Connect with us


The Thin Line Between Critique and Fan Entitlement




Entitlement is the fact of having a right to something. As consumers of stories made for commercial consumption—books, comics, movies, television, etcetera—we have an inherent right to an opinion about those stories. We have the right to like them or not, no matter our reasons. We have the right to take them or leave them. We have a right to analyze and critique content as it pertains to us, and its representation of us: our society, our community, our sexual identity and orientation. One could argue there is even a responsibility to analyze the content we consume.

But how far do those rights extend? And what are the creators, the humans behind the stories we consume, entitled to? Where do we meet halfway?

The relationship between creators and their audience has changed dramatically in the last fifteen years. While most audiences simply consume the content and leave it there, there is a group of more involved fans who invest time in analyzing it and generating content from it, from blog posts to think pieces to fanfiction or fanart. These fans also tend to seek interaction with the people involved with the stories. They tweet, they write open letters, they attend and create conventions. It’s a subculture.

Even if creators, actors, or executives would like to ignore fans—and even think they do—they can’t, not really. Fandom speaks. It speaks loudly. Fans now have a direct influence. We are no longer content to sit back and take whatever’s given. In a lot of ways, that is something to be celebrated.

This is especially true of television and comics because of their continuity. As I don’t consume comics, I have no input, so television will be the focus of this article, though other media might peek in here as well.

A Disclaimer

Before we go on I want to make sure you know this. I am not, by any means, generalizing negatively about the nature of fandom. I am a firm believer that fandom is largely positive, both for fans who seek community as well as for the creators who get constant feedback and become aware of how their stories are affecting their viewers.

Nevertheless, there are small, obviously toxic sections of fandom. The ones who start conflict between fans, for example. They bully fans and even actors and writers; they attack them personally beyond their opinions or work. However, I also believe these people are a minority. A minority whose voices sometimes seem to reverberate and poison the fun. Negativity, after all, tends to be louder than positivity.

But they’re not the ones I’m here to talk about. No, the kind of fan entitlement I want to talk about here is the subtler kind. Something I believe to be far more widely spread than the obviously toxic kind previously mentioned. This kind of entitlement is often presented as rationalizations that hide behind a true point or a real cause. The kind that walks the thin line between calling out bad writing and demanding that things happen the way they want.

Critical Consumption

The growing awareness that TV writers exist and can be interacted with has changed the perception of the media we consume. In my parents’ time, when people discussed a television series, they talked about it in terms of plot and characters, especially casual viewers like they were. Now, even most casual viewers are aware that there are people behind the screen who make decisions when they talk about television. If someone quits a show, they might say it’s because they didn’t like the writing, not because they didn’t like a character.

Social media allows us immediate, unprecedented access to the decision-makers. We can let these people know how good or bad we think their writing is, even as the show is airing. Common as it is now, this is taken for granted as nothing out of the ordinary. But it is nothing short of historic.

For the most part, the positive results from this outweigh the negative, in my opinion at least. Slowly but surely, we’ve begun to see a real change in the diversity of stories and characters represented on our screens At least some of that is due to creator-audience interactions. There is a long way to go, for sure, but fandom is far from backing down.

Criticism Is Inherent to Art

Art is not complete until it’s shared. I’m not sure who said that first, but it’s true.

We live in the era of peak television. There is a plethora of options for us to choose from, so the market is more segmented than ever. Genre, quality, and popularity varies, but even the smallest show has its fandom, even if it’s three people who live tweet from different corners of the Earth.

There are small niche shows that have incredible writing (The Expanse, you’re on my list), and there are big, popular shows that…not so much (ahem). With so much good TV to choose from, there is bound to be some bad mingled in between.

Once a story is out there, in a way some of its ownership passes to the audience, like in all art. It’s there for us to interpret and pick apart at our leisure. Audience interpretation is just as valid a lens as authorial intention. Stories can inspire fans to create incredible art based on it, or it can inspire angry rants several thousand words long about unfortunate implications in its narrative. The people who release it, especially the creatives, must be aware and accept that their work will be the object of scrutiny.

I repeat, their work.

They Are People Too Dot Com

This should go without saying, but writers and actors are real people with real feelings who deserve respect.

Even when the criticism of their work is warranted. Even when there is obvious carelessness. I daresay even when there is blatant offensive behavior coming from creatives, it does not give fans the right to resort to online hate. Death threats, personal attacks, and bullying are never justified. There is a huge difference between calling someone out and outright attacking them.

This is especially bad when fans claim to be defending a just cause. I’ll use Supergirl as an example. As you may know, many fans have been rooting for Kara and Lena Luthor (ship name Supercorp) to get together. This season, Lena was paired up with James Olsen (Mehcad Brooks) instead, which has led to people consistently leaving negative comments on Brooks’s Instagram account. It hardly needs saying that harassing Brooks’s account is unlikely to get decision-making people to bend to these fans’ will. Not to mention there are very unfortunate implications to a sudden wave of negativity directed at a black actor in “support” of a white LGBT+ ship.

There’s plenty of places you can rant about this plotline other than the actor’s personal account, who likely has no say in what his character does. Instead of support for a community, the message such behavior sends is “I feel entitled to get exactly what I want out of this show, and if I don’t so help me…”

What Do I Mean By “Fan Entitlement”?

As I mentioned before, fans really are entitled to many things when it comes to fiction. However, when we talk about entitlement in the context of fandom we often refer to the excess of it, or more accurately, the excessive perception of it.

Basically, fan entitlement happens when people feel they are owed everything by creators, be it the writers, producers, networks, you name it. These fans will loudly demand that creators bend the story to their preference. They take “give the fans what they want” to another level, often one that’s more personal. There tends to be a lot of self-victimization involved as well: “this storytelling decision is a personal attack on me,” which disregards the writer’s own obligation to serve the story, not the fans (though without being bigoted, of course).

Sometimes, fan entitlement is very blatant. It comes in angry rants and pestering on social media that can escalate into bullying. Often, it’s obvious someone’s having a big tantrum. Sometimes, though, fan entitlement is not so evident. The argument sounds solid, convincing. The one I find most concerning is when it hides behind something real, like I said. It is an “I don’t like this” buried in social justice, a subject which understandably dominates fandom discussion. Yet herein lies the titular thin line.

Let’s Talk About The Writers™

I have a bone to pick with the people who boast being knowledgeable about the TV business, but who also collapse the entire TV machine into just The Writers™. I see those words thrown around all willy-nilly too often. The Writers™ are apparently responsible for everything that happens ever. However, there are so many more pieces at play where television is concerned. More often than not, the will of the people actually hired to write scripts is at the bottom of the totem pole.

Javier Grillo-Marxuach is the credited writer of The 100’s infamous episode 7 of season 3, “Thirteen,” where Commander Lexa met her untimely end by stray bullet. If you take a look at IMDB, you’ll see that Jason Rothenberg (showrunner) is credited as developer. Then there are two credited executive story editors, two story editors, and an uncredited staff writer. So, who killed Lexa?

The answer is not as simple as The Writers™.

Good Writing/Bad Writing

Have you ever turned off your set after a disappointing hour of TV and thought, “I could have done that better”? Yeah, me too. Before I even turned it off I’d have already been thinking about how I would rewrite the episode to make it better. Even to make so much greater!

It’s very easy to criticize writing. From a distance the missed opportunities and plot holes are clear as day. When you’re the one writing, not so much. I used to be brutal with my criticism, until I actually had to write an industry level screenplay to graduate my Master’s degree. It was a rude awakening. Writing a script is hard. It’s not just structuring and plotting and keeping the theme on track and writing good dialogue, all of which is difficult. Most importantly, to write is often to lay your soul bare in some way.

I would say that warrants a bit of respect.

I’m not saying, “do not touch.” No one is exempt from criticism. Of course there are times when creators consistently ignore feedback and can thus  lose fan respect. There is many a hack out there, some of whom are malicious (though not nearly so many as the internet seems to believe). What I am saying is the craft of writing itself deserves respect, so much so that it should warrant the benefit of the doubt when one undertakes criticism.

As I’ve seen it, fan entitlement often comes with a loss of that respect for the craft itself. There is no finer example than the “I care more” argument.

No One Cares But Me

There is something quite presumptuous in claiming to care more about a character and a world than the people who created it and/or nurse it every day. Not that this is not possible. One TV show can have many writers, and sometimes staff writers don’t like a character as much as others. It’s true that these stories matter to us in a different way. But as someone who writes, I can say I care for my characters very deeply. They are an extension of me, and I pour part of me into every single one of them.

