on the post, which read:

#this is so funny but i maintain it's the only unrealistic thing about goncharov (1973) #like you mean to tell me the fandom on tumblr is this huge and yet there's not one hate blog? #there's not a core group of haters posting the most deranged piss on the poor shit in the tag? #no discourse? no anon hate? #christ but there's not a single poc in it come on tumblr i've not seen a single person get called a racist for liking it #this is a glimpse into what peace on planet earth would look like #(ironically i do have some deep analysis for why this might be but i will spare op lmao)

now forgive me if this makes no sense, because this is the first time I have tried to articulate it before, and of course in keeping with the theme it's about a fake movie (cinematic masterpiece Goncharov, (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese).

with the obvious out of the way first: Goncharov is a fictional movie, it does not exist, and therefore there it nothing to say about the real-world issues associated with lack of representation. this means we can skip that in actuality, though if we're looking at it from the perspective of a real movie and how it would be regarded on Tumblr, I'm sure that there would be related discourse. however, this is not real, so we can focus on the more entertaining, light-hearted sides of fandom. and this is universally what Goncharov posts were like: gifsets, fanart, humorous and well-written textual analysis, deep and pretentious photosets and quotes, everything that you love to see. but it was odd, in terms of realism, that there were no haters at all. which made me wonder: why are there haters when it comes to real things, but not when it comes to fake ones? part of this is what's mentioned above: in real life, there are some dynamics and trends and issues that can and do have a very real impact on society, or represent aspects of society that should change. but I can't help think it was something else, too.

I mentioned in my tags hate blogs specifically, because in real fandoms, you can easily find hate blogs that have absolutely nothing to do with any real, tangible criticism. it is just vitriolic hate: of a character, of a book/film, of an actor or actress involved, or some combination of these. there's no actual criticism, and very often there are massive feats of mental gymnastics used to make fans of [character] or [thing] look bad. it is just seething hatred, all directed towards something that is supposed to be entertainment; it's supposed to be fun! so why do some people take something harmless and make their entire personalities about hating it -- as well as spending significant parts of their day talking shit, getting into arguments, and even sending anon hate and threats to fans? it's because there are some people out there who like to hate things. they don't seem to like having fun. anything fun that comes their way, they have to pick holes in it; they have to have something negative to say to it. deep down, they know this is a very sad way to live. they know there's a difference between being a casual hater who likes to bitch about things in private with friends, or make the occasional joke or rant online -- and running a literal blog dedicated to hating something. they know there's a difference and they don't want to admit that they're losers, so they dress it up as something noble. these days, it's usually activism. this also explains the mental gymnastics, the reaches, the "fans of [character] are -ist or -phobic" shit. they're applying a thin coat of legitimacy to the fact that they're irrationally angry about something completely pointess, and there are a lot of people out there who seem to think this is a good and beneficial way to spend their time.

even among fans, there are some who seem to be having a bad time. I have looked at certain posts or blogs before and wondered to myself if the person even actually likes it, or if at this point they're just hostage to nostalgia or the idea of it (either the potential or their fan version of the universe) and they can't just call it quits. these people are not the same as the previously described, as they don't make their whole lives about hating something, but they're clearly miserable and could do with moving on, and they do contribute to the kinds of critical and often aggressive posts missing from the Goncharov project. the absence of this, as well as the more unhinged hatred, does leave a pretty obvious gap in the believability of the film's existence, and this is... rather depressing, really.

the thing that allowed Goncharov to be a peaceful experience was because of the fact that it wasn't real, and everyone knew it. but this should be applied to all films and books: they are not real. while some criticisms are valid (such as the terrible writing that female characters are often subject to, or the lack of representation in popular cinema, etc) a lot of the hate comes from interpersonal beef about characters, and these people aren't real. it's a very strange thing to witness: that so many people are capable of understanding that Goncahrov and Katya etc aren't real, and therefore there's no point getting mad about them, but they cannot carry that over to any other fictional character. the film's unreality is part of the joke, woven into it from the foundations, and so no hater, no matter how deranged, could possibly take themselves seriously hating it. instead they have to resort to complaining about the joke itself, and how annoying it is, but the content remains completely hater-free. it's an absolutely fascinating glimpse at the complete breakdown of the line between reality and fiction on this website -- Goncharov came from within, and its construction and creation was there for all to see, whereas other media seems to spring to the consumer fully formed and therefore with some kind of mystery that awards it a certain flair of legitimacy. I don't mean to say that anyone thinks it's real, but certainly they seem to think it's more serious, and worth getting worked up over. but none of it is real, none of it is worth getting worked up over, but for some reason it seems that when a creation comes from one's peers, this mystery is removed and the complete pointlessness and inanity of getting into fights online over fictional characters and events is illuminated in all its glory.