Archive.org is a great resource when trying to find deleted stuff. The blog post in question: web.archive.org/web/20140326193457/fishingboatproceeds.tumblr.com/post/57820644828/hey-john-i-was-just-wondering-what-your-explanation Great video!
Those last seven minutes seems like REALLY good points on the nature of criticism. To all the other viewers, if you're gonna leave the video early, please at least try to watch these last seven minutes.
So here it is: the second half of my magnum opus. This was all originally intended to be one huge 2-hour video, but I thought that would be a bit much to just throw onto the channel all at once. I hope you all enjoy. Once again, apologies for the audio issues.
As a barely published writer, I found this video quite helpful! Pointing out that musings and thesis statements take interpretative agency away from the reader made me do a once-over of my first, in-progress novel and had me cut a lot of unnecessary fluff. The issues in sequence and structure you pointed out made me fix a bunch of things, too, so thank you!
Glad to hear that I was able to give you some helpful advice. However, by all means, don’t just rely on me when seeking out information on writing technique. There are plenty of resources out there for aspiring writers who want to know the ins and outs of writing and storytelling. I had a book on writing I wanted to recommend, but I can’t for the life of me remember what it was called... Best of luck with the novel!
Paper Towns (which i read a long time ago, so rip if I'm wrong) outside out of the manic pixie dream girl I thought it was about idolisation and how we characature and stereotype other people. How we judge entirely off of perceptions when people are just as complicated as us. Which probably wasn't the exact point Green was going for but it's kind of close.
Yes. I agree. Main character had this whole idea about how he and she would live out their lives, and he had never even thought to ask her what she wanted.
I can't really speak for John either but I believe the purpose of stepping away from using mental illness as a superpower is to respond specifically to the criticisms of romanticizing mental illness
I loved this video alot, but I want to focus on 1:06:40 This passage right here actually did what you were talking about because there was always something that bugged me about the criticisms that ppl only listen to reviews to hear their opinions parroted back at them. I understand the frustrations that the ppl who give this criticism have (mainly that diverse perspectives get pushed out in favor of the majority), but there is value in having someone articulate the thoughts in the viewer's mind. Another thing I liked was the topic of focalisation and how that can help or hurt a novel. This seems to be a problem unique to literature and one that can be quite difficult to overcome as evidenced by this novel. I actually saw another video essay talking about how video games can't be analyzed using the traditional perspectives found in literary analysis.
Thanks for your kind words. Glad you enjoyed the video. I find that the problem with hearing your views parroted back to you is less to do with the viewer not engaging with diverse or challenging ideas, and more that the viewer is *letting someone else articulate their thoughts for them*. I've had discussions with people who have verbatim repeated the points of online reviewers, but then stumble and falter when those ideas are challenged in a novel way that the reviewer didn't account for. If you solely rely on other people to articulate your thoughts, then you don't develop your own ability to articulate yourself clearly. IMO People ought to consume and think about a wide range of honest and useful opinions that are articulated well because that will help them identity what language best suits their own experiences. I would say that "story analysis" is common across all storytelling mediums: books, film, games, and so on, as storytelling form has many universal characteristics cross-medium. An example from this video might be the idea of "set-ups" and "pay-offs" which are common to books, films, *and* games. However, I would say that analysis of *form* is very different between mediums. Literary analysis is incredibly different to film analysis, so I don't see why game analysis shouldn't also be distinct.
Yeah ngl, I have been in that situation where I falter after I use someone else's words to express my pov and then froze up at opposing counter arguments. I would like to think I have been slowly developing my own critical thinking skills over time after listening to a variety of different perspectives whether they be good or bad (yours included). I have also tried engaging with ppl to help with that. BTW the video game video was called Parasocial Relationship in OFF, Undertale and OneShot if you want to check it out. It mainly focused on how these games effectively use fourth wall breaks and how it relates to well parasocial relationships. Also, you going to a video on Flames if there is interesting stuff in it?
I greatly enjoyed these two videos. I found that you were an honest critic, although I didn't agree with you wholesale (and why should I? We're two different people). I am a young adult who has read five John Green books with varying amounts of enjoyment, and your explanation of focalisation has helped me articulate why the books have a sameness to them. My biggest problem with Turtles All the Way Down arose from how they solved the mystery in what seemed to me a contrived manner. It felt more like a tied up loose end then a progression of the story. To defend John Green a little bit, when I read the argument between Daisy and Aza, I imagined that Aza's responses were to quiet for Daisy to hear. Daisy wasn't purposefully ignoring them, but Aza didn't have the confidence to counter Daisy loudly enough. Although John Green did use words like "whispered" and "quietly", it wasn't the clearest interpretation in the world. In this sense, I didn't find the topic of their nuanced relationship tarnished, especially as it painted the picture that Aza tries to assure herself she does listen while also giving credence to Daisy. This discrepancy causes an internal conflict within Aza, someone who is sick of being pushed around yet doesn't want to step on toes, so she eventually starts crying and becomes distracted.
Thanks for writing in your interpretation of the novel. I'll try to address your points: I've seen a lot of people complain about the mystery element of the novel in various places over the internet. I think the problem might be that John Green intended for that part of the story to be backseat to the mental illness themes. This is especially evident in the passage I touched on when Aza outlines what a "Hollywood" ending to the story would look like before dismissing it out-of-hand as not what happens. That being said, simply tossing the mystery aside with a hackneyed resolution for that reason alone would reasonably disappoint a lot of readers who were invested in that part of the story, so I agree that he ought to have done better on that angle. Yeah, I probably should've at least mentioned that Aza was whispering her replies to Daisy in the car. I still think I can hold the interpretation of the scene that I outlined in the video, however your interpretation is also very interesting and probably more useful than mine. I wish I had considered it while writing the video, although if I had, it probably wouldn't have ended up being the example that I needed for that particular segment of my argument.
