Hello! Welcome to Fiction Applied. I'm Geoff Cassidy, a reader, writer, and story teller. Ever since I was a kid, I have always loved stories, and I decided to make this channel devoted to breaking stories down and figuring out what makes them work. I wanted to know how J. K. Rowling made Hogwarts, how I learned more about humanity from East of Eden than all my history classes, and how Orwell and Dostoevsky were able to see and predict what everyone else seemed to miss.
I want to discover why and how fiction stories often offer more truth than anything else.
Some of my favorite writers are J. R. R. Tolkien, Alexandre Dumas, J. K Rowling, Gene Wolfe, John Steinbeck, Haruki Murakami, Kentaro Miura, and Naoki Urasawa.
Favorite TV shows are The Prisoner (1967), True Detective, Gintama, Fullmetal Alchemist, and Monster.
Top Movies are Millers Crossing, Hail Caesar, Fight Club, Arrival, Summer Wars, Spirited Away, and Interstellar
The world has to feel real. When perversion is inserted and the world bends for it, it's disgusting. You can have any degree of nudism or polyamory or nihilism, but if the world's reactions to it are not honest then the audience can't suspend disbelief.
i think people don't like lazy writing and when a writer tries to lazily write a political character or story it can often feel condescending. but i also think for many people they don't think super hard about the storytelling techniques used in a story. when a story is written well the politics are not entirely visible at first glance, and may not come off as political at all to the average viewer. if a story is poorly written and political the audience may recognize that the story is bad, not understand that the writing techniques are the fundamental problem, see the obvious politics that the writer put in, and conclude that politics are what made the story bad. i think this becomes a problem mainly with young people and media-illiterate people where being naive or just not very smart you identify the pattern "things with politics [i can easily recognize] are bad" and then start applying it as a truism rather than thinking about it and why it's bad and you have a vitriolic reaction against things you perceive as fitting into that pattern. you end up looking at a piece of media and focusing in on the politics and going "it was bad because it was political" and not "it was probably bad because it had 20 different writer credits and was pushed out the door as soon as it was minimally viable because the studio felt they had already spent too much money and time on this project"
Good points. Especially the last one. It really does feel like studios are willing to spend money on everything else other than the script and wonder why the story tanks.
Before watching, my thoughts is that it’s no so much the politics in media that’s disliked, but the implementation. The difference between adding politics as world building versus adding politics to push a message. Fallout: New Vegas is a phenomenal example of using politics for world building, and it’s heralded as a generational lifetime masterpiece.
Politics in a story only works if it is in universe and works within the framework of the story. The starwars prequals and GOT are examples. Our real world nonsense politics shoe horned into stories is complete poison and not only has it never worked it ruins the immersion and makes you contemptible of what your watching Picard season 2.
I think you can make it work. Now it may be different because the stories that come to mind that work are older, and generally I agree with them. One example would be the Crucible by Arthur Miller which talks about the McCarthy trials, or Master Harold and the Boys, which talks about race relations in South Africa, or The Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco. For those the key part is that for these stories, it is that they tell the story first, and through the story, the message comes through. I agree with you as any story that tries too hard to push it's politics, fails both at the story and politics, but a writer who puts story and character first, can often do well with the politics. I appreciate your comments! And I have heard from a number of people that Picard is particularly bad in this regard.
You bring up Brie Larson”s Captain Marvel as an example of a movie that’s overly divisive because it has a clear political message audiences are meant to side with. But I feel like this point disproves your main argument. Captain Marvel is a simple marvel movie with clear good guys and bad guys, but so are most marvel movies. It seems as though the visceral reaction to Captain Marvel being too “woke” really came from the character being played by a woman, and a woman who has political beliefs that some audiences detested.
Good point. It has been a long time since I went through Captain Marval, so I may have misremembered. I simply remembered there being a lot of issue with the story, and it may not fit what I was trying to argue.
You’re misinterpreting. Politics that fit the fictional world are part of the drama of many franchises. This is stupendously different from interjecting modern political viewpoints into a story that is about something completely different. I don’t care about Trump. I don’t care about Biden. The US is one country of hundreds of countries. I don’t wish to have de facto campaign promotion of a party of some stupid country which I despise in my entertainment.
