Let me clarify since I'm already getting a lot of comments about it - many people are saying that argument 2 is just a version of argument 1, which, fair, because I don't feel like I explained myself well on argument 1 😂My issue with "it's fictional" is when it's used to shut down any argument, without any further discussion. That may seem obvious, but you'd be shocked at how often it happens to me. Saying "I don't think we can completely rely on medieval european customs in this case because this is a fictional fantasy world that may work under different assumptions" would NOT, imo, be an example of argument 1. Why? Because that person is using "it's fictional" in a very specific way that expands conversation and allows discussion, and not used in a way to shut down all and any arguments. So in the case of number 2, my argument isn't "we can never discuss parental figures because it's children's literature", it's rather that *sometimes*, audience DOES matter when discussing characters. And in this case, I could discuss all day about dumbledore, sirius, hagrid (and I have LMAO) and whether or not they are good parental figures - my frustration comes from when I find that any argument I make for those characters, the opposition boils down to "but Dumbledore and other teachers just LET HARRY FIGHT THE BASILISK!". It seems silly and missing the point of the series, imo. Many famous children's books do this to varying degrees (allowing children to do many things they shouldn't that may stretch suspension of disbelief) and I just don't think it's a great argument in light of children's lit, personally.
I added my comment above before seeing this. I thought the question about the Basilisk is why no-one ever bothered to ask Moaning Myrtle how she died. Strikes me that that is a plot hole, and it should probably just be acknowledged as such. Nothing about it being a children’s book makes that kind of hole any better. The HP books aren’t perfect. And it may also be a character problem that Dumbledore, who is so brilliant and powerful, couldn’t figure out over a period of years what a couple of kids discover fairly easily. I agree that that is more common in children’s books, but that doesn’t make it good, and there were definitely ways around both problems. Rowling goes part of the way with the idea that only someone who speaks Parsel can open the chamber. But she doesn’t plug all the holes she created.
I hope none of my comments came off sounding like I thought your first two points were just different versions of the same thing! That certainly wasn't the impression I intended to give. In my case, it just gave me a little bit of a giggle that it just so happened to be that the first point you criticized was "it's fictional"[ when wielded poorly], but then your criticism of point two also happened to turn that around and use "it's fictional" itself[ but wielded less poorly so it was okay](which I think really only served to further demonstrate your point about how it isn't just "it's fictional" as a protest in general that's bad but more "it's fictional" when utilized in that one very particular too-vague/too-generalized or dismissive way)-but I didn't mean to imply that it was ironic in a negative way or anything, although in hindsight I'm considering now how it could maybe have come off sounding differently than I'd meant it.🙂 I really like irony, so I thought it was great(I almost wondered a little bit if maybe you'd even done that on purpose)!!! 💖 ^-^ Lol To be fair, though, I think sometimes people see someone say "it's fictional" and then disregard anything else that was said because some people just assume everyone is always using it in that particular way[ like a blanket dismissal OR as a blanket free-for-all pass or such] even when they weren't-and that's when things can get really sticky. 😅😅 Also, I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be totally impossible to orchestrate better in-universe (fictional) reasons or justifications why kids are allowed to do[ and/or happen to get away with doing] things in fiction sometimes that theoretically they shouldn't in reality, perhaps. But...I still completely agree with you that, especially in fiction intended for younger audiences, it's okay if sometimes you just have to suspend your disbelief-or simply accept that even though kids in reality maybe shouldn't be just permitted to do things like that, especially when it is a fictional child capable of things that no child in reality is theoretically capable of, it probably would legitimately change exactly what kids could or couldn't be allowed to do in which circumstances even in reality too; or accept that it depicts a less than ideal situation, because that is how we give them a plot full of things to rise above or overcome, or whatever.😁
Can I tell you something...as much as a die hard HP fan I am...it has a million plot holes 😭And like I noticed them as a KID. One I was super annoyed about was how money doesn't make any sense in the world lmao. I did always think...nobody asked Moaning Myrtle how she died? I think that plot hole is way more relevant to discuss than the parental thing haha. That's one of the times, again as a giant fan, I'm like...you couldn't have come up with something better Joanna lol @@duffypratt
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about the new Star Wars movies. I explained how I didn't like character decisions, derivative plot copied from prior movies, and specific creative decisions. To which I got the response "Star Wars just isn't for you anymore" - I think the 100+ SW books on my shelves disagree with that lol This was a good video! Looking forward to more ASOIAF content 😁
One of my biggest gripes when it comes to talking about books is when I meet people who get judgemental about what is good and bad in fiction. Like there is some kind of standard we should all be living up to. I managed a bookstore for ten years, and I treated every customer's joy like a sacred cow. I had a customer who loved Conan (which I didn't). I made sure every time he came into the store, I was armed with new recommendations. I have been a teacher for 30 years, and there hasn't been a year where a parent hasn't complained to me about the books their child is reading. When Goosebumps was hot, it was like an epidemic. I got more, "I don't want my kids to read that trash!" than I care to remember. Where as I was just incredibly grateful that I had so many kids reading books every day.
SAY IT LOUDER!!! I think you'd love the address Neil Gaiman gave that I mention in this video. It honestly changed my life haha. I was sort of the parent worried about my kid reading "stupid lit" (Although I'd never talk to a librarian about it, PLEASE) and his perspective on reading just helped me get over it so much!
"It's just fictional" reminds me of a Strange Planet comic strip where one of the characters was reading a novel and he responded to that argument with "The being is fictional, my anger is real." Which I think is the perfect rebuttal to that argument.
I like the idea of opinions being 'sacred' but perspectives and interpretations being changeable. That is to say - an opinion is more of a feeling and not strictly logical. The other things can be discussed and often just hearing a different perspective can lead to a change of opinion. Also I really like the painting analogy you gave - I think more people can wrap their head around that!
I don't know that opinions are always more of a feeling or such, but they are certainly subjective and not necessarily or inherently obligated to be objectively founded at all, that's true!. 🙂💖
I love your channel, whether I agree with every take you have or not - although I usually do. Watching your videos has rekindled (no pun intended) my decades-long love for reading fantasy and sci-fi, which had lapsed for several years. Keep up the great work, and read, read, read!
Excellent topic! Your last point is so true in so many areas, not just books. It is OK to agree to disagree... you can understand what someone sees without agreeing with them! We all like different things and see things different ways. I think a lot of these boil down to "you don't like what I like," so I must "prove you wrong" or "shut you down." We would be so much better off as society if we learned to listen and converse about topics without needing to be RIGHT (especially on opinions).
And honestly just have a lot more fun 😭 Discussing / "arguing" about books is honestly so fun if everyone is in it for a good time and not determined to change minds. Like, these are fantasy novels, it's low stakes!
@@Bookborn so true! I have also learned a ton from people (including you) by listening to other views and opinions. It makes you see things in different lights and appreciate things you may never even have thought about! Learning and expanding your mind is a good thing 🙂
I generally strongly agree with you. A little nuance I'd add to the first part concerns the ways people sometimes discuss characters. Sometimes those discussions are indistinguishable from how they discuss real people, and characters obviously aren't real people; there's representation, literary function, semiotics, etc., at play. That's where the otherwise really apt analogy to visual art breaks down--people looking at a painting don't typically infuse what's represented with a realistic life narrative, because that's really just not the nature of the medium. It's harder to avoid in stories, because we are narratively driven creatures in general and we enjoy character depth and development. Characters are hard to discuss because they move us and feel satisfying to us when they have a certain level of verisimilitude to real people, but they also can't be analyzed exactly as real people are. So I think that's where *some* (though definitely not *all*) of the "it's fiction, not real life" argument can come from.
I love that you compared 'not real' to the art of painting, and the validity of resulting emotions. That is what books are to me. While objectively 'good' writing does shine through, sometimes it's absolutely the way a story *made me feel* that makes it a favourite (or not). I for one LOVE your video about Sansa, because I *feel* for her! GRRM has created a character I wish I could protect from the ugliness in the world, ANY world - because emotionally, she's real to me. She's a little girl who grew up in a fairytale so believes that's the case for everyone. She's then thrust into a cesspit of horror and deception with no skill to cope with any of it. Yes, as a child, she retreats into believing even harder in the story tropes, but she also slowly learns to cope. She develops coping mechanisms.... [I'm able to see real world psychological responses!] she's real to me - I TOTALLY give her agency in my own head, she's not a collection of words on a page. If I don't specifically see a reason for a behaviour, what I HAVE seen, gives me enough to imagine one. I honestly believe the ability to do that (use the known to extrapolate the unknown) with book characters, is what makes (MOST) readers such wonderful people to know. Readers have learned how to use context clues, to consider motivation behind actions, and ultimately, tend to be the most considerate people I know - Keep doing what you do, I super enjoy your content - haters gonna hate regardless.
The "it's fiction" argument is funny to me too. It's like the "it's an adaptation" argument for adaptations. Like... Yes... We understand the context of the material we're discussing. Now let's discuss it. This kind of goes along with your children's book pet peeve but with books, I always look at characters with two sets of glasses - how they are as characters, and how they are as people. In tWoT for instance, I thought Faile was a horrible person, but a great character. Like - I'd definitely not be her friend in real life, but I enjoyed reading about her. She was interesting, growing, and developed my worldview through her perspective. On the other hand, Perrin (for the second half of the story) was someone I would absolutely get along with - and yet I had zero interest in reading about him for most of the second half of the series. He had almost all of his character development shoved into the first 4 books, so the rest felt like a drawn out refusal of what his life already was - he didn't grow, he wasn't interesting, and any changes to his character made me want nothing more than for him to return to who he had been just after the Battle of the Two Rivers and then grow as a character from that point. Dumbledore was a horrible guardian, sure (and a horrible person for setting Harry up as a sacrifice) but he was fascinating to read (and contextually brought up interesting philosophy questions). And with adaptations, yes, there need to be changes - but the question is how necessary those changes were, and how they fit into the greater context of the story - and at what point it's no longer an adaptation, but rather "inspired by" the source material.
OH MAN, I wish more people understood the difference between good character and interesting character. Some of my favorite characters aren't good people but MAN are they interesting/great to read about. Just because you love a character doesn't mean you somehow cosign their actions lol
@@Bookborn SO MUCH of this! I love the character of Cersei Lannister. She fascinates me. She's also a terrible person. Loving her character doesn't mean condoning a single thing she does! (Though I'll admit that Jaime *is* pretty hot, but he's NOT MY TWIN!)
Great video!! Sadly I think a lot of these boil down people just not being comfortable with someone feeling differently than they do. They either need to shut a discussion down asap so they stop feeling the discomfort, or take it way too far to try to "win". My personal pet peeve is when someone calls a book Bad, but then qualifies it with opinions about very subjective things. I can agree measuring a book's quality on semi-objective things like prose, plot structure, consistency, poorly dealt with themes, etc etc. But "it's bad" shouldn't be synonymous with "I didn't like it"!!! I know even I fall victim sometimes to wanting to label a book like that, but it can come across rude, and is really unhelpful letting someone else judge if they'd actually enjoy the book themselves. It's super reductive and lazy! XD
Oh man I get so annoyed with people turning subjective things objective 🥲🥲 it’s like I know that even if I hate a book that doesn’t mean it’s objectively the right answer 😭
Awesome video! Speaking of things that shut down discussion, one of my "favorite" comments to see (other than "you just don't get it") when I talk about a movie/show/book I didn't like is "Well, you couldn't make a better movie/show/book, so you have no business criticizing it." How is that relevant? Who knows. But it's funny.
omggg I get that one ALL THE TIME and it's like..."So...everybody who reads this book or watches this movie has to be able to make movies or write books to be able to say if it's good or bad?" That's just such flawed logic. Imagine if you said "you can't rate the food at the restaurant because you can't cook!"
Fun video! You probably see this more on booktube than I ever see in the real world, but I think there’s a lot of people who just haven’t learned to hear negative things about what they like and haven’t learned not to take it personally. Once I hit a certain age I started to love hearing dissenting opinions because it wasn’t boring and I can talk far more to someone who disagrees with me about something than the other way around. It’s tough on booktube though since you don’t always get to pick your audience :)
Oh man you couldn’t be more right. Any in-person book discussion I have, even when we really disagree, is always SO NORMAL. the internet really just allows people to behave so poorly lol. The other funny one, is never in my LIFE in person have I ever been corrected on character pronunciation. But online… 🤣
Thank you for your videos. I really enjoy your perspective. I'm so happy you are reading the Song of Ice and Fire books. I have read A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings because of you. I loved the shows mostly but probably would not have read the books. I'm starting A Storm of Swords now and will go back to your video when finished.
I think you're making good points. Every genre has a set of suspensions of disbelief that are required. You don't yell at a sci-fi, saying, 'but faster than light travel isn't possible!" It's part of that genre that we allow for that, the same way we allow for more-than-believably clueless adults in children's lit, or magic in fantasy. At the same time, we want our characters to act believably in most ways. So when we call out a character for doing something stupid or out of character, and someone says, "but it's just fiction!", they're missing the point. In most fiction we're not SUPPOSED to suspend disbelief about human behavior (people will still get angry, sad, and so on, even if there are vampires and fireballs). We still want consistency in those behaviors (I can't think of a genre where it's okay for characters to act inconsistently, though there might be one).
Yes, please, totally agree! The "You didn't get it" is *so* annoying! As you said, one can get a book (objectively) and still dislike it (subjectively)--those are two different factors at play, not really interchangeable. Also, the convincing people? That's aggravating and I'm so sorry it happened to you--most of the time, that obsession with convincing someone only causes the *opposite*, with that someone just disliking something even less. I think I haven't seen your Last Wish video, and I think I may watch it just to hear your thoughts! Happy 2024!
TLDR: I appreciate your videos and how they provoke new perspectives and discussion. I do think that considering the type of book you are reading is important when setting expectations or entering into a discussion. But I also don't think genre alone is reason enough to dismiss criticisms of the story or characters within it. Your second point reminded me of one of my main pet peeves when discussing stories, which is to be aware of the genre or what the story claims to be. I enjoy a fairly wide variety of stories (anything but horror, really), and I don't carry the same expectations from one story to the next. Yes, I do generally want the story to be well-written and comprehensible, but I wouldn't judge a Ali Hazelwood book by the same standards I take into a Brandon Sanderson novel. I'm aware that they are very different types of stories, and so my appraisal of character/ plot/ writting/ etc. is going to try to match what the story claims to be/ the genre it falls into. I found it to be a helpful reminder that books written for children should be considered from that perspective. I don't think that the genre or intended audience of the book is a free pass for the adult characters to act irresponsibly, however. I understand the child protagonists need to be able to shine - they're the heros! And there may be a level of suspended disbelief for some adult actions to allow the child protagonists more agency. But I don't think that criticism of many adult characters in children's books such as Harry Potter should be dismissed because the books were intended for a younger audience. I think it's even more important that those characters are well-written, flaws and all, because children may see characters or relationships in the books they read as what they should strive for. I remember reading about Snape's "love" for Lily and thinking that "Always" was so romantic. It took me years and difficult personal experiences to realize that it was in fact extremely toxic. Let me know if there's something I missed; would love to discuss more. :)
I feel like I must’ve really not explained my second point very well because I 100% agree with you! I actually think the adults in HP provide some of the most interesting discussion because they are pretty layered and nuanced and are rarely the heroes people want them to be. I just think the argument “they let Harry fight the basilisk instead of the teachers” feels like it misses the point of the series.
Thank you for taking time to respond! I know you get a lot of comments.:) Thanks for clarifying your point. Totally agree that arguments that dismiss the protagonists actions/ agency miss the point of the story. (Such as arguing that Harry shouldn't have been allowed to have his various adventures.) That kind of dismissive comment (the adults should have handled it) actually makes me think about the argument the adults have in book 5 about whether or not Harry should be included in conversations with the Order of the Phoenix. I always thought it was interesting that people seemed angry at Molly Weasley for wanting to protect Harry, but then would judge the HP adults for not doing that. Seems like a double standard? Anyways, thanks again! Love your videos.
Speaking of changing minds, your Sansa video didn't really change my mind. I watched it and still felt like she was the weakest character. However, it turns out you secretly *DID* change my mind on her! I'm going back through book 2 right now and I'm constantly blown away at how well she's written! How her fears, justifications, and ambitions are this mish-mash of childish, naive, and also increasingly desperate and just sad. Learning what to do/say so as not to get injured, but justified in her childish innocence. It broke my heart when she suddenly thought of Arya and was like "She must be back at Winterfell by now, dancing and sewing and doing all the best fun stuff." Even after all this time, she still doesn't understand her sister. Plus we know as readers where Arya is and Sansa couldn't be further from the truth! :)
"It's just not for me," is my way of saying I recognize the book is well-written, nicely paced, and with well developed characters, but doesn't interest me, at all. I'm glad others like it, and I can understand why they do, but I never will because we all have different tastes. Not better; different.
on a side tangent to argument 2, I I do think that some children's shows/media/books do cross into "why would you tell it this way" territory occasionally with the adults. And that's when they portray the adults as the stupidest people in the world while portraying the kids as the smartest people ever. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is probably a decent example. There's a part of me as a child that definitely enjoyed this type of story, but I mostly dislike this because I don't like the negativity of the message it teaches kids (myself included). Some forms of this story can teach kids that neglect is basically normal or that you can't trust your parents with anything. That is something that saddens me as a message.