What’s frankly annoying about this argument is that it often comes on the back of something bad happening to a character, regardless of whether it’s a good storytelling decision or not. A story development that fans don’t agree with simply because it doesn’t match their expectations. A recent example of this is the outrage about Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi.

Longtime Star Wars fans especially had a lot to say about his storyline. To me, most of those arguments read as an unwillingness to accept that Luke may have changed in the last 30 years of his life. They saw him as infallible, immovable from the beloved image of the hopeful young man he was at the end of Return of the Jedi.

A lot of the dialogue revolved around how well the fans knew the saga. They knew Luke, and they knew what they wanted. So surely, they knew what ‘should’ have happened in order for them to like the story. Disney should have just given them what they wanted. Because you see, they knew best and cared the most.

But Do Fans Always Know Best?


Guys, no. This should be obvious. Take a little trip down a “ship” or character tag on Tumblr, or worse, go into Reddit, and it should be pretty obvious why not.

Saying “fans always know what’s best” is the equivalent of saying “the client is always right.” We know that’s not always the case. Sometimes the client is being unreasonable. Sometimes the client is a petty child. Often the client doesn’t even know what they really want.

Check out some of the most common fan complaints, especially on Tumblr. They have to do with a fandom favorites’ perceived “attacks” from the narrative. “Can’t [insert literally any character] catch a break? The Writers™ have it out for them.” Some of these comments are meant in jest, but some are dead serious.  If you let these fans get their way, there would only be movie nights and puppy parties happening. Nothing wrong with that, but that kind of storytelling is the generally reserved for the realm of fanfiction or romcoms, not dramatic television/film.

I should also mention that the screenwriting craft is something you learn, and it’s a hard job to get into. In most cases, it’s safe to assume the people in that position are there for good reason. Recalling that they care too, it should be noted that hurting characters often hurts them as well, but they have to put that aside to serve the story (and admittedly also to make money, though that usually means making at least a reasonably good story).

Emotions run high in fandom. We tend to be deeply connected with characters we relate to and it hurts to see them hurt. And yes, writers work to make us feel these things. Suggestions are valuable, but many should be analyzed on a case by case basis.

Entitlement and Personal Opinions

I want to drive this point home. Criticism of a show for reasons of racial whitewashing, lack of representation, toxic or unfair representation, etcetera, are valid and necessary. What is not valid is grabbing onto a true cause and using it to bend the narrative to favor your individual whims. I will repeat this in as many ways as I can think of.

The telltale sign that an argument is laced with entitlement is double standards. To spot them, you have to look for the overlap of opinion.

There is a running argument in the Supercorp fandom about Lena’s relationship with James being unhealthy and toxic because he used to judge her for being a Luthor. I’ve noticed many of these Supercorp fans overlap with fans of Emma and Regina (Swan Queen) from Once Upon a Time (I checked). I seem to remember Regina not only judging but hating Emma and consistently trying to murder her and her family for more than a season. If Regina gets redemption for attempted murder, shouldn’t James get ‘redemption’ for unfounded suspicion?

Yeah, maybe that specific argument against James isn’t coming from a completely honest place.

Remember that time Regina plucked Emma’s mom’s heart out and then refused her the mercy of killing her?

There is nothing wrong with not liking how a show is turning out or what’s happening to your favorite character. There is nothing wrong with writing fix-it fics to bask in some wish fulfillment. “I don’t like it, it’s not what I wanted” is a valid thing to say. What’s not valid is twisting the facts so that you can find a pseudo moralistic justification for your criticism. Sometimes we just don’t like things, even if they don’t have bad implications.

At the same time, stories are personal for us. They help shape how we view the world, ourselves, our relationships, and so on. Way more than most people are ready to admit. I did my Bachelor theses on this, it’s frankly a bit scary.

Moreover, sometimes we do even have a personal relationship with the people creating these stories as well as other members of fandom.

It Kind Of Really Is Personal

Before fan conventions became mainstream events, before social media, it was a simpler time. For minorities, crappier times. For example, LGBT+ kids who lived in tough environments didn’t have such easy access to a safe space online, like they do now. Fan platforms have made it so much better for many people who now know they’re not alone.

There is also the direct line to the boss people. Today, we know what we want and the creators know what fans want—though remember, even fandom itself is segmented, so we don’t all want the same things—and we know they know. This adds a whole other dimension to our relationship with television. All media, really.

On top of that, fandom has actual real-life relationships with these people. Writers and actors recognize fans at conventions. They answer to and mention them on Twitter. They accept presents. They give presents back. They build trust. Creators insert shout outs into the show. It’s great. It’s also terrible.

It is the reason the crap Jason Rothenberg & Co. pulled regarding Lexa felt so much like a stab in the chest. It’s not only that they decided (or had to) kill off Lexa. It’s that when they already knew, when they had shot the scene already, they played it off as if there was hope for the fearful fans. They posted pictures from set, openly told fans on forums not to fret, that they could be trusted. That was a direct abuse of the relationship to fans social media allows for.

However, that does not mean that the decision itself—to kill Lexa, that is—was made with malice, or with a desire to hurt anyone. The fact of the matter is Alycia Debnam-Carey had to leave the show and some choice had to be made as to how to give the character an exit. We can debate whether or not it worked in on either a Doylist or Watsonian level and what the implications are, but the narrative choice itself is not the same as writers or showrunners abusing fan trust.

It Kind of Really Isn’t Personal

On the other hand, no matter how informed about fandom desires the writers are, pleasing everyone is simply impossible. From browsing a tag on Tumblr it may seem that all or most of fandom agrees with you, but usually that’s not the case. Decision-makers may debate endlessly about what to do, but ultimately they can only choose one road to go down. Once you go down a road, writing-wise, it tends to be ride or die. And I honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of showrunners and writers are genuinely doing their best with they have.

As a PSA, I would like to advise audiences to learn how to be good losers. 99.9999% of the time, a writer’s choice is not an attack on your person or your preference. But also, be a good winner, because it’s not a gold star on your forehead if you get what you wanted. We are a community, and a community works best when its members support and respect each other.

We Influence Each Other

Here’s when I get personal. I was 19 when I first discovered Tumblr. I had a lot of issues with myself back then, and Tumblr was a big relief. I felt like I’d found people who thought the way I did, not just about television (which has always been the object of my obsessive behavior) but also about life.

It’s hard to get noticed on Tumblr. Especially if you don’t write fanfiction or share fanart. There’s many opinions flying around, and I sort of felt around for what caught my attention and others’, and I emulated it. I did this without realizing it. When I look back at some of the things I posted and the (few) fights I got into… *CRINGE*. I’m especially appalled at my bold criticism of The Writers™ and what they were so obviously doing wrong.

I’m saying fandom entitlement can be contagious. We are human and fallible. I speak to my own experience as honestly as I can here. I have rationalized very harsh criticism of The Writers™ of a show when the real problem was I didn’t like that the story didn’t go my way. In retrospect, I realize my behavior was due to a desire to fit into that community.

I can’t shake my social sciences studies. The way I see it, Fandom is a subculture, and within it communities are formed around shows, characters, preferences (of all kinds), and ideals. And a community within fandom works as any other. That means there are subdivisions, allegiances, alienation, ideologies, and yup, peer pressure.

This is especially relevant if someone is isolated in their day-to-day life, like I was. Such fans are incredibly vulnerable to implicit peer pressure. Entering a fandom is the same entering any new peer group, and you want to fit in. What are the cool kids doing? What gets them friends and/or followers? Likes? Asks? Let’s do that. I know because I’ve been there.

If it was just contained to a tag on Tumblr, it would be a smaller problem. But remember, fans are more than just that nowadays. They We are participants. It’s the reason we get to have Black Lighting and bisexual Petra Solano on Jane the Virgin and that Brooklyn 99 will live to see another day.

However, as active influencers of media we do not get to pretend we get all the privileges without the responsibilities that come with it.

Great Responsibility

“Nothing exists in a vacuum.”

“Writers must recognize the implications of what they’re writing.”

“There is a responsibility inherent when you put any kind of content out there.”

These are all expressions I’ve read, ones I’ve used, ones I think everyone here The Fandomentals would agree with. It’s not just a show. It’s not just for fun. It affects us and we should keep reminding creators of this. All true! We want our voice and opinion to be taken into consideration.

But if we fancy ourselves participants, doesn’t it stand to reason that we share the responsibility?

I think yes.

This means taking care that our criticism, our demands are well founded. I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade. There’s nothing wrong with joking around on social media. I indulge in weekly rants about certain shows with my friends. I’m a salty A Song of Ice and Fire fan who hate watches Game of Thrones.