One of the points that I'm making is that disliking a story because it's "political" is mostly inaccurate. From what I've read and heard there are a lot of people who dislike a story for valid reasons, but haven't spent the time to properly articulate why, and go with something easy. I wanted to go deeper and highlight that generally it's not simply politics that people disagree with, but exactly like you said, a very modern and specific branch of politics that tries to somehow embed itself in a story and usually makes it worse on every count.
I dont have an issue with politics in fictional universes like fallout new vegas and game of thrones. The issue with most politics in video games, shows and movies is that the writer (writers) or creator of the franchise purposely paint one side as stupid, evil or ignorant and intentionally sabotage them with bad writing while they paint the other side they support as moral, good and superior with every intent to make them likeable and relatable. Its similar to the teacher playing favorites where they give some of their pupils preferential treatment over the other pupils like leaving class early for lunch or boost up their grades while giving the others a hard time.
Yes, if a writer ever dumbs down a side to the point of idiocy, it weakens the story. For me, the best villains are ones that make really good criticisms and points, it's just that their solution is often immoral.
@pukkandan ......these are things trying to invoke a feeling ..or giving waight to a situation..my statment still stands regardless ..some music or something thats added as to help move someone emotionally to the place the story is going is very much different than holding your hand draging you through the plot and saying we are here now and if you arnt theres something wrong with you ...
I like stories in games, but they have to be done well. I forgot the game, but a few years ago I played this game where you were a civilian and had to survive in a warzone. The explicit purpose of the game was political (against war), but the story was engaging, and the game was fun. IDK how much of that was just because I'm personally anti-war though, someone who likes war (???) might find it preachy and offensive.
I don't believe there's any issue with presenting an anti war view, the key issue for me would be if the story said there's no reason ever to have war or even start it. You can still be anti war and agree there are good reasons to go to war (just not good enough to actually go to war). And also if the story is good enough usually you can get away with being a little preachy. The first season of Newsroom was like that for me.
@@geoffcassidy9981 It focused on the civilian impact and didn't say anything about why it started. I guess I'm not totally anti war, because if a country took over Europe and started a genocide like the Nazis did back in the day I probably wouldn't consider it a bad thing in and of itself to wage war against them.
@@bertramkirkstrauss9358 why even bother responding his pfp is pepe gadsen flag. even without the pfp you rose to basically the most obvious bait. you're wasting your time responding to comments like these.
The whiteboard and rambling are not charming, this was disjointed and needs a script/editing. The entire video boils down to "not my politics I don't like it" which is not at all why people are rejecting certain politics in media. A few commenters have already made the points I would, I am very curious to see your responses to them.
Hey I appreciate the feedback! I am by no means a great editor. We may have different tastes and preferences, but I appreciate you watching! I don't think that's the main point of the video. Id argue that my main point is that it's not necessarily politics that people reject (while it can be a major part in some stories and for some people), but its the feeling that we (the audience) feel forced to agree with a character is unsympathetic and annoying. And it could be because they are written like a moralizing propaganda mouthpiece. The goal was to try and go beyond the low level critic for these stories and not just say putting your politics in stories is bad, but more to show why and how other poorly written aspects can illicit the same response.
There are some older examples: Dead Poet's Society, Patch Adams, Ferris Bueller's Day Off. But it is not about "politics", quite the opposite. It's designated protagonist and creator does not even see they've made a bad guy.
Interesting. I haven't seen Patch Adams, but with the other two, are you saying that Ferris and John Keating in those movies are the bad guys? I may be misunderstanding.
@@geoffcassidy9981 I haven't seen Patch Adams either but it comes up as a film with a protagonist we are supposed to applaud but many viewers hate. Same as my other two examples or Captain Marvel.
I saw Day Off in high school and absolutely loathed Bueller. In Dead Poet's Society the teacher took no responsibility for actions that caused his student to spiral into suicide.
@@geoffcassidy9981 people hated the existence of the Trade Federation, not because they were villains, but because Phantom Menace started the movie talking about the taxes and trade routes and then the blockade. That made many people think it was "boring" because it began "talking politics and economics" and made it so important that they had to understand it
Of course stories should have politics because every human story has politics in it. Its the insertion of modern politics without any thoughts given to how it could possibly fit in these fictional stories. It will be weird if in a western, we have a character that has the "ethics" of a modern liberal upper middle class person. That seems so unlikely and it clashes with the whole thing in such a way and its shown as such a huge part that it cannot be ignored in anyway whatsoever thus making it painful to watch. On top of that the story isn't even that good
Indeed, one example of this in tlou2 is the story of that trans kid. In a post apocalyptic world, where the need for our specie's perpetuation FAR OUTWEIGHS the wants of a single person. And somehow we're lead to believe that the ones who would have that girl be a woman and have children, are the bad and unethical ones. Instead, she should just pretend to be a man and actively harm the perpetuation of our species. That's apparently the good thing to do in such a situation...
