https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__ctRfI7cuM
Lindsay Ellis tweeted this video and I feel like it's really good. It talks about a few things I've seen discussed on Facepunch quite a bit, and what their causes might be and possible solutions.
'these people' 'social capital' 'how we can be better' 'those who'
right.
This video is simply more of the same. The fact that not even three minutes in she's separating experiences and artificial social paradigms into tiers and measures of value pretty much means she's part of the problem herself, and the not even two minutes later trips over her own dick on two different venues by establishing her technique of critique is the only valid or objective one and therefore the only long term valuable view.
Bullshit.
Most authors of worth are starting to ignore twitter and whatever's left of tumblr for these reasons.
Also roflmfao at "the necessity of calling out problematic media", the particular character in Sherlock was a fucking serial killer who happened to be gay. Kinda like several real life serial killers. Way to shoot any credibility you had in the face.
The thing she mentioned in Sherlock was "Queerbaiting"
Queerbaiting is the practice of hinting at, but then not actually depicting, a same-sex romantic relationship between characters in a work of fiction, mainly in film or television. The potential romance may be ignored, explicitly rejected or made fun of.
It wasn't because a gay character was the villain.
What are you even trying to say? That we can't say that people sometimes do things that aren't good? I really don't understand what you're getting at. You claim this person's views are invalid because they talk about 'measures of value' in one breath then you talk about 'authors of worth' in the next. I just don't understand what you're trying to say.
Might wanna watch the episodes because the general whine is because Sherlock is completely meh on gender preferences and is engaging about homosexual character(s) with an open mind yet there's never a scene of them snogging on baker street in broad daylight it's baiting, when the fucking point is sherlock (and others) might be open to such things, he (and others) still has a code of conduct and obviously someone with severe mental issues is probably never going to be high on the 'snog in public list', nevermind the loudest people complaining about this were already megadamage twitter outrage butthurt that Sherlock might maybe be snogging an asian lady who was born a lady and stayed a lady.
As going through it, I'm going to first throw in my 2 cents as a novice writer who tends to have friends who love and adore fiction created for or made by people in marginalized groups.
They want to be in the story. When characters don't say or do what those in these left leaning marginalized communities would do in their specific niches, they get mad. Part of the problem is that shows like Steven Universe spend a painstaking amount of time trying to hit as many targets as it can instead of focused on telling a tight story about incredibly gay alien rocks. Some of the biggest criticisms I've seen of SU isn't even the gay stuff, I've heard more about its technical issues, lack of experimentation in composition and the writing taking a huge flop at some point.
I felt, and still feel, that SU has too many characters playing too much at different times and that this creates a discordant chaos. In addition, because you're writing from your own past experiences it quickly and inevitably will leave some one out. However, because you've invited them into this world through mass media and targeting them and similar groups, you're now expected to give them the experience promised but you just can't nail every single one. Ever.
Its why I prefer world building and telling a story through that instead, giving people the tools and knowledge to forge their own stories of characters in a setting but that doesn't work for Television. At the end of the day; as a creator, you will need to be up front and tell listeners and viewers that your work will not touch on every aspect of such a diverse and nichified group of people. They will understand and will thusly, most likely only have a curious glance instead of full interest but it inevitably be better and healthier for both your community and the long term consequences of what your goals are with the story in mind.
What makes you seemingly not take these quotes seriously?
I'm just curious. And I think there's a lot to discussion of 'social capital' and its surrounding subjects in specific, even if some of it is a bit weird.
Did we not watch the same video? I honestly, legitimately can't see how she says, comes off as saying, or even ~dishonestly implies~ anything like this. If by "3 minutes in" you mean the part about that one book and its reception, I can't see how any part of her pretty neutral telling of it makes her part of the problem, and I'm pretty sure she doesn't ever say that her perspective is 'the only valid, objective one'.
I watched the video with a critical perspective or whatever I should call it, I try doing so with all such videos, but I'm really not seeing anything significantly wrong, or harmful with it.
Which reasons?
I really don't care about it specifically, but do you think her entire point is invalidated just because of how she talked about the Sherlock thing? You're kinda coming off as saying so at least.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