But if we want to start a revolution, when we address the creators to make complaints or demands, then we have to take care. We should step back and formulate our mission well. I am proud to see that here at Fandomentals the team in charge and its writers uphold high standards on this regard. It is one of the reasons I was—and am—so excited to join.

It is the same as good writing. It comes from a true honesty on the part of the writers about themselves and the truths that guide them. Jumping on the offense when we’re not satisfied will get us nowhere. If we don’t give people space to screw up, backtrack and try again, the results might be that people will stop trying. Real change is happening, and it’s up to us to keep it on track.

Remember, with great power…

Images Courtesy of Metro-Goldwynn-Mayer, HBO, Disney Lucasfilm, NBC, and ABC


Leave a Reply

3 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
AlejandraAlexander JohnsonIvanaMims DahnAngelina Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mims Dahn
Mims Dahn

I think we are as fans entitled to be respected, appreciated when our contributions are positive and to be nudged along when it is damaging. Not only in relation to creators but to other fans. I think this question is a bit weird to ask. “And what are the creators, the humans behind the stories we consume, entitled to? ” In my country the answer is pretty straight foreward. They have the right to their intellectual properly for the entirety of their life and in 70 years after. What they don’t have right is to my consumption of it: my… Read more »


A fan does not have to consume a piece of fiction if they don’t want to. A fan has to right to stop reading or watching. A fan also has the right to criticize harshly. But what a fan should not be doing is be gross and insulting and do things like bully writers, producers etc. on social media, tell them that they should kill themselves, make gross comments about their appearance or personal lives, etc. just because they wrote a storyline that didn’t go the way the fan wanted. Or do similar things to actors, which is even stupider,… Read more »

Mims Dahn
Mims Dahn

I don’t know why you are venting straw mans at me. Unless if it is to embody the example of a bad fan? I don’t know how else to interpret this intentional misreading and misrepresentation of my post, especially in lieu with previous interactions with you. But your absolutely right, and if you weren’t venting them as straw mans at me you should have had a star. For stating the law. Because it is illegal, or at least to the best of my knowledge it is in the US too. I am a bit alarmed to be honest if this… Read more »


I don’t know what your problem is here. Or where in my post you saw any “Straw Men”. You said it was a “weird question to ask”, even though the article explicitly provided examples of online harassment of creators and actors. I have seen a lot of that on Twitter – including people telling creators or actors that they should kill themselves, or that they should be gang raped. (The latter was a part of an extremely offensive tweet someone addressed to Damon Lindelof because they didn’t like Prometheus, and previously, the finale of Lost. He just replied “You, sir,… Read more »


There is another important thing the creators are entitled to; not because they are _creators_, but because they’re _human beings_. I mean privacy, personal safety, personal space and all those little thingies we as fans like to ignore. Can we criticise the creators’ work? Of course we can, it lies in the very nature of media consumption. We can even go so far as to call any given piece of media “the worst ever”. But can we switch our salt and vitriol towards creators themselves? Can we discuss their manners, lifestyle, wages, clothes, health, family, marital prospects? Can we write… Read more »

Mims Dahn
Mims Dahn

Tbh, I’m beginning to think this interaction is in bad faith. And it’s a bit paradoxical to expose common sense and courtesy while not extending common courtesy and ask to clarify instead of projecting straw mans. You premise your argument on the idea of encroaching consumer rights. The part I’m directly responding to you in is this part: “But how far do those rights extend? And what are the creators, the humans behind the stories we consume, entitled to? Where do we meet halfway?” I see that the way I phrased myself in might not be readily apparent because thought… Read more »


My only comment would be, next time please calm your anger enough to differentiate between Alejandra (this article’s author) and Angelina (me). It’s really not that hard. Clarifying _my_ comment to you – pursuing creators online with nasty messages doesn’t consitute either slander or libel. You said those two are only exceptions from the right to criticise. I wanted to point out that no, they’re not. There are many ways we can go beyond ethical/lawful in critique. Also I should point out that not everyone lives in the USA. In many countries there’s no law against cyberbullying or cyberstalking. Those… Read more »

Mims Dahn
Mims Dahn

Apologies for the conflation. Though to be honest as I don’t see any difference in opinion between you and the author I am just going to apologise for the tone. It was way out of place and tbh I was angry. I had to retype my reply several times to have it upload and it probably carried me off. I apologise for that. Thank you for the clarification. To your clarification. Pursuing creators online with nasty messages does indeed not constitute either slander nor libel. It is harassment. Where I am from it constitutes harassment and is illegal. You will… Read more »


Most of my comments here have been about harassment and bullying online – especially on Twitter, where most celebrities have accounts -which is, of course, the worst and most extreme version of fan entitlement. But when it comes to interactions that are not toxic like that, where is the line between critique and entitlement? I would draw it like this: – It is perfectly legitimate to criticize bad writing and other artistic failures (bad acting, bad costumes etc.). However, when fans complain just because the writers are giving their favorite characters are “a hard time” and asking for those fictional… Read more »

Alexander Johnson
Alexander Johnson

I don’t know. I’m very skeptical of the level of ‘fan-interaction’ that is merited. Good Art should prompt you to think, enrich your understanding of a truth, and provide at least some level of aesthetic achievement. In the words of Shakespeare, “The purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.” If content fails in this regard, criticism is a healthy way to… Read more »


Conclusion to Stumbling Beginnings in Summer Knight




It had to happen sometime. I talked last book about how much Butcher had improved on his shaky start. Published in 2002, Summer Knight brings the shaky opening to a conclusion. It also opens up a new phase of storytelling for the series as a whole. In case you couldn’t tell, I really like this book. It brings so much to the series, and features one of the more iconic moments of the series for Murphy. Let’s get into it.

Spoilers for Summer Knight and all previous books in the series.

So, What Happened?

Summer Knight opens with Harry and Billy investigating a rain of toads. Harry grumps around and alienates all his friends because of his grief over Susan. Afterwards, he goes to a meeting Billy orchestrated, which turns out to be with Mab, Queen of the Winter Fae. She bought his debt from the Leanansidhe, and wants him to clear her name for a murder. Harry refuses and goes to the White Council meeting. We meet several other wizards, and a vampire offers peace between the White Council and Red Court if they turn over Harry. At the conclusion of the meeting, the wizards agree not to sacrifice Harry if he makes Mab cooperate with the Wizards.

Harry discovers that the murdered man, Ronald Reuel, was the Summer Knight, the human intermediary for the Summer Court. The power he wielded disappeared, destroying the balance. Which, eventually, leads to war between the Courts. Elaine, shows up as the Summer Emissary. Harry attends Reuels funeral, and runs into several teenage, changeling acquaintances of the knight who are concerned over the disappearance of Lily. He visits the Winter Lady, then contacts Murphy. They fight several monsters in a Wal-Mart. He goes to the Summer Lady after finding Elaine beaten by his car.

Harry visits the Summer and Winter Mothers in the Nevernever. The Winter Mother gives him an Unraveling. Aurora, the Summer Lady steals it from him and reveals she orchestrated everything to remake the seasons in her own image. She trapped the power inside Lily. Harry objects to this. Harry, the Alphas, and two of the teenage changelings go to the Stone Table. They interrupt the fight between seasons, steal back the Unraveling, and kill Aurora, saving Lily, the one holding the mantle. In the conclusion, Lily becomes the new Summer Lady.

Best Moment – The Wal-Mart Fight, Organization to Conclusion

There are so many good things about this scene. There’s finally communication, Murphy’s first moment of awesome, and plot hooks perfectly combined with character catharsis. Over the course of this unlikely placed scene, Butcher manages to bring several elements of the early series to a conclusion.

The first, of course, is that Harry finally tells Murphy everything about the supernatural. She even gets in one last one-liner about being kept out, a start to their banter for the rest of the series. “‘I know I’ve kept things from you.’ … ‘Yeah’, she said, ‘I know. It’s annoying as hell.’”(299). He tells her everything. About the Red Court, the White Council, the Fae, and Chicago Supernatural Politics. Now, we won’t have the cheap conflict from Storm Front where they work at cross-purposes again.

Immediately afterwards, we have the fight with the chlorofiend, the Tigress, and the mind fog. At the conclusion of that fight, we also have Murphy’s first major impact since the Loup-Garou. “Murphy tore through them with the chain saw, … then drove the blade directly between the chlorofiend’s glowing green eyes.” (345). Chainsaw with cold iron, vs Fae Creature. Murphy wins.

The way that the plot interacts shows improvement from the previous book. There, Butcher attempted to tie together the antagonists with the chain spells. Here, we see the ghoul, the summoned monster, and the mind fog from two different people. The Tigress also capitalizes on Murphy’s trauma from the previous book. But everything makes sense, and the conclusion of the fight ties together various plot threads, since Ace sent the Tigress, Aurora the fog and fiend, and Murphy starts to recover from Kravos’s attack.