I think you hit the nail with the last part. Generally if a story is good enough, you can get away with a lot. That said, a good story will be true to the genre and time period and modern views in Western settings most of the time go poorly.
Regarding TLOU2, it’s purely the story telling at fault. They should have start us out as Abby first. That way we could understand Abby first before we have to kill Joel with her. Instead we were forced into Abby’s pov when the hatred was burning hot…. Also with a lot of feminist movie, my big problem isn’t about feminism. The problem is that they tried to portray strong independent women with toxic male traits. How’s that gonna work out?
Yeah I think there is a way they could tell the story to do what they want. It felt like they simply didn't get the idea that people were really attached to Joel, and that they wouldn't attach or sympathize with another character that easily.
I hate manufactured drama, which passes for what most people think of as politics in stories. Or as I like to put it, people being c**ts for the sake of being c**ts. There is no depth to it. If some mad scientists wants to destroy the world because of grief, extreme but its a character with a purpose. A politician trying to climb the ladder to success being corrupted along the way I can live with. A main character pulling strings and being an ass is just annoying. A show where that forms 90% of the material is beyond frustrating.
Yeah I've seen a number of shows where characters simply never talk to each other like normal people and instead everything goes explosive. It takes a reasonable inconvenience to the worst case scenario. Every time. They do this to create conflict which in poorly written stories I think the writers believe can replace actual plot and motivation.
Ultra-contemporary politics, pretending there is an ethical concensus, is the issue. Hollywood and the videogame industry keep hiring ultra-liberal, preaching to the point of being proto-religious really, types that both their right wing counterparts and moderates consider just insufferable. So either use older politics that have a stabilished zeitgeist, leave politics alone or just accept you are making a niche product for those who consider this attempt at understand contemporary issues as black and white as you. Nobody would make a movie about the bible and expect it to be mainstream in 2024, so why believe movies based on their new religion would do any better? Also, it's VERY arrogant because basically all aorund the world we must agree with the very discourse people in NY in this week are preaching. I'm not in the US and timeless art is timeless for a reason.
Yes! I think this is why South Park and similar shows do well, because it really feels like they are taking honest shots at all sides and there is no preaching. The humor aimed at everyone feels genuine and honest. It doesn't feel like they are trying to force anyone to agree with a particular agenda or joke.
@@geoffcassidy9981 Yeah, the same for good comedians like Bill Burr. There's an excelent special on netflix where he makes a great joke about anti-vaxxers and it doesn't feel forced at all because he is ripping everyone apart, even himself!
It's not so much that a story has political elements. It's that they force you to choose a side based on the author's opinions, or the opinions the author wants to virtue signal. This is why in a certain era some cartoons had a "pot can ruin your brain forever in a week" episodes ---- that left children crying, and cynical older children trying pot when they would not have otherwise.
I agree! It's also interesting to read a story where the author very clearly has an agenda or motive, but they do it well. You get to see a well crafted argument as to why they believe something and why you should believe it too. Even if you don't agree.
Also if they have to hamfistedly cram the politics into the story rather than weaving them into the narrative. Regardless of if someone agrees with the politics, when it's blatantly obvious that something is just real world contemporary politics thrown in it's annoying. In Gundam there are often some parallels to real world politics like Zeta Gundam's Titans reflecting something in postwar Japan or G-Reco's Kuntala being allegorical of discriminated-upon groups but these ideas are matched to the setting. They don't directly use the rhetoric, policy or history of the real world politics that inspired them, they are independent parts of that singular story. It's the difference between G-Reco presenting the Kuntala just as normal people who exist within the Regild Century and if they had a scene of Kuntala protesting chanting, "Kuntala Lives Matter" (or an equivalent phrase used by Burakumin who are largely what Kuntala are based on - but that's also why Kuntala are done better, they aren't mapped onto a SPECIFIC group, so it's applicable to many different things).
