#bridgetunwise

Madoka Magica didn't betray its genre, but when I wrote "just another magical girl show" I was thinking more along the lines of a fluffy, children's oriented show, or possibly a moe show. I admittedly haven't watched very many, but I feel like Madoka Magica put itself out as a cutesy show. It didn't betray the magical girl genre, but I feel like it was advertised as a moe show. I say advertised because I view any word from a creator about their work on a public forum as advertisement.

I feel like a creator doesn't necessarily fail to be compassionate by failing to conform to their advertised genre. I feel like the expectations people hold about genre can carry into the work and contribute to the experience. Of course, advertising as fluff and turning out to be gore is a bit extreme, but if it's content tagged, then all the explanation is already done, and nobody is scarred. I feel like it would be hard to find a piece of media that doesn't lie about its genre to some level.

I think we’re still having two different conversations. The split I’m setting up is:

compassionate creators, which I’m basically saying are folks who aren’t huge assholes to their intentionally targeted audience, or even just their audience in general

creators who aren’t compassionate, who might view their audience as an entity to manipulate, who integrates a betrayal of their audience in some emotional jumpscare-equivalent type stuff & sees that as good writing

a romance can have tragic elements within the story and still remain true to the genre of romance, but if it’s billed purely as romance with no hint of tragedy, then some ‘everyone dies’ ending definitely gives the vibe of manipulative jumpscare writing that relies on this manipulation, which, isn’t compassionate to the audience. it’s not a failure to conform, and besides, a lot of genre stuff is pretty nebulous anyway, but AS NEBULOUS AS GENRES CAN BE, there are specific expectations a reader has for certain genres. tragedy/romance isn’t the same as romance.

Ya I agree that queerbaiting is icky, but there is such a thing as a plot twist or a tone shift. A creator shouldn't feel obliged to alter their work because of their audience. Regarding sudden dark turns in stories, I think trigger warnings and parental guidelines are all that's really needed. If I've got a friend writing a story who loves fluff and they suddenly go thru an edgy phase, who am I to stop them, or guilt them for their choice, just because it's not my preferred flavor of content?

As long it's not racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive, and as long as it doesn't fail to mark any traumatic/triggering content, I think a story can choose to interpret its genre however it likes. You can argue that it's incorrect, gaming for views, etc, but advertisement is just as much a part of creative expression as writing is.

Take a show like Puella Magi Madoka Magica. Advertised itself as a magical girl show, turned into something much darker. I think that for its initial viewing, the assumption that it was just going to be another mahou shoujo was intended to be part of the experience. The surprise is part of the show. I don't see it as fooling anybody on a malicious level.

@bridgetunwise we’re having two different conversations.

I’m not arguing that plot twists and genre shifts are audience betrayal, and in fact, I feel like a lot of twists/shifts follow through with the original promise of a genre (e.g. Samurai Flamenco with its sudden bodycount and *three genre shifts* is, by the end, still a love letter to sentai, which is what it started out as)

(you mentioned PMMM. we’ll get into that later.)

Is your hypothetical friend trying to manipulate and mislead their fluff-loving readers into reading gore that masquerades as fluff? If no, this is irrelevant. If yes, that’s a shitty move on your imaginary pal’s part.

Here’s an explicit example: Me Before You, trailers pegged it as a traditional romance, spoilers, ending is tragic. If the movie itself was billed with tragedy, it’d still be a shitty twist informed by a SHIT TON of ableism, but it wouldn’t be a manipulative one.

Still bad writing, but minus a layer of bad.

Compassionate creator =/= obligated creator. My point was about the creator being candid, and not just seeing their audience as an entity to manipulate. I cited grif as an example of a compassionate creator, an example that included adjusting his story based on reader feedback, and I can see how I might’ve given the impression that my stance is ‘a good creator changes their story based on the audience’s whims.’ My bad, here’s an example of someone I’d consider a compassionate creator who is working on a preestablished story that isn’t susceptible to major changes based on audience feedback.

mad, creator of sakana, is someone I’d trust with my life. she’s telling her story which seems to have a very set plan that we, the audience, have no real input on other than reacting to developments. she never gives the impression that she views her audience as an entity to manipulate. she’s telling her story, and she’s sharing it with us. she obviously cares about her characters, and doesn’t write in a way that suggests an ulterior motive of audience manipulation. she has an obvious appreciation for her audience, and is conscious that her story *has* an audience it’s engaging with.