Most Improved – Harry’s Attitude

While some of the previous books focused more on the change to other people, here we have Harry change. He has a character arc that comes to a satisfying conclusion by the end. Harry starts the book depressed over Susan, and he alienates everyone. Billy points it out. “I don’t need to be a wizard to see when someone’s in a downward spiral. You’re hurting. You need help.” (25). Given that Billy previously espoused the theme of the series, his reintroduction here is significant. Eventually, Harry accepts the help Billy offers, both in scheduling meetings, and with the fight at the end. After the fight, Harry even goes over to hang out with the Alphas, and plays a barbarian in a Dungeons & Dragons spin-off game. He quotes William Shakespeare jokingly, and says, “Meep, Meep” to a deranged Faerie Queen. (489).

It is not only the Alphas that help change Harry’s mood. His reunion with Eileen, his teenage flame, who he thought he killed alongside Justin also helps. Finding out he didn’t kill her brings him closure. But through the book, when she nominally serves as an opponent, the Summer Emissary to his Winter, her presence reassures him. Even when she ‘betrays’ him to Aurora, and binds him, she still helps him. “I’d been right. It was the same binding she’d used when we were kids.” (433). Her meddling enables him to escape Aurora’s death trap, by using their childhood bond.

At the conclusion of the book, she gives him advice regarding Susan that builds to the catharsis detailed above. “Stop thinking about how bad you feel—because if she cares about you at all, it would tear her up to see you like I saw you a few days ago.” (510). That help sends him in a new direction.

Best Worldbuilding – The Fae Courts

While the information on the White Council is delightful, the Fae Court proves more valuable to the main plot. And we learn a lot about the Courts here. Lea makes an appearance, where she ‘helps’ Harry by distracting him and a Fae from fighting and guiding him to the Stone Table. She mentions again how she believes her actions last book only helped him as well. It gives insight to the alien nature of Fae morals.

We also can draw conclusions about the structure of the Courts given all the information on how they organize themselves. Through the book, we learn about the Winter and Summer Courts, each with three Queens. The Mothers, the retired queens. The Queens, the current ruler. And the Ladies, the heir for the future. Their Knights that do their will in the mortal world, and the Emissaries chosen on special occasions.

Also informative is the phrase, “If Winter came here, Summer had to come too, didn’t it?” (219). It implies certain checks and balances on each other’s behavior. That only highlights how serious a problem it is that the Summer Knight is dead, and the mantle gone. Lea’s information about the Stone Table reinforces that. Beyond being a reference to Narnia, it also guarantees great power to whoever holds the table, and whoever sheds blood on it. So, the peaceful transfer of the table from Summer to Winter and back with the seasons preserves their equality. Aurora’s plan only serves to show how important it is to keep that balance, less there be another Ice Age, or worse.

In showing us all this, Butcher expands his universe so much further, and sets the ‘table’ for future stories. Ones that will lead to the eventual conclusion of the series, yet to come.

Worst Worldbuilding – The Conclusion of Meryl’s Story

Given all that we know now about the Fae, it comes as no surprise that the worst worldbuilding also comes from that section of the story. Butcher’s take on Changelings is innovative, being half-human, half-Fae rather than the traditional version. The problems arise from how the narrative treats her, and the results of her half-Fae heritage.

The problem with Meryl is that Meryl dies at the end of the story. She is the first person explicitly allied with Harry to die. The only previous person that was not an antagonist that died was MacFinn, and he attempted to murder them all because of an uncontrollable curse. Meryl dying in and of itself is not the entire problem. Butcher directs the series in a darker direction, so deaths will come eventually. The issue that I have with the conclusion of Meryl’s story is that Butcher could have done so many things with her. As a Changeling aligned with Winter, dearest friend of the new Summer Lady and Knight, the possibility of an inter-Fae alliance or Court would develop.

She even said, “[Winter] Calls,’ Meryl said. ‘ But I’m not answering.’” (459). The Changelings provide a glimpse of the Fae outside of the manipulation, outside of Court politics. Meryl could have been symbolic of that. But no. Meryl Chooses to save Lily. She Chooses and she dies and all that hope with her. It’s a story brought too soon to a conclusion, one that broke off threads that could have continued.

Moment of Regression – Ye Old Wandering Eyes

I will admit, this is a sticking point for me. I talked about my dislike of Harry’s voyeurism in Storm Front. I brought it up again in Fool Moon. Thankfully, it didn’t appear too often in the following books, but here we see this again with a vengeance. And it doesn’t even make sense in character this time.

After a Susan-vampire nightmare, Harry thinks.

“But I had been used to a certain amount of friendly tension relieving with Susan. Her absence had killed that for me, completely—except for rare moments during the damned dreams when my hormones came raging back up to the front of my thoughts again as though making up for lost time.” (176).

So, theoretically at least Harry’s libido takes a break. I understand that part of this nightmare and Harry’s symptoms comes from the dangerous way he’s punishing himself for Susan’s condition. But, still. Even before this dream we have moments where he stares at Mab’s ass. He knows she’s the Winter Queen, and he still ogles her when she leaves. At Maeve’s court, Butcher spends a good deal of time describing Jenny Greenteeth, a Fae seductress. He could have emphasized the alien way she moves, the details that make her decidedly not human, and dropped a one-liner about her being naked at the end. It would have been in character for Harry’s blasé kind of humor. Instead, Butcher flips that script, focusing on the nakedness, with the inhumanity coming as an aside.

Call it my own personal soapbox, if you will, but that doesn’t sit well with me, especially when the last book did so much better with Harry’s gaze. (Not perfect, of course, but better. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just needs to keep improving.)

In Conclusion

Overall, Summer Knight showcases the best of Butcher’s work so far. While the choices were somewhat limited compared to last book, the plot hangs together much better. That cohesive plot lent its voice to each category, and the worst moments were nitpicks and could-have-beens.

The way that Butcher brought this story arc, and Harry’s character arc to a conclusion proved satisfying. His mastery of plot improved, with the motivations of the antagonists and the number being reasonable, instead of overwhelming. The knowledge about the Fae, about the Council, and about Elaine all help set up this next phase of the series. I’m looking forward to the next book.

Am I being too nit-picky in the ‘bad’ categories, or is it just proof of concept that the problems can be reduced to nitpicks? Was the White Council more fascinating than the Fae, or was Harry’s arc disjointed? Let me know if I’m being too harsh on the series, if you had a different idea for a category, or if you have any comments about the arc of the series as a whole. I look forward to hearing from you.


Continue Reading


Game of Thrones 3×10 Rewatch: Mediocre





We’ve done it! We’ve made it through three seasons of Game of Thrones here with our rewatch project The Wars to Come. And with that, we’ve also made it through the most bearable parts of this series by showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss (D&D). While last week brought some mixed reviews, it seems that this week, Kylie, Julia, and Katie are leaning more towards jeers and boos in “Myhsa.”

Episode Recap

Picking up from last week’s morbid end, it’s a slaughter outside the Twins as the Frey troops finish off Robb’s forces. Arya, escaping with Sandor, oversees her brother’s body being paraded about—now with Grey Wind’s head on his shoulders. The next morning, Walder Frey chats with Roose Bolton about their improved stations, now that Roose has become the Warden of the North. Roose reveals that his bastard Ramsay was the one who got the Ironborn to surrender Winterfell, and the one keeping Theon hostage now. Arya and the Hound, meanwhile, pass a group of Frey soldiers who brag about aiding in sewing Grey Wind’s head onto Robb’s body. Arya slips off Sandor’s horse and kills one of them, with Sandor killing the other two to protect her.

We check in with Theon and Ramsay, the latter of whom is still torturing the former. Theon asks to be killed, but Ramsay points out he’s not useful to him that way. He decides that Theon’s new name is ‘Reek’.

At some point, Ramsay had sent a box containing Theon’s castrated penis to the Iron Islands, with a letter telling the Ironborn to withdraw from the North. Balon and Yara receive it, and though Balon seems completely indifferent to Theon’s suffering, Yara decides that she will take her best fighters and rescue her brother.

Despite the massacre at The Twins, things seem rather peaceful in King’s Landing for a moment as Sansa jokes around with Tyrion about ways they can prank those who speak poorly of him. However, that is soon dashed when he attends a Small Council meeting where it’s revealed what happened to the Stark forces. Joffrey is gleeful and says he wants to show the corpse of Robb to Sansa, but Tyrion tells him he can’t torment her any more. This leads to an unpleasant confrontation, which Tywin puts an end to by sending Joffrey to bed. As everyone else clears out, he reminds Tyrion that he must impregnate Sansa now that she’s officially the heir to Winterfell. That might prove difficult, since when Tyrion sees her next, it’s clear she heard about her family and is incredibly sad.