@@Zetact_ i think that's about the scope of it. it's really annoying when they try to lazily shortcut to depth using surface level indicators. if you are not in the exact same camp as the writers it can feel like you have taken a slap "here is the allegory, idiot." i think what people hate is lazy writing but sometimes it's hard for people to identify lazy writing so they focus on the more obvious thing which is the politics.
No. People don't hate politics in game, as long as it's confined to the game and not pushed onto the player. People hate when real life politics are shoehorned into games, and pushed onto the player. And this, surprise surprise, almost always happens from "one side" of the US political spectrum. The virtue signaling side. It also very rarely happens to the other side, usually in the form of "the USA is great!" or religious bullshit, but every time it happens, it's called out and ridiculed, and somehow those guys don't seem to make such a fuss about it, like the other side does when their politics is being called out...
Yeah, now go watch a religious movie. You won't because it offends your world view (or feel boring and preachy, that's why I don't see those). But you expect moralizing movies made by the other end of the moral spectre to NOT be boring or niche? Nah, you just think your bubble represents a LOT more of reasonable morality than it actually does and the backlash against those movies is simple that, not some secret conspiracy against all that is good and holy. When I see a moralist right wing movie from the 60s or 70s I just disregard it. The same happens if I see the new Star Wars series with women capable of creating life without male partners and jokes about pronouns. Boring AF and also the world has much more interesting tragedies if I want drama in my life than what people are pretending to oppress them in 1st world countries. Just watch Hotel Rwanda instead of crying over Wakanda.
@@meyes1098 Yeah, nowadays. I'm old enough to remember a LOT of right wing propaganda movies, etc, and they were equaly insufferable, but guess what? People hated it, made fun of it ans this led to many around my age (44) to migrate to the left. Also, my country ATM has an infestation of neopentecostal televangelists in politics, I don't like them one bit. That doesn't mean I want my games in feudal japan to be colonized by Ubisoft white saviour syndrome, even if their token is black.
@@Tentacl i mean every ideological camp will have media that are insufferable (often even by their own adherent), but it often just bad writing. There are some movie that are VERY religious yet they don't bash you in the ahead with it (often because the "religious" part is just a fraction of the movie message itself) and there are movie that are overtly political yet they still push against all sides intelligently and push YOU to think for yourself.. Take the movie "The Mission", first of all is based on historical events, but at its core is the story of how people deal with an unjust evil forced onto them. How one man can redeem is past and work to protect the future of others. The themes are OVERWHELMINGLY christian (and not just because you follow a mission of jesuit priests bringing prosperity to native populations in south america) It touches the themes of slavery, what is a human being and how to fight against an injustice. Also it helps that the score is from Ennio Morricone and star people like Jeremy Irons, Robert de Niro and Liam Neeson.
The book obviously goes into the story a lot more but I find it interesting the parts that Studio Ghibli chose to use and which they left out in order to create the film style that they're famous for. I especially like the 'steampunk' take on the world that Sophie and Howl inhabit. However, In the book, our own world bleeds into theirs on occasion and that could've actually ruined the feel of the movie had they chosen to keep it in the story. I love Ghibli films, and actually like the movie more than the book. Having said that, if you're a fan of the storyline it's worth reading if you want to fill in some of the gaps.
The steampunk take is something I really enjoyed. I loved how they introduced it into the world, but at the same time kept a strong countryside and scenic quality. Thanks for the thoughts.
It should be noted, that from the book, Sophie and her sister are supposed to look almost identical. So Sophie is also very pretty, but she's not interested in that type of thing.
Interesting! I really need to read the book, but haven't gotten around to it. I'm curious to see all the differences between the two. From what I understand they are quite different.
@@geoffcassidy9981they're very different, particularly in tone. The book is good and extremely funny, highly recommend bumping it up in your reading queue!
Wait, Lettie or Martha?? In the book they always said Lettie was by far the prettier one. I know Martha was just her half-sister but I can’t remember if it said who was prettier
@@epicninjabunnies I re-read it after watching this video, lol! "All three girls grew up very pretty indeed, though Lettie was the one everyone said was the most beautiful." (Page 1 in my edition.) Lettie has dark hair, Martha's is fair (I assume blond like Fanny), and Sophie's is fair and reddish.
just stumbled on this, and loved this film so i checked it out. i love your natural exploration of the story, this conversational-style analysis is great! keep it up. i love softer story-telling and magic systems like what studio ghibli produces - it's why i like adventure time so much, and tolkien's works. expansive worlds and great story-telling that you can fill in the gaps very naturally or realistically; such as how historians hypothesise. super engaging writing! the audience gets to react and marvel and delve into the story/history, instead of being spoon-fed exposition and magic systems and how you should be reacting through a character.