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. Sorry it wasn’t really in the spirit of past Book Burnings. I know that people find overwhelming negativity very entertaining, but I get bored of writing it extremely quickly.
Strangely enough, your analysis of John Green reminds me very much of the discussion surrounding Star Wars: The Last Jedi (of all things). The primary issue with writers like Green is that they are so opinionated as human beings that their writings treat their concepts as arguments to be given to the reader rather than explorations of interesting topics. The act of subversion can be a very powerful tool to disarm the audience as a way of introducing new ideas that they may not have been open to otherwise, but that isn't what Green (or TLJ) does. In treating the subversion of the trope as the punchline in and of itself - instead of a setup for deeper exploration - the reader is left to infer what the meaning of the subversion is. This is exceptionally polarizing because the reader is either A) already in agreement with the author about the analysis of the trope in question, B) is actually a fan of the trope or C) doesn't have strong opinions about the concept one way or the other. If they are already on board with the author's thesis, then the subversion alone may be enough to make the reader feel clever for having "seen through the obvious" but in either of the other two scenarios the reader is left with the feeling that, at best, the author is trying to prove they are more clever than their readers or, at worst, the author actively holds their audience in contempt. If you already hate the "manic pixie dream girl" trope, then just the subversion of the trope is enough to leave you satisfied. However, if you like the trope or simply don't care, you will be left with the feeling that the story is completely pointless and possibly even making fun of you. If he wanted the subversion to work, he would need to show how the image of Margot as a "manic pixie dream girl" actively harms her, but, instead, Margot is left mildly annoyed and the story just ends without making any further statements. It honestly reminds me of how most Reddit posts are structured. The substance of the point Green tries to make in his stories is declared very strongly, in a manner that draws clear delineation between right and wrong, but utterly fails to define any deeper meaning behind his exploration, assuming that the audience has already made up its mind on where they stand with his analysis. Either you agree with the statement on you are left with the impression that "you aren't welcome here". Another example would be the passage you showed wherein Aza describes how "virginity is a patriarchal concept to oppress women" (rough paraphrase, I know). This statement is highly polarizing because it doesn't make much sense for a character like Aza, who isn't shown to be overly politically motivated, to use language that seems better suited to a college gender studies major and thus feels very much like Green inserting himself into the story by assuming Aza's skin. If you already agree with the statement about virginity itself, than the passage can come across as "relatable" or "profound" but everyone else will just feel like they are being called dumb for naturally assuming that a teenage girl would be less sexually aggressive than a teenage boy without any reason given as to why they would be wrong to assume that or why that assumption is even harmful to begin with. The end result is a book that feels like an overly verbose thesis paper wherein young adult characters are acting as glorified mouthpieces for Green himself as he attempts to make some subversive point about some problem with society as a whole that he will make very strongly (and charged with heavy moralization) without actually defining WHY he finds that topic to be an issue in the first place. The flip side of this would be something like Catcher in the Rye, wherein the trope of "angsty teenage boy who sees through society's BS (man!)" is deconstructed by showing how that self-image is nothing more than a front Holden utilizes to avoid actually dealing with his problems. The trope itself is also shown to be harmful in the way that Holden surrounds himself with people who exclusively buy into and reinforce his own 2D self-image and, in so doing, enable his avoidance of responsibility and self-improvement. The incuriousness with which every character engages with that very trope encourages Holden's warped perception of the real world and does very real damage to his life in the process. If you only subvert a trope as the point in and of itself - and mix that with a heavy helping of moralistic declarations - then the audience will either find his work to be a "masterful exploration of modern society" or an "annoying and preachy waste of time" depending entirely on whether or not they already agree with the point being made. Much like The Last Jedi, while some people may enjoy the subversive reveal as a nice break from a trope that is actively problematic - or just overused, at the very least -, those who don't care or find a lot of meaning in that trope will find themselves feeling like they have been deliberately targeted by a mean-spirited author. This is the reason, I believe, why peoples' response to these types of stories is so personal and powerful. Ironically, the visceral negative reaction that people feel regarding these stories often serves to only fuel the author's feelings of vindication, as though they have stumbled upon some hidden truth that their detractors hate because it states some form of "ugly truth" (congratulations on successfully OWNING the libs). Thus the cycle continues and the author's polarity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thank you for sticking to it and making these videos! As always, I stayed entertained throughout. Honestly, your videos on John Green have actually made me /want/ to read at least one. Before, I couldn't care less. I don't know if this was an intended effect.
I would really love to see you make a short video on your thoughts of what strengths and weaknesses the Written Word has over visual storytelling such as Comics and Film. You've peppered these ideas through your previous reviews, but a video condensing your opinions in one spot would be pretty insightful for your audience I'm sure.
So the manic pixie dream girl thing was subverted because it was a very common claim that Green faced. It was a reaction to his critics and a reaction to the now mostly dead now trope of the manic pixie dream girl. I feel like it was a reaction to a trope that was popular 10 years ago and was lobbed at him nigh constantly.
The problem with deconstructing the manic pixie dream girl trope was that the original one. Or the girl who brought it into popular consciousness was that. Like the whole point of Scott Pilgrim (comic) was that the both of them were working through their personal baggage.
