lb:japanese.thematic.explanation
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| lb:japanese.thematic.explanation [2025-10-03 07:23:41] – created ninjasr | lb:japanese.thematic.explanation [2025-10-03 07:23:59] (current) – [Elaboration] ninjasr | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| A lot of the time this manifests as introspection or internal monologues, which has the unintended effect of making a lot of the characters doing the introspection come off as extremely egotistical and judgemental. | A lot of the time this manifests as introspection or internal monologues, which has the unintended effect of making a lot of the characters doing the introspection come off as extremely egotistical and judgemental. | ||
| - | This cliché is a cliché (and thus bad) because it implicitly assumes the audience is stupid and can’t understand the theme unless it's explained to them explicitly. What makes it even worse is that the themes that are being communicated are often not even that hard to grasp. Besides the Umineko example, I remember one Isekai basically said < | + | This cliché is a cliché (and thus bad) because it implicitly assumes the audience is stupid and can’t understand the theme unless it's explained to them explicitly. What makes it even worse is that the themes that are being communicated are often not even that hard to grasp. Besides the Umineko example, I remember one Isekai basically said < |
| The other point is that it essentially removes nuance from the situation. In the colonial example, the story has painted the colonists as unambiguously evil. Further, it's painting this hypocrisy as applying to //all// of them and not just the one guy. So it eliminates nuance and shuts down debate. What could even be debated, though, you might ask. Well, what if the colonists only arrived there because the native peoples were constantly raiding them? So this wasn't originally aggressive expansion, but a defensive measure to prevent their own people from being harmed? And they only started settling there later. That's just one example, but I think it showcases what you lose by just spelling it out. Though that's also assuming the author even considers a possibility like that. | The other point is that it essentially removes nuance from the situation. In the colonial example, the story has painted the colonists as unambiguously evil. Further, it's painting this hypocrisy as applying to //all// of them and not just the one guy. So it eliminates nuance and shuts down debate. What could even be debated, though, you might ask. Well, what if the colonists only arrived there because the native peoples were constantly raiding them? So this wasn't originally aggressive expansion, but a defensive measure to prevent their own people from being harmed? And they only started settling there later. That's just one example, but I think it showcases what you lose by just spelling it out. Though that's also assuming the author even considers a possibility like that. | ||
lb/japanese.thematic.explanation.1759476221.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025-10-03 07:23:41 by ninjasr