fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2249 ]

[ SECRET POST #2249 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2249 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Otoyomegatari]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Girls und Panzer]

__________________________________________________

04.

[My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Monster High]

__________________________________________________

06.

[My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Jackass 3D]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Paranatural]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Angelina Jolie]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Der Ring des Nibelungen]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Mary Shelley's Frankenhole]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Medium]

__________________________________________________

13.

[The Americans]

__________________________________________________

14.

[The Mindy Project]

__________________________________________________

15.

[5Dolls, T-ARA]

__________________________________________________

16.

[A Good Day To Die Hard]

__________________________________________________

17.

[Harry Potter]

__________________________________________________

18. http://i45.tinypic.com/2v0bjpd.jpg
[linked for porn, Spartacus: Vengeance]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #321.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

what people mean when they talk about not liking a certain thing in a piece of fiction because they think it was manipulative?

On the one hand I'm genuinely confused. On the other, what were they expecting? That's what fiction IS. It's not a historical account; if I write that someone has died, it's because I want the reader to feel sad or relieved or whatever, and the tone and wording of the scene will support that. When I do that, or simply when an author puts any element into a story that isn't required for a factual statement of events, it's intended to get a reaction out of the reader. It's manipulative.

Is their problem that it isn't subtle enough? I don't get it.

I think it means that it felt forced, like the writers were trying too hard to invoke a certain emotion and the result seemed fake (more so than fictional events are by default).

For me it's when something is so BLATANTLY manipulative. Okay, sure, the story is a "lie", but I'm supposed to BELIEVE it. If I feel smarter than the story, it's not fun.

I think it's because some films/books/etc, instead of trying to get empathy from the reader, wants to force the reader to feel something and then you feel like you're a bad person if you didn't cry when you should have. So yes, it's not subtle and it's vindictive about it.

It's not the fact that it was manipulative that is generally the problem. It's that something seems transparently manipulative, and hence cheap and artificial and melodramatic. I don't really know how to explain it any better than that. At a certain level, when the way something is trying to manipulate you becomes too obvious, it takes away from your ability to immerse yourself in the work and actually be affected by it.

I mean, yes, all fictional entertainment is inherently manipulative. But part of the point is that we don't want to realize it's manipulative. Otherwise it somewhat loses its function, doesn't it?

I guess it's when you feel like you don't want to feel the way you do, but the way the piece of fiction was crafted makes you feel that way against your will. Like, when there's no reason for an element to exist in a story except to provide an emotional response at the desired moment, and it's done in a way that's immediately noticeable.

Basically, if you can imagine the writer rubbing his hands and going "mwa-ha-ha what do I pull out of my ass and drop into this story to play these suckers' heartstrings?" that's manipulative. If you instead imagine the writer looking the purposeful, meaningful, organic elements of a story and going "oooooh, if I adjusted this a bit, it'd be ten times sadder than it already is!" it's not manipulative.

A lot of this is massively YMMV, of course. Plus, there's always some instances where you see a scene and you know it's manipulative, but don't really care or get offended because it still affects you.

Is their problem that it isn't subtle enough? I don't get it.

That's about it. We know that there's a puppeteer behind the scenes; we know that what you put into the story is a matter of conscious design on your part: but we don't want to see you up in the flies. Being "estranged" from the story went out sometime after the death of Bertoldt Brecht; your readers can be a consciously critical audience without someone reminding us "This is a story."

Ok then. That seemed fairly unianimous so I guess my stab in the dark was somewhat correct. Thanks for explaining, ffs!

I know that when I complain about it, it's because it's blatant or otherwise poorly done. It's sort of the point of fiction to manipulate you without letting on that it's doing so, such that good fiction doesn't even seem manipulative. Thus, if I'm not really thinking about it, complaining that something in fiction is manipulative doesn't sound contradictory.

Basically a lot of them you see on the internet (obviously not all) are emotionally immature.

"How dare this sad event make me sad, I should only have emotions of my own choosing."

Melodrama is worth criticizing but when the criticism revolves around how they did not like feeling an emotion you're dealing with one of the adultkids.

that's literally almost never what the actual content of the complaint is, though

perhaps it would be better if they phrased it as "this thing is clumsy or bad in its attempts to get me to feel this emotion" but we live in a deeply imperfect world

You must be keeping out of the stupid parts of the internet, then. Granted nobody in the comments above is saying that.

I thought I'd been in some pretty stupid parts of the Internet, but I guess not, if there's actually people out there who think that.

Pretty much what every else has said. For me the two biggest annoyances are when:

1. A estranged/missing parent comes out of nowhere to reconcile with their child. They have one episode together. And then the parent dies. I see this coming a mile away and do not give a fuck.

2. The audience is attacked by an army of violins over the tiniest things. I go deaf and do not give a fuck.

"attacked by an army of violins"--thank you, that image made my night and now I'll probably freak out random people the next time I go to the movies and the melodramatic music swells--I'll be doubled over laughing hysterically while a soldier dies nobly on the battlefield or whatever.