Later, Varys tries to bribe Shae to leave Westeros, since he believes Tyrion can help the land and Shae is a distraction to that end. She refuses. Tyrion, for his own part, passes his time by drinking with Pod, until Cersei comes in and tells him that he really should impregnate Sansa, so that she can have some joy in her life, just like Cersei’s children brought her. Much later, Jaime arrives back in the city, and meets a stunned Cersei.

Up at The Wall, Bran and the Reeds take shelter in one of the abandoned Night’s Watch castles. Bran tells them it’s haunted because of the ‘rat cook,’ a man who killed his guests under his own roof and was cursed into the form of a rat. Gilly and Sam turn up at the same castle, and Sam recognizes Bran as Jon’s brother. He gives Bran and the Reeds his dragonglass to help protect them as they set out north of the Wall.

Sam and Gilly make their way back to Castle Black, where Sam makes the case to Maester Aemon that Gilly is worthy of their protection given their vows extend to the “realms of men.” Gilly names her baby after Sam, and Aemon, after learning what they had seen, commands Sam to send out all the ravens with this news.

They’re not the only ones to make it back to Castle Black; Ygritte finds Jon washing his wounds. He tells her he loves her, but he has to go home, and says he knows she won’t hurt him. That bit turns out to be wrong since she shoots him with arrows three times, though Jon still manages to ride back to the castle where he is greeted by Sam and Pyp.

Down at Dragonstone, Davos struggles with Gendry as a prisoner. The two talk, and Davos reveals that he too was lowborn and from Flea Bottom. Later, Davos reads through Stannis’s mail having made great strides in his literacy. He comes across Maester Aemon’s letter and is shocked. However, the news arrives that Robb has died, which means Stannis wants to sacrifice Gendry, since they now have a sign that the leech magic worked. Davos tries to argue against it, but it’s hopeless.

Davos instead breaks Gendry out and sneaks him into a rowboat, giving him guidance on how to get back to King’s Landing. When it’s discovered that Gendry is missing, Davos is correctly accused by Stannis and Melisandre. He’s sentenced to die, but Davos quickly pulls out Aemon’s letter and tells Stannis the real fight is to the north. Melisandre agrees with him, and tells Stannis that Davos has a part to play still.

Finally, in Yunkai, the now freed slaves come outside their gates to meet Danaerys. Her Unsullied guards are wary, but when the freedmen begin calling out “Mhysa” to her (meaning “Mother”), she realizes that no one will hurt her. She leaves the protection of her Unsullied to walk among the Yunkish.

Initial, quick reaction

Kylie: I’m really not able to type well, because I am still cringing from the crowd surfing scene. And especially knowing the script fully intended for Dany’s whiteness to be the focal point…ugh.

Trying to think about this episode as a whole, there was so much that just straight up annoyed me, but then the numerous Davos and Bran scenes somehow were well-placed enough that I’d calm down. It’s not that they were even that amazingly done (seriously, how would any show-only like Stannis at this point?), but the rest was just…very clearly not the show we began with in Season 1.

Katie: I was happy to get to jump on this rewatch because I always am interested in tenth episodes of Game of Thrones’s seasons. The big climax has just occurred and then there’s so much wrapping up and scene-setting to establish what comes next. They’re so often good barometers of how the show is doing. This one was a roller coaster for me. It reminded me of a lot of the things I genuinely enjoyed about the earlier seasons of the show, but then Sansa would be sidelined, Ramsey would monologue, or oof, that whole last scene.

Julia: All of this episode was mostly a need to set things up for the coming seasons. Sometimes this makes perfect sense, like setting up Stannis going north, but sometimes I was just scratching my head going, “Why are they digging this whole even deeper?”

Okay, that was mostly the scene where Shae rejected those diamonds. Like, did they have a different plan for her at that point? Why?


Kylie: I actually think my highlight was Walder and Roose talking, since you can clearly see just how odious they are, and also how that chip on Walder’s shoulder came to define a war. Roose was a bit hypocritical with his, “Robb didn’t listen to me ever” and also, “here’s how the situation with my bastard unfolded that Robb sanctioned,” but that’s not exactly an issue since we’re not meant to be convinced by these two. At least I don’t think so.

My lowlight is a very personal annoyance, I know, but Sansa laughing and joking with Tyrion and not knowing the word “shit” was pure sheep shit in and of itself. Also how many times did Arya possibly stick poo in the mattress that Sansa was no doubt sharing with like, Jeyne Poole?

It’s just, come on. I get that the sun rises and sets out of Tyrion’s ass on this show, but can’t his prisoner wife at least be a bit distant to him? You know, her whole thing in the books with her armor of courtesy. The way the show makes it seem, she was well on her way to liking this marriage, and then the death of her family made her sad for a few days (during which will be her escape, since that’s coming in two episodes). So frustrated.

Katie: That’s a good highlight, it’s always nice to see David Bradley cackle his way through his lines. And you know, I actually really considered Sansa laughing and joking with Tyrion as a lowlight too? Not because the scene itself is particularly bad (I’d forgotten how nice it is to see Sansa look happy about something, anything!). But because her emotions in all her scenes this episode are 110% about Tyrion. First to make him look like a great guy, which is par for the course. But it gets even worse later when it turns out that Sansa heard the news of the Red Wedding off screen, and her sadness is not her own, instead is simply given the narrative function of bumming out Tyrion a bit more. It’s a good pick for highlighting all of the generally… bad writings tendencies of the later seasons.

That said, I have to pick the closing Mhysa scene. It’s probably the point when I turned hardest on this show when I originally watched it? It’s such a thematic, narrative, and directorial failure, bad for the story and gross in all its racial implications. There were a lot of bad scenes in this episode, but this was the one that made me most actively angry.

Kylie: Yeah, it’s completely tasteless and the last taste you get of the show for the season. It may actually have been the worst closing shot of any season, now that I think about it.

Katie: My highlight is probably the Small Council scene, before it’s whittled down to Tyrion and Tywin? I’ve always liked the dynamic of more competent people having to deal with Joffrey’s kingship and deciding whether to be deferential or confrontational. It’s also a scene that’s not overly talky, and lets the (good) acting speak for itself. Honestly, though, I probably just enjoy seeing Charles Dance belittle Jack Gleeson. Honorable mention to Davos and Shireen hanging out and reading together, because it was very sweet.

Julia: Jack Gleeson is such an easy highlight to pick. He was just so happy and bouncy. And it helped that it was more or less just a book scene acted excellently. But I’m going to take your honorable mention and turn it into my highlight. Remember when Davos actually did stuff? Remember Shireen’s School for Conveniently Placed Illiterates? I used to love both these characters so much, and they have such great chemistry together. So even though this scene triggered a spiral where I was thinking what the Westerosi equivalent of Dutch speaking printers that would result in there being a “g” in “night” would be, or if they even have standardized orthography in Westeros, and what a trick that would be without printing, and if the maesters as an institution would be enough of a centralizing force to have standard orthography make sense…. I still really liked it.

I honestly think the “pork sausage” scene is not only a lowlight of the episode, it might be a lowlight for the whole series, even given all the stuff they’re going to do later. It was just so long and so… Am I going insane, or did they play it for laughs? Maybe they were going for some kind of Deadpool-esque black humor, but whatever Ramsay dangling a sausage was supposed to be, it wasn’t funny.

Katie: It’s so bad! I think they are playing it for laughs, at least kind of? Ramsay’s whole shtick seems to be “he’s so evil and so wacky! Isn’t it crazy?!” The cavernous abyss between the obvious delight D&D have in writing Ramsay and the terrible way it plays out on the screen and drags down the story is a… not great sign of things to come.

Kylie: Also speaking of what’s to come, Ramsay and eating becomes like, a thing, sort of similar to Brad Pitt’s character in Ocean’s 11. I guess it’s because they found this sausage scene suitably off-putting or something? But it leads to a full-on dramatic moment of Roose telling him to stop eating in Season 5.

Quality of writing

Katie: It is the lowest of low-hanging fruit, but can we talk about the Ramsay-Theon scene for a sec? The first shot of Theon in this episode is just a lingering shot on his crotch. We have an endless Ramsey monologue as he eats a pork sausage (get it?), and then Theon gets punched in the face a lot and cries. This show, guys. “Do eunuchs have a phantom cock?”