Great content as always. One of my biggest pet peeves is glossing over things "because they are fictional" and not looking at the wider implication. I'm not talking about your number 2, which is more think of the audience it's for, but rather content that glorifies something that's not good. I'm going to upset some people with my example here, but let's talk about the house elves in Harry Potter, who are slaves and, other than Dobbie, apparently like their slavery. The sexist parts of The Witcher is another good example and I know you ended up getting a lot of hate for calling that out. So yes, these things are fictional, but we can still recognize that they are glorifying something that we might want to take a closer look at.
I still to this day can't believe how reckless Jack and Annie's parents were in Magic Tree House. You wouldn't believe the type of shenanigans these kids got up to like jousting and playing with dinosaurs. SMH where are their parents?!
Great vid! I loved your points on different interpretations. Im a big believer that any interpretation you have is a valid one, of course if there's a detail the author the put in there that you maybe missed when reading it which you could affect your interpretation that's a different story haha (it happens to all of us). One of the things I love most about discussing books with friends is how we interpreted stories based on foreshadowing and subtext! Of course that's maybe easier done in a long conversation than over the internet lol
lol yes, in fairness, I find most of these issues happen on the internet and rarely in person - it's so hard to hold discussions on the internet because it's so static!
I have a hard time when people desperatly try to find plotholes where there are none. Questions like "who pumps the tires on the Batmobile" or going over every detail of some kind of magic. If the story itself don't ask the question or don't break it's own rules things like that almost never matter. In a book for a book circle I go to there was a magic house that had vegetables growing on it's roof and some just could not let go of how unrealistic that was. While I was think "the house has fucking legs, what exactly is the problem here".
LMAO 😭This one is tough for me because while I do think people tend to get wayy too pedantic about magic, there's also stuff that just bugs people and I can't pretend it doesn't bug me too. I actually did some research into "suspension of disbelief" because it's a fascinating topic and people have different levels. My classic example is in Jurassic World, when the main character runs from the t-rex in heels. I HATED that scene, it made no sense to me; but someone could say "well there are modern-day dinosaurs in this movie, how come you don't hav a problem with that?" and I feel that they are on different levels.
@@Bookborn on the issue of running in heels I feel that things like that are more valid to complain about. Jurrasic World is basicly our world with way more advanced science. Heels should still work the same way. But if someone says "dinosaurs are fine" and then goes on to say "but invisible dinosaurs are a step to far" then you cross into silly complaints in my opinion (if questioning how realistic it is). If we still use the Jurrasic Park movies as an example basicly everything is explained with "life finds a way" and that works perfectly for me. Heels however are not alive an can therefore not find a way 🤣 (I'll show myself out after that "joke")
These are all great observations. In my viewings of various channels here, point 4 seems to be the guiding problem behind a lot of conflict and hostility. Points 1 and 3 really just are special cases. "It's just fiction" is often another way of saying "If it's not real, then there's no absolute standard by which to judge some aspect of a work's quality, so maybe just read a different book and move on." "You don't get it" often means "Your worldview is so wrong that something's wrong with you and I'm going to make sure you and everyone else knows this." They all have their place and they all have their wrong place, but in the end it would really help if more people could let stuff go.
8:42 Ummm actually you-- created a somewhat amusing moment in this section of the video 😂. Great video! I like what you said in regards to the “just didn’t get it” argument. I have a handful of books I want to get back to because of this feeling of not getting it the first time. Its a really powerful pressure on me and while it’s rewarding to revisit certain books in order to understand them, I’m working on letting go and choosing the books I want to dive deeper for my own entertainment and enjoyment, not to appease a certain audience.
3:15 - It might seem like that would be so bizarre, but that is actually exactly what many people have done to art and music and such throughout the years[ and to people who respond to it particularly emotionally] too.😅😅🙃👀 It's the same attitude, I think, that leads people to say "it was just a pet"(not a human person) so the loss or whatever shouldn't effect you as much. ((Also, to be fair, there are actually people who truly do project their own realities into fiction far too much[ or who take fiction way too seriously] or don't separate fiction from reality very distinctly if even at all in their own minds-but that doesn't mean that everybody does, many people are completely self aware and either only doing so as a joke or as a purely hypothetical food-for-thought kinda thing, and everybody is allowed to have their own differing things that they do or don't find fun or worthwhile. 🙂 Pretty much, exactly like you've said.! ^--^)) 7:05 - Ironically, the argument protested against in the first point is the very argument being used to protest against the second point!😂 It's true, though, that fiction doesn't always have to be about emulating what we personally do or don't believe that reality is or should be like-fiction can also be specifically about exploring 'but what if things were NOT how they actually are in reality' too, and that's okay!!! 😊💜🤍🩶💖 ^-^
Usually when someone uses a phrase that Shuts down a discussion, like "It doesn't matter its Fictional" Is because You have Convinced them they are wrong and some people doing like that so they distance them self's from it
Oh boy, do I *love* it when I explain why a character isn't nearly as heroic or coherent as the fans and the other characters treat them, and the reaction is, "Blame the writers, not the character!"
oh man, even though I watched a TON of the MCU (I think I watched everything until endgame, and then after that fell off) I've never interacted in the online fandom. I bet it's fun 🤣@@zachryder3150
I so agree about the children things! and not just kids like it, also us, the adults. I don't want to read a book with a child/teenager protagonist that his parents don't let him to do anything...
The "agree to disagree" one speaks to me. I've revisited books I loved or hated years before and totally disagreed with myself. There are _some_ elements of technique and style that can tell on the level of craftsmanship of an artist (author in the context), but I'll contend that the meat of a review on ANY artistic work comes purely from a conjunction of circumstances and personal experiences. They make sense internally, and in the moment, but they remain snapshots of ego, and thus, utterly subjective. I will forgive a LOT of bad writing from an author who tells me a good story because the STORY is what I look for first. The reverse is also true; excellent flow and imagery won't save you from a DNF if your tale sucks. That people agree with you does not make your opinion "correct". It just makes it _shared_ . People should learn the difference.
The "it's fictional" is definitely one of the most irritating ones when discussing books for sure! I also get annoyed with the "You didn't get it" as well
I think I mostly just didn’t explain number one well enough - I don’t mind it when it’s used as a part of a wider argument (“you trying to adhere strictly to medieval European customs when this is fictional fantasy doesn’t hold up” feels perfectly valid) but rather when “it’s fictional” means you can’t discuss it at all. So, in the second case, saying “it’s fictional so why do you care about dumbledore as a parental figure” is very different than “I know Harry is allowed to do more, but in the context of children’s literature I think it’s one aspect we can’t take as seriously”. Of course, that’s just my opinion on the matter - many people don’t see it that way.
Hi there. I wanted to let you know, that this past Tuesday I finished listening to the Bands of Mourning by Brandon Sanderson. I really enjoyed it. Also, I am now on chapter 9 of the Lost Metal, and I am struggling to try to pick it up again. I have the feeling that I am listening to an over 500 page epilogue to Mistborn era 2. I thought that Wayne was at his best when he was with Wax, and now when he's paired up with Marasi, which I thought were going to be a couple, he has turned into a really annoying character, and I used to love him. What happened. Anyway, I have recently started reading while listening to the Fall of Giants by Ken Follett, which is a thriller and historical fiction book. It's been quite gripping. Maybe I needed to take a vacay from fantasy. Let me know what you think.
Definitely agree with the "it's fictional" response being unproductive. It's the same thing as asking "why do you care so much?" The point is to shame you for liking something enough to have an opinion on it.
The Harry Potter comments remind me of the Seeing Red movie Disney put out a couple years ago and everyone freaking out (outside of the menstrual representation) that “it teaches kids to disobey their parents) rather than acknowledging that kids/teens have their own lives and don’t tell their parents everything, especially when they demonstrate never taking it seriously. It also allows kids to see themselves on screen as having more agency and that they can have their own role in their lives
I’m a HUGE believer in just talking to your kids about media! Do you think something happened in a kids movie you don’t love?? Ask your kids questions about it! “How did you feel about so and so doing that? What would you have done?” I’m very protective of my kids but I realize that exposing them to a lot of different ideas is the best way to grow and talk about stuff, rather than blaming all media for not being exactly how I want it or my values 🥲🥲
@@Bookbornyeah my mom has the same philosophy. It’s better to let them watch something that you don’t necessarily agree with and then have a conversation than to ban them from it cause then they’ll just watch it without you knowing.
I’m totally guilty of judging kids books (and movies) literally the other day I was watching AirBud with my kids and when the boy finds the run down basketball court I can’t let myself get past the fact that he is trespassing on someone’s property 😂
Oh, I didn't say we couldn't JUDGE it - my husband and I just talk about that constantly when we watch kids movies now LMAO. Just that it's not a good discussion point if people are really trying to discuss the ~book/movie.
It is my opinion anyone who says it's just ... does not accept others opinions of how something can make them feel. Whether it's music, art, shows or books we respond with different' emotions. Those that say it's just are negating anyone else's feelings and perhaps denying things can affect each of us differently. Perhaps they aren't affected by artistry but things can make them feel with emotion, like a dream car finally realized. I enjoy the feelings various stories in whichever format can provoke within me.
Excellent rant.... Well maybe rant is a bit strong. This was a pleasant rant 😂😂😊 Theme of the story... Lighten up, Francis and learn how to Agree to disagree 😁 Always enjoy your videos BB, especially the deep dives 👍 Thanks for sharing!! 😉
Two of my greatest Pet Peeves on Book Discussions are: 1. I didn't like the book and that means the book is objectively bad and anyone who likes the book are stupid/ I didn't like the book this author wrote, so that means he is over rated and doesn't deserve to have fans or that the fans he already has as to be brainwashed / I didn't like this genre or type of book this author writes and since that author is famous that means he is bad for the genre on a whole/ I didn't like that the prose in this book is not poetry, that means that this author shouldn't write books or have fans. Most of these statements made (mostly against Sanderson, at least the last 3) come down to a particular person's personal taste and instead of leaving it there some people make themselves the objective authority on what others should or shouldn't like and just start attacking the author or the fans of the said author. I get it if the book is damaging or attacking a specific group or generally harming to the society, but otherwise just not liking a book because of your personal taste doesn't give you the right to dictate others to have the same opinion as you. 2. People who actually didn't read the book but still consider themselves as haters just because the work is popular.
I don't disagree, but about "moving staircases" in Harry Potter: They only physically move in the movies, in the books they just lead to different places different days.
I do sometimes continue disagreements when I COULD "let differing opinions be" but my contention is more when an argument is just... disingenuous. "I don't like X because of trope Y and theme Z" "I did like it, and it isn't those tropes and themes, and you're evil" I just don't understand the denial. This happens ALL THE TIME with girlboss media. And the accusation is that I must just hate women. In reality... girl boss tropes are amongst my favourite. Xena, Buffy, Scully, Ripley... then onto various heroines (a genuinely formative book for me was "Dragonsinger" by Anne McCaffrey. I must have read it when I was 13~ and it is about a younger daughter who is bullied, runs away and eventually finds her place. To say it resonated with the continually isolated and bullied teenager with a popular big brother is an understatement. And I think Menolly certainly fits a YA girlboss and even mary sue territory. She's effortlessly talented in some things, instantly liked and supported when she leaves the oppressive bubble she was raised in and generally always right :P... and I fucking love it. And why do I not consider it a bad use of those tropes? Because at no point are men demeaned in order to prop her up. Even her father, a figure who is objectively awful and sexist, is ACTUALLY treated with empathy. He's not EVIL, he's just ignorant. He DOES love his daughter, but he TRULY believes that supporting her would somehow hurt his community. The reader can despise him and his opinions, but understand he's very much a product of his environment... and environment that ABSOLUTELY damages our protagonist and is the true obstacle she must overcome... /rant. I know bookborn is not a McCaffrey fan ^^)
Would love to hear your thoughts on Fire & Blood then your thoughts on House of the Dragon if possible. I do have a memory of you saying you couldn’t get into the show because of the graphic content, but if you are able to, it would be cool to see your reactions, especially with the new season coming out!
So I'm knowing that I late to the discusion but I'm just now find the video and wanted to share one aditional pet peves of me when I discuss books (though it mostly happend in real life). English isn't my native language neither l live in a english speaking country. But thanks to our education system, many of my generation are privilige to are good enough to read books in english. Most of finacial or avability resons I read a mixture of translated and non trasnlated work. There comes my pet peaves. Whenever I don't like a book and the other people are shoked about it, i hear the phrase: "Ohh... It's because you read the translated version". As if this makes all my points invalide. It's in the similar vain like "You just don't get it". I know somtimes somthing can be lost in translation, but I'm loved lots of books even when they were translated. Funnily enough, I never hear this argument when we talke about a book, whos original language isn't english. There it's just made sense that you read the translation.
Yes! “I see where you’re coming from, but…” validates the other person’s opinions, but still allows you to disagree with it respectfully. “No, you just don’t get it.” Feels like I’m talking to Dawson Leery.
With the whole just letting things go, was a irl disagreement with someone I love. They took a stance on something I thought was inherently racist, but they were dead set on convincing me that it wasn't and was actually a good thing. I did my best to engage but they never made a good argument to convince me. They eventually let it drop after I told them several times I'd have to think on this for a while. But I could see they weren't happy with that. They've basically given me a cold shoulder ever since.
I think the problem really arises when people don't just see something as a mere difference of opinion, but as an issue of when something is 'right' or 'wrong'; people tend to believe that being right or correct[ and someone else being wrong/incorrect] somehow justifies or entitles them to make other people change their mind because they personally feel like 'everyone "should" have the most right or correct knowledge/opinion/mindset/whatever possible'. But the trouble is, people are[ or should be] actually allowed oftentimes even even to be outright incorrect or wrong, so long as doing so is not like literally believing it gives them the right to harm anyone else. And that's what people seem to have the most trouble to accept. (But maybe that's just me, idk!😊)
@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341 hey don't not commit by saying "imo". I think you're on point! Believe what you will as long as you don't hurt people! I think my only addendum would be this, and I'll use to personal examples to clarify why I think it. First example is humor; I find funny what I find funny. I am also mature enough to find something funny even if it is making fun of something I like or value. I believe all things should be a target for mockery, b/c if a thing can't be made fun of it can't be criticized. If it can't be criticized than it can't be imported or correct. This is what I believe and have believe for years now. Come to Thankgiving and I read the room wrong and made a joke that didn't land. It happens. One person took it really personally tho and confronted me. A long conversation followed and it boiled down to the other person saying "in my perfect world I would tell you why a thing isn't funny and you agree and stop making that joke." I said "that's inherently controlling and makes you god. I will never comply" they responded saying it wasn't controlling and just valuing kindness over my right to make a joke. The second example that forms my addendum is this; in mid December a person I care deeply about said a word that caught my attention so I asked questions and quickly realized they believe something I don't. I decided to just ask questions and not try to attack their stance but eventually they said something that just kinda stopped me in my tracks. Forgive me b/c there was alot of context but for sake of this not being a book lol. Them - "What you should do is check the race and gender of all the authors you are reading and make sure you are including women and people of color." Me- but I don't care about anyone's race or gender I just want good stories. Them- yeah! So it's no harm to just check the races of them all, and if you fi d out their mostly white men, you should go and seek out black authors and women." My mind is kinda caught in mud here at my shock at the full on racism they didn't see. - so you want me to investigate and make sure I'm not just reading stories by white guys. How many black authors and women do I need to be in a right place? Them, unabashed - I don't have a exact number but a significant amount. Having diversity in your scifi and fantasy is a good thing. I ended up shutting down and saying "I'll need to think on this" to get the conversation to stop but I could tell they were upset I didn't agree with them outright. They have been upset with me since then., but b/c I don't agree with their definition of racism (historical oppression + power) I can't agree with their conclusions. Tl;Dr how does this all play into my addendum to "live your life the way you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone." Is that you can live your life how you want, but you should seek out rules to live your life by that can't be used by someone else to do evil. B/c, just because you wouldn't do a evil thing doesn't mean the person that fallow you won't. So live by rules that are clearly defined, easy to understand and fallow and few. If you've read this far u are a Saint. LOL.
