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?

  • radiofreebc
    1·
    2 days ago

    I had an ex who had the entire series on DVD and i endured as many episodes as i could take. Sure, the production is excellent and the acting is great, but the characters are horrible people, and the misandry in the show is overwhelming. If the genders were flipped, that show would have been “cancelled” (and i don’t mean just taken off the air…nobody involved with the show would have ever worked in the industry ever again).

    I just found myself feeling so bad for Aiden, and feeling intense hatred for everyone else. That show is a straight-up instruction manual on how to be a one dimensional, superficial, vapid, petty, materialistic, unappreciative human being…and then be celebrated for it.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      1·
      2 days ago

      I guess I don’t see where in the series Carrie is “celebrated” for cheating.

      Listening to the writer’s commentary, the show the characters are largely audience inserts, they’re just representative of how some people think and behave, and the more I watch the show, the more abstract is gets because I absolutely don’t see these characters as have anything at all in common to support their friendship.

      Interesting that you think misandry in the heart of the show, because I think it’s more about round-about misogyny. The writer is constantly talking about “creampieing” the characters, but personally I think that just makes for a more interesting show.

      My complaint about the show is that it’s actually extremely regressive, perfectly appropriate for suburban wine mom’s to think they’re “a bit Samantha” or whatever, but nothing truly transgressive ever happens in the show.

      Like, hilariously, almost no episodes pass the Bechdel test despite the four main characters being women in conversation because the ONLY thing they EVER talk about is MEN.