#i was in the atla fandom casually from 2013 to 2016 and when i say Head Empty fandom dear g o d

[raayllum]

Gosh yes, your tags on that last post. Like, I don’t blame people for liking Viren, for enjoying his character, for finding him sympathetic (or attractive, even if I personally don’t). He’s a compellingly written character! But don’t be offended if people hate him or find him evil… he’s the villain, that’s literally his role in the story

"How dare this villainous character do villainous things" / "how dare the protagonist get narratively rewarded for making good choices" like do y'all even hear yourselves sometimes, y'know?

especially when - and i cannot stress this enough - tdp is for children and will ultimately have a happy ending. this isn't a grown up drama or tragedy or even a grimdark fantasy by any means. it's a hopepunk high fantasy story. people who further retaliation and violence and push people into inherently defensive positions are the 'bad guys'

like i love viren! i think he's very well written and interesting. he's a great examination of how we can lie to and martyr ourselves in a search for security that is also about status & wanting to feel special, about the harm done when trying to win a rigged system rather than solidarity in tearing a system down and making a new one. i appreciate his dry/deadpan sense of humour. he's also one of two primary antagonists in the first 3 seasons. and like, all that can coexist? it's multifaceted character writing? we all presumably passed grade 10 english class?

i also cannot emphasize the importance of being able to separate audience reaction or response from what a piece of art is actually doing or saying enough. "this story is bad because it was personally upsetting to me" without examples given or analyzed it is not well, analysis, it's just a currently very unfounded opinion. and sometimes stories are supposed to be personally upsetting, so like. you also gotta know your lanes

it's why subjective analysis is very useful but learning structural (objective) analysis is arguably more important. something can be structurally pretty weak but very enjoyable (frozen). something can be abysmal enjoyment wise but very structurally solid (1984, which i'd argue isn't meant to be enjoyed, either). and it's important to know the difference if you want to write actual analysis rather than opinion based stuff. analysis isn't necessarily better than opinion based pieces but analysis is more expansive because it can cover the subjectivity and the objectivity and more. which is precisely why i can read "the iliad" and think "wow that was good" but if i wanted to write an essay on it i'd have to do a lot more thinking because i'm demanding something greater of that artistic experience by virtue of wanting to expand on it

a lot of people take "art for art's sake" as a statement regarding the fact that art - which is inherently symbolic in its construction, even in what meaning we construe to words themselves - doesn't have to mean anything and fighting back claims that art should mean something. but i think of "art for art's sake" is more worthwhile to examine under the lens of "this art doesn't exist for the sake of capitalist consumption, but amid it, or sometimes precisely in spite of it" and like. very few things artistically have zero meaning precisely because meaning is also "what was the reasoning behind this" and if there is none (think a tattoo you got "just because") that's typically a subjective reflection of the creator and still indicative of their personality. sometimes the meaning is meaninglessness (nihilism is still a creation in response to us searching for meaning, after all)

i'm getting into the weeds now but the point is that there's definitely been an upswing in recent years of people thinking opinions = analysis and while that often is the case (particularly if that opinion is expanded upon enough to be grounded in the text and the text's context) it absolutely is not as often actual analysis as people think it is