@@Beard_Hood Sorry this response is so belated! I just wanted to wait until I could give your comment and my reply a bit more of my full attention, but then the days kind of just got away from me a bit, and I ended up waiting even longer than I had planned on(and I kept getting unexpectedly busier than intended here and there with other things coming up in the interim along the way too)-Forgive me. 🙂 (Also, forgive me, but this will probably be on the lengthier side as well-like, lengthier even than yours!🙏😅😅🫣🤭 Sorry! ...if you give up without reading it all, I won't hold that against you, either. Lol) Don't worry, I didn't say "that's just me" or whatever to commit less, nor to say that I personally doubt it at all or actually believe this any less strongly myself or anything. I just like to try and make it clear that, even though I'm sharing what I personally think/feel or such, I'm not trying to literally force anybody else to agree or actually think/feel/etcetera the same exact way as I do[ even regardless of whether I personally think it might be better if everyone did or not....I just personally like to acknowledge that ultimately it's still completely up to them and their own mind or such if their thoughts or feelings change at all or not because of mine]. You might be surprised how many people do not read my comments in good faith if I don't, so clarifying this in advance just really helps me cut back a little bit on the notifications I might receive that I would either need to explain this to retroactively or just shrug it off and ignore completely despite having already spent the time to read it.😅 (It's kind of like the "drive defensively" principle, I guess; which is when you try and keep a certain amount of space between your vehicle and any other vehicles on the road whenever possible, so that if anything out of the ordinary does happen then there is a slightly greater chance that you might be able to stop and/or avoid it without crashing too or what-such.) I actually have a kind of [loosely ]similar caveat as your addendum myself-which is that I personally believe everyone should endeavor to recognize and respect the fact that what is or not 'harm' can differ sometimes from one individual person to another(kind of like how two separate persons might trip and stub their toe on the same exact thing and both going no faster than at a casual walk's pace, but one person might come away from that with nothing except a mild stinging sensation and recover very soon after, while the other person might come away from it with their toe extremely bruised or even broken and might take a much longer time to recover afterward; and that's even without touching at all on if or when any individual personal thoughts/feelings/opinions get involved). But, for expediency's sake, I had chosen not to dig into that in my previous comment.😊 I think I would personally quibble a little bit with your addendum, though, as I would personally argue that people can't really hold themselves responsible[ beyond a certain point] for what anyone other than themself is or isn't going to do with anything. So long as they aren't being grossly negligent about the fact that what they do or say is likely going to be interacted with by others, and sometimes even by those who might do things with it that they personally wouldn't, or what-such. I mean, a truly evil person could take even a handful of dandelions or daisies and use that to asphyxiate someone with, or something; but I don't think it would be fair to expect that literally every or any person who ever picks/displays a handful of flowers should have this particular possibility occur to them whenever they pick/display any bunch of flowers. Even if the handful of flowers was picked by someone else for somebody else, that doesn't automatically make the person who picked those flowers to blame for what somebody else did with them, unless they had reasonable belief or knowledge when they did so that this is what could/would happen. We can't really or fairly fault ourselves or others for what other people will do or not with anything, unless we are knowingly and/or intentionally inciting others to do so. Not to mention the fact that not all things are always considered to be equally as evil by literally every person who exists-so how do we determine exactly which individuals do or don't get to decide what is and isn't, in fact, "evil"[ in order to say what exact things everybody should be making sure that others can't misuse in which ways]? (But perhaps that's just me, getting lost in the semantics or something, idk.) I'm no Saint, though, I assure you; I'm just someone who commonly enough leans far more on the wordier side myself and who just doesn't fuss much personally about how lengthy anything ever is or not in general(Except in the rare case when it's only the prologue of a book and yet it's 40-pages long!👀😅🙃👀🤣), especially so long as it stays within that particular platform's maximum character limit and doesn't even need to be divided into two or more separate posts. Lol I don't know if I personally agree that literally everything should be subject to mockery, nor that only things that can be mocked can be criticized. But I suppose that could depend on whether or not you believe there is a distinction between mockery versus simply poking fun at or cracking a joke about something, like I personally do. I don't believe that, in a perfect world, literally everyone would always agree exactly about what all is or isn't funny-but I do think that, in a perfect world, people should perhaps[ at very least to some extent] try and be somewhat considerate of what maybe not everybody might consider as funny as someone else does at the least when making jokes in the company or presence of others. But, yeah, even doing that....sometimes you simply have to agree to disagree or just move on. And I think both the audience and the person(s) making the joke all share in the responsibility equally to try and be mindful of what actually is or not reasonably funny or insensitive versus what's just different senses of humor[, and in which contexts, because oftentimes context does matter]. Similarly ... I don't know if anyone should be literally required to read things written by female authors or by authors of color, nor that every reader should always have to read A LOT by every possible type of author, nor that everybody should always have to know the race or gender of literally every author they read. But I do agree that, when there has been a relatively consistent history of certain types of authors' works not always being given the same chances as certain other types of authors' works are given[ within certain fields/genres or such], it's not necessarily a bad thing to go out of our way to make sure that we are at least occasionally giving works by those types of authors a fair chance ourselves. Even when you don't personally care about any authors' race or gender and personally care only about reading good stories-At the very least if you don't personally believe that those particular types of authors are somehow any less capable of writing equally good stories as anyone else is(?). (Pretty much regardless of how you do or don't define racism or sexism or anything.) But I also don't personally think that historical oppression + power is actually necessary for something to be racist[ or sexist], and so on, either-like, something can absolutely still be racist[ or sexist] sometimes even if it's not longstandingly and/or systemically so[ or whatever]. And yet I do doubt if the person you love intended to imply that you shouldn't read white male authors at all[ or that you should read fewer white male authors] or such, nor that you should read female authors and authors of color specifically or exclusively just because they are female or persons of color in general[ nor that you should read from women or persons of color more than you read from white male authors], or anything like that-so I think I am struggling just a little bit to understand precisely what you felt was so full-on racist about their comments and why? But I genuinely am trying to see where you were coming from(where both of you were coming from, honestly), and not just completely dismiss either of your arguments or declare that either one of you two was blatantly in the right or wrong here[ rather than simply coming at things with slightly different perspectives] without knowing all the facts(from both of your own/individual perspectives). I do, however, also wonder if perhaps it could/might have been more an argument over how things were said than a dispute over what was being said(Since sometimes different people will say things in certain ways that we wouldn't even if they are talking about the same thing that we would personally use other words to say OR will use certain words to refer to different things than we ourselves would rather than using those words for the same thing that we would personally be meaning to say if we ourselves ever used those particular words)? But those are just thoughts that popped in my head over the course of you sharing about that particular experience of yours, and please do feel free to disregard them entirely if you would rather not engage with or ponder along those same lines of thinking yourself, as I do understand that your point when sharing that experience wasn't really so much to debate the ins or outs of that particular argument itself-it won't bother me if you don't want to get into it any more than simply just to use it only as you intended in example for your addendum. 🙂
hey, thanks for the reply, honestly didnt expect it! For sake of this not being a novella (lol) im just gonna comment what caught my attention, but i did read this all a couple times and i really appreciate your level headed response and confidence. i'll guess ill start with paragraph 4 where you used the flowers as an example. I believe that no one should be held responsible for what someone else did (exception being if you give a knife to someone who expressed that wish to kill someone or themselves, but i feel thats a "no duh" kinda clarification.). What i was trying to get at was the idea that our frame work for society should be such that its clear what is better ( and i do think there are objectively things that are better than other) and what is bad (i also think there are universally bad things), and while a "bad" person is going to harm others regardless of the law that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't enshrine idea/laws that are obj good. i forget who i was listening but he commented on how if you look at the last 5 commandments in the ten commandments, they are fundamental for a society to exist. in particularly 13 “You shall not murder (enshrines the value of human life.)14 “You shall not commit adultery. (enshrines the value of family)15 “You shall not steel(enshrines the value of property).16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (enshrines the value of reputation). Life, family, property, and reputation. i actually believe the guy was right. Knowing that there will be people who's minds don't work correctly or have a moment of weakness, who will murder, who will cheat, who will steel, and who will lie, i think we should still have rules (few and clear) that guide us as a whole. Start working from a solid foundation and go out. in regards to mockery i heard a comic say "the only joke you shouldn't tell is the one that always bombs, but that might be b/c of your delivery or timing.", so i agree with you. i just say mockery b/c its inflammatory enough that often gets to the heart of the persons "idol". i guess thats my issue, i don't believe we are or will ever be in a perfect world so it isnt a factor. We have to give a level of grace b/c we arent perf. i think of my good friend who's mom died of cancer when he was 19 and then his dad died a year later in a car crash. We were at collage and a roommate said "i'd rather die of cancer" as a joke, i could see the pain on my friends face, he and i didn't laugh. When the kid saw we didn't laugh as we normally would at his jokes, he realized what he said and to who. He apologized, but ill never forget what my friend said "don't worry about it man, don't not make jokes on my account. i know you didn't mean anything by it" that stuck with me. Just b/c i don't find a thing funny doesn't mean i have the right to say they cant make the joke. especially b/c most people don't mean ill by their joke and if they knew why you personally wouldn't laugh at a joke like a cancer joke, most people wouldn't make it. But thats the big difference in my eyes. An example to express it better and to be a nerd, Cap America said in Infinity War "we don't trade lives" while at the same time being willing to sacrifice his own life. but that the difference between telling someone that they have to die and being willing to die of your own choice. I am willing to not make a joke about Chris Benoit to my brother in law who doesn't find those jokes funny, but i will make them to my brother who finds irreverent humor funny as hell. sorry i am rambling a bit, but my point in a nut shell. We don't live in a perfect world and never will, there shouldn't be any rule or law that says you cant make a joke especially b/c most people, if they know, wouldn't make a joke you wouldn't find funny anyway. Also i will never deny that historically there have been wrongs done, jobs denied, books not printed b/c of someone's sex or gender. Just as ill never deny that America, even pre America, has war'd and done wrong against the Indians. At the same time ill also say that the Indians weren't all unified and killed each other all the time. In the current day its easier to self publish, i think the last number i heard was that there are 3000 new fantasy books published a year, more than any one person can read. I also think that we were moving in the right direction in the 90's and early 00's. Was it slow? yes. But it was changing for the positive. J.K Rowling proved all the publishers wrong that a woman couldn't sell a book. But I didn't read HP b/c i heard it was written by a woman, i read it b/c everyone loved it. I don't think race or sex determines if you are a good writer or not, nor do i think it determines if you are a good person or not. What i found racist was that i was being told that i had to weigh my decisions on what i would read based on someone immutable characteristics and not the story that they wrote. This is just a fictional example, if black people as a whole only ever wrote ... Romance novels... i would never read anything by a black person, not b/c they are black but because i don't like Romance. Exception being if a bunch of people tell me the story of x romance is actually an amazing story. The color of their skin wasn't a factor for me it was just coincidence i didn't read anything by a black author b/c they only wrote a genre i don't read. At the same time in reality i pass on alot of SciFi/Fantasy book b/c ill read a synopsis and it didn't sound like fun/interesting, the sex nor color of skin is considered. Yeah, we often use word differently, i actually try to make an effort to clarify b/c we had often had issues in the past. Also side note, this person is genuinly a great person, i love them and i believe that they should be held up as an example of how to live you life, i just really disagree on this and a couple other topics. They are not they type of person to say that a black person can't be racist, but when an example was used, "say black people had a party and they said "no whites allowed" is that racist." they said no. "if a group of white people had a party and said "no blacks allowed" is that racist? to which they said yes. i asked why "b/c black people in America have been historically been oppressed and kept out and don't have power." (thats what it boiled down too, its been a hot min so the quote is loose but accurate) So i took the example and said "say, in this example for sake of understanding, that black people had ALL the power. They then had a party and said "no whites allowed" would that then be racist?" to which they said "no, b/c black people didn't historically have power in America" I just can't work with that definition. I get why people like my friend are usuing it, they see inequality and injustice and want to make it right. But b/c of that response it tells me they haven't though through the consequences of making your definition Power + Prejudice. I don't believe fighting past discriminations with present discriminations will lead to Equality. itll just lead to an eye for an eye, violence b/c people aren't as good as they could be. It makes far more sense to have the definition of racism be "judging someone in the negative or positive based on their skin color." it goes back to my few and clear. I can work with that b/c its end goal makes sense and is actually achievable and doesn't lead to future wrongs. whereas power + prejudice just leads to more wrongs being done and excused and the wronged becoming racist. i think its inevitable. Not everyone, but it won't erase racisms as a rule of thumbs. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk lol. Also thank you for taking the time to respond. i hope you are having a good new year! @@jaginaiaelectrizs6341
@@Beard_Hood Hey, if you were ever going to comment a novella though, I'm probably the person to comment it at! 🤣 (You could go right ahead and utilize that entire 9,999 character limit, here, and I wouldn't criticize you for it; you could probably even actually break your comment down into 2 or 3 separate parts across more than just one comment, and I still probably wouldn't judge you negatively for it, even though I also don't judge anyone negatively just for not wanting to type and/or read quite that much themselves either! 😆😆 I'm a pretty big believer in people being free to be however wordy or not-wordy as they are-even that one 40-page prologue only really bothered me because I just happened to come across it without having been forewarned and at a particular point in time where I had hoped to just be able to read that prologue super quick just to get the book started and help motivate myself not to continue just leaving it sitting unread for too long, so it was just poor timing for me moreso than actually that the prologue was so long.) Lol ( But, don't worry, you also don't have to[ use the YT comment maximum character limit to its utmost fullest] if you don't want to. 😂 ) I pretty much agree with you completely on everything from your latest comment. 🙂 I agree that there are some things that are objectively more or less good and/or bad than other things, too. And about society being best supported by establishing certain clear and not overly convoluted principles/rules. And having a good foundation, then working out from there, is probably ideal. And all of that. Fair enough about using the word 'mockery', for that particular reason, too. I pretty much agree with you about humor and jokes too, and about the fact that we do not live in perfect world[, and that sometimes we do just have to give room for a little bit of grace with people sometimes for the fact that we don't]. But I guess I personally feel that, even though it's inevitable that pretty much nothing in this world will always[ if ever] measure up to perfection exactly, I don't think this necessarily means that people can't still try their best to get as close to living up to the way(s) that they personally feel things should be if only we were in a perfect world anyhow-if that makes sense? And just between two or so people who do know each other enough to know why certain jokes might bother each other more than they might bother someone else, I think you do have the right to ask them not to make those jokes just between the two[ or so] of you(maybe) rather than simply relying on the fact that most people wouldn't make the joke if they did know why it bothered you, since I think it's okay for different people to have different levels of tolerance in that regard(like I think it's both okay if some people might say "don't not make the joke on my account" and okay if some others might say "please don't make that joke" instead and I think both types could understand that the person who did make that joke hadn't necessarily personally meant anything bad by it); but in public or especially with people who don't know you that well, I completely agree that even though you don't personally find something funny yourself[ even if that's for very specific or understandable reasons] you still don't necessarily have the right typically to ask that literally no one should make that joke anywhere ever(although it's okay if some people do also choose not to make certain jokes even in public too, to each their own discretion, sometimes)-but, similarly, just because they might not have the right to require you not to make the joke entirely also doesn't necessarily mean people don't still have the right to express their opinion that it wasn't funny too. Lol I pretty much agree about the '90s and early '00s, moving slowly but headed in the right direction, too. It's pretty wild to me just how many more books get published every year nowadays, and most industries/genres are much more diversely accessible nowadays than in the past too, that's true; but, even so, it is also true that there are sometimes people who still do overlook or look down on works by women/people of color/etcetera(and not always just when they write genres or styles or stories that people don't personally care much for). I don't think it would automatically be bad even if you had personally picked HP up just because you'd heard it was written by a female author-so long as you didn't think it was likable, or tell other people that they should read it too, for literally no reason other than just because it was written by a woman. Lol I guess my personal suggestion would be, rather than looking up the ethnicity or gender or every author you've read, perhaps occasionally just searching up books in a genre you do enjoy by female authors and/or authors of color and then looking to see if there are any such books whose descriptions do happen to pop out to you? (Like, ultimately, don't read them just because they were written by a woman or a person of color; only read them if they do happen to catch your attention for some other reason, but just give them the opportunity to try and catch your interest, sometimes? If that makes sense?) I mean, I'm pretty sure a lot of people did not originally realize that J.K. Rowling WAS actually a female author, until after people had already read a book or two and gotten hooked-it was pretty common practice back then for female authors to choose initials or such as their pennames like that, specifically because it made them sound more gender neutral or even seemingly masculine outright. (Take Jude Watson, who published some books in the old[ pre-Disney] Star Wars EU, for example-who is actually a female author, but published under a seemingly masculine penname specifically to try and appeal to a wider potential audience of readers in certain genres, if I remember it right.) I don't think it was until things like Hunger Games and Twilight that female authors with overtly feminine names really started taking off on a remotely comparable level[ to HP or LotR and such], even though things were gradually headed in that direction long before then. (But maybe that's just my own perception?) Like, I definitely don't think you should decide to actually like or read a book exclusively because of its author's gender or ethnicity, except maybe if you're reading books specifically looking to explore certain life experiences or whatever[ in fiction or nonfiction] that somehow either differ from or are are similar to your own experiences(just because you're curious to see other perspectives or are maybe looking for a little reassurance that you're not completely alone in certain experiences or whatever). But there isn't necessarily any harm in occasionally looking up lists of books by authors of certain types in certain genres that do appeal to you and then just seeing if any of those books might jump out at you for any other reasons, like cover and/or plot description[ and such] and then deciding to read them or not based off whether anything else like that actually caught your eye, so perhaps that could be an okay compromise there(?). Although I definitely agree no person is any better nor any lesser than any other just because of their gender or ethnicity, not as a writer, nor as a person. I really appreciate how you're able to separate your opinion of the person you love but sometimes disagree with from the fact that you don't always agree about everything exactly. And I pretty much agree with you about racism, too; I get why some people are defining it differently too, but I also agree that doing so is not really the way to actually set any of the world's wrongs right. I think I would've had a problem with hearing those answers to those particular questions myself too, but I also might've asked them "okay but hypothetically IF black people _hadn't_ historically been oppressed and then threw a "no whites allowed" party, would that be racist?". Lol (Like, I understand the instinct that black people might have reason to be concerned that a "no blacks" party might only be perpetuating historical racial prejudices into the modern era and/or that being forced to include non-black persons in their own parties might also open the door for negative prejudices to come harassing and such, but where is the line between protecting yourself versus holding things against people not for what they themself actually do but for what others with certain similarities to them did? That's a pretty slippery slope to try and stand on, imo.) I definitely agree that you can't fight past discrimination with present discrimination though. You're welcome-and Thank YOU for taking the time to read and respond too, yourself!!! My year's been a little rocky already, lots going on[ not all good]-but I really appreciate the thought and positive wishes anyhow, so here's to hoping that things will start looking a little brighter soon, and hopefully your own new year has been off to a bit of a better start!💖 Hopefully you and the person you love but sometimes disagree with will be able to work past your differences and be a little closer or less strained or such again. 🙂
I do say "it's fictional", but whenever I say this it's towards people fed up over how certain figures are reimagined in historical fiction. (I know you like historical fiction the least so it's likely that's not what you meant in your first argument.) In recent years many figures like women in mythology/Shakespeare/Jane Austen etc are reimagined in new books, yet I read and watched several reviews that intuitively compared those reimagined characters to the real figures and dismissed them for not being true enough. I replied "it's fictional!" DUH
I agree- if adults can read fantasy ("it's fictional!") then kids can too. They know Harry Potter isn't real and that's why they enjoy it. I don't know any kids who would enjoy reading their own life story, it would be boring to them. People like fiction/fantasy because it's unrealistic. Some kids lit is better than others but you can't be that picky and not let them read anything.