Julia: Yeah, the dialogue is cringy, but in terms of writing, the bigger question is why this scene, or this plotline even exists. GRRM puts a lot of disturbing stuff on the page (far too much according to many people) and even he chose to leave most of this stuff as implication. Perhaps they should have asked themselves why that was.

Kylie: I guess just so we could see the “transformation” into Reek more clearly? Like, they wanted him to be called ‘Reek’, but didn’t think that would track. Why they left the nickname in is beyond me, since they cut out Ramsay posing as Reek, and all that rather confusing backstory that came with it.

Even if they felt like we couldn’t have understood how broken Theon was without showing at least some torture, we certainly could have gotten by with half as many scenes, and none needed to be quite so explicit or drawn out. This one in particular was endless.

While we’re talking about the sausage though, I actually liked the dialogue given to Balon when he reacts to all of this. It was very on-point for the Iron Islands attitudes.

Katie: It was also undercut a bit by the fact that it makes the adoption of Reek seem kind of arbitrary rather than an eventual outcome of Theon’s torture. Theon’s obviously not in a great place at the start of this scene, but there’s not much of an indication that he’s really lost his sense of self. He seems eager to hold onto his name when he first gets hit in the face. Because of that, the fact that he takes up the name at the end seems less like a culmination of a character arc than an admission that he’ll do what Ramsey says if he gets punched sufficiently.

Agreed about the Balon dialogue. I also didn’t mind Cersei’s mom monologue (momologue! oh, gross, I’m sorry).

Julia: Like Walder Frey’s obnoxious misogyny last week, Balon’s horribleness felt like it was actual there to serve the world and the characters. I’m not sure why Ramsay’s antics feel so different, especially from Frey’s stuff. Maybe it’s just the absurdity of the sausage wagging.

Kylie: They just feel very out of place. The dialogue doesn’t sound like anything that’d be in ASOIAF, and I don’t just mean because of some strange anachronisms, like talking about “phantom limbs.” No way Westerosi would have coined that term.

Our 8th grade book report (on themes)

Katie: Tough to pick a theme in an episode that had roughly 36,000 plot lines happening at the same time. The closest I could come to was the emphasis on tension between valuing the Family Name and valuing family members themselves. The clearest example is Tywin’s long speech to Tyrion about how he wanted to kill him as a baby but HE WAS A LANNISTER so he kept him around, but it’s also evident in Balon’s indifference to Theon once he’s a family liability (and Yara’s pushback). I suppose it works with Stannis and Gendry as well, with Davos playing the Yara figure. If we want to be kind and stretch this theme to its breaking point, we could also include the Davos/Gendry scene about Flea Bottom, and the Shae/Varys scene, both of which demonstrate how those without a family name often have to play by different rules. That still leaves out most of the episode?

Julia: That’s an excellent effort. There’s something there maybe about obligations. Like, Jon has one to the Night’s Watch, and Tywin had an obligation to not kill his own child, (the cross he bears is heavy) and Guest Right is an obligation, but that just seems like a less insightful version of what Katie said.

Title? Dany is a mother to all the freedmen, and motherhood is also what Carol’s content is about. And the Rat Cook is a parent too…it’s totes a theme.

Kylie: Gilly is a mother to the baby she just named Sam! Honestly, the title is feeling pretty peripheral to me.

Katie gets full marks though, for sure. The three Stark kids kinda have a mutual loss of innocence (not than any of them are fully innocent at this point, of course). Sansa learns about her family’s fate, Arya kills her first man, and Bran heads north of The Wall. That one is kinda weaker, but given this is a season that ends in the middle of a book, it’s more of a parallel with them than I’d have expected.

The Butterfly Effect (cracks in the plaster)

Kylie: I don’t want to keep harping on the Sansa/Tyrion scene, but I think this is one of the clearest butterfly effects at play. Tyrion is made a really, really, really nice guy who the audience loves, so any character we are meant to like must love him too. In this case, Sansa. So take the whitewashing of his character that’s been there from the start, and two seasons later his prisoner child-bride is joking around with him, and Varys tries to set Shae up for life across the Narrow Sea, because Tyrion is apparently the only man who can save Westeros and he needs to be less distracted.

Katie: Agreed. I was shocked at how openly Sansa was used as an emotional prop in this episode.

Julia: Ugh, I feel like I can rant about Saint Tyrion for hours. In fact, I’m quite sure I have. I would argue that the changes to Tyrion’s character have the most butterfly effect of any decision in the show, maybe more than the decision to age up the kids, or the one to take out most of the supernatural elements. Tyrion’s characters flaws in the book drive the plot quite a bit, after all. And make his actions make any kind of sense.

At this point, I think many intelligent show-only watchers would be surprised to learn that Sansa is a POV character in her own right. And that Shae isn’t.

Katie: Also, this is a very small detail, and nit-picky, but I think it illustrated well the problems the show increasingly ran into down the line. I am not at all a fan of the choice to open the episode with… the mass slaughter of Northern extras. It’s supposed to serve as a carry-over from the climax of last episode, I suppose. But the reason The Red Wedding works as an emotional gut-punch is because it’s so intimate. It’s a shockingly and terribly personal moment.

As y’all noted last week, it’s a climax the show keeps trying to recapture, and it keeps trying… badly. In large part because it keeps aiming for grand scale over the emotional horror of individual moments. Michelle Fairley did such a good job of selling those last few seconds of emotion in The Red Wedding. Opening this episode with anonymous extras screaming and dying is literal overkill: it takes what should be the center of the scene—Arya seeing Wolf-Headed-Robb—and confuses and muddles it. Rather than a clear, stark (sorry), emotional moment, we get a frenetic, busy, overly-complicated scene. Clean it up! Bombast isn’t always best. It’s not a big deal, really, but it’s a wasted opportunity, and so indicative of what the show is going to prioritize as it goes along.

Julia: At least it gives the aforementioned hypothetical intelligent show-only watcher the tools to call bull on Tywin’s later line about all he did was kill a few dozen men at dinner, and what’s so wrong about that?

Kylie: True, though I’ll agree it was very visually busy. There’s that shot of Roose that opens it, and the way he walked to look out reminds me exactly of this one shot in Return of the King with an orc charging into battle. It was a wonky way to open things (also it was pretty damn dark), and given the effectiveness of the Walder and Roose scene later, I don’t think it’s a very necessary one.

Worth noting something that’s about to turn into a butterfly effect: the Night’s Watch vows. Sam found the “loophole” to make a case for Gilly staying (a compelling one at that). Next season we get the sex loophole, and I feel like we had one more at that too. Maybe the implicit loophole that allowed Jon to quit? It’s also symptomatic of D&D chasing a good thing, or something that lands. This is still pre-chicken joke GoT, remember.

Remember adaptation?

Julia: Well, this section is getting harder and harder.

Um. Gendry fits rather seamlessly into Edric Storm’s role in this episode. Minus the way he bonded with Davos, I guess. They bonded in both cases, but not in the same way.

The small council scene about the Red Wedding was pretty good, at least until it became about how awesome Tyrion is for not raping a 14-year-old, but other than that the stuff from KL was not super faithful.

Kylie: Not at all. Though let’s chat about the adaptational decision with Yara. Is it that D&D just don’t plan more than one year at a time? Because I don’t think it’s about them feeling like we needed to check in with her and trying to come up with a great Season 4 plot for her specifically; we didn’t check in on the Iron Islands at all this year, and there’s nothing that necessitates putting the theater in next year either.

Even if they did plan, does that mean they purposely set up Yara for a completely futile, one-off failed mission? Because god knows they wanted Theon to be in his ADWD plotline, no matter what woman gets shoved into Jeyne’s role… I guess I’m just not getting what they were even trying for with this. False hope of Theon’s rescue?

Katie: Such big chunks of these finales focus on laying the groundwork for future plots. But in practice I think that sometimes bleeds over into just… setting up potential drama or tension? It wouldn’t surprise me if they just wanted another rousing (“rousing”) speech or set up for potential action next year, regardless of whether it would matter at all in the long run. The more generous part of me wants to say that there was some level of awareness that the Theon/Ramsey scenes were floundering and needed the (false) promise of some kind of narrative development before the end of the season.

Julia: In retrospect, though, it does seem cruel of them to set Yara up like that. As cruel as setting Shae up like that was. I think being even more generous is presuming that they had different plans for both these characters—they wanted Shae in particular to do something different during the trial and for Yara to maybe do something like her book plot with Stannis maybe–but audience reaction, or budget, or lack of writing skills made it impossible?

Carol Watch: who is Cersei this week?

Kylie: This is the most Carol Carol who Carol’d all the way to Carolville in her Carolmobile.

