[ SECRET POST #5154 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5154 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #738.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/qAGsepK.png

[(Anonymous)]

I completely agree with the sentiment, I hate and despise that kinda thing

I don't agree with using the term "deconstruction" to describe that but that's not really your fault, OP

[(Anonymous)]

Out of interest, why do you distinguish between what OP is talking about and the term deconstruction?

[(Anonymous)]

Hm.

So, for me, 'deconstruction' is basically about looking at a work of fiction, for instance, or a genre of fiction, or any kind of text or whatever, as an artifice, and teasing out the contradictions, oppositions, tensions, problems, irreconcilable elements, etc within that artifice, and then recasting the original work in light of an awareness of those contradictions, often playing them off against each other. So deconstructing the superhero genre, for instance, is primarily about understanding the contradictions inherent in the construct of the superhero genre as a fictional genre.

On the other hand, the kind of thing that I understand OP to be talking about is principally concerned with *realism*. So for instance, with superheroes, it would be answering the question, "what would superhero stories look like in reality". Now, that can be put to use as a technique in deconstructing things - after all, realism is basically a literary technique. But realism isn't really inherent to something like the superhero genre. The tension between superheroes as a genre construct and realism is really not one that's inherent in the superhero genre. So I don't think that deconstruction is the right word to describe it. It's more a rewriting of the superhero genre based on fundamentally different premises (although unfortunately, the people who engage in it are not really aware that this is what they are doing) than it is engaging with the premises as they exist.

That's how I think about it I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

[nayrt] this is basically what I think - that like, highlighting internal contradictions in a setting (like how a lot of superheroes refuse to kill villains, but absolutely kill mooks) is or can be part of deconstruction; but going 'if superheroes were real they'd all be sociopathic rapists' is not. That's just the writer telling on himself.

[meadowphoenix]

hmm, I don't think there's any appreciable literary difference to separate that out from deconstruction. There is always a tension between audience and genre and that's always inherent to the genre. For instance, a contradiction inherent in the structure of the superhero genre is that the audience is investing in ethical framework that is "unallowable" in their own lives. That's part of the genre. In fact, I don't think you can actually separate the superhero genre from a philosophical commentary of the audience's real world. Therefore, "what if superheroes were in our reality" is a valid deconstruction.

I think there's a difference in "this is why everything would fail" and "this is the adjustments superheroes would need if in our reality." Both are deconstructions, but the former is a flat-out rejection of the themes and frameworks advanced in the superhero genre as a whole. And frankly that's a bummer of a read/watch/listen and suggests something contemptuous for the genre itself (I think Watchmen skirts this line). But that doesn't exclude it from being a deconstruction.

[type_wild]

Oh, word. Madoka Magica is a perfectly fine anime, but if it is supposed to be some kind of meaningful commentary on the magical girl genre, then it misses whatever target it was aiming for with a mile.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a misogynistic dumpster fire about how girls don't REALLY know what they want and their suffering is brought on themselves and hoping against the cold, hard world is ultimately futile, and love between two girls is inherently toxic.

[(Anonymous)]

Huh. I've seen madoka magica and liked it well enough, but I don't remember that much. That said, I haven't watched any other magical girl shows, could you explain what is wrong with it?

OP

[(Anonymous)]

"In order to write a perfect ending for a story you must possess the power to break the chain of cause and effect, invert black and white, and act in complete contradiction to the rules of the universe. Only a heavenly and chaste soul, a soul that resounds with genuine praise for humanity, can save the story; to write a story with a happy ending is a double challenge, to the author's body as well as the mind."--Gen Urobuchi

And then Madoka DID break the chain of cause and effect and contradict the rules of the universe. So no, Madoka Magica isn't what I was thinking of at all.

[(Anonymous)]

This sure is a bad faith take.

[epicurean]

I don't think it was meant to be a deconstruction as much as a dark magical show, but people just love to throw that word in to make the series look deeper than it is.

[(Anonymous)]

It wasn't trying to be a deconstruction (that's word of God) but I don't think the OP is really talking about things like Madoka. I love classic magical girl anime and I love Madoka, and I never thought Urobuchi was being a dick to people like me who like happy cute magical girls. It's also a common strawman that Madoka fans are dumb because they think PMMM "shows what being a magical girl would really be like," but no fan I've met has ever said that's why they like it or that it's more realistic than happy magical girl anime.

I do think that if magical girls really existed, most of them would be miserable because they'd have even more responsibilities and less free time than already overburdened normal kids, and Mami talking about having that problem even before the cosmic horror kicked in is where PMMM probably got closest to a deconstruction.

[epicurean]

Any excuse is a good excuse!

In all seriousness I can kinda understand where you're coming from. Sometimes escapism exists because well, irl sometimes sucks.

[meadowphoenix]

I watch and read stuff like that because it comes across as an actual contempt for the genre they're deconstructing, and reveals where that contempt stems from (an over reliance on logic v. feeling, a deep seated distrust of human beings, the belief that government will ruin things unequivocally, etc). I find it incredibly interesting, but yeah you kinda want to tell the creator "chill, let people like impossible stuff"

OP

[(Anonymous)]

My first thought for “contempt for the genre” is Ouroboros by Sierra Lee. The dev hates mascot characters, hates femme white mages, hates relationship meters, hates chain of deals quests, etc. etc. etc.