I may never be a professional writer but these vids do help a surprisingly large amount. Food for thought, I stumbled over something strange in the Eragon books, the story started out in a way that set off a huge De Ja Vu trip and I couldn't place it. by the third book things started to feel like the character had started to get towards DBZ levels of strength and i found it... silly. the last book I couldn't bring myself to read as I was terrified the man was about to destroy all the characters I had grown to like either through silly magic or the villain was going to obliterate them. Had to listen to the book as an audio book and still have not physically read through it. I dont know what i stumbled upon but the book series was good over all but it had strange quirks to it that I cant quite put fancy words to
To be honest, watching this video and some conversations with friends made me realize something completely unrelated to this video: The people who talk about (arguably) ,,important" works the most(like 1984, Nothing, and for the YA audience, John Green's books), are the ones who understand them the least. And dont worry, i'm not here to bash on Cloud, i think most of his criticism raised here is valid, and i'm saying this as a self proclaimed fan of John Green. So far, I've read from Green (in this order) The Fault in our stars at 15, Looking for Alaska earlier this year (which i enjoyed the most, BY FAR), and Turtles, also earlier this year. I've had several conversations with several different people about all of them, and what fascinated me the most was how different an experience people got out of his books depending on how many other books they've read. The best example to this i can think of is with TFiOS, which i thought was okay, but nothing earthshattering. Upon discussing it with a friend who really loved it, when asked about why she loved it, she responded: ,,Above all else, because I expected the story to turn out well in the end. The fact that one of them died really surprised me." And i was utterly dumbfounded, because even with years passing since my experience with the book, i still distinctly remember Hazel making it pretty clear well before meating Augustus that she herself cannot survive for a very long time. Because of the medicine she's taking, she might survive for a while, but she will die in a year r two at best and has no chance of getting better, ever! So, even without spoilers, i knew that one of them will die, i just wasn't sure whether it would be Augustus or Hazel. The same problem persists in my oppinion with many of the people who say John Green writes the same story over and over again. I always have to ask myself whether these people have even read any contemporary YA book at all, let alone one by Green. Because in the modern YA scene, John Green is without question the crown jewel. Look at the Hunger Games, Maze Runner and Divergent series, the Big Three of YA fiction. Three trilogies from three different people, who somehow all managed to write the exact same story completely independently of each other. With that existing and being tolerated (and celebrated, in some circles for some fucked up reason that i'll never understand), i think it is more than a little unfair to say Green writes the same story again and again just because all his works are in the same genre and are narrated similarly. John Green has issues with his writing. Yes. As we've seen, even he is aware of that. But calling him a bad writer or someone who writes the same shit many times is bullshit, IMHO.
My philosophy in addressing people’s responses to a text is: Your emotional response is never wrong, but your explanation for it might very well be. Nobody rationally decides what their emotional response to a piece of fiction will be, but I think there’s value in analysing why certain responses might be more common. Sure, it’s not technically true that Green writes the same story over and over again, but that criticism of his work emerges so often that I think it’s worth looking at the texts to try and figure out what emotional response might be causing it and why many people seem to respond in that way. If multitudes of readers all respond in the same way, I don’t think it’s useful to just say that they don’t understand the text and dismiss their complaints out-of-hand. Even if they’re totally wrong, Occam’s Razor says that once several thousand people respond to a thing in the same way, the cause is probably something about the thing rather than the people. (This assumes the response is genuine and not manufactured, btw.)
@@CloudCuckooCountry Fair point, and i do agree to some extent, but i would i argue there's an exception to that philosophy, that being when that emotional response one gets is in direct conflict with the actual text. Granted, the argument can (and in some cases, should) be made that if this is a widespread thing, then the author didnt make his intentions come across clearly in the work, but i dont think this specifically applies to Green, as his works are fairly easy to digest.
Some good stuff in these videos overall although i don't agree with many parts. Personally one of my favorite things about John Green's writing is when his characters have those "musing" thoughts about stuff while it's happeneing because my brain does that constantly in real life and I had never really seen my own thought patterns captured in a character until I read a John Green book. Particularly Turtles Alll the Way Down. I find internal character processes more interesting than stories so while I do see how his stories often suffer it doesn't bother me as much as it might others. I also didn't really enjoy Paper Towns while I read it but it was a book that stuck with me and I liked it a lot after having read it unlike an Abundance of Katherines, Looking for Alaska or the Fault in Our Stars which I felt were all just fine. I loved Turtles All the Way Down a lot but at the same time since I share some similar brain issues as the main character it also sent me into a bit of a depressive episode cause I'm prone to that. I have to be careful about books sometimes fot that reason. It did frustrate me when you mentioned how you didn't have experience or that much knowledge of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl or the romantisized mental illness tropes and the harm they do. Yes i do think your experience as somone who wouldn't be affected by either thing makes your opinion on the matter less meaningful and as someone who is closer to both groups affected I really enjoyed Green's ideas and work with both in mind. It was far from perfect but I liked the effort and I think it was pretty dang decent. All that said I appreciated the work you put into these videos and i think you are a very fair and articulate critic. Thanks for making this
Very nicely done! The tie-ins at the end were well done. I definitely agree that you've explained and analysed enough to say you aren't simply repeating common critique, and liked the quote of Green acknowledging these faults. Overall, loving the analysis as it's encouraging myself to be more critical and thoughtful about what I'm reading. Any idea what you're going to work on next? Maybe some more terrible owl based fiction?
Thanks for your kind words. I'm planning on returning to more positive showcases of literature, similar to the videos on DP Mannix or GG Marquez. Haven't decided on what books to talk about yet, but some books I have in mind are: Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegurt, Flames by Robbie Arnott, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson, or Eating Animals by Jonathan Safron Foer.
@@CloudCuckooCountry Sounds really interesting! I enjoyed the videos where you talked about authors and styles that you fully enjoyed. Looking forward to whatever you choose.
I think you should check out the Locked Tomb trilogy. The third book isnt out yet but I think it does something really good with the narrator and limited scope of how the story is told
When i first read john green, i found the story _fine_ but thought his writing was mediocre; i tried to find some criticism on that but things that i found were… unhelpful. This video is exactly what i was looking for and it really helps me express my thoughts! 🙏
Idk if you've already been asked this before, but what generally do you dislike about Paper Towns? Do you consider the book/movie worse, and why? I like your breakdowns of John Green and others, so your description of Paper Towns as "fucking awful" makes me curious.
