This phrase has already entered my vocabulary re: media criticism where like. The viewer has a concrete view of what they expect a story to be based on the tropes and cliches they're used to seeing together, and when that doesn't happen, they judge it as a failed depiction of what they assumed it was going to be instead of judging it as what it actually is.
"This show is problematic because the hero didn't kill the villain at the end": When does he steal the bread?
"These two characters who were close friends throughout the series don't kiss at the end! What the fuck?": When does he steal the bread?
"This feels like it's missing a conclusion! Like, the protagonist does bad stuff and because of a critical decision he makes as a result of his major character flaws, meets tragedy in the end! Where's the part where he learns better and brings is love back from the dead and becomes a good guy and gets a happy ending?": When does he steal the fucking bread??
I heard this out as "When criticizing something, you must judge it for what it is, not what it isn't"
#this is why so many of us urge people to get a wider diet of stories
Agreed with all. In addition, it seems like a lot of media consuming people view media as an active participant. I think it’s been said before, but it just clicked in my head that like, no. You have no say in what happens when you consume some media. The author created the work in the way that they wanted to create it. You’re just along for the ride. “It would be better if,”/ “I can’t believe they didn’t,” incorrect. What you expected didn’t happen, and that’s not the fault of the storyteller. It’s the fault of your expectations. Things not going the way you want doesn’t mean that it’s a bad work.






