It's fictional is a horrible one. And besides being lazy it's also usually untrue. Because even in fantasy and sci-fi where everything is fictional, the fictional world still has rules. In-world rules, natural progression of things, logic... If rules don't apply I'm going to need an in-world explanation why not. There is a video that isn't about discussing books or even stories, it's a video about costumes in the TV show (specifically it's Betnadette Banner's video on why GoT costumes work (are "historically correct")) following the rules set by the worldbuilding, that gets this point across really well.
I both agree and disagree with argument 2. But I feel that more of children’s literature should include healthy child/adult relationships. I love Harry Potter but agree with the criticism about the adults in the book. There are other ways to get adults out of the way than making adults irresponsible. It’s funner when kid protagonists do things on their own, when based around healthy adults and circumstances. Children’s books need that health, since too many of them are based on orphans, broken families, etc. It’s like the common argument about Disney always having a missing parent in kids shows (princesses with daddy issues). I believe this sets a bad expectation for reality in the minds of children. Not that books about orphans or broken homes shouldn’t exist but that we should have more children’s literature promoting healthy families. Set the ideal in their mind rather than normalizing abandonment and divorce. Maybe I’m thinking about it too deep but media does influence our culture and over time we have seen families torn apart and divorce rates increase at an increasing rate and it seems to coincide with the time that media stopped showing whole families either in book or video form.
Mine is when you state an opinion, and someone starts disagreeing and attacking you for something other than what you said. Eg. I once commented I didn’t like Stardust by Neil Gaiman. He says how can you not like Neil Gaiman?? I had to explain that isn’t what I said. I happen to like Neil Gaiman, but thought Stardust was subpar for him. I feel like people on TH-cam often start creating arguments about things that you didn’t actually say.
The Harry Potter argument - thank you!! JK Rowling is getting a lot of shit in the fandom for creating "abusive" characters and "painting" them as "the good guys". I feel like when she exposed her transphobia, the Harry Potter books became public prey as well, and people are finding more and more ridiculous accusations against them.
I have to admit, as a trans person, I stopped giving certain Harry Potter characters the pass I'd given their awful behaviour when Rowling started showing signs of transphobia. Since she made that her entire personality, it's been too troubling to read those books again, so I donated them to charity. It wasn't like I was giving up a precious bit of my childhood or anything; I was uni when the first one came out. And I'm not going to ruin my nieces' experience of enjoying them either just because the writer is a lousy person. They'll find out on their own, and make their own decisions.
I want to clarify that I am generally curious :) I don't recall any transphobic characters in HP, but I am cis and obviously not sensitivised in the topic. I'd love to expand my horizon :)
@@justink5000 It's the author's view that trans people should not exist that bothers me more than her characters, but thank you for the promise of good faith. It's not something that happens much online! The characters that trouble me most, for reasons unrelated to the author's views, are Dumbledore and Snape. Dumbledore is deeply troubling for a number of reasons - he acts as a kindly mentor to Harry, while setting him up as a sacrificial lamb, he condones the abuse Harry suffers at the Dursleys' home for a handwavey magical reason that could have easily been written into a much better situation seemingly for the sole purpose of giving Harry the traumatic backstory so common in this type of fiction, and he allows awful bullying from both teachers and students to go unchecked at his school. Think of both Snape's tormenting at the hands of the Maurauders, and later how Snape himself bullies his students. Yes, Dumbledore's a flawed character, but that's a whole lot of abuse being overlooked while everyone praises him to the heavens as "the best and kindest" man they'd ever known. Snape was a disappointment for a different reason. He was a character that a lot of people who have been abused at home and school, treated as outcasts, and rebelled as a result, could relate to. As a survivor of abuse while growing up, a"recovering goth" and fan of some very dark music and literature, I certainly thought of him as someone I wouldn't mind having a drink with, and looked forward to his obvious redemption arc. When it turned out that said arc hadn't come from within, but was so shallow as to be over a high-school crush that he never recovered from, it did an otherwise well crafted character a disservice. It felt like lazy writing. His abuse of the students was unnecessary as well, but understandable. Honestly, if given the choice between teaching middle/high school and the world's worst prison, I might take prison. Finally, There was the trouble with Tonks and Lupin, both queer coded characters who are "straightened out" together, and meet a bad end. A lot of LGBTQ readers had already read Lupin's lycanthropy as an analogue for HIV, and one in rather bad taste, and Tonks' abilities to change appearance as a metaphor for a trans identity. When she becomes depressed and loses her abilities and is "cured" by her love for Lupin, it read uncomfortably like conversion therapies, which are proven not only to not work, but to be downright harmful. The fact that both Tonks and Lupin are killed in the final battle is a convenient use of the "bury your gays" trope, which should be long buried itself, and was a hint of the author's idea that LGBTQ people are not fit to raise children, as their baby is passed off to relatives. The suspicions aroused by this reading of these characters' fates was more or less confirmed when JKR began taking about the "dangers" of trans people existing in public with nice, "normal" people. These are my main issues with particular characters, though even when I was a fan, I was reading for the stories rather than the prose, which I'd turn to JRR Tolkien, George RR Martin, or NK Jemisin for. There are other inconsistencies in her world building that I could write an essay about, but other people have already done it better than I could. I'd suggest hbomberguy's video on the subject as a starting point; it gave me a different perspective back when the transphobia issue was first coming up and I wasn't sure what to do with my emotional attachment. I hope this is some good food for thought, and have a good one!
There's something I would like to say on the "you didn't get it" fallacy. I'm not sure if I ever used this as an argument - I certainly thought it of people, multiple times. I... sometimes tend to be patronizing and arrogant, traits I'm trying to overcome and that I think are related to it. But here's the deal: relatively recently, I started intentionally looking for 1- or 2-star reviews on books I like, and I've noticed that there are occasions when I find myself saying that yeah, fair enough, this book isn't for everyone, your complaints are definitely accurate to the book. But there are a couple of cases where I feel the reviewer completely missed the point of the story and their complaint is completely off the mark. A common situation, for example, is when I went over some of my favourite books which had their adaptation overshadow them and people are complaining that "the book isn't enough like the movie". It frustrates me to no end, because... yeah, you're right. But the problem is that you came to the book looking for the movie. I've seen someone complain this way about a book with elaborate points, half of which I thought applied to the movie more. They clearly didn't agree with me, and I didn't reply, but had I replied I'd probably have claimed they didn't understand the book. So, I don't know if it just means I'd have fallen for that again - as you can see, I like to write long and elaborate replies, so maybe it would have been more fair, but not necessarily. Anyway, thank you for the video! Happy new year, I guess (though I'm a Jew and go by the Hebrew calendar, so... umm... yeah.)
It's one area of life, due to the subjectivity of art/book interpretation, where the usage of "let's agree to disagree" can be appropriate. We're not getting into statistics or physics where there are real truths and falsehoods. Books will mean different things to different people all the time. Also, I really really really dislike the "you just didn't get it" position. Just the smug superiority sentiment there boils my blood. All that said, thanks for the video, very good points and trying to make booktube a better place.
What really gets my knickers in a twist is when people compare YA authors to Children’s books Authors… like these are two different genres!? Why are we comparing J.K Rowling’s writing style to Suzzane Collins?
Do you realize that your second peeve is an application of the “it’s fictional” complaint. You are saying that we shouldn’t analyze the lenient adults in children’s books because they are children’s books (fictional) and that’s what children like. Maybe Rowling et al should do a better job of setting up the situation so that the behavior of the adults is plausible. There are lots of children’s books that accomplish (Huck Finn, The Golden Compass are two that immediately come to mind.)
Oooh I totally disagree. I think because of Rowlings political stances people love to hate on Harry Potter for doing things many popular children’s books do. I absolutely LOVE to talk about the adults in HP - many who I think are very complex and not straight good or evil - but I think “allowing Harry to fight Voldemort” is a bad argument 🤷♀️. The school setting is difficult to not fudge parent/adult involvement a bit and I do not think it harms the story in the way adults think it does.
@@Bookborn in several of the books, Rowling goes out of her way to show that Harry and gang are doing things that the adults would not permit. So I did not in general have this objection to that series. And the school setting is simply part of the willing suspension of disbelief. On that, I think saying “it’s fictional” or “it’s part of the premise” is actually correct. Not only does it not ruin the story; it’s built in as part of the world-building. Even so, as a general matter it’s simply not OK to wave your hands and say “it’s a children’s book” as a reason why the author should get away with lazy character writing. That strikes me as being the same as saying ‘it’s fictional.’ A children’s book that allows for deep dives onto the adult characters is likely to be a better book. (And I think you are right about at least some of the adults in HP).
I kinda disagree with the second point. Your dismissal of concerns over the behaviour of adults in kids books sounds like a mixture of the first and third point. Because, yes, the kids need to be able to do things in children's lit, but that doesn't require the adults to be permissive. Hell, in Harry Potter, most people seem to focus on Dumbledore because his neglect is egregious even compared to the lax standards set by the other adults in the story. The "it's a kid's book" defence just ends up sounding a whole lot like "it's fictional" to me. Maybe I'm not getting what you mean, but I don't have a problem with adults being imperfect - it would be boring if they weren't - I just also think it's fair, in a character analysis, to note their flaws, even if they are tropes of the genre.
I think it’s different because it’s looking at a very specific lens! We HAVE to think of audience when it comes to this stuff. If someone told me in an adult story “we can compare it completely to medieval European times because this IS fictional and they didn’t completely draw from that time period” I’d think it was a normal argument. It’s only the dismissive “it’s fictional why do you care” that I think is lazy
Some of the Reasons when i hate a book . Its not my cup of tea The characters are not engaging or the plot. The prose is either dry or too dense that i get headache from reading it.
One this that drives me nuts is when you try to engage with a word aimed at children or young adults, and point out flaws, and someone just writes it off as “it’s for children, what do you expect?” Like, your example where “it’s for children” makes sense. But, to pull an example from the same series, pointing out things that were probably not fully considered, like time turners and the implications that come from introducing time travel into the series, something I think she did a not so great job with. I’m not saying a flaw ruins the books or makes her a bad writer (though, I do have issues with her character writing). However, it’s okay to point out the flaws and say “yes, I do think children are smart enough to think they deserve to have things thought through.” Or, an example from another fandom I enjoy, there were Magic the Gathering novels a few years back that were very poorly received, and one thing pointed out was that the dialogue was bad. Like, characters speaking in a way that was just inconsistent with their characterization over the years (like, a genius arrogant dragon scientist speaking like a bored gym teacher at one point). Even children and young adults deserve the effort be put in to make the characters speak the way they would. And, yes, I know it’s fiction, so technically, “how they would” is however the author chooses for them to, but not taking the time to think about how dialogue fits with the characterization is doing them a disservice
Your third point makes me think of Robin, Batman's sidekick. Yes, everyone with half a brain knows a rational adult does not take a literal child into fights with gangsters and supervillains. It's not revolutionary to point that out. But that's not why Robin was created. He is there for young readers to imagine they are alongside Batman, and he lets Batman be a more fatherly figure than a loner, important in a time comics were being targeted for being too dark. It also allows Batman to deal with his parents' death in a different way, helping Dick Grayson to turn out to be the best of Bruce without the worst. Now, if you just prefer the dark, loner Batman, the past 50 years are filled with stories like that. But for those of us who LIKE the character of Robin, you have to suspend disbelief. When you make him 25 like Batman Forever, you lost the childlike wonder and appeal of the character. He's a kid being a kid, right next to Batman when he fights the Joker. That's the point.
The its fictional argument is strange because, why would someone have that position and then waste time on a booktube channel. It really doesnt make sense.
4:10 I know this has nothing to do with pet peeves but oh well 😂 I don’t know what movie this is from but I would also prefer to think Buckingham Palace is Hogwarts 😂😂 It’s much cooler that the king lives there and what ever you do don’t kill my magic my dude 😂😂😂😂
God, the “you didn’t get it” is so STUPID and pretentious and I hate it so much, also because I heard it a ton after the Attack on Titan ending released. And like, sometimes you did get it and just thought it was bad and god it pisses me off so much. Also the “it’s fictional” I see it kinda like a way to dismiss the impact or the meaning that a fictional work can have in someone’s life so I see it as a little bit of an “anti art” argument. I just don’t agree with a lot of anti-intellectualist arguments. I love to see people digging and finding meaning in art, even if the author didn’t intend it, I don’t know why some people are that bothered with others finding interesting details or defending some positions Idk whenever the “it’s fictional” thing comes up I just go “wow, I bet you thought that was a great argument. You must be proud of that don’t” And also like… art is subjective, you can like books that other people hate and vice versa, is just really weird not to accept that.
Another one: Pulling the author card, or "When authors become gatekeepers." We've seen several meltdowns over the past couple of years of authors who lambaste readers for not giving them 5 stars (on places like Goodreads) because their book is "perfect." They then harass readers on social media to press their point. My experience over time was with a specific tie-in author on a publisher's website who constantly berated commenters about how wrong they were in a condescending, chiding, and lecturing tone. I thought... well you're not that great of a writer, mediocre at best (a few fans described them as competent but soulless), so why should I give your opinion the weight you think it deserves. This particular writer didn't even know the difference between a cliffhanger and story climax.
Your last two points are SPOT-ON, I think! 💜💖🤍 ..and...yeahh, we've probably all encountered and/or even been guilty ourselves of at least one or more of these at least once or twice before.😅🙃 👀 😂
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
Let me clarify since I'm already getting a lot of comments about it - many people are saying that argument 2 is just a version of argument 1, which, fair, because I don't feel like I explained myself well on argument 1 😂My issue with "it's fictional" is when it's used to shut down any argument, without any further discussion. That may seem obvious, but you'd be shocked at how often it happens to me. Saying "I don't think we can completely rely on medieval european customs in this case because this is a fictional fantasy world that may work under different assumptions" would NOT, imo, be an example of argument 1. Why? Because that person is using "it's fictional" in a very specific way that expands conversation and allows discussion, and not used in a way to shut down all and any arguments.
So in the case of number 2, my argument isn't "we can never discuss parental figures because it's children's literature", it's rather that *sometimes*, audience DOES matter when discussing characters. And in this case, I could discuss all day about dumbledore, sirius, hagrid (and I have LMAO) and whether or not they are good parental figures - my frustration comes from when I find that any argument I make for those characters, the opposition boils down to "but Dumbledore and other teachers just LET HARRY FIGHT THE BASILISK!". It seems silly and missing the point of the series, imo. Many famous children's books do this to varying degrees (allowing children to do many things they shouldn't that may stretch suspension of disbelief) and I just don't think it's a great argument in light of children's lit, personally.
Thank you for clarifying. Oh, have you started a feast for crows yet?
I added my comment above before seeing this. I thought the question about the Basilisk is why no-one ever bothered to ask Moaning Myrtle how she died. Strikes me that that is a plot hole, and it should probably just be acknowledged as such. Nothing about it being a children’s book makes that kind of hole any better. The HP books aren’t perfect. And it may also be a character problem that Dumbledore, who is so brilliant and powerful, couldn’t figure out over a period of years what a couple of kids discover fairly easily. I agree that that is more common in children’s books, but that doesn’t make it good, and there were definitely ways around both problems. Rowling goes part of the way with the idea that only someone who speaks Parsel can open the chamber. But she doesn’t plug all the holes she created.