I go into more detail later on in the video beyond just calling it "fucking terrible". Keep in mind that I'm not attempting to evaluate that novel objectively. I would say that it is objectively of a higher quality in writing and storytelling than Looking for Alaska, however my emotional reaction to the novel when I first read it was so overwhelmingly negative that it overshadowed the specifics of how the novel was written or the story that it told. My explanation in the video is less an evaluation of the novel's quality and more an dissection of why I had the reaction that I did in spite of the novel's quality.
I'm an aspiring writer and I do find your videos helpful. :3I'm fond of a book that I think might interest you: "The Nothing Girl" by Jodi Taylor. The protagonist is a young woman made to believe she's mentally unwell by her adoptive aunt and uncle. It's grounded in reality... apart from her having a guardian angel(?) in the form of an talking horse who helps her decide what to say and how to cope with the world.
Only WWII novel I’ve read is Birdsong. I think it’s bad. Haven’t been into historical fiction in a while, however I’ve enjoyed the work of Mario Vargas Llosa in this realm.
I have read that. It was a while ago by now, but I recall loving how playful it was with both language and the chronology of the story. I’d have to meditate on it more and do some research before I can comment on the subtext, but it was a fun albeit challenging read.
CloudCuckooCountry That playful aspect you mentioned is what I like most about Vonnegut’s writing, as it gives an air of levity to the subjects of the books, even while the books delve into deep, often existential matters. This creates an interesting juxtaposition. That playfulness also in my eyes extends to Vonnegut’s use of subtext and theme as well. There are often so many disparate themes introduced throughout his novels that I find it difficult to tell what the book was truly about at all. But I guess this could be seen as providing a further avenue for reader interaction and interpretation, since one usually gravitates towards the meaning that resonates most with them. Thanks for your response, just wanted to provide my opinion on the book and Vonnegut as a whole.
Braco! That was an excellent two part excursion! What are you going to do next now that you've gotten through your thoughts on John Gre- *I'M RELEASING A NEW BOOK EVERYBODY* ... Oh... Well... I'll throw in a couple copies of Alyson Noel's "Evermore" while you prep the surprise part 3..
Hey, as soon as i finished the book i came to see your video. I don't really agree with your other John Green videos (specially TFIOS) but thank god, was about time some serius discussion on Johrn Green's books, and not on the same critical shit that fits in a 10 minut vlog
Hi. Thanks for the feedback. Glad you enjoyed the video. Yeah, I'm not happy with my other John Green videos either. I keep my old videos online so that people can see how I developed as a writer and a critic, but if I had my way I'd delete everything I made prior to 2016. I only take videos down if it comes to my attention that they contain significant misinformation.
For sure. I said in the video that it was possible to argue that position, and then stated that I didn’t believe it. My argument wasn’t that Green is wrong in his assertion, but that his assertion ignores very straightforward and reasonable objections to his position, which makes his argument seem weaker. It doesn’t matter if he’s right. He still has to make a convincing case for his position if he aims to convince people.
I live in Indianapolis. We don't call it that. We also don't have a white river high school even though the white river does flow through here. The fault in our stars had a much more accurate depiction of Indianapolis as far as landmarks and actual places.
I have my disagreements with Clifford Lee Sargent's opinions outside of literature, however I think generally he's very good at reviewing books. His show is called "Better Than Food" and I'd recommend at least checking him out if you're interested in literature review on TH-cam.
oh BOY would these two videos have been vastly improved if the person you got to read the lines from the book was even slightly up to the task. the way they kept putting emphasis on the wrong words and pausing in the wrong places as if they weren't actually parsing what they were reading and instead just reading it out word by word, as well as the repetitive decending cadence of every.single.sentence. made those sections so grating I almost had to give up on the video every time one of them started. I understand they might be your friend but wow you really should've just read those sections yourself after hearing their attempts at it.
![First 3 Hours Of Writing A Story (Starting From Nothing) - Jeff Kitchen [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b2RlPZmz9nc/mqdefault.jpg)
Archive.org is a great resource when trying to find deleted stuff.
The blog post in question: web.archive.org/web/20140326193457/fishingboatproceeds.tumblr.com/post/57820644828/hey-john-i-was-just-wondering-what-your-explanation
Great video!
Dunno why it never occurred to me to use that. Thanks.
"Welcome to my book: Two people are talking in a room. Sometimes they go outside." - John Green, actual quote
Those last seven minutes seems like REALLY good points on the nature of criticism. To all the other viewers, if you're gonna leave the video early, please at least try to watch these last seven minutes.
So here it is: the second half of my magnum opus. This was all originally intended to be one huge 2-hour video, but I thought that would be a bit much to just throw onto the channel all at once. I hope you all enjoy.
Once again, apologies for the audio issues.
I thought it turned out alright 😊
I don't like reading much but I like this channel and pretending I know what he's talking about
Keep up the the good work!
As a barely published writer, I found this video quite helpful! Pointing out that musings and thesis statements take interpretative agency away from the reader made me do a once-over of my first, in-progress novel and had me cut a lot of unnecessary fluff. The issues in sequence and structure you pointed out made me fix a bunch of things, too, so thank you!
Glad to hear that I was able to give you some helpful advice. However, by all means, don’t just rely on me when seeking out information on writing technique. There are plenty of resources out there for aspiring writers who want to know the ins and outs of writing and storytelling.
I had a book on writing I wanted to recommend, but I can’t for the life of me remember what it was called...
Best of luck with the novel!
I've been waiting for this. And thou hast delivered.