Thank you! I really appreciate it. And yes, I love stories where it trusts the audience to figure it out and even if they miss it the first time, if you watch/read it a second time catching all the little references makes it so rewarding.
Awesome! Plays are a really good place to start. If you're looking for more recommendations, I'd suggest Glengary Glen Ross, What If (or the Movie is also good), and A Few Good Men (or anything by Aaron Sorkin has really great snappy dialogue.)
They’re harvesting Spice which is in the sand. The sand itself is of zero worth. The Spice is but flecks in the sand. It’s not as abundant as the sand itself.
@@geoffcassidy9981 It’s all good. I like your video, it’s quite incisive. Dune has given the world much food for thought. Nice to see everyone rediscovering it
Weird comment.. Since the video is only about the beginning of the story... Besides that it's very common for people to say villain, when they actually mean antagonist. Soooo...
I understand what you mean but for the most part I was focusing on the beginning and like @keyatzin said, for this I'm thinking in terms of Antagonist = Villain. But yeah there's another video I have in mind talking about how stories make us view, what would in every other circumstance be a villain, as the hero.
@@arturzinurov4781 you think because he was sad about it, that makes it heroic that he just kicked off a massive war and mass genocide that will result in billions of deaths, just so he could have power & control? At best he's an anti-villain, but even then given how he fully embraces "his role," it's more of a reluctant villain turned full-blown.
@@arturzinurov4781: Paul is absolutely a villain. It's not an "idea", it's a simple fact. Paul could absolutely have avoided it; the Golden Path was just a guarantee that humanity would survive, not only could humanity have survived otherwise too, but the amount of suffering he caused by staring down that path (even if he couldn't walk it himself) was immense. The idea that he didn't want to do what he did and tried to avoid it has zero basis in reality. Paul is, without a shadow of doubt, the archetypal tragic villain. If that upsets you you have a severe lack of media literacy, and you also disagree with one of Herbert's most frequently stated points of his writings. We all know the quote well by now: *_«I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam.»_* If you don't see who that refers to in the book and film, you're hopelessly lost.
What the emperor did was incredibly stupid. He wanted to get rid of House A., but by doing it with the Harkonnens together with his own army, he opened himself up to blackmail which was going to cost him the throne anyway. It did not make sense unless he was incredibly incompetent.
He wanted to get rid of House A because they were steadily rising in power and influence only matched by House H. The emperor sided with House H under influence of the BG and as a result of the attack House A was (mostly) destroyed and House H finances were heavily crippled reducing the influence of it's two biggest competitors of power in the landsraad without investing too much. The reason blackmail is not that big of a deal was 1) the attack was largely successfull and 2) sources of information are scarce since the Spacing Guild was bribed by the Fremen with black market spice to keep satellites off Arrakis.
I think the plan was sound in theory. My understanding is that the Emperor would use the Harkonnen's to eliminate House A, and then both would be weakened. He's effectively neutered two very powerful houses and can still control Arrakis with his own armies or use another House to manage it for him. The main aspect for Dune I wanted to highlight was that no party in the story is going soft. Each group is willing to kill and do whatever it takes the accomplish their goals, and the audience can see that and it deeply effects how we see the villains and heroes. I do appreciate your comment and watching my video!
@@geoffcassidy9981 I get that, but the way it plays out tells it differently. Doesn't the emperor only turn on Harkonnen once the war suddenly goes the other way? Whatever the case, it seems to be an unjustifiably risky move, which doesn't strike me as very smart. It smacks of a necessary plot device that was shoehorned in there in order to kick things off.
Thank you! The pen is the Pilot, Precise V5 RT. It's fantastic. www.amazon.com/Pilot-Precise-Retractable-Ink-5mm-26062/dp/B001E6A9M8/ref=sr_1_5_mod_primary_new?crid=28F76YQ7LQMWX&keywords=precision+v5+pens&qid=1695695929&sbo=RZvfv%2F%2FHxDF%2BO5021pAnSA%3D%3D&sprefix=precision+v%2Caps%2C617&sr=8-5