I hope none of my comments came off sounding like I thought your first two points were just different versions of the same thing! That certainly wasn't the impression I intended to give. In my case, it just gave me a little bit of a giggle that it just so happened to be that the first point you criticized was "it's fictional"[ when wielded poorly], but then your criticism of point two also happened to turn that around and use "it's fictional" itself[ but wielded less poorly so it was okay](which I think really only served to further demonstrate your point about how it isn't just "it's fictional" as a protest in general that's bad but more "it's fictional" when utilized in that one very particular too-vague/too-generalized or dismissive way)-but I didn't mean to imply that it was ironic in a negative way or anything, although in hindsight I'm considering now how it could maybe have come off sounding differently than I'd meant it.🙂 I really like irony, so I thought it was great(I almost wondered a little bit if maybe you'd even done that on purpose)!!! 💖 ^-^ Lol
To be fair, though, I think sometimes people see someone say "it's fictional" and then disregard anything else that was said because some people just assume everyone is always using it in that particular way[ like a blanket dismissal OR as a blanket free-for-all pass or such] even when they weren't-and that's when things can get really sticky. 😅😅
Also, I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be totally impossible to orchestrate better in-universe (fictional) reasons or justifications why kids are allowed to do[ and/or happen to get away with doing] things in fiction sometimes that theoretically they shouldn't in reality, perhaps.
But...I still completely agree with you that, especially in fiction intended for younger audiences, it's okay if sometimes you just have to suspend your disbelief-or simply accept that even though kids in reality maybe shouldn't be just permitted to do things like that, especially when it is a fictional child capable of things that no child in reality is theoretically capable of, it probably would legitimately change exactly what kids could or couldn't be allowed to do in which circumstances even in reality too; or accept that it depicts a less than ideal situation, because that is how we give them a plot full of things to rise above or overcome, or whatever.😁
Can I tell you something...as much as a die hard HP fan I am...it has a million plot holes 😭And like I noticed them as a KID. One I was super annoyed about was how money doesn't make any sense in the world lmao. I did always think...nobody asked Moaning Myrtle how she died? I think that plot hole is way more relevant to discuss than the parental thing haha. That's one of the times, again as a giant fan, I'm like...you couldn't have come up with something better Joanna lol @@duffypratt
No haha! Nobody was rude about it at all actually, I just get tired typing out the same thing so thought I'd address it 🤣@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about the new Star Wars movies. I explained how I didn't like character decisions, derivative plot copied from prior movies, and specific creative decisions. To which I got the response "Star Wars just isn't for you anymore" - I think the 100+ SW books on my shelves disagree with that lol
This was a good video! Looking forward to more ASOIAF content 😁
Omg I’ve gotten “I guess you just don’t like Star Wars” before 😭 and I’m like no I don’t like sloppy writing
"it's just fictional" yeah the story may be fictional but my feelings when reading it weren't
Sometimes I wish the feelings were a little *more* fictional 😭😭
One of my biggest gripes when it comes to talking about books is when I meet people who get judgemental about what is good and bad in fiction. Like there is some kind of standard we should all be living up to. I managed a bookstore for ten years, and I treated every customer's joy like a sacred cow. I had a customer who loved Conan (which I didn't). I made sure every time he came into the store, I was armed with new recommendations.
I have been a teacher for 30 years, and there hasn't been a year where a parent hasn't complained to me about the books their child is reading. When Goosebumps was hot, it was like an epidemic. I got more, "I don't want my kids to read that trash!" than I care to remember. Where as I was just incredibly grateful that I had so many kids reading books every day.
SAY IT LOUDER!!! I think you'd love the address Neil Gaiman gave that I mention in this video. It honestly changed my life haha. I was sort of the parent worried about my kid reading "stupid lit" (Although I'd never talk to a librarian about it, PLEASE) and his perspective on reading just helped me get over it so much!
@@Bookborn I am a huge Neil Gaiman fan and am a fan of that address.
makes sense lol! @@christopherdaley5617
"It's just fictional" reminds me of a Strange Planet comic strip where one of the characters was reading a novel and he responded to that argument with "The being is fictional, my anger is real." Which I think is the perfect rebuttal to that argument.
🤣🤣 IM USING THIS
100% where my brain went too
One of my favorite strips
I like the idea of opinions being 'sacred' but perspectives and interpretations being changeable. That is to say - an opinion is more of a feeling and not strictly logical. The other things can be discussed and often just hearing a different perspective can lead to a change of opinion. Also I really like the painting analogy you gave - I think more people can wrap their head around that!
Oohhh I love this. An opinion is often a gut reaction to things but as you discuss you may logically be able to change it
I don't know that opinions are always more of a feeling or such, but they are certainly subjective and not necessarily or inherently obligated to be objectively founded at all, that's true!. 🙂💖
Fantastic video. "It's fictional" drives me crazy. I can rant about that for hours.
I love your channel, whether I agree with every take you have or not - although I usually do. Watching your videos has rekindled (no pun intended) my decades-long love for reading fantasy and sci-fi, which had lapsed for several years.
Keep up the great work, and read, read, read!
Thank you so much 🥹 Truly no greater compliment than saying I helped someone get back into SFF!
Excellent topic! Your last point is so true in so many areas, not just books. It is OK to agree to disagree... you can understand what someone sees without agreeing with them! We all like different things and see things different ways. I think a lot of these boil down to "you don't like what I like," so I must "prove you wrong" or "shut you down." We would be so much better off as society if we learned to listen and converse about topics without needing to be RIGHT (especially on opinions).
And honestly just have a lot more fun 😭 Discussing / "arguing" about books is honestly so fun if everyone is in it for a good time and not determined to change minds. Like, these are fantasy novels, it's low stakes!
@@Bookborn so true! I have also learned a ton from people (including you) by listening to other views and opinions. It makes you see things in different lights and appreciate things you may never even have thought about! Learning and expanding your mind is a good thing 🙂
I generally strongly agree with you. A little nuance I'd add to the first part concerns the ways people sometimes discuss characters. Sometimes those discussions are indistinguishable from how they discuss real people, and characters obviously aren't real people; there's representation, literary function, semiotics, etc., at play. That's where the otherwise really apt analogy to visual art breaks down--people looking at a painting don't typically infuse what's represented with a realistic life narrative, because that's really just not the nature of the medium. It's harder to avoid in stories, because we are narratively driven creatures in general and we enjoy character depth and development. Characters are hard to discuss because they move us and feel satisfying to us when they have a certain level of verisimilitude to real people, but they also can't be analyzed exactly as real people are. So I think that's where *some* (though definitely not *all*) of the "it's fiction, not real life" argument can come from.
I love that you compared 'not real' to the art of painting, and the validity of resulting emotions. That is what books are to me. While objectively 'good' writing does shine through, sometimes it's absolutely the way a story *made me feel* that makes it a favourite (or not). I for one LOVE your video about Sansa, because I *feel* for her! GRRM has created a character I wish I could protect from the ugliness in the world, ANY world - because emotionally, she's real to me. She's a little girl who grew up in a fairytale so believes that's the case for everyone. She's then thrust into a cesspit of horror and deception with no skill to cope with any of it. Yes, as a child, she retreats into believing even harder in the story tropes, but she also slowly learns to cope. She develops coping mechanisms.... [I'm able to see real world psychological responses!] she's real to me - I TOTALLY give her agency in my own head, she's not a collection of words on a page. If I don't specifically see a reason for a behaviour, what I HAVE seen, gives me enough to imagine one. I honestly believe the ability to do that (use the known to extrapolate the unknown) with book characters, is what makes (MOST) readers such wonderful people to know. Readers have learned how to use context clues, to consider motivation behind actions, and ultimately, tend to be the most considerate people I know - Keep doing what you do, I super enjoy your content - haters gonna hate regardless.
The "it's fiction" argument is funny to me too. It's like the "it's an adaptation" argument for adaptations.
Like... Yes... We understand the context of the material we're discussing. Now let's discuss it.
This kind of goes along with your children's book pet peeve but with books, I always look at characters with two sets of glasses - how they are as characters, and how they are as people. In tWoT for instance, I thought Faile was a horrible person, but a great character. Like - I'd definitely not be her friend in real life, but I enjoyed reading about her. She was interesting, growing, and developed my worldview through her perspective. On the other hand, Perrin (for the second half of the story) was someone I would absolutely get along with - and yet I had zero interest in reading about him for most of the second half of the series. He had almost all of his character development shoved into the first 4 books, so the rest felt like a drawn out refusal of what his life already was - he didn't grow, he wasn't interesting, and any changes to his character made me want nothing more than for him to return to who he had been just after the Battle of the Two Rivers and then grow as a character from that point. Dumbledore was a horrible guardian, sure (and a horrible person for setting Harry up as a sacrifice) but he was fascinating to read (and contextually brought up interesting philosophy questions).
And with adaptations, yes, there need to be changes - but the question is how necessary those changes were, and how they fit into the greater context of the story - and at what point it's no longer an adaptation, but rather "inspired by" the source material.
OH MAN, I wish more people understood the difference between good character and interesting character. Some of my favorite characters aren't good people but MAN are they interesting/great to read about. Just because you love a character doesn't mean you somehow cosign their actions lol
@@Bookborn SO MUCH of this! I love the character of Cersei Lannister. She fascinates me. She's also a terrible person. Loving her character doesn't mean condoning a single thing she does! (Though I'll admit that Jaime *is* pretty hot, but he's NOT MY TWIN!)
Great video!! Sadly I think a lot of these boil down people just not being comfortable with someone feeling differently than they do. They either need to shut a discussion down asap so they stop feeling the discomfort, or take it way too far to try to "win".
My personal pet peeve is when someone calls a book Bad, but then qualifies it with opinions about very subjective things. I can agree measuring a book's quality on semi-objective things like prose, plot structure, consistency, poorly dealt with themes, etc etc. But "it's bad" shouldn't be synonymous with "I didn't like it"!!! I know even I fall victim sometimes to wanting to label a book like that, but it can come across rude, and is really unhelpful letting someone else judge if they'd actually enjoy the book themselves. It's super reductive and lazy! XD
Oh man I get so annoyed with people turning subjective things objective 🥲🥲 it’s like I know that even if I hate a book that doesn’t mean it’s objectively the right answer 😭
“You didn’t get it” is a valid thing to raise in response to analysis, not in response to “did you enjoy it.”
YES YES YES!
Awesome video! Speaking of things that shut down discussion, one of my "favorite" comments to see (other than "you just don't get it") when I talk about a movie/show/book I didn't like is "Well, you couldn't make a better movie/show/book, so you have no business criticizing it." How is that relevant? Who knows. But it's funny.
omggg I get that one ALL THE TIME and it's like..."So...everybody who reads this book or watches this movie has to be able to make movies or write books to be able to say if it's good or bad?" That's just such flawed logic. Imagine if you said "you can't rate the food at the restaurant because you can't cook!"
Fun video! You probably see this more on booktube than I ever see in the real world, but I think there’s a lot of people who just haven’t learned to hear negative things about what they like and haven’t learned not to take it personally. Once I hit a certain age I started to love hearing dissenting opinions because it wasn’t boring and I can talk far more to someone who disagrees with me about something than the other way around. It’s tough on booktube though since you don’t always get to pick your audience :)
Oh man you couldn’t be more right. Any in-person book discussion I have, even when we really disagree, is always SO NORMAL. the internet really just allows people to behave so poorly lol. The other funny one, is never in my LIFE in person have I ever been corrected on character pronunciation. But online… 🤣
I would definitely correct your atrocious Tyrion pronunciation in person, never fear @@Bookborn
Thank you for your videos. I really enjoy your perspective. I'm so happy you are reading the Song of Ice and Fire books. I have read A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings because of you. I loved the shows mostly but probably would not have read the books. I'm starting A Storm of Swords now and will go back to your video when finished.
Omg get ready for a RIDE
I think you're making good points. Every genre has a set of suspensions of disbelief that are required. You don't yell at a sci-fi, saying, 'but faster than light travel isn't possible!" It's part of that genre that we allow for that, the same way we allow for more-than-believably clueless adults in children's lit, or magic in fantasy. At the same time, we want our characters to act believably in most ways. So when we call out a character for doing something stupid or out of character, and someone says, "but it's just fiction!", they're missing the point. In most fiction we're not SUPPOSED to suspend disbelief about human behavior (people will still get angry, sad, and so on, even if there are vampires and fireballs). We still want consistency in those behaviors (I can't think of a genre where it's okay for characters to act inconsistently, though there might be one).
Yes, please, totally agree! The "You didn't get it" is *so* annoying! As you said, one can get a book (objectively) and still dislike it (subjectively)--those are two different factors at play, not really interchangeable. Also, the convincing people? That's aggravating and I'm so sorry it happened to you--most of the time, that obsession with convincing someone only causes the *opposite*, with that someone just disliking something even less. I think I haven't seen your Last Wish video, and I think I may watch it just to hear your thoughts! Happy 2024!
TLDR: I appreciate your videos and how they provoke new perspectives and discussion. I do think that considering the type of book you are reading is important when setting expectations or entering into a discussion. But I also don't think genre alone is reason enough to dismiss criticisms of the story or characters within it.
Your second point reminded me of one of my main pet peeves when discussing stories, which is to be aware of the genre or what the story claims to be. I enjoy a fairly wide variety of stories (anything but horror, really), and I don't carry the same expectations from one story to the next. Yes, I do generally want the story to be well-written and comprehensible, but I wouldn't judge a Ali Hazelwood book by the same standards I take into a Brandon Sanderson novel. I'm aware that they are very different types of stories, and so my appraisal of character/ plot/ writting/ etc. is going to try to match what the story claims to be/ the genre it falls into.
I found it to be a helpful reminder that books written for children should be considered from that perspective. I don't think that the genre or intended audience of the book is a free pass for the adult characters to act irresponsibly, however. I understand the child protagonists need to be able to shine - they're the heros! And there may be a level of suspended disbelief for some adult actions to allow the child protagonists more agency. But I don't think that criticism of many adult characters in children's books such as Harry Potter should be dismissed because the books were intended for a younger audience. I think it's even more important that those characters are well-written, flaws and all, because children may see characters or relationships in the books they read as what they should strive for. I remember reading about Snape's "love" for Lily and thinking that "Always" was so romantic. It took me years and difficult personal experiences to realize that it was in fact extremely toxic.
Let me know if there's something I missed; would love to discuss more. :)
I feel like I must’ve really not explained my second point very well because I 100% agree with you! I actually think the adults in HP provide some of the most interesting discussion because they are pretty layered and nuanced and are rarely the heroes people want them to be. I just think the argument “they let Harry fight the basilisk instead of the teachers” feels like it misses the point of the series.
Thank you for taking time to respond! I know you get a lot of comments.:)
Thanks for clarifying your point. Totally agree that arguments that dismiss the protagonists actions/ agency miss the point of the story. (Such as arguing that Harry shouldn't have been allowed to have his various adventures.)
That kind of dismissive comment (the adults should have handled it) actually makes me think about the argument the adults have in book 5 about whether or not Harry should be included in conversations with the Order of the Phoenix. I always thought it was interesting that people seemed angry at Molly Weasley for wanting to protect Harry, but then would judge the HP adults for not doing that. Seems like a double standard?
Anyways, thanks again! Love your videos.
Speaking of changing minds, your Sansa video didn't really change my mind. I watched it and still felt like she was the weakest character. However, it turns out you secretly *DID* change my mind on her! I'm going back through book 2 right now and I'm constantly blown away at how well she's written! How her fears, justifications, and ambitions are this mish-mash of childish, naive, and also increasingly desperate and just sad. Learning what to do/say so as not to get injured, but justified in her childish innocence. It broke my heart when she suddenly thought of Arya and was like "She must be back at Winterfell by now, dancing and sewing and doing all the best fun stuff." Even after all this time, she still doesn't understand her sister. Plus we know as readers where Arya is and Sansa couldn't be further from the truth! :)
It sounds like George's excellent writing changed your mind but I'M GOING TO CLAIM IT REGARDLESS 🤣
"It's just not for me," is my way of saying I recognize the book is well-written, nicely paced, and with well developed characters, but doesn't interest me, at all.
I'm glad others like it, and I can understand why they do, but I never will because we all have different tastes. Not better; different.
Seconded!
on a side tangent to argument 2, I I do think that some children's shows/media/books do cross into "why would you tell it this way" territory occasionally with the adults. And that's when they portray the adults as the stupidest people in the world while portraying the kids as the smartest people ever. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is probably a decent example. There's a part of me as a child that definitely enjoyed this type of story, but I mostly dislike this because I don't like the negativity of the message it teaches kids (myself included). Some forms of this story can teach kids that neglect is basically normal or that you can't trust your parents with anything. That is something that saddens me as a message.
That last one is a good one for life in general.
Absolutely
Great content as always. One of my biggest pet peeves is glossing over things "because they are fictional" and not looking at the wider implication. I'm not talking about your number 2, which is more think of the audience it's for, but rather content that glorifies something that's not good. I'm going to upset some people with my example here, but let's talk about the house elves in Harry Potter, who are slaves and, other than Dobbie, apparently like their slavery. The sexist parts of The Witcher is another good example and I know you ended up getting a lot of hate for calling that out. So yes, these things are fictional, but we can still recognize that they are glorifying something that we might want to take a closer look at.
I still to this day can't believe how reckless Jack and Annie's parents were in Magic Tree House. You wouldn't believe the type of shenanigans these kids got up to like jousting and playing with dinosaurs. SMH where are their parents?!