I guess you could say this video is...
A slow burn.
The burning, the flames, the fire, the passion
37:08 We did it. We killed the bird.
We're free now
Gryzzly No, I think he has just turned into the Joker.
RIP birdbrain uwu ♥️
Paper Towns (which i read a long time ago, so rip if I'm wrong) outside out of the manic pixie dream girl I thought it was about idolisation and how we characature and stereotype other people. How we judge entirely off of perceptions when people are just as complicated as us. Which probably wasn't the exact point Green was going for but it's kind of close.
Yes. I agree. Main character had this whole idea about how he and she would live out their lives, and he had never even thought to ask her what she wanted.
I really enjoyed the set up and execution of that last joke.
I can't really speak for John either but I believe the purpose of stepping away from using mental illness as a superpower is to respond specifically to the criticisms of romanticizing mental illness
For certain. My criticism is not targeted at Green’s idea, it’s how it was executed in the novel in a way that was uncompelling and uninteresting.
That wait a minute at the end ooooh
I loved this video alot, but I want to focus on 1:06:40
This passage right here actually did what you were talking about because there was always something that bugged me about the criticisms that ppl only listen to reviews to hear their opinions parroted back at them. I understand the frustrations that the ppl who give this criticism have (mainly that diverse perspectives get pushed out in favor of the majority), but there is value in having someone articulate the thoughts in the viewer's mind.
Another thing I liked was the topic of focalisation and how that can help or hurt a novel. This seems to be a problem unique to literature and one that can be quite difficult to overcome as evidenced by this novel. I actually saw another video essay talking about how video games can't be analyzed using the traditional perspectives found in literary analysis.
Thanks for your kind words. Glad you enjoyed the video.
I find that the problem with hearing your views parroted back to you is less to do with the viewer not engaging with diverse or challenging ideas, and more that the viewer is *letting someone else articulate their thoughts for them*. I've had discussions with people who have verbatim repeated the points of online reviewers, but then stumble and falter when those ideas are challenged in a novel way that the reviewer didn't account for. If you solely rely on other people to articulate your thoughts, then you don't develop your own ability to articulate yourself clearly. IMO People ought to consume and think about a wide range of honest and useful opinions that are articulated well because that will help them identity what language best suits their own experiences.
I would say that "story analysis" is common across all storytelling mediums: books, film, games, and so on, as storytelling form has many universal characteristics cross-medium. An example from this video might be the idea of "set-ups" and "pay-offs" which are common to books, films, *and* games. However, I would say that analysis of *form* is very different between mediums. Literary analysis is incredibly different to film analysis, so I don't see why game analysis shouldn't also be distinct.
Yeah ngl, I have been in that situation where I falter after I use someone else's words to express my pov and then froze up at opposing counter arguments. I would like to think I have been slowly developing my own critical thinking skills over time after listening to a variety of different perspectives whether they be good or bad (yours included). I have also tried engaging with ppl to help with that.
BTW the video game video was called Parasocial Relationship in OFF, Undertale and OneShot if you want to check it out. It mainly focused on how these games effectively use fourth wall breaks and how it relates to well parasocial relationships.
Also, you going to a video on Flames if there is interesting stuff in it?
Flames looks like I might make a video on it. It's got a lot of interesting stuff.
Cool, well good luck with with whatever challenges come ahead of you.
I greatly enjoyed these two videos. I found that you were an honest critic, although I didn't agree with you wholesale (and why should I? We're two different people). I am a young adult who has read five John Green books with varying amounts of enjoyment, and your explanation of focalisation has helped me articulate why the books have a sameness to them. My biggest problem with Turtles All the Way Down arose from how they solved the mystery in what seemed to me a contrived manner. It felt more like a tied up loose end then a progression of the story.
To defend John Green a little bit, when I read the argument between Daisy and Aza, I imagined that Aza's responses were to quiet for Daisy to hear. Daisy wasn't purposefully ignoring them, but Aza didn't have the confidence to counter Daisy loudly enough. Although John Green did use words like "whispered" and "quietly", it wasn't the clearest interpretation in the world. In this sense, I didn't find the topic of their nuanced relationship tarnished, especially as it painted the picture that Aza tries to assure herself she does listen while also giving credence to Daisy. This discrepancy causes an internal conflict within Aza, someone who is sick of being pushed around yet doesn't want to step on toes, so she eventually starts crying and becomes distracted.
Thanks for writing in your interpretation of the novel. I'll try to address your points:
I've seen a lot of people complain about the mystery element of the novel in various places over the internet. I think the problem might be that John Green intended for that part of the story to be backseat to the mental illness themes. This is especially evident in the passage I touched on when Aza outlines what a "Hollywood" ending to the story would look like before dismissing it out-of-hand as not what happens. That being said, simply tossing the mystery aside with a hackneyed resolution for that reason alone would reasonably disappoint a lot of readers who were invested in that part of the story, so I agree that he ought to have done better on that angle.
Yeah, I probably should've at least mentioned that Aza was whispering her replies to Daisy in the car. I still think I can hold the interpretation of the scene that I outlined in the video, however your interpretation is also very interesting and probably more useful than mine. I wish I had considered it while writing the video, although if I had, it probably wouldn't have ended up being the example that I needed for that particular segment of my argument.
Holy shit, an hour!?
Well, time to make some popcorn :)
Hey thanks for making this video. The conclusion really spoke to me (me being a teenager and all) and I hope you can continue to make these videos
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.
Sorry it wasn’t really in the spirit of past Book Burnings. I know that people find overwhelming negativity very entertaining, but I get bored of writing it extremely quickly.
CloudCuckooCountry I don’t care that it’s overwhelmingly negative. Most of your vids that are my favourite are positive.