Katie: She reminded me of a mom who has been to so many grinding, exhausting parent-teacher conferences about her terrible kid. She knows the teacher is right, but she has to keep her game-face on? She’s just trying her best.

Julia: Imagine another hypothetical intelligent person, who only ever sees this episode of GoT, being told that Carol is supposed to be the villain.

Also, what on earth was that sleeveless number she was wearing in the last scene? And why was she looking at a seashell of some kind and smiling sadly?

Kylie: She was smiling sadly at seashells. She and Jaime used to sell seashells down by the seashore, or something. I feel like I remember that context being explained to us (was that something they talked about in the pilot?) but damn if I remember.

Julia: They talked about jumping off a cliff once.

Why was her scene with Tyrion even there? Like I say, it’s an odd thing to do with someone who’s supposed to be a villain. Was it all just so Tyrion can seem like a nice guy for not wanting to impregnate Sansa?

Kylie: Or to make it clear that once Cersei’s kids are gone, there goes the only good piece of her. Yay! Either way, there’s no debate this week:

Exposition Imposition: good or clunky?

Kylie: Tywin’s exposition seemed good, albeit horrifying. I guess Bran is technically expositing with the rat cook, too, though that’s really just telling a fairy tale. I don’t know, the things that jumped out to me as clunky in this episode were not exposition in nature.

Julia: What, talking about phantom cocks was not exposition? Maybe Ramsay should have asked a cock merchant, I’m sure they would know all about that.

Feel free to be annoyed at me, but the way Tywin said, “I raised you as my son, because you are a Lannister,” to Tyrion probably gave a lot of fuel to the Tyrion the Secret Targ folks.

Kylie: That was also following him saying “since I cannot prove you’re not my son” in another episode this season too, I think. Maybe Charles Dance is a Tyrion truther.

How was the pacing?

Julia: D&D seem to have more trouble with pacing within scenes even than the pacing of episodes.

Kylie: I’d agree with that. The entire episode stops dead at the sausage waving, and frankly Davos and Gendry’s conversation didn’t exactly get to a point.

Overall the episode just struggled from that spottiness we’ve been seeing all season. I can’t tell if it’s better or worse that they were trying to give so many characters a stopping point. Often jumping around helps break things up, but it sure didn’t feel like that this time.

Another week of no sex, baby

Katie: You know, given the number of scenes where people tell Tyrion to have sex with Sansa, maybe “no sex, (no) baby” is the theme.

Kylie: And now his watch begins, after all. He hasn’t seemed to be getting it with Shae either, now that I think about it. I guess she’s struggling with her maybe!jealousy still over Sansa?

Julia: No, no Kylie, she’s outraged that people would dare treat Sansa this way, since she loves that girl so much and would kill for her.

Kylie: Until she decides that whatever, let’s just implicate Sansa in a bunch of crimes. I can’t believe we have another season of Shae…

In memoriam…those Frey soldiers

Katie: In memoriam of the last time Arya’s character arc was interesting! Sorry.

Kylie: Ain’t it the truth. We’re about to get a full season of her and Sandor doing nothing, and talking about how nothing is nothing, and frankly that’s a highlight compared to Braavos and her arc quite literally iterating. Though…Arya in Season 7 was not boring. Many other things, but that’s one charge she gets away from.

Is this where we should talk about her kills in the book getting thrown in at random times and in random contexts?

Julia: I remember there being a chart.

This season’s been fun. I think I get people still having patience with this show after this, but in retrospect, it’s so totally off the rails already.

And I just remembered, the Pornish are coming soon!

Kylie: OH MY GOD.

Well, for us at least, the Pornish won’t be coming until 2019. We will have the Season 3 rewatch podcast out to you in the next couple of weeks, and then Season 4’s rewatch will start January 8th.

Thank you all for following along this season. We’re curious to know what you thought of this episode specifically, though. Did D&D leave a tantalizing endpoint, or are things just sloppy to the point of distraction? Let’s discuss that below, and we wish you both a happy new year and good fortune in The Wars to Come.

Images courtesy of HBO

Continue Reading


What We Ask from Stories




Media as a teacher, part 2 (part 1 here)

In the last part of this series I discussed whether media is obligated to teach us something or not. This time, I will focus my attention on the other side of this interactions, the audience.

Whenever we start watching or reading something new, there are a certain list of filters that the content must pass through for us to continue. A checklist, if you will. Everyone has their own checklist, depending on our idiosyncrasies. We tend to be partial to certain genres and formats: Do you like soft Sci-Fi or Fantasy? Series or serials? Procedural, monster-of-the-week, long arcs? Then there come the finer details, like world building, very specific types of comedy, tropes we enjoy (blonde and brunette wlw, anyone?) or don’t enjoy (love at first sight makes me roll me eyes to infinity), and where the line is drawn on our suspension of disbelief.

We all have a little gatekeeper inside our brains. Creators know this, and they will attempt to pander to whichever audience at which they’re aiming their product.

What we expect of content in terms of styles and genres varies immensely. We’d have to discuss a particular segment of the market if we were to talk specifics. Our little gatekeeper however, is usually not only interested in whether we like the world and the characters. There is a deeper level, especially with the content we don’t consume casually, that demands certain standards to be met.

Moral, idealistic standards that have a lot to do with our context, our culture and our education. This, of course, is also very different for everyone, especially those from different cultures and, as I mentioned in the last article, different generations.

Generationally, it could be said there is something all of us want. A standard we all want to see met.

What do we demand?


And… that’s it, really.

It sounds repetitive, but this is the biggest push in fandom right now in terms of moral standards. There isn’t really a call for “family friendly” content demanding less violence or sex in a general sense, for instance. But there is for more male frontal nudity, for example. Racial, sexual, ethnic, religious, disability, neurological, and body diversity is the topic around which most discussions on fandom platforms like Tumblr and Twitter revolve. It has been going on for a while now, so it has seeped into the mainstream.

For multiple years in a row, The Hollywood Reporter’s round tables have broached the topic of equality, especially int their “Actress Roundtables.” Most prime-time and prestige awards in Hollywood have incorporated this into host monologues and winner speeches, and TV especially incorporates it into their narratives. As it becomes the mainstream, the discussion becomes more open and bolder. Like this actress conversation published by Porter, in which Ellen Pompeo (a.k.a. Meredith Grey) openly called out the magazine for lack of diversity on set.

The industry has taken some steps. Achieving equality—and more importantly, intersectional equality—in media is no easy feat though, especially given the power structures involved in their machinations. Part of the job is the audience’s in demanding that equality or else, but much of the heavy lifting must be done from inside, where the Ellen Pompeos of Hollywood must take a stand to be allies and defenders of the minorities who have been left behind. And that is just Hollywood. The state of other, smaller industries must be addressed locally as well, but that’s really a story for another day.

Whenever something comes out that is considered a good example of diversity, there will usually be praise on fandom platforms pointing out the impact it has. Like so many wonderful videos of little girls dressed up as Wonder Woman or Shuri, with parents excited their little girls have a positive role model. Or little boys idolizing Black Panther, the first mainstream hero who looks like them. The word positive comes out to play, and those examples are undeniably positive. Sometimes though, the lines do get blurred about what is positive and what isn’t.

Put in fandom terms, we want positive messages in the stories we consume. In today’s world, that constitutes fair representation across the board. Or wait, do we want fair messages and positive representation? Are they the same?

Fair and/or Positive

It gets a wee bit tricky here, as what is fair and what is positive differs from little gatekeeper to little gatekeeper. Which is better? Shouldn’t representation be fair and positive? And what constitutes a positive and fair message?

My head hurts.

Characters, their arcs and their resolutions, as well as the broader social subjects a story deals with are how these messages get across to us. Most content creators try to keep their shows relevant by keeping them topical, some more subtly, some more ham-fisted. For example, the latest Supergirl season’s giant in-your-face migration allegory (so far so good) or The Handmaid’s Tale’s radical take on a world where sexism takes over.

There seems to be a consensus that the representation of both these things is a good thing. Whether it is fair or positive, it’s harder to say. Some would argue the aliens as a metaphor for today’s migrants might constitute unfair whitewashing. Many would say The Handmaid’s Tale takes things way too far to be positive. It might be well and good to paint a brutal picture of how far sexism can go, but there does—there must—come a point where it might turn into torture porn.

A more extremist part of fandom takes the word “positive” at absolute face value. This portion of fandom will demand that the representation of the minority in question be positive in the “always good and right” sense, and the message fair in that “nothing bad must ever happen to this person.” I wish I could believe no one means it seriously, but I have witnessed how high emotions run in regards to this topic.