They didn’t notice they were OUT OF BED?? I check in my kids like three times a night!
@@Bookborn Clowns didn't even have a Nest camera or anything.
Ooh. I'm reading A Knight of the 7 Kingdoms right now. Slowly. I'm on Sworn Sword (book 2).
Great vid! I loved your points on different interpretations. Im a big believer that any interpretation you have is a valid one, of course if there's a detail the author the put in there that you maybe missed when reading it which you could affect your interpretation that's a different story haha (it happens to all of us). One of the things I love most about discussing books with friends is how we interpreted stories based on foreshadowing and subtext! Of course that's maybe easier done in a long conversation than over the internet lol
lol yes, in fairness, I find most of these issues happen on the internet and rarely in person - it's so hard to hold discussions on the internet because it's so static!
I have a hard time when people desperatly try to find plotholes where there are none. Questions like "who pumps the tires on the Batmobile" or going over every detail of some kind of magic. If the story itself don't ask the question or don't break it's own rules things like that almost never matter. In a book for a book circle I go to there was a magic house that had vegetables growing on it's roof and some just could not let go of how unrealistic that was. While I was think "the house has fucking legs, what exactly is the problem here".
LMAO 😭This one is tough for me because while I do think people tend to get wayy too pedantic about magic, there's also stuff that just bugs people and I can't pretend it doesn't bug me too. I actually did some research into "suspension of disbelief" because it's a fascinating topic and people have different levels. My classic example is in Jurassic World, when the main character runs from the t-rex in heels. I HATED that scene, it made no sense to me; but someone could say "well there are modern-day dinosaurs in this movie, how come you don't hav a problem with that?" and I feel that they are on different levels.
@@Bookborn on the issue of running in heels I feel that things like that are more valid to complain about. Jurrasic World is basicly our world with way more advanced science. Heels should still work the same way. But if someone says "dinosaurs are fine" and then goes on to say "but invisible dinosaurs are a step to far" then you cross into silly complaints in my opinion (if questioning how realistic it is). If we still use the Jurrasic Park movies as an example basicly everything is explained with "life finds a way" and that works perfectly for me. Heels however are not alive an can therefore not find a way 🤣 (I'll show myself out after that "joke")
These are all great observations. In my viewings of various channels here, point 4 seems to be the guiding problem behind a lot of conflict and hostility. Points 1 and 3 really just are special cases. "It's just fiction" is often another way of saying "If it's not real, then there's no absolute standard by which to judge some aspect of a work's quality, so maybe just read a different book and move on." "You don't get it" often means "Your worldview is so wrong that something's wrong with you and I'm going to make sure you and everyone else knows this." They all have their place and they all have their wrong place, but in the end it would really help if more people could let stuff go.
8:42 Ummm actually you-- created a somewhat amusing moment in this section of the video 😂. Great video! I like what you said in regards to the “just didn’t get it” argument. I have a handful of books I want to get back to because of this feeling of not getting it the first time. Its a really powerful pressure on me and while it’s rewarding to revisit certain books in order to understand them, I’m working on letting go and choosing the books I want to dive deeper for my own entertainment and enjoyment, not to appease a certain audience.
3:15 - It might seem like that would be so bizarre, but that is actually exactly what many people have done to art and music and such throughout the years[ and to people who respond to it particularly emotionally] too.😅😅🙃👀
It's the same attitude, I think, that leads people to say "it was just a pet"(not a human person) so the loss or whatever shouldn't effect you as much.
((Also, to be fair, there are actually people who truly do project their own realities into fiction far too much[ or who take fiction way too seriously] or don't separate fiction from reality very distinctly if even at all in their own minds-but that doesn't mean that everybody does, many people are completely self aware and either only doing so as a joke or as a purely hypothetical food-for-thought kinda thing, and everybody is allowed to have their own differing things that they do or don't find fun or worthwhile. 🙂 Pretty much, exactly like you've said.! ^--^))
7:05 - Ironically, the argument protested against in the first point is the very argument being used to protest against the second point!😂 It's true, though, that fiction doesn't always have to be about emulating what we personally do or don't believe that reality is or should be like-fiction can also be specifically about exploring 'but what if things were NOT how they actually are in reality' too, and that's okay!!! 😊💜🤍🩶💖 ^-^
Usually when someone uses a phrase that Shuts down a discussion, like "It doesn't matter its Fictional" Is because You have Convinced them they are wrong and some people doing like that so they distance them self's from it
Oh boy, do I *love* it when I explain why a character isn't nearly as heroic or coherent as the fans and the other characters treat them, and the reaction is, "Blame the writers, not the character!"
Wait what 😭😭 I’ve never heard this argument before and I immediatly hate it lol
@@Bookborn MCU fans are a different breed.
oh man, even though I watched a TON of the MCU (I think I watched everything until endgame, and then after that fell off) I've never interacted in the online fandom. I bet it's fun 🤣@@zachryder3150
I so agree about the children things! and not just kids like it, also us, the adults. I don't want to read a book with a child/teenager protagonist that his parents don't let him to do anything...
The "agree to disagree" one speaks to me.
I've revisited books I loved or hated years before and totally disagreed with myself. There are _some_ elements of technique and style that can tell on the level of craftsmanship of an artist (author in the context), but
I'll contend that the meat of a review on ANY artistic work comes purely from a conjunction of circumstances and personal experiences. They make sense internally, and in the moment, but they remain snapshots of ego, and thus, utterly subjective. I will forgive a LOT of bad writing from an author who tells me a good story because the STORY is what I look for first. The reverse is also true; excellent flow and imagery won't save you from a DNF if your tale sucks.
That people agree with you does not make your opinion "correct". It just makes it _shared_ . People should learn the difference.
I mean, don't we all just love when people tell us "You just didn't GET IT"
I love how every creator here zeroes in on that one because we’ve all just heard it too much 😭😭😭
Right, we hear it WAY too much... like no I get it I just don't like it lol @@Bookborn
The "it's fictional" is definitely one of the most irritating ones when discussing books for sure! I also get annoyed with the "You didn't get it" as well
Great video Bookborn! I hope some commenters take these points to heart
Kinda, sorta using pet peeve number 1 to justify pet peeve number 2 😁 I think it perfectly highlights the nuances of subjectivity.
I think I mostly just didn’t explain number one well enough - I don’t mind it when it’s used as a part of a wider argument (“you trying to adhere strictly to medieval European customs when this is fictional fantasy doesn’t hold up” feels perfectly valid) but rather when “it’s fictional” means you can’t discuss it at all. So, in the second case, saying “it’s fictional so why do you care about dumbledore as a parental figure” is very different than “I know Harry is allowed to do more, but in the context of children’s literature I think it’s one aspect we can’t take as seriously”. Of course, that’s just my opinion on the matter - many people don’t see it that way.
Yes!
Hi there. I wanted to let you know, that this past Tuesday I finished listening to the Bands of Mourning by Brandon Sanderson. I really enjoyed it. Also, I am now on chapter 9 of the Lost Metal, and I am struggling to try to pick it up again. I have the feeling that I am listening to an over 500 page epilogue to Mistborn era 2. I thought that Wayne was at his best when he was with Wax, and now when he's paired up with Marasi, which I thought were going to be a couple, he has turned into a really annoying character, and I used to love him. What happened. Anyway, I have recently started reading while listening to the Fall of Giants by Ken Follett, which is a thriller and historical fiction book. It's been quite gripping. Maybe I needed to take a vacay from fantasy. Let me know what you think.
My pet peeve is people asking "what are you reading" while you are reading
Definitely agree with the "it's fictional" response being unproductive. It's the same thing as asking "why do you care so much?" The point is to shame you for liking something enough to have an opinion on it.
The Harry Potter comments remind me of the Seeing Red movie Disney put out a couple years ago and everyone freaking out (outside of the menstrual representation) that “it teaches kids to disobey their parents) rather than acknowledging that kids/teens have their own lives and don’t tell their parents everything, especially when they demonstrate never taking it seriously. It also allows kids to see themselves on screen as having more agency and that they can have their own role in their lives
I’m a HUGE believer in just talking to your kids about media! Do you think something happened in a kids movie you don’t love?? Ask your kids questions about it! “How did you feel about so and so doing that? What would you have done?” I’m very protective of my kids but I realize that exposing them to a lot of different ideas is the best way to grow and talk about stuff, rather than blaming all media for not being exactly how I want it or my values 🥲🥲
@@Bookbornyeah my mom has the same philosophy. It’s better to let them watch something that you don’t necessarily agree with and then have a conversation than to ban them from it cause then they’ll just watch it without you knowing.
I’m totally guilty of judging kids books (and movies) literally the other day I was watching AirBud with my kids and when the boy finds the run down basketball court I can’t let myself get past the fact that he is trespassing on someone’s property 😂
Oh, I didn't say we couldn't JUDGE it - my husband and I just talk about that constantly when we watch kids movies now LMAO. Just that it's not a good discussion point if people are really trying to discuss the ~book/movie.
It is my opinion anyone who says it's just ... does not accept others opinions of how something can make them feel. Whether it's music, art, shows or books we respond with different' emotions. Those that say it's just are negating anyone else's feelings and perhaps denying things can affect each of us differently. Perhaps they aren't affected by artistry but things can make them feel with emotion, like a dream car finally realized. I enjoy the feelings various stories in whichever format can provoke within me.
Excellent rant.... Well maybe rant is a bit strong. This was a pleasant rant 😂😂😊
Theme of the story... Lighten up, Francis and learn how to Agree to disagree 😁
Always enjoy your videos BB, especially the deep dives 👍
Thanks for sharing!! 😉
Two of my greatest Pet Peeves on Book Discussions are:
1. I didn't like the book and that means the book is objectively bad and anyone who likes the book are stupid/ I didn't like the book this author wrote, so that means he is over rated and doesn't deserve to have fans or that the fans he already has as to be brainwashed / I didn't like this genre or type of book this author writes and since that author is famous that means he is bad for the genre on a whole/ I didn't like that the prose in this book is not poetry, that means that this author shouldn't write books or have fans. Most of these statements made (mostly against Sanderson, at least the last 3) come down to a particular person's personal taste and instead of leaving it there some people make themselves the objective authority on what others should or shouldn't like and just start attacking the author or the fans of the said author. I get it if the book is damaging or attacking a specific group or generally harming to the society, but otherwise just not liking a book because of your personal taste doesn't give you the right to dictate others to have the same opinion as you.
2. People who actually didn't read the book but still consider themselves as haters just because the work is popular.
I don't disagree, but about "moving staircases" in Harry Potter:
They only physically move in the movies, in the books they just lead to different places different days.
I love the title 💀
Did you start with the Feast for Crows?
I do sometimes continue disagreements when I COULD "let differing opinions be" but my contention is more when an argument is just... disingenuous.
"I don't like X because of trope Y and theme Z"
"I did like it, and it isn't those tropes and themes, and you're evil"
I just don't understand the denial.
This happens ALL THE TIME with girlboss media.
And the accusation is that I must just hate women.
In reality... girl boss tropes are amongst my favourite. Xena, Buffy, Scully, Ripley... then onto various heroines (a genuinely formative book for me was "Dragonsinger" by Anne McCaffrey. I must have read it when I was 13~ and it is about a younger daughter who is bullied, runs away and eventually finds her place. To say it resonated with the continually isolated and bullied teenager with a popular big brother is an understatement. And I think Menolly certainly fits a YA girlboss and even mary sue territory. She's effortlessly talented in some things, instantly liked and supported when she leaves the oppressive bubble she was raised in and generally always right :P... and I fucking love it. And why do I not consider it a bad use of those tropes? Because at no point are men demeaned in order to prop her up. Even her father, a figure who is objectively awful and sexist, is ACTUALLY treated with empathy. He's not EVIL, he's just ignorant. He DOES love his daughter, but he TRULY believes that supporting her would somehow hurt his community. The reader can despise him and his opinions, but understand he's very much a product of his environment... and environment that ABSOLUTELY damages our protagonist and is the true obstacle she must overcome... /rant. I know bookborn is not a McCaffrey fan ^^)
You didn’t jet it! (Get it?) great video
Would love to hear your thoughts on Fire & Blood then your thoughts on House of the Dragon if possible. I do have a memory of you saying you couldn’t get into the show because of the graphic content, but if you are able to, it would be cool to see your reactions, especially with the new season coming out!
Is that Liene music playing quietly in the background? 😆
So I'm knowing that I late to the discusion but I'm just now find the video and wanted to share one aditional pet peves of me when I discuss books (though it mostly happend in real life).
English isn't my native language neither l live in a english speaking country. But thanks to our education system, many of my generation are privilige to are good enough to read books in english.
Most of finacial or avability resons I read a mixture of translated and non trasnlated work.
There comes my pet peaves. Whenever I don't like a book and the other people are shoked about it, i hear the phrase: "Ohh... It's because you read the translated version". As if this makes all my points invalide. It's in the similar vain like "You just don't get it". I know somtimes somthing can be lost in translation, but I'm loved lots of books even when they were translated. Funnily enough, I never hear this argument when we talke about a book, whos original language isn't english. There it's just made sense that you read the translation.
This was a good video!
Yes! “I see where you’re coming from, but…” validates the other person’s opinions, but still allows you to disagree with it respectfully.
“No, you just don’t get it.” Feels like I’m talking to Dawson Leery.
Lol. Actually starting HP next month for the first time (once we finish this last WoT book!). 😂 But it's okay, I've seen all the movies. Lmao
I am Harry! And I did defeat the basilisk and Voldemort !!! and Dumbledore was such a great role model for me!
You heard it here first folks
With the whole just letting things go, was a irl disagreement with someone I love. They took a stance on something I thought was inherently racist, but they were dead set on convincing me that it wasn't and was actually a good thing. I did my best to engage but they never made a good argument to convince me. They eventually let it drop after I told them several times I'd have to think on this for a while. But I could see they weren't happy with that. They've basically given me a cold shoulder ever since.
I think the problem really arises when people don't just see something as a mere difference of opinion, but as an issue of when something is 'right' or 'wrong'; people tend to believe that being right or correct[ and someone else being wrong/incorrect] somehow justifies or entitles them to make other people change their mind because they personally feel like 'everyone "should" have the most right or correct knowledge/opinion/mindset/whatever possible'. But the trouble is, people are[ or should be] actually allowed oftentimes even even to be outright incorrect or wrong, so long as doing so is not like literally believing it gives them the right to harm anyone else. And that's what people seem to have the most trouble to accept.
(But maybe that's just me, idk!😊)
@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341 hey don't not commit by saying "imo". I think you're on point! Believe what you will as long as you don't hurt people! I think my only addendum would be this, and I'll use to personal examples to clarify why I think it. First example is humor; I find funny what I find funny. I am also mature enough to find something funny even if it is making fun of something I like or value. I believe all things should be a target for mockery, b/c if a thing can't be made fun of it can't be criticized. If it can't be criticized than it can't be imported or correct. This is what I believe and have believe for years now. Come to Thankgiving and I read the room wrong and made a joke that didn't land. It happens. One person took it really personally tho and confronted me. A long conversation followed and it boiled down to the other person saying "in my perfect world I would tell you why a thing isn't funny and you agree and stop making that joke." I said "that's inherently controlling and makes you god. I will never comply" they responded saying it wasn't controlling and just valuing kindness over my right to make a joke. The second example that forms my addendum is this; in mid December a person I care deeply about said a word that caught my attention so I asked questions and quickly realized they believe something I don't. I decided to just ask questions and not try to attack their stance but eventually they said something that just kinda stopped me in my tracks. Forgive me b/c there was alot of context but for sake of this not being a book lol. Them - "What you should do is check the race and gender of all the authors you are reading and make sure you are including women and people of color."
Me- but I don't care about anyone's race or gender I just want good stories.
Them- yeah! So it's no harm to just check the races of them all, and if you fi d out their mostly white men, you should go and seek out black authors and women."
My mind is kinda caught in mud here at my shock at the full on racism they didn't see. - so you want me to investigate and make sure I'm not just reading stories by white guys. How many black authors and women do I need to be in a right place?
Them, unabashed - I don't have a exact number but a significant amount. Having diversity in your scifi and fantasy is a good thing.
I ended up shutting down and saying "I'll need to think on this" to get the conversation to stop but I could tell they were upset I didn't agree with them outright. They have been upset with me since then., but b/c I don't agree with their definition of racism (historical oppression + power) I can't agree with their conclusions.
Tl;Dr how does this all play into my addendum to "live your life the way you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone." Is that you can live your life how you want, but you should seek out rules to live your life by that can't be used by someone else to do evil. B/c, just because you wouldn't do a evil thing doesn't mean the person that fallow you won't. So live by rules that are clearly defined, easy to understand and fallow and few.
If you've read this far u are a Saint. LOL.