Strangely enough, your analysis of John Green reminds me very much of the discussion surrounding Star Wars: The Last Jedi (of all things). The primary issue with writers like Green is that they are so opinionated as human beings that their writings treat their concepts as arguments to be given to the reader rather than explorations of interesting topics. The act of subversion can be a very powerful tool to disarm the audience as a way of introducing new ideas that they may not have been open to otherwise, but that isn't what Green (or TLJ) does. In treating the subversion of the trope as the punchline in and of itself - instead of a setup for deeper exploration - the reader is left to infer what the meaning of the subversion is. This is exceptionally polarizing because the reader is either A) already in agreement with the author about the analysis of the trope in question, B) is actually a fan of the trope or C) doesn't have strong opinions about the concept one way or the other. If they are already on board with the author's thesis, then the subversion alone may be enough to make the reader feel clever for having "seen through the obvious" but in either of the other two scenarios the reader is left with the feeling that, at best, the author is trying to prove they are more clever than their readers or, at worst, the author actively holds their audience in contempt.
If you already hate the "manic pixie dream girl" trope, then just the subversion of the trope is enough to leave you satisfied. However, if you like the trope or simply don't care, you will be left with the feeling that the story is completely pointless and possibly even making fun of you. If he wanted the subversion to work, he would need to show how the image of Margot as a "manic pixie dream girl" actively harms her, but, instead, Margot is left mildly annoyed and the story just ends without making any further statements.
It honestly reminds me of how most Reddit posts are structured. The substance of the point Green tries to make in his stories is declared very strongly, in a manner that draws clear delineation between right and wrong, but utterly fails to define any deeper meaning behind his exploration, assuming that the audience has already made up its mind on where they stand with his analysis. Either you agree with the statement on you are left with the impression that "you aren't welcome here".
Another example would be the passage you showed wherein Aza describes how "virginity is a patriarchal concept to oppress women" (rough paraphrase, I know). This statement is highly polarizing because it doesn't make much sense for a character like Aza, who isn't shown to be overly politically motivated, to use language that seems better suited to a college gender studies major and thus feels very much like Green inserting himself into the story by assuming Aza's skin. If you already agree with the statement about virginity itself, than the passage can come across as "relatable" or "profound" but everyone else will just feel like they are being called dumb for naturally assuming that a teenage girl would be less sexually aggressive than a teenage boy without any reason given as to why they would be wrong to assume that or why that assumption is even harmful to begin with.
The end result is a book that feels like an overly verbose thesis paper wherein young adult characters are acting as glorified mouthpieces for Green himself as he attempts to make some subversive point about some problem with society as a whole that he will make very strongly (and charged with heavy moralization) without actually defining WHY he finds that topic to be an issue in the first place.
The flip side of this would be something like Catcher in the Rye, wherein the trope of "angsty teenage boy who sees through society's BS (man!)" is deconstructed by showing how that self-image is nothing more than a front Holden utilizes to avoid actually dealing with his problems. The trope itself is also shown to be harmful in the way that Holden surrounds himself with people who exclusively buy into and reinforce his own 2D self-image and, in so doing, enable his avoidance of responsibility and self-improvement. The incuriousness with which every character engages with that very trope encourages Holden's warped perception of the real world and does very real damage to his life in the process.
If you only subvert a trope as the point in and of itself - and mix that with a heavy helping of moralistic declarations - then the audience will either find his work to be a "masterful exploration of modern society" or an "annoying and preachy waste of time" depending entirely on whether or not they already agree with the point being made.
Much like The Last Jedi, while some people may enjoy the subversive reveal as a nice break from a trope that is actively problematic - or just overused, at the very least -, those who don't care or find a lot of meaning in that trope will find themselves feeling like they have been deliberately targeted by a mean-spirited author. This is the reason, I believe, why peoples' response to these types of stories is so personal and powerful. Ironically, the visceral negative reaction that people feel regarding these stories often serves to only fuel the author's feelings of vindication, as though they have stumbled upon some hidden truth that their detractors hate because it states some form of "ugly truth" (congratulations on successfully OWNING the libs). Thus the cycle continues and the author's polarity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thank you for sticking to it and making these videos! As always, I stayed entertained throughout. Honestly, your videos on John Green have actually made me /want/ to read at least one. Before, I couldn't care less. I don't know if this was an intended effect.
I love these videos, they're so useful for learning more about storytelling.
I would really love to see you make a short video on your thoughts of what strengths and weaknesses the Written Word has over visual storytelling such as Comics and Film. You've peppered these ideas through your previous reviews, but a video condensing your opinions in one spot would be pretty insightful for your audience I'm sure.
So the manic pixie dream girl thing was subverted because it was a very common claim that Green faced. It was a reaction to his critics and a reaction to the now mostly dead now trope of the manic pixie dream girl. I feel like it was a reaction to a trope that was popular 10 years ago and was lobbed at him nigh constantly.
The problem with deconstructing the manic pixie dream girl trope was that the original one. Or the girl who brought it into popular consciousness was that. Like the whole point of Scott Pilgrim (comic) was that the both of them were working through their personal baggage.
Well it does so really well in the comic but less so in the movie and people are more familiar with the movie
I may never be a professional writer but these vids do help a surprisingly large amount. Food for thought, I stumbled over something strange in the Eragon books, the story started out in a way that set off a huge De Ja Vu trip and I couldn't place it. by the third book things started to feel like the character had started to get towards DBZ levels of strength and i found it... silly. the last book I couldn't bring myself to read as I was terrified the man was about to destroy all the characters I had grown to like either through silly magic or the villain was going to obliterate them. Had to listen to the book as an audio book and still have not physically read through it. I dont know what i stumbled upon but the book series was good over all but it had strange quirks to it that I cant quite put fancy words to
Hey. I recently discovered your channel and I really like your videos. Keep up the good work! :)
Thank you. I'm happy that you enjoy my content.