(the original post was written because I was thinking about how much I hate Moffat’s attitude towards his fans. the post itself wasn’t specifically about Moffat’s stuff because the chain of logic was moffat’s a piece of shit -> well duh considering how he sees his audience -> creator-audience engagement and how a betrayal isn’t actually good writing.)

You’re saying advertising is part of creative expression, and as long as the content isn’t bigoted and has content warnings, it’s a-ok. I said a compassionate creator is candid about their content. I don’t understand why this seems to be an argument as I don’t recall making a point for this to be a rebuttal for.

Now. You brought this up so you have to deal with the consequences. 

While Puella Magi Madoka Magica delves into darker developments, is still a magical girl show. It didn’t ‘turn into’ anything else, it still largely follows the magical girl formula.

Puella Magi Madoka Magica shifted the public perception of the magical girl genre as a genre with the potential for a dark tone, and I’d argue that part of this is because - as a short series - darker elements were prominent way sooner than, say, in the anime adaption of Sailor Moon which featured a battle where basically all the sailor scouts died, a development that happened in episode 45 as compared to PMMM’s first death in episode 3.

Sure, the sailor scouts come back, but so does everyone in PMMM based on movie continuity (not necessarily in an unambiguously happy ending, but everyone’s alive). PMMM is a show with subversive elements and twists re: kyubey’s role, the nature of the witches, but PMMM didn’t hinge on audience betrayal. Even ignoring movie continuity, the ending of the series itself is largely hopeful, which is in-line with the magical girl genre.

‘Just another mahou shoujo series’ misunderstands the mahou shoujo genre. I’m gonna reference TV tropes here so bear with me, the 3 subcategories of magical girl series it lists are neo-classical, action hero, and deconstruction, but deconstruction IS STILL a category of the magical girl category. PMMM is a prominent example of deconstruction, but it isn’t the first and isn’t the last. And even then, sure, stuff like Precure and DoReMi and Mermaid Melody etc. etc. etc. don’t have the same length or degree of ‘dark elements’, but the idea of hopelessness and despair isn’t actually that much of a deviation from the genre. I haven’t finished Nanoha, but I know it’s a series where one of the characters is a victim of abuse. Also, while I give Precure as an example of a lighter series, in the one I’m currently watching there’s been one scene that felt pretty damn threatening. 

Look. I enjoyed PMMM. But I’m so sick of it being held up as Not Like Other Magical Girls. I’m not even that deep into the genre and I’m sick of it.

In my opinion, a true betrayal of the audience would be if the show really did end on a hopeless note about how love and justice are worthless. And honestly, it’s not like I can stop anyone from making something like that, but that sounds like a pretty garbage way of interacting with the genre, especially if they market it like a traditional take on the magical girl genre (whichever tradition they choose). 

ya intent is the core of this imo

Deffo not saying that your exp/interpretation of the show was wrong, but I think for me, personally, the reason samflam read as jumpscare but not betrayal is because in every tone shift & every arc, there’s something that connects it back to the spirit of WOW!! HEROES!!!! King Torture arc. Jesus. It went places. The flamengers arc was kind of a mess but ‘unity’ is built into it & it results in what I think is the strongest payoffs of the series, and the prime minister arc gets masayoshi at a low point to build him back up to the spirit of heroism. Haiji arc took the idea of 'natural development into dark hero’ and countered it in p much the most ridiculous way possible. It’s like, the expectation is less “what will samurai flamenco do” and more “how will samurai flamenco readjust and reaffirm his convictions of heroism”. & actually what I think is funny is you qualifying your stuff with 'doesn’t mean it’s a bad show’ bc I gotta qualify mine with 'doesn’t mean it’s a good show’ bc jfc the writing is messy as hell in a lot of it. Despite its many, m a n y flaws, it’s got a special place in my heart.