The idea that everything that happens in fiction needs to be squeaky clean is frankly egregious. There needs to be drama, conflict, and that cannot happen if only good things are represented on screen—good characters, healthy relationships, happy outcomes. That would lead to the antiquated and simplistic Pure Darkness vs. Pure Light conflict. We might be able to consume that from retro content knowing its context, but the reality is that it doesn’t fly with modern audiences, at all.

It’s impossible not to think about the fact that many of the marginalized groups seeking representation have been misrepresented and even exploited in media for so long that it may physically hurt to see negative aspects of their lives and relationships. I understand, to a degree. Stories are not personal, except they are. But if we presume to sincerely analyze or seriously critique a piece of work for its ethics, we should take a long hard look into ourselves and see just how much of the argument is raw emotion and how much is actually rational. I am a believer that we need a balance of those two.

For starters, we need to be able to differentiate reality and fiction, not just in practice, but in our emotions as well. That takes something that not all of us have: media literacy.

We Don’t Get It

Media has grown at exponential rates in the past century, and there is simply no way its study and especially education about it can keep up. And so, media keeps growing, and we are five steps behind it. Media literacy is basically the ability to analyze the different types of media and understand the messages being sent through them, with their undercurrent and context, to a point where we’re able to generate those messages effectively.

Suffice to say, this isn’t something that’s widely taught in basic education just yet. Even less so for those who went to school ten, twenty years ago. It is enough to see how a tweet about a rumor can cause an uproar and forever stain someone’s reputation. This is an obstacle both in our understanding of the messages sent through media and our understanding of the best way to send the messages we want or need from media.

It is how we might confuse the representation of something with its endorsement, or not realize its endorsement under the guise of representation. The idea I touched on in Part 1 was that of “Healthy Ships” for example, wherein fandom demands the relationships depicted on TV especially, be healthy. While I would agree that the portrayal of a toxic relationship as desirable (endorsement) is a big no, I’m not against them appearing in stories (depiction). As someone said in the comments, if the toxic aspects of that relationship are dealt with accordingly, there is nothing negative about representing it. Especially given that toxic relationships are a thing in real life.

Now, if the creators of a show are portraying a toxic relationship as desirable and good (*cough* Gossip Girl’s Chuck and Blair *cough*) it really does take a strong media education to be able to resist that pull. Narratives are entrancing, and no one is immune to giving into their pull. And since awareness among creators is spreading spectacularly slowly, it should be a priority. This is especially tricky for fictional or fictionalized stories: film, TV series, comic books, video games… Since they are also entertainment, many still refuse to see that what they showcase has an impact in real life.

Those of us who do are still trudging through muddled waters, trying to decipher what it is we need from it, and what really is the right way for media to behave in order to teach us, or society, something good, positive, and fair.

Going back to our little gatekeeper, these ideals get intermingled with our personal microcosms. So what we want, as a gut reaction, may be a little more biased than we initially realize.

What We (Secretly) Want

We want to feel individually represented.

To feel satisfied with the resolution of the stories we care about.

For the moral resolution of plots and character arcs to coincide with our moral code.

To have the characters we personally identified with treated fairly. Scratch that. To have them treated like we’d like to be treated or have things happen to them that we would like to happen to us.

We want to feel personally vindicated.

Are these wants fair? Who knows. In my honest opinion, a lot of what we want out of pure instinct for ourselves tends to be irrational. Like watching someone get something for free and secretly wishing it were you, even if you really are happy for the person who benefited. We’re complicated beasts. Complicated beasts who just so happen to live in a world of instant gratification. A lot of us aren’t used to not getting what we want when we want it, most especially in the case of information and entertainment.

Our individual desires are also mixed with our desire to be part of something. Culture, and in this case fandom culture, is a big part of it. At this point, either you are part of the equality conversation—for or against—or you aren’t part of fandom. Or you may constitute that portion of the Internet that bemoans an inability to enjoy anything ever because other fans won’t let you.

A while ago I wrote about the common conflation between calling something out for considering it problematic in general versus complaining about something we feel displeased about. When it comes to media as a teacher, this conflation can happen when it comes to demanding what media should be teaching us and especially young people.

Think of the Children

This is a bit of a segway, but I didn’t feel like I could leave it out of the conversation:  When we talk about media as a teacher, the subject of children, teenagers, and young adult audiences comes to the forefront. “Children are like a sponge,” my mom always says. What we demand in terms of media teachers is often in regards of the molding of young minds.

It is true that our brains are more bendy and malleable when we’re younger, and what children are seeing and reading is undeniably important for their formation of ideas about the world. I don’t have children of my own, but from what I’ve observed in the children I interact with, I’d say what they “absorb like a sponge” from media is much less what’s good and what’s not, and much more who’s cool and who’s not. You might argue that these two things can intermingle, and you’d be right, but media literacy has a lot to do with what they absorb into their behavior. A youngster with a solid basis may think Slytherin is much cooler than Gryffindor, but they won’t start bullying people or legitimately planning world domination (this is how Slytherin was portrayed), they’ll just wear T-Shirts.

More importantly, “what’s cool and what’s not” is a much, much more crucial lesson than we’d initially think. It has to do with that is desirable. If a show makes skating look cool, a kid might well pick up a skateboard and give it a go. This isn’t myth. Guitar sales in Mexico spiked after Coco was released last year. Children begged for them for Christmas. Even a friend of mine, what you might call a grown-a** man, bought a guitar as a direct result of watching the film (and he hasn’t picked it up since).

So yes, it is very important to take special care of the “messages” included in young people’s media. More than moralistic messages, asking for the normalization (and “cool-ification”?) of more diverse people should be a priority. Even so, each parent wants the screens and the pages of books and comics to relay the same messages they are trying to teach their child. Like an extension of them.

What about us?

If we put the children discussion aside, the question it leaves me with is this: Do we want media to teach us something? My instinct would be to say yes, I do. Because I have become aware of issues and experiences far from my own through stories in media (real or fictional), I would say yes.

Fandom seems to agree that media should teach. The what, generally, I’ve covered. Whether media has a responsibility to do it has been discussed in the excellent Ethics of Storytelling series. But who does fandom want media to teach, besides children?

Even if I personally think I want media to teach me, I do find I am still closed off to accepting opinions and perspectives different than my own. As an example, when I was younger I used to have a really hard time finding drunkenness funny. Part of it is due to my own real-life experiences, but I also do hold a very old-fashioned belief that intoxication, especially in minors, should not be taken lightly. As I’ve grown older I’ve found myself more open to other people’s opinions on the matter, that come from their own experience. Having my own experiences as an adult has helped, too. But it took me a long time to accept that my perspective was not the only valid one.

The thing is, I didn’t learn that from TV, I learned it from people. It takes me back to my response to cheesy Hallmark movies. I find it pedantic when media tries to teach me something. So, despite my initial answer, I find that no, I don’t really want media to teach me things. Not in the straightforward sense of the word. I don’t want it to preach to me because I, as do many of us, already have my own standards of good and bad. So here is my conclusion:

We don’t really want media to teach us anything, we want it to teach others what we (think we) already know.

We need it to show us perspectives we hadn’t considered, so that then we might want to learn something. But learning is not an inevitability; you must be open and willing to learn.

Media Doesn’t Teach, We Learn

Ultimately, media simply isn’t a teacher.

Educating people is not and should not be media’s aim. That’s up to parenting and the education system. Narratives can’t be masterclasses on anything because they usually have a limited point of view. One single film or even a long-running TV show cannot teach you everything there is to know about LGBT+ experiences and/or rights, or the ethnic diversity within Native American peoples, or Philosophy, or anything. It can give you glimpses into these things, pique your interest, leave you hooked. But if it tries to do much more it wouldn’t be entertainment anymore.

Coco is a great example of this. The film shows you a glimpse of Mexican culture, respectfully and accurately portrayed on screen. It does include tidbits of information about the tradition of Día de Muertos, like the use of the cempazúchitl (that yellow flower), the alebrijes (colorful spirit guides), and a brief explanation of some elements of the altar. But it never goes into detail. There are many elements and details about just the altar that the film left out. Every element in an altar has a meaning, or many. The writers and producers journeyed in Mexico, learning and absorbing information to make the film as respectful as accurate as possible, knew about every element of the altar, proven by the fact that it is there in the film.

They did not need to include every explanation. Having it would make it a bit overbearing and even boring. And a boring movie with accurate information that no one sees would be about as useful to representing Mexican culture as getting drunk on bad Tequila on May 5th.

What media can do however, is prompt you to want to learn. About science, screenwriting, aerodynamics, history, and, above all, people.

Images courtesy of Disney Channel, Disney Pixar, and NBC

Continue Reading