@@Beard_Hood Sorry this response is so belated! I just wanted to wait until I could give your comment and my reply a bit more of my full attention, but then the days kind of just got away from me a bit, and I ended up waiting even longer than I had planned on(and I kept getting unexpectedly busier than intended here and there with other things coming up in the interim along the way too)-Forgive me. 🙂
(Also, forgive me, but this will probably be on the lengthier side as well-like, lengthier even than yours!🙏😅😅🫣🤭 Sorry! ...if you give up without reading it all, I won't hold that against you, either. Lol)
Don't worry, I didn't say "that's just me" or whatever to commit less, nor to say that I personally doubt it at all or actually believe this any less strongly myself or anything. I just like to try and make it clear that, even though I'm sharing what I personally think/feel or such, I'm not trying to literally force anybody else to agree or actually think/feel/etcetera the same exact way as I do[ even regardless of whether I personally think it might be better if everyone did or not....I just personally like to acknowledge that ultimately it's still completely up to them and their own mind or such if their thoughts or feelings change at all or not because of mine]. You might be surprised how many people do not read my comments in good faith if I don't, so clarifying this in advance just really helps me cut back a little bit on the notifications I might receive that I would either need to explain this to retroactively or just shrug it off and ignore completely despite having already spent the time to read it.😅 (It's kind of like the "drive defensively" principle, I guess; which is when you try and keep a certain amount of space between your vehicle and any other vehicles on the road whenever possible, so that if anything out of the ordinary does happen then there is a slightly greater chance that you might be able to stop and/or avoid it without crashing too or what-such.)
I actually have a kind of [loosely ]similar caveat as your addendum myself-which is that I personally believe everyone should endeavor to recognize and respect the fact that what is or not 'harm' can differ sometimes from one individual person to another(kind of like how two separate persons might trip and stub their toe on the same exact thing and both going no faster than at a casual walk's pace, but one person might come away from that with nothing except a mild stinging sensation and recover very soon after, while the other person might come away from it with their toe extremely bruised or even broken and might take a much longer time to recover afterward; and that's even without touching at all on if or when any individual personal thoughts/feelings/opinions get involved). But, for expediency's sake, I had chosen not to dig into that in my previous comment.😊
I think I would personally quibble a little bit with your addendum, though, as I would personally argue that people can't really hold themselves responsible[ beyond a certain point] for what anyone other than themself is or isn't going to do with anything. So long as they aren't being grossly negligent about the fact that what they do or say is likely going to be interacted with by others, and sometimes even by those who might do things with it that they personally wouldn't, or what-such. I mean, a truly evil person could take even a handful of dandelions or daisies and use that to asphyxiate someone with, or something; but I don't think it would be fair to expect that literally every or any person who ever picks/displays a handful of flowers should have this particular possibility occur to them whenever they pick/display any bunch of flowers. Even if the handful of flowers was picked by someone else for somebody else, that doesn't automatically make the person who picked those flowers to blame for what somebody else did with them, unless they had reasonable belief or knowledge when they did so that this is what could/would happen. We can't really or fairly fault ourselves or others for what other people will do or not with anything, unless we are knowingly and/or intentionally inciting others to do so. Not to mention the fact that not all things are always considered to be equally as evil by literally every person who exists-so how do we determine exactly which individuals do or don't get to decide what is and isn't, in fact, "evil"[ in order to say what exact things everybody should be making sure that others can't misuse in which ways]? (But perhaps that's just me, getting lost in the semantics or something, idk.)
I'm no Saint, though, I assure you; I'm just someone who commonly enough leans far more on the wordier side myself and who just doesn't fuss much personally about how lengthy anything ever is or not in general(Except in the rare case when it's only the prologue of a book and yet it's 40-pages long!👀😅🙃👀🤣), especially so long as it stays within that particular platform's maximum character limit and doesn't even need to be divided into two or more separate posts. Lol
I don't know if I personally agree that literally everything should be subject to mockery, nor that only things that can be mocked can be criticized. But I suppose that could depend on whether or not you believe there is a distinction between mockery versus simply poking fun at or cracking a joke about something, like I personally do.
I don't believe that, in a perfect world, literally everyone would always agree exactly about what all is or isn't funny-but I do think that, in a perfect world, people should perhaps[ at very least to some extent] try and be somewhat considerate of what maybe not everybody might consider as funny as someone else does at the least when making jokes in the company or presence of others. But, yeah, even doing that....sometimes you simply have to agree to disagree or just move on. And I think both the audience and the person(s) making the joke all share in the responsibility equally to try and be mindful of what actually is or not reasonably funny or insensitive versus what's just different senses of humor[, and in which contexts, because oftentimes context does matter].
Similarly ... I don't know if anyone should be literally required to read things written by female authors or by authors of color, nor that every reader should always have to read A LOT by every possible type of author, nor that everybody should always have to know the race or gender of literally every author they read. But I do agree that, when there has been a relatively consistent history of certain types of authors' works not always being given the same chances as certain other types of authors' works are given[ within certain fields/genres or such], it's not necessarily a bad thing to go out of our way to make sure that we are at least occasionally giving works by those types of authors a fair chance ourselves. Even when you don't personally care about any authors' race or gender and personally care only about reading good stories-At the very least if you don't personally believe that those particular types of authors are somehow any less capable of writing equally good stories as anyone else is(?). (Pretty much regardless of how you do or don't define racism or sexism or anything.) But I also don't personally think that historical oppression + power is actually necessary for something to be racist[ or sexist], and so on, either-like, something can absolutely still be racist[ or sexist] sometimes even if it's not longstandingly and/or systemically so[ or whatever]. And yet I do doubt if the person you love intended to imply that you shouldn't read white male authors at all[ or that you should read fewer white male authors] or such, nor that you should read female authors and authors of color specifically or exclusively just because they are female or persons of color in general[ nor that you should read from women or persons of color more than you read from white male authors], or anything like that-so I think I am struggling just a little bit to understand precisely what you felt was so full-on racist about their comments and why? But I genuinely am trying to see where you were coming from(where both of you were coming from, honestly), and not just completely dismiss either of your arguments or declare that either one of you two was blatantly in the right or wrong here[ rather than simply coming at things with slightly different perspectives] without knowing all the facts(from both of your own/individual perspectives). I do, however, also wonder if perhaps it could/might have been more an argument over how things were said than a dispute over what was being said(Since sometimes different people will say things in certain ways that we wouldn't even if they are talking about the same thing that we would personally use other words to say OR will use certain words to refer to different things than we ourselves would rather than using those words for the same thing that we would personally be meaning to say if we ourselves ever used those particular words)? But those are just thoughts that popped in my head over the course of you sharing about that particular experience of yours, and please do feel free to disregard them entirely if you would rather not engage with or ponder along those same lines of thinking yourself, as I do understand that your point when sharing that experience wasn't really so much to debate the ins or outs of that particular argument itself-it won't bother me if you don't want to get into it any more than simply just to use it only as you intended in example for your addendum. 🙂
hey, thanks for the reply, honestly didnt expect it!
For sake of this not being a novella (lol) im just gonna comment what caught my attention, but i did read this all a couple times and i really appreciate your level headed response and confidence.
i'll guess ill start with paragraph 4 where you used the flowers as an example. I believe that no one should be held responsible for what someone else did (exception being if you give a knife to someone who expressed that wish to kill someone or themselves, but i feel thats a "no duh" kinda clarification.). What i was trying to get at was the idea that our frame work for society should be such that its clear what is better ( and i do think there are objectively things that are better than other) and what is bad (i also think there are universally bad things), and while a "bad" person is going to harm others regardless of the law that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't enshrine idea/laws that are obj good. i forget who i was listening but he commented on how if you look at the last 5 commandments in the ten commandments, they are fundamental for a society to exist. in particularly 13 “You shall not murder (enshrines the value of human life.)14 “You shall not commit adultery. (enshrines the value of family)15 “You shall not steel(enshrines the value of property).16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (enshrines the value of reputation). Life, family, property, and reputation. i actually believe the guy was right. Knowing that there will be people who's minds don't work correctly or have a moment of weakness, who will murder, who will cheat, who will steel, and who will lie, i think we should still have rules (few and clear) that guide us as a whole. Start working from a solid foundation and go out.
in regards to mockery i heard a comic say "the only joke you shouldn't tell is the one that always bombs, but that might be b/c of your delivery or timing.", so i agree with you. i just say mockery b/c its inflammatory enough that often gets to the heart of the persons "idol".
i guess thats my issue, i don't believe we are or will ever be in a perfect world so it isnt a factor. We have to give a level of grace b/c we arent perf. i think of my good friend who's mom died of cancer when he was 19 and then his dad died a year later in a car crash. We were at collage and a roommate said "i'd rather die of cancer" as a joke, i could see the pain on my friends face, he and i didn't laugh. When the kid saw we didn't laugh as we normally would at his jokes, he realized what he said and to who. He apologized, but ill never forget what my friend said "don't worry about it man, don't not make jokes on my account. i know you didn't mean anything by it" that stuck with me. Just b/c i don't find a thing funny doesn't mean i have the right to say they cant make the joke. especially b/c most people don't mean ill by their joke and if they knew why you personally wouldn't laugh at a joke like a cancer joke, most people wouldn't make it. But thats the big difference in my eyes. An example to express it better and to be a nerd, Cap America said in Infinity War "we don't trade lives" while at the same time being willing to sacrifice his own life. but that the difference between telling someone that they have to die and being willing to die of your own choice. I am willing to not make a joke about Chris Benoit to my brother in law who doesn't find those jokes funny, but i will make them to my brother who finds irreverent humor funny as hell. sorry i am rambling a bit, but my point in a nut shell. We don't live in a perfect world and never will, there shouldn't be any rule or law that says you cant make a joke especially b/c most people, if they know, wouldn't make a joke you wouldn't find funny anyway.
Also i will never deny that historically there have been wrongs done, jobs denied, books not printed b/c of someone's sex or gender. Just as ill never deny that America, even pre America, has war'd and done wrong against the Indians. At the same time ill also say that the Indians weren't all unified and killed each other all the time. In the current day its easier to self publish, i think the last number i heard was that there are 3000 new fantasy books published a year, more than any one person can read. I also think that we were moving in the right direction in the 90's and early 00's. Was it slow? yes. But it was changing for the positive. J.K Rowling proved all the publishers wrong that a woman couldn't sell a book. But I didn't read HP b/c i heard it was written by a woman, i read it b/c everyone loved it. I don't think race or sex determines if you are a good writer or not, nor do i think it determines if you are a good person or not. What i found racist was that i was being told that i had to weigh my decisions on what i would read based on someone immutable characteristics and not the story that they wrote. This is just a fictional example, if black people as a whole only ever wrote ... Romance novels... i would never read anything by a black person, not b/c they are black but because i don't like Romance. Exception being if a bunch of people tell me the story of x romance is actually an amazing story. The color of their skin wasn't a factor for me it was just coincidence i didn't read anything by a black author b/c they only wrote a genre i don't read. At the same time in reality i pass on alot of SciFi/Fantasy book b/c ill read a synopsis and it didn't sound like fun/interesting, the sex nor color of skin is considered.
Yeah, we often use word differently, i actually try to make an effort to clarify b/c we had often had issues in the past. Also side note, this person is genuinly a great person, i love them and i believe that they should be held up as an example of how to live you life, i just really disagree on this and a couple other topics. They are not they type of person to say that a black person can't be racist, but when an example was used, "say black people had a party and they said "no whites allowed" is that racist." they said no. "if a group of white people had a party and said "no blacks allowed" is that racist? to which they said yes. i asked why "b/c black people in America have been historically been oppressed and kept out and don't have power." (thats what it boiled down too, its been a hot min so the quote is loose but accurate) So i took the example and said "say, in this example for sake of understanding, that black people had ALL the power. They then had a party and said "no whites allowed" would that then be racist?" to which they said "no, b/c black people didn't historically have power in America" I just can't work with that definition. I get why people like my friend are usuing it, they see inequality and injustice and want to make it right. But b/c of that response it tells me they haven't though through the consequences of making your definition Power + Prejudice. I don't believe fighting past discriminations with present discriminations will lead to Equality. itll just lead to an eye for an eye, violence b/c people aren't as good as they could be. It makes far more sense to have the definition of racism be "judging someone in the negative or positive based on their skin color." it goes back to my few and clear. I can work with that b/c its end goal makes sense and is actually achievable and doesn't lead to future wrongs. whereas power + prejudice just leads to more wrongs being done and excused and the wronged becoming racist. i think its inevitable. Not everyone, but it won't erase racisms as a rule of thumbs.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk lol. Also thank you for taking the time to respond. i hope you are having a good new year! @@jaginaiaelectrizs6341
@@Beard_Hood Hey, if you were ever going to comment a novella though, I'm probably the person to comment it at! 🤣 (You could go right ahead and utilize that entire 9,999 character limit, here, and I wouldn't criticize you for it; you could probably even actually break your comment down into 2 or 3 separate parts across more than just one comment, and I still probably wouldn't judge you negatively for it, even though I also don't judge anyone negatively just for not wanting to type and/or read quite that much themselves either! 😆😆 I'm a pretty big believer in people being free to be however wordy or not-wordy as they are-even that one 40-page prologue only really bothered me because I just happened to come across it without having been forewarned and at a particular point in time where I had hoped to just be able to read that prologue super quick just to get the book started and help motivate myself not to continue just leaving it sitting unread for too long, so it was just poor timing for me moreso than actually that the prologue was so long.) Lol
( But, don't worry, you also don't have to[ use the YT comment maximum character limit to its utmost fullest] if you don't want to. 😂 )
I pretty much agree with you completely on everything from your latest comment. 🙂
I agree that there are some things that are objectively more or less good and/or bad than other things, too. And about society being best supported by establishing certain clear and not overly convoluted principles/rules. And having a good foundation, then working out from there, is probably ideal. And all of that.
Fair enough about using the word 'mockery', for that particular reason, too.
I pretty much agree with you about humor and jokes too, and about the fact that we do not live in perfect world[, and that sometimes we do just have to give room for a little bit of grace with people sometimes for the fact that we don't]. But I guess I personally feel that, even though it's inevitable that pretty much nothing in this world will always[ if ever] measure up to perfection exactly, I don't think this necessarily means that people can't still try their best to get as close to living up to the way(s) that they personally feel things should be if only we were in a perfect world anyhow-if that makes sense? And just between two or so people who do know each other enough to know why certain jokes might bother each other more than they might bother someone else, I think you do have the right to ask them not to make those jokes just between the two[ or so] of you(maybe) rather than simply relying on the fact that most people wouldn't make the joke if they did know why it bothered you, since I think it's okay for different people to have different levels of tolerance in that regard(like I think it's both okay if some people might say "don't not make the joke on my account" and okay if some others might say "please don't make that joke" instead and I think both types could understand that the person who did make that joke hadn't necessarily personally meant anything bad by it); but in public or especially with people who don't know you that well, I completely agree that even though you don't personally find something funny yourself[ even if that's for very specific or understandable reasons] you still don't necessarily have the right typically to ask that literally no one should make that joke anywhere ever(although it's okay if some people do also choose not to make certain jokes even in public too, to each their own discretion, sometimes)-but, similarly, just because they might not have the right to require you not to make the joke entirely also doesn't necessarily mean people don't still have the right to express their opinion that it wasn't funny too. Lol
I pretty much agree about the '90s and early '00s, moving slowly but headed in the right direction, too. It's pretty wild to me just how many more books get published every year nowadays, and most industries/genres are much more diversely accessible nowadays than in the past too, that's true; but, even so, it is also true that there are sometimes people who still do overlook or look down on works by women/people of color/etcetera(and not always just when they write genres or styles or stories that people don't personally care much for). I don't think it would automatically be bad even if you had personally picked HP up just because you'd heard it was written by a female author-so long as you didn't think it was likable, or tell other people that they should read it too, for literally no reason other than just because it was written by a woman. Lol I guess my personal suggestion would be, rather than looking up the ethnicity or gender or every author you've read, perhaps occasionally just searching up books in a genre you do enjoy by female authors and/or authors of color and then looking to see if there are any such books whose descriptions do happen to pop out to you? (Like, ultimately, don't read them just because they were written by a woman or a person of color; only read them if they do happen to catch your attention for some other reason, but just give them the opportunity to try and catch your interest, sometimes? If that makes sense?) I mean, I'm pretty sure a lot of people did not originally realize that J.K. Rowling WAS actually a female author, until after people had already read a book or two and gotten hooked-it was pretty common practice back then for female authors to choose initials or such as their pennames like that, specifically because it made them sound more gender neutral or even seemingly masculine outright. (Take Jude Watson, who published some books in the old[ pre-Disney] Star Wars EU, for example-who is actually a female author, but published under a seemingly masculine penname specifically to try and appeal to a wider potential audience of readers in certain genres, if I remember it right.) I don't think it was until things like Hunger Games and Twilight that female authors with overtly feminine names really started taking off on a remotely comparable level[ to HP or LotR and such], even though things were gradually headed in that direction long before then. (But maybe that's just my own perception?) Like, I definitely don't think you should decide to actually like or read a book exclusively because of its author's gender or ethnicity, except maybe if you're reading books specifically looking to explore certain life experiences or whatever[ in fiction or nonfiction] that somehow either differ from or are are similar to your own experiences(just because you're curious to see other perspectives or are maybe looking for a little reassurance that you're not completely alone in certain experiences or whatever). But there isn't necessarily any harm in occasionally looking up lists of books by authors of certain types in certain genres that do appeal to you and then just seeing if any of those books might jump out at you for any other reasons, like cover and/or plot description[ and such] and then deciding to read them or not based off whether anything else like that actually caught your eye, so perhaps that could be an okay compromise there(?). Although I definitely agree no person is any better nor any lesser than any other just because of their gender or ethnicity, not as a writer, nor as a person.