To be honest, watching this video and some conversations with friends made me realize something completely unrelated to this video: The people who talk about (arguably) ,,important" works the most(like 1984, Nothing, and for the YA audience, John Green's books), are the ones who understand them the least.
And dont worry, i'm not here to bash on Cloud, i think most of his criticism raised here is valid, and i'm saying this as a self proclaimed fan of John Green.
So far, I've read from Green (in this order) The Fault in our stars at 15, Looking for Alaska earlier this year (which i enjoyed the most, BY FAR), and Turtles, also earlier this year. I've had several conversations with several different people about all of them, and what fascinated me the most was how different an experience people got out of his books depending on how many other books they've read.
The best example to this i can think of is with TFiOS, which i thought was okay, but nothing earthshattering. Upon discussing it with a friend who really loved it, when asked about why she loved it, she responded: ,,Above all else, because I expected the story to turn out well in the end. The fact that one of them died really surprised me."
And i was utterly dumbfounded, because even with years passing since my experience with the book, i still distinctly remember Hazel making it pretty clear well before meating Augustus that she herself cannot survive for a very long time. Because of the medicine she's taking, she might survive for a while, but she will die in a year r two at best and has no chance of getting better, ever! So, even without spoilers, i knew that one of them will die, i just wasn't sure whether it would be Augustus or Hazel.
The same problem persists in my oppinion with many of the people who say John Green writes the same story over and over again. I always have to ask myself whether these people have even read any contemporary YA book at all, let alone one by Green. Because in the modern YA scene, John Green is without question the crown jewel. Look at the Hunger Games, Maze Runner and Divergent series, the Big Three of YA fiction. Three trilogies from three different people, who somehow all managed to write the exact same story completely independently of each other. With that existing and being tolerated (and celebrated, in some circles for some fucked up reason that i'll never understand), i think it is more than a little unfair to say Green writes the same story again and again just because all his works are in the same genre and are narrated similarly.
John Green has issues with his writing. Yes. As we've seen, even he is aware of that. But calling him a bad writer or someone who writes the same shit many times is bullshit, IMHO.
My philosophy in addressing people’s responses to a text is: Your emotional response is never wrong, but your explanation for it might very well be.
Nobody rationally decides what their emotional response to a piece of fiction will be, but I think there’s value in analysing why certain responses might be more common. Sure, it’s not technically true that Green writes the same story over and over again, but that criticism of his work emerges so often that I think it’s worth looking at the texts to try and figure out what emotional response might be causing it and why many people seem to respond in that way.
If multitudes of readers all respond in the same way, I don’t think it’s useful to just say that they don’t understand the text and dismiss their complaints out-of-hand. Even if they’re totally wrong, Occam’s Razor says that once several thousand people respond to a thing in the same way, the cause is probably something about the thing rather than the people. (This assumes the response is genuine and not manufactured, btw.)
@@CloudCuckooCountry Fair point, and i do agree to some extent, but i would i argue there's an exception to that philosophy, that being when that emotional response one gets is in direct conflict with the actual text. Granted, the argument can (and in some cases, should) be made that if this is a widespread thing, then the author didnt make his intentions come across clearly in the work, but i dont think this specifically applies to Green, as his works are fairly easy to digest.
The odd thing is that today is my birthday. So this had to be the best present I could've gotten.
Happy Birthday
here for my yearly rewatch for writing criticism to see what I can put into my writing :)
YAAAAAAAS I was waiting for this
Some good stuff in these videos overall although i don't agree with many parts. Personally one of my favorite things about John Green's writing is when his characters have those "musing" thoughts about stuff while it's happeneing because my brain does that constantly in real life and I had never really seen my own thought patterns captured in a character until I read a John Green book. Particularly Turtles Alll the Way Down. I find internal character processes more interesting than stories so while I do see how his stories often suffer it doesn't bother me as much as it might others. I also didn't really enjoy Paper Towns while I read it but it was a book that stuck with me and I liked it a lot after having read it unlike an Abundance of Katherines, Looking for Alaska or the Fault in Our Stars which I felt were all just fine. I loved Turtles All the Way Down a lot but at the same time since I share some similar brain issues as the main character it also sent me into a bit of a depressive episode cause I'm prone to that. I have to be careful about books sometimes fot that reason. It did frustrate me when you mentioned how you didn't have experience or that much knowledge of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl or the romantisized mental illness tropes and the harm they do. Yes i do think your experience as somone who wouldn't be affected by either thing makes your opinion on the matter less meaningful and as someone who is closer to both groups affected I really enjoyed Green's ideas and work with both in mind. It was far from perfect but I liked the effort and I think it was pretty dang decent. All that said I appreciated the work you put into these videos and i think you are a very fair and articulate critic. Thanks for making this
Very nicely done! The tie-ins at the end were well done. I definitely agree that you've explained and analysed enough to say you aren't simply repeating common critique, and liked the quote of Green acknowledging these faults.
Overall, loving the analysis as it's encouraging myself to be more critical and thoughtful about what I'm reading.
Any idea what you're going to work on next? Maybe some more terrible owl based fiction?
Thanks for your kind words. I'm planning on returning to more positive showcases of literature, similar to the videos on DP Mannix or GG Marquez. Haven't decided on what books to talk about yet, but some books I have in mind are: Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegurt, Flames by Robbie Arnott, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson, or Eating Animals by Jonathan Safron Foer.
@@CloudCuckooCountry Sounds really interesting! I enjoyed the videos where you talked about authors and styles that you fully enjoyed. Looking forward to whatever you choose.
