I’m always picking apart movies and TV shows for subtext, deeper meaning, Jungian archetypes, revelation of social patterns, inner psychology, etc., but it seems like there are two related trends that make the traditional, scholarly approach of a close reading increasingly unpopular:

  1. The work is about whatever the author says it is about or could have intended it to mean. Literature can have a multipilicity of meanings, some of them deeply personal to the reader, and many of them unintended. That the fun of thinking about a piece and breaking it down an examining scenes and dialogue and symbolism can all be replaced by doing a search on the author’s Twitter is deeply depressing and completely destroys the role of art–to be an ambiguous sounding board for our souls and unconscious reflection of our society.

  2. A work is bad or good depending on the political messages it explicitly and implicitly communicates." and related: I’m more likely to agree with an interpretation if helps me politically. Stories with flawed characters are condemned in this system, because the point of literature isn’t to explore the human condition, but to create propaganda for ideologies, and your role isn’t too seriously examine the text but to create your own propaganda for your side online.

Examples:

  • “300 can’t have a gay subtext because that would mean Zach Snyder was woke!'”

  • “The Matrix is definitively a trans-allegory because The Wachowskis said it was. If you disagree, you are stupid, because they said so.” I love reading the Matrix as a trans-allegory, but it is not ever explicitly mentioned in the text so I chafe at it being definitively, or even obviously, a trans-allegory.

  • Sex and the City is bad because Carrie has an extremely fucked up relationship with Mr. Big (ie, only positive role models are “good”–I’m absolutely OK with people pointing that out, but the problem is building a world where only “safe messages” are propagated and treating all audiences as uncritical 3-year-olds in front YouTube Kids).

The only real pushback against art-by-tweet is against JKR declaring Dumbledore to be gay. But, really, that’s just politics taking precedence, because people don’t want her in the LGBT tent exlcuding trans people.

There also seems to be a knock-on effect in writing rooms, where complexity and ambiguity are being sacrificed for clear moralizing and political point-making.

And as a long-time Star Trek fan, I’m not saying art can’t be explicitly political! Of course it can! But I am saying it is increasingly not allowed to be anything else.

Is this a vibe anyone else is getting? My references are obviously seriously dated, but whenever they come up, I feel like I’m speaking Ancient Greek.

Bonus question: Who has a better story than Bran?

  • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
    2·
    3 days ago

    The pilot episode was, I think, mostly a sop to studio executives who greenlit the show as a comedy. But I think the second or third episode is a court procedural on human rights, so…

    I hate second screen and I don´t watch any show written for it expressly. Part of the fun of watching is, you know, watching, knowing what’s going on and why things are happening before you. It reminds me of when I would do an assignment, and the teacher would answer her own questions about it. Why did I do the homework if you’re just going to tell me the answer? Why hint at a character’s motivation with a pickle dish if they’re just going to announce why they’re doing the thing?

    I got away from episodic television in the past 10-or-so-years; the idea of sitting through 23-episode seasons of random stories is unbearable; but I appreciate the space it gives writers and actors (and audience) to get to know their setting and their characters. Thatś why I’m planning structured and selective re-watches, but, who knows.

    Sorry to drop that GdT factoid on you. I should be more selective in who I mention it to. It is a heavy burden not made lighter in the sharing.