I really appreciate how you're able to separate your opinion of the person you love but sometimes disagree with from the fact that you don't always agree about everything exactly. And I pretty much agree with you about racism, too; I get why some people are defining it differently too, but I also agree that doing so is not really the way to actually set any of the world's wrongs right. I think I would've had a problem with hearing those answers to those particular questions myself too, but I also might've asked them "okay but hypothetically IF black people _hadn't_ historically been oppressed and then threw a "no whites allowed" party, would that be racist?". Lol (Like, I understand the instinct that black people might have reason to be concerned that a "no blacks" party might only be perpetuating historical racial prejudices into the modern era and/or that being forced to include non-black persons in their own parties might also open the door for negative prejudices to come harassing and such, but where is the line between protecting yourself versus holding things against people not for what they themself actually do but for what others with certain similarities to them did? That's a pretty slippery slope to try and stand on, imo.) I definitely agree that you can't fight past discrimination with present discrimination though.
You're welcome-and Thank YOU for taking the time to read and respond too, yourself!!! My year's been a little rocky already, lots going on[ not all good]-but I really appreciate the thought and positive wishes anyhow, so here's to hoping that things will start looking a little brighter soon, and hopefully your own new year has been off to a bit of a better start!💖 Hopefully you and the person you love but sometimes disagree with will be able to work past your differences and be a little closer or less strained or such again. 🙂
I do say "it's fictional", but whenever I say this it's towards people fed up over how certain figures are reimagined in historical fiction. (I know you like historical fiction the least so it's likely that's not what you meant in your first argument.) In recent years many figures like women in mythology/Shakespeare/Jane Austen etc are reimagined in new books, yet I read and watched several reviews that intuitively compared those reimagined characters to the real figures and dismissed them for not being true enough. I replied "it's fictional!" DUH
I love the bookish opinion videos!!
SPITTING FACTS
I agree- if adults can read fantasy ("it's fictional!") then kids can too. They know Harry Potter isn't real and that's why they enjoy it. I don't know any kids who would enjoy reading their own life story, it would be boring to them. People like fiction/fantasy because it's unrealistic. Some kids lit is better than others but you can't be that picky and not let them read anything.
It's fictional is a horrible one. And besides being lazy it's also usually untrue. Because even in fantasy and sci-fi where everything is fictional, the fictional world still has rules. In-world rules, natural progression of things, logic... If rules don't apply I'm going to need an in-world explanation why not. There is a video that isn't about discussing books or even stories, it's a video about costumes in the TV show (specifically it's Betnadette Banner's video on why GoT costumes work (are "historically correct")) following the rules set by the worldbuilding, that gets this point across really well.
I both agree and disagree with argument 2. But I feel that more of children’s literature should include healthy child/adult relationships. I love Harry Potter but agree with the criticism about the adults in the book. There are other ways to get adults out of the way than making adults irresponsible. It’s funner when kid protagonists do things on their own, when based around healthy adults and circumstances. Children’s books need that health, since too many of them are based on orphans, broken families, etc. It’s like the common argument about Disney always having a missing parent in kids shows (princesses with daddy issues). I believe this sets a bad expectation for reality in the minds of children. Not that books about orphans or broken homes shouldn’t exist but that we should have more children’s literature promoting healthy families. Set the ideal in their mind rather than normalizing abandonment and divorce.
Maybe I’m thinking about it too deep but media does influence our culture and over time we have seen families torn apart and divorce rates increase at an increasing rate and it seems to coincide with the time that media stopped showing whole families either in book or video form.
Mine is when you state an opinion, and someone starts disagreeing and attacking you for something other than what you said. Eg. I once commented I didn’t like Stardust by Neil Gaiman. He says how can you not like Neil Gaiman?? I had to explain that isn’t what I said. I happen to like Neil Gaiman, but thought Stardust was subpar for him. I feel like people on TH-cam often start creating arguments about things that you didn’t actually say.
Cool
Wow I can tell you didn’t even watch this video
@@Bookborn you guys are watching videos?
A lot of people are judging Sansa based on the actresses latest life choices I think.
The Harry Potter argument - thank you!! JK Rowling is getting a lot of shit in the fandom for creating "abusive" characters and "painting" them as "the good guys". I feel like when she exposed her transphobia, the Harry Potter books became public prey as well, and people are finding more and more ridiculous accusations against them.
I have to admit, as a trans person, I stopped giving certain Harry Potter characters the pass I'd given their awful behaviour when Rowling started showing signs of transphobia. Since she made that her entire personality, it's been too troubling to read those books again, so I donated them to charity. It wasn't like I was giving up a precious bit of my childhood or anything; I was uni when the first one came out. And I'm not going to ruin my nieces' experience of enjoying them either just because the writer is a lousy person. They'll find out on their own, and make their own decisions.
@@thing_under_the_stairs which characters do you mean?
I want to clarify that I am generally curious :) I don't recall any transphobic characters in HP, but I am cis and obviously not sensitivised in the topic. I'd love to expand my horizon :)
@@justink5000 It's the author's view that trans people should not exist that bothers me more than her characters, but thank you for the promise of good faith. It's not something that happens much online!
The characters that trouble me most, for reasons unrelated to the author's views, are Dumbledore and Snape. Dumbledore is deeply troubling for a number of reasons - he acts as a kindly mentor to Harry, while setting him up as a sacrificial lamb, he condones the abuse Harry suffers at the Dursleys' home for a handwavey magical reason that could have easily been written into a much better situation seemingly for the sole purpose of giving Harry the traumatic backstory so common in this type of fiction, and he allows awful bullying from both teachers and students to go unchecked at his school. Think of both Snape's tormenting at the hands of the Maurauders, and later how Snape himself bullies his students. Yes, Dumbledore's a flawed character, but that's a whole lot of abuse being overlooked while everyone praises him to the heavens as "the best and kindest" man they'd ever known.
Snape was a disappointment for a different reason. He was a character that a lot of people who have been abused at home and school, treated as outcasts, and rebelled as a result, could relate to. As a survivor of abuse while growing up, a"recovering goth" and fan of some very dark music and literature, I certainly thought of him as someone I wouldn't mind having a drink with, and looked forward to his obvious redemption arc. When it turned out that said arc hadn't come from within, but was so shallow as to be over a high-school crush that he never recovered from, it did an otherwise well crafted character a disservice. It felt like lazy writing. His abuse of the students was unnecessary as well, but understandable. Honestly, if given the choice between teaching middle/high school and the world's worst prison, I might take prison.
Finally, There was the trouble with Tonks and Lupin, both queer coded characters who are "straightened out" together, and meet a bad end. A lot of LGBTQ readers had already read Lupin's lycanthropy as an analogue for HIV, and one in rather bad taste, and Tonks' abilities to change appearance as a metaphor for a trans identity. When she becomes depressed and loses her abilities and is "cured" by her love for Lupin, it read uncomfortably like conversion therapies, which are proven not only to not work, but to be downright harmful. The fact that both Tonks and Lupin are killed in the final battle is a convenient use of the "bury your gays" trope, which should be long buried itself, and was a hint of the author's idea that LGBTQ people are not fit to raise children, as their baby is passed off to relatives. The suspicions aroused by this reading of these characters' fates was more or less confirmed when JKR began taking about the "dangers" of trans people existing in public with nice, "normal" people.
These are my main issues with particular characters, though even when I was a fan, I was reading for the stories rather than the prose, which I'd turn to JRR Tolkien, George RR Martin, or NK Jemisin for. There are other inconsistencies in her world building that I could write an essay about, but other people have already done it better than I could. I'd suggest hbomberguy's video on the subject as a starting point; it gave me a different perspective back when the transphobia issue was first coming up and I wasn't sure what to do with my emotional attachment. I hope this is some good food for thought, and have a good one!
There's something I would like to say on the "you didn't get it" fallacy. I'm not sure if I ever used this as an argument - I certainly thought it of people, multiple times. I... sometimes tend to be patronizing and arrogant, traits I'm trying to overcome and that I think are related to it. But here's the deal: relatively recently, I started intentionally looking for 1- or 2-star reviews on books I like, and I've noticed that there are occasions when I find myself saying that yeah, fair enough, this book isn't for everyone, your complaints are definitely accurate to the book. But there are a couple of cases where I feel the reviewer completely missed the point of the story and their complaint is completely off the mark. A common situation, for example, is when I went over some of my favourite books which had their adaptation overshadow them and people are complaining that "the book isn't enough like the movie". It frustrates me to no end, because... yeah, you're right. But the problem is that you came to the book looking for the movie. I've seen someone complain this way about a book with elaborate points, half of which I thought applied to the movie more. They clearly didn't agree with me, and I didn't reply, but had I replied I'd probably have claimed they didn't understand the book. So, I don't know if it just means I'd have fallen for that again - as you can see, I like to write long and elaborate replies, so maybe it would have been more fair, but not necessarily.
Anyway, thank you for the video! Happy new year, I guess (though I'm a Jew and go by the Hebrew calendar, so... umm... yeah.)
It's one area of life, due to the subjectivity of art/book interpretation, where the usage of "let's agree to disagree" can be appropriate. We're not getting into statistics or physics where there are real truths and falsehoods. Books will mean different things to different people all the time. Also, I really really really dislike the "you just didn't get it" position. Just the smug superiority sentiment there boils my blood.
All that said, thanks for the video, very good points and trying to make booktube a better place.
What really gets my knickers in a twist is when people compare YA authors to Children’s books Authors… like these are two different genres!? Why are we comparing J.K Rowling’s writing style to Suzzane Collins?
I’m starting to think I shouldn’t have told my wife that she “didn’t get” the political fallout of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict 🤔
I mean talking about fictional books is very different than talking about real life lmao
Obviously every fantasy reader is Andy from parks and rec. obviously.
Shhh don’t say the quiet part out loud
You should make a vid about ur fav video games
Good, I needed some anger management classes
I didn’t want to say anything Pete but…
@@Bookborn and I thought I was keeping it under wraps so well 😂
Do you realize that your second peeve is an application of the “it’s fictional” complaint. You are saying that we shouldn’t analyze the lenient adults in children’s books because they are children’s books (fictional) and that’s what children like. Maybe Rowling et al should do a better job of setting up the situation so that the behavior of the adults is plausible. There are lots of children’s books that accomplish (Huck Finn, The Golden Compass are two that immediately come to mind.)
Oooh I totally disagree. I think because of Rowlings political stances people love to hate on Harry Potter for doing things many popular children’s books do. I absolutely LOVE to talk about the adults in HP - many who I think are very complex and not straight good or evil - but I think “allowing Harry to fight Voldemort” is a bad argument 🤷♀️. The school setting is difficult to not fudge parent/adult involvement a bit and I do not think it harms the story in the way adults think it does.
@@Bookborn in several of the books, Rowling goes out of her way to show that Harry and gang are doing things that the adults would not permit. So I did not in general have this objection to that series. And the school setting is simply part of the willing suspension of disbelief. On that, I think saying “it’s fictional” or “it’s part of the premise” is actually correct. Not only does it not ruin the story; it’s built in as part of the world-building.
Even so, as a general matter it’s simply not OK to wave your hands and say “it’s a children’s book” as a reason why the author should get away with lazy character writing. That strikes me as being the same as saying ‘it’s fictional.’ A children’s book that allows for deep dives onto the adult characters is likely to be a better book. (And I think you are right about at least some of the adults in HP).
I kinda disagree with the second point. Your dismissal of concerns over the behaviour of adults in kids books sounds like a mixture of the first and third point. Because, yes, the kids need to be able to do things in children's lit, but that doesn't require the adults to be permissive. Hell, in Harry Potter, most people seem to focus on Dumbledore because his neglect is egregious even compared to the lax standards set by the other adults in the story.
The "it's a kid's book" defence just ends up sounding a whole lot like "it's fictional" to me. Maybe I'm not getting what you mean, but I don't have a problem with adults being imperfect - it would be boring if they weren't - I just also think it's fair, in a character analysis, to note their flaws, even if they are tropes of the genre.
I think it’s different because it’s looking at a very specific lens! We HAVE to think of audience when it comes to this stuff. If someone told me in an adult story “we can compare it completely to medieval European times because this IS fictional and they didn’t completely draw from that time period” I’d think it was a normal argument. It’s only the dismissive “it’s fictional why do you care” that I think is lazy
The "you just don't get it" comment is so...dismissive. Not every book is going to appeal to every person, so just let everyone have their own taste.
Some of the Reasons when i hate a book .
Its not my cup of tea
The characters are not engaging or the plot.
The prose is either dry or too dense that i get headache from reading it.
One this that drives me nuts is when you try to engage with a word aimed at children or young adults, and point out flaws, and someone just writes it off as “it’s for children, what do you expect?” Like, your example where “it’s for children” makes sense. But, to pull an example from the same series, pointing out things that were probably not fully considered, like time turners and the implications that come from introducing time travel into the series, something I think she did a not so great job with. I’m not saying a flaw ruins the books or makes her a bad writer (though, I do have issues with her character writing). However, it’s okay to point out the flaws and say “yes, I do think children are smart enough to think they deserve to have things thought through.” Or, an example from another fandom I enjoy, there were Magic the Gathering novels a few years back that were very poorly received, and one thing pointed out was that the dialogue was bad. Like, characters speaking in a way that was just inconsistent with their characterization over the years (like, a genius arrogant dragon scientist speaking like a bored gym teacher at one point). Even children and young adults deserve the effort be put in to make the characters speak the way they would. And, yes, I know it’s fiction, so technically, “how they would” is however the author chooses for them to, but not taking the time to think about how dialogue fits with the characterization is doing them a disservice
Your third point makes me think of Robin, Batman's sidekick. Yes, everyone with half a brain knows a rational adult does not take a literal child into fights with gangsters and supervillains. It's not revolutionary to point that out.
But that's not why Robin was created. He is there for young readers to imagine they are alongside Batman, and he lets Batman be a more fatherly figure than a loner, important in a time comics were being targeted for being too dark. It also allows Batman to deal with his parents' death in a different way, helping Dick Grayson to turn out to be the best of Bruce without the worst.
Now, if you just prefer the dark, loner Batman, the past 50 years are filled with stories like that. But for those of us who LIKE the character of Robin, you have to suspend disbelief. When you make him 25 like Batman Forever, you lost the childlike wonder and appeal of the character. He's a kid being a kid, right next to Batman when he fights the Joker. That's the point.
Based Hillary
The its fictional argument is strange because, why would someone have that position and then waste time on a booktube channel. It really doesnt make sense.
4:10 I know this has nothing to do with pet peeves but oh well 😂 I don’t know what movie this is from but I would also prefer to think Buckingham Palace is Hogwarts 😂😂 It’s much cooler that the king lives there and what ever you do don’t kill my magic my dude 😂😂😂😂
It's from the show Parks and Rec!
@@Bookborn Thank you 😊 I don’t know if we get it here in Australia but I will look for it just so I can watch it for that one scene 😂
God, the “you didn’t get it” is so STUPID and pretentious and I hate it so much, also because I heard it a ton after the Attack on Titan ending released. And like, sometimes you did get it and just thought it was bad and god it pisses me off so much. Also the “it’s fictional” I see it kinda like a way to dismiss the impact or the meaning that a fictional work can have in someone’s life so I see it as a little bit of an “anti art” argument. I just don’t agree with a lot of anti-intellectualist arguments. I love to see people digging and finding meaning in art, even if the author didn’t intend it, I don’t know why some people are that bothered with others finding interesting details or defending some positions
Idk whenever the “it’s fictional” thing comes up I just go “wow, I bet you thought that was a great argument. You must be proud of that don’t”
And also like… art is subjective, you can like books that other people hate and vice versa, is just really weird not to accept that.
How about something like, 'Well Sansa doesn't take you seriously and she doesn't think your real'? Aim your rhetoric at the level of the criticism?
Another one: Pulling the author card, or "When authors become gatekeepers."
We've seen several meltdowns over the past couple of years of authors who lambaste readers for not giving them 5 stars (on places like Goodreads) because their book is "perfect." They then harass readers on social media to press their point.
My experience over time was with a specific tie-in author on a publisher's website who constantly berated commenters about how wrong they were in a condescending, chiding, and lecturing tone. I thought... well you're not that great of a writer, mediocre at best (a few fans described them as competent but soulless), so why should I give your opinion the weight you think it deserves. This particular writer didn't even know the difference between a cliffhanger and story climax.
I disagree with your disagreements 😂
That's fair! Tell me why!
@@Bookborn because
ah you really told me!@@jimave
I’m a world class hater imo.
If that makes you happy, then good for you lol
Hum... Actually, you mispronounced Geralt, it's with an hard "G" (just want to see what happens if you see a single comment about this) 😁
STRAIGHT TO JAIL
Your last two points are SPOT-ON, I think! 💜💖🤍
..and...yeahh, we've probably all encountered and/or even been guilty ourselves of at least one or more of these at least once or twice before.😅🙃 👀 😂
Look sometimes I’m just mad and my discussion skills go out the window 😭🤣
@@Bookborn Fair-We're only human!😅👍🏻 Lol (I mean, me also!!!)