2:49 the sequel to catherine
I think you should check out the Locked Tomb trilogy. The third book isnt out yet but I think it does something really good with the narrator and limited scope of how the story is told
When i first read john green, i found the story _fine_ but thought his writing was mediocre; i tried to find some criticism on that but things that i found were… unhelpful. This video is exactly what i was looking for and it really helps me express my thoughts! 🙏
Book Burning on Paper Towns!!! Yay!!!
#justiceformychal
Yaaaaaasssssss
Woo~!
Idk if you've already been asked this before, but what generally do you dislike about Paper Towns? Do you consider the book/movie worse, and why?
I like your breakdowns of John Green and others, so your description of Paper Towns as "fucking awful" makes me curious.
I go into more detail later on in the video beyond just calling it "fucking terrible". Keep in mind that I'm not attempting to evaluate that novel objectively. I would say that it is objectively of a higher quality in writing and storytelling than Looking for Alaska, however my emotional reaction to the novel when I first read it was so overwhelmingly negative that it overshadowed the specifics of how the novel was written or the story that it told. My explanation in the video is less an evaluation of the novel's quality and more an dissection of why I had the reaction that I did in spite of the novel's quality.
CloudCuckooCountry I appreciate your insight. Thank you!
I'm an aspiring writer and I do find your videos helpful. :3I'm fond of a book that I think might interest you: "The Nothing Girl" by Jodi Taylor. The protagonist is a young woman made to believe she's mentally unwell by her adoptive aunt and uncle. It's grounded in reality... apart from her having a guardian angel(?) in the form of an talking horse who helps her decide what to say and how to cope with the world.
What are your opinions on War/History novels and would you consider covering "All Quiet on the Western Front"?
Only WWII novel I’ve read is Birdsong. I think it’s bad.
Haven’t been into historical fiction in a while, however I’ve enjoyed the work of Mario Vargas Llosa in this realm.
Ever read Time Enough For Love?
Have you read Slaughterhouse 5, and if so what are your thoughts?
I have read that. It was a while ago by now, but I recall loving how playful it was with both language and the chronology of the story. I’d have to meditate on it more and do some research before I can comment on the subtext, but it was a fun albeit challenging read.
CloudCuckooCountry That playful aspect you mentioned is what I like most about Vonnegut’s writing, as it gives an air of levity to the subjects of the books, even while the books delve into deep, often existential matters. This creates an interesting juxtaposition. That playfulness also in my eyes extends to
Vonnegut’s use of subtext and theme as well. There are often so many disparate themes introduced throughout his novels that I find it difficult to tell what the book was truly about at all. But I guess this could be seen as providing a further avenue for reader interaction and interpretation, since one usually gravitates towards the meaning that resonates most with them. Thanks for your response, just wanted to provide my opinion on the book and Vonnegut as a whole.
Whelp, let it burn.
Seeing as you included it in the visuals of the video, it begs the question. What is your opinion on the Harry Potter series?
I last read it as a teenager. It started out as fun and whimsical children's adventure stories, but ended up at a generic fantasy saga by the end.
@@CloudCuckooCountry I can definitely understand that. Thanks for replying. :)
Braco! That was an excellent two part excursion! What are you going to do next now that you've gotten through your thoughts on John Gre-
*I'M RELEASING A NEW BOOK EVERYBODY*
... Oh... Well... I'll throw in a couple copies of Alyson Noel's "Evermore" while you prep the surprise part 3..
should have named this video 'angry birds'
Hey, as soon as i finished the book i came to see your video. I don't really agree with your other John Green videos (specially TFIOS) but thank god, was about time some serius discussion on Johrn Green's books, and not on the same critical shit that fits in a 10 minut vlog
Hi. Thanks for the feedback. Glad you enjoyed the video.
Yeah, I'm not happy with my other John Green videos either. I keep my old videos online so that people can see how I developed as a writer and a critic, but if I had my way I'd delete everything I made prior to 2016. I only take videos down if it comes to my attention that they contain significant misinformation.
@@CloudCuckooCountry and by the way, i don't think that media that uses mental illness as a "super power" is good representation
For sure. I said in the video that it was possible to argue that position, and then stated that I didn’t believe it.
My argument wasn’t that Green is wrong in his assertion, but that his assertion ignores very straightforward and reasonable objections to his position, which makes his argument seem weaker.
It doesn’t matter if he’s right. He still has to make a convincing case for his position if he aims to convince people.
what part of the us does this book take place in? i have never heard of an american using the word "spade for a Shovel"
just curious.
The novel is set in Indianapolis.
CloudCuckooCountry interesting must be a term specifically used in Indianapolis
I live in Indianapolis. We don't call it that. We also don't have a white river high school even though the white river does flow through here. The fault in our stars had a much more accurate depiction of Indianapolis as far as landmarks and actual places.
I just found your channel and watched part one four hours ago -- how the FUCK did you know?
Surprise!
Can anyone recommend me any good book youtubers?
I have my disagreements with Clifford Lee Sargent's opinions outside of literature, however I think generally he's very good at reviewing books. His show is called "Better Than Food" and I'd recommend at least checking him out if you're interested in literature review on TH-cam.
@@CloudCuckooCountry Thank you
Hey. You're neat.
John deleted his Tumblr cause people on Tumblr bullied him off and he was probably frustrated cause of the bullying.
I threw up a bit on the part with sex and virginity.
Bojack horseman did the internal voice better
oh BOY would these two videos have been vastly improved if the person you got to read the lines from the book was even slightly up to the task. the way they kept putting emphasis on the wrong words and pausing in the wrong places as if they weren't actually parsing what they were reading and instead just reading it out word by word, as well as the repetitive decending cadence of every.single.sentence. made those sections so grating I almost had to give up on the video every time one of them started.
I understand they might be your friend but wow you really should've just read those sections yourself after hearing their attempts at it.