My god, I haaaaate the first one, especially because it's always coupled with said child immediately loving and/or forgiving the parent for their absence. Like...dude. That's pretty much a perfect stranger, and you're getting emotionally attached to them just because they share some genetic material with you? Seriously?

It's less about subtlety and more about purpose. Everything in a narrative should serve to move the story forward (or further understanding). If there's a significant death, it should mean something and not exist solely to tug at the heartstrings.

Like I'm watching an anime right now where every other episode is full of heart-wrentching situations, but they serve a purpose, juxtaposing the protagonist's ideals against the harsh reality he lives in, or else explaining the motives of other characters. On the other hand, I was reading a webcomic that introduced an orphaned child character specifically to play up on the fact that she was an orphaned child and was also special (powers-wise; she could do things she shouldn't have been able to), and it felt too forced, like the author wanted me to care more about her and her well-being and story than the rest of the main cast. She didn't serve any other purpose than to bait my emotions, and I ended up annoyed. They're both manipulative, sure, but the first serves a purpose beyond getting me emotionally invested, whereas the second is there for just that only, and ends up feeling grossly superfluous when the bait isn't taken.

One piece of writing advice that has stuck with me through out the years is that a story (for example) should never say more about the author personally than it does about the story. And for me, that fits into the complaint of manipulation. Sure, all fiction is inherently manipulative, as the author is trying to get you to imagine (or re-imagine) something in the way they want you to - but if your writing is good, the reader either shouldn't notice that they are being manipulated or the reader should be so engrossed that they don't care.

If, on the other hand, as a reader you can see the metaphorical puppet strings jerking behind the scenes, it usually makes you stand back and go 'Gee, that was predictable' - or cliched, or lazy writing, or out of character, or possibly even 'I think this writer needs to sort out some of their issues.' And anything that takes you out of a story then takes away from your enjoyment of the narrative.

Well yeah, subtlety is a big part of it. There's a major difference between a scene that's meant to evoke a specific reaction and one that just hammers it home with a two by four upside the head. I mean look:

"I have terrible news," said Mulder, hanging his head in sorrow. "Really bad. I've... I've got CANCER."

"Oh no!" exclaimed Scully. "Not cancer! Not after Skinner's been permanently crippled in a completely unexpected tractor accident after finding out he had a winning lottery ticket!"

"Yes. Cancer. But that's not all." Mulder took a deep breath, running his long fingers through his magnificent locks. "Your dog just died, Scully. I didn't want to tell you, but he ate one of my porno tapes and choked on the plastic."

Scully tried not to imagine how Queeqeg's last moments must've been, his furry little legs twitching frantically as he gasped for air. Her eyes filled with unshed tears, and a dull ache throbbed in the pit of her stomach.

Etc. etc. Writing that's really obvious about trying to wring an emotional response from the reader is bad writing. If it's good, then you're probably not going to notice that hey, someone's trying to make me cry! You'll just cry.

I think a good example is the movie Brother Bear. (Spoilers if you haven't seen it.)

There's this scene where the main character has to explain to the cub that he killed his mum. It's obviously a pretty serious scene - everything's dark and grim and serious, the bear is sad, the cub is nervous, and then...

Randy Fucking Newman starts bleating over the top of the entire scene with a SAD SONG about HOW SAD IT IS and OH THE BEARS ARE SAD and GOSH EVERYONE BE SO SAD!!!! This is instead of just letting the characters and their actors do the scene. It really obviously smacks of someone walking in mid production and going MAKE THIS SADDER. MORE SAD MUSIC.

Cheap, manipulative, and not even subtle. Also Randy Newman sucks. :I

:(

I saw it as a kid. I was an absolute wreck over that scene, because I was too young to have consumed much media. The reason I bring it up is because I've been avoiding seeing it again - I thought I wouldn't be able to handle the scene.

Maybe I should watch it again with older eyes. It was a fairly good movie excepting that, right?

Well, three possible problems:

1) The scene is not honest. A good scene builds emotional resonance by treating the characters honestly, and earning the sympathy of the audience through good character development. A dishonest scene just cribs together a mess of cliches that are supposed to make us feel an emotion by association. The James Bond WiR is a good example. She's just a plot device to establish big bad as bad, and Bond as angry.

2) The writer starts with a good scene, but doesn't trust the audience, so they add more and more formulaic elements and cliches to try to force it. The result feels rather like a Jim Steinman song, but without the gonzo sense of fun. ME3 is terrible at this.

3) The emotional development of the work is fairly obviously staged around commercial ends. For example, having a dramatic cliffhanger before the commercial break or ridiculously prolonging and teasing the resolution of a romantic conflict to maximize advertising sales. A literary example is Anne Rice's The Witching Hour which isn't really a novel and has a cliffhanger to prompt you to buy the next novel. (In contrast to Pet Semetary which ends on a cliffhanger but has enough structure for you to make a good guess about the epilogue.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2249 ]

Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me

Re: Can someone please explain to me