Transcription
Well, I can’t figure out what these little scribbles on the page mean, so instead, I’ll make a video on Media Literacy for Writers!
Media Literacy is the ability to analyze, decode, and understand our media-over-saturated nightmarescape that is the modern, chronically online world. This is actually a pretty huge subject with a lot of nuance. If you want a good introduction to the overall concept of media literacy, I recommend the Crash Course video series on the subject.
Now, I could use this video to help writers focus in on a very specific set of media literacy skills. Am I doing this to help writers hone their craft by highlighting useful skills for understanding narratives and storytelling? What about showing budding authors how basic story analysis works? Am I at least trying to stymie the flood of absolutely atrocious hot takes that pollute the internet?
I have a better idea! I’m going to instead use this video to show aspiring writers how to craft only the biggest, steaming hot takes and dump them onto the front porch of everyone’s favorite social media feed in a flaming bag. That way, writers will understand just how unimportant a basic grasp of media literacy actually is. I’m definitely not doing this because the current media landscape annoys me. Especially with media analysis caught in the crossfire of the American Culture War, which just brings out the best in everyone, really. Also, writing reviews and story analysis for websites and videos is also writing, unless I feel like gatekeeping that particular day and say otherwise. Learn all the hacks to drive those hate clicks through the floor and into your bank account. All for the cheap, cheap price of one media literacy. Well, let’s get started. Media literacy isn’t going to ignore itself.
Now, Media Literacy skills are more broadly the ability to understand media. This includes things like understanding a target audience, how different individuals are going to have different perspectives on the same piece of art, or even understanding what a specific media is intended to do. One aspect is what we take away from a story. What’s the read of a story? How to think critically about a story and share one’s thoughts on the subject to the world using media. This is done using critical thinking to analyze and evaluate a piece of media. Also known as thinking about it really hard. This, of course, is the first hurdle that most people struggle to get past because thinking about something really hard requires both effort and at least some level of self-awareness. I possess neither, so you can trust me to show you a far better method of understanding media. Clearly, the best approach is to simply assume that my first, most surface-level read of anything is, in fact, 100 percent objective and correct! Analysis works best by using only the most basic of gut instincts without the need to hone analytical skills used to break down the meaning of a work. For you see, I alone possess the truth! Did you know? Truth is something that you can own! You can even beat people over the head with it. How handy. Did I use any common story analysis techniques before smearing my steaming hot take all over the internet? I don’t know what that is, so I guess not. Not that it matters! I don’t need tools when I’m so smart, as they are beneath me, like using deconstruction to analyze a work.
Deconstruction, which I covered in a previous video, is actually one method among many of story analysis and literary criticism. Deconstruction analyzes a work by taking it apart and looking at the individual components that make up a story, trope, cliché, or character archetype. But I don’t need that because I have pure talent that I am sure I’m not mixing up with an inflated ego. Besides, why bother looking at a story’s structure when I’m not even organizing my own analysis’s structure? Like starting with a strong central thesis and then backing it up with evidence from the text. Why making a claim and then supporting said claim with evidence can appear strong? Real strength is shouting over anyone who naysays you. Of course, like space, on the internet, no one can hear you scream in text, so just use ALL CAPS instead. Ah, yes. Incoherent ALL CAPS word salad in place of a strong central thesis with supporting evidence. That will make people take me seriously.
However, if a fellow media enjoyer decides to make a claim about a work, and go the extra mile by supporting said claim with evidence, then they should never worry about their evidence being weak and undermined by overwhelming contradicting evidence. For example. What if I read a story about a group of unhappy and decadent Corporate Executive Officers and their petty intrigues against one another to seize control of a megacorporation? They party, break laws, indulge in copious amounts of illicit substances, run the company into the ground, and in the end, get away with everything and make everything worse for everyone, including themselves. Their story ends with their empty lives filled with equally empty pleasures and a bottomless greed that they indulge in the vain hope to fill the hole where their soul should be, as they move on to the next company to repeat the cycle. For some reason, there are references to liver flukes, ticks, and intestinal worms that keep cropping up in the story. Well, obviously, this story is all about how greed is great and that we should all carve out our own piece regardless of the cost, just like a rugged individualist. Yes, the framing, descriptions, tone, context, author’s stated intent, symbolism, theme, subtext, and literal text all go out of their way to label these people as scum unworthy of emulation, but I’m going to ignore all of that for my extremely contrarian and edgy take because I too want to be a rich hedonist. It is a very small cherry, and I’m going to pick it and hold it up as the central facet of a work. What about a key scene where a worker denounces the entire lot of corporate sharks as worthless parasites? Ignore that. What about the scenes that emphasize how lonely and empty the lives are of people who think a person’s value is derived only from their stock portfolio and as a result, cannot form genuine human connections with anyone? What about the author literally saying the story is about how greed destroys everything good in the world? Just ignore all of that and instead keep repeating the funny line that the sociopathic lead character makes that turned into a meme. Why use evidence to support a claim when I can use memes instead?
Satire? What was that again? Oh, right. When a work puts human evils on display for ridicule. See, that doesn’t apply to me. Why? Because I’ve spent so much time on the internet that I’ve lost touch with reality and as such, I can no longer tell that this work satirizes my perspective. Therefore, I will instead simply assume the work is endorsing my perspective rather than condemning it. And no, I don’t care what cognitive dissonance is, quit bugging me about it!
Instead, we should focus on the almighty subtext. Ah. Subtext! Sweet ambrosia for shippers and academics alike. Come to think of it, academics and shippers have a lot in common in that they’re both extremely dedicated to their particular interpretation of subtext. Subtext is part of a trio of important components in storytelling along with Context and Text. Text is what is actually written on the page. Context is the details that make up the story, like the setting, year the story takes place in, names of the characters, and so on. Subtext, by contrast, is what is implied and can be read between the lines. For example, a Captain and previously established war criminal of the Evil Empire is talking about an unfortunate rat problem with a poor soul who is hiding malcontents who had resisted the empire. The Captain says that some people keep rats as pets, which would be unfortunate, as they must be exterminated, and getting rid of pests can get quite… messy. The subtext is that the Captain is warning the poor man that should he be found harboring malcontents, he will be killed along with them. The Captain never once mentions malcontents or directly threatens death upon the man he is speaking with, but he does imply it with context. We know that the empire is evil and will kill malcontents. The Captain was shown to gun down civilians with little provocation. It is up to the audience to glean the subtext from the scene based on the context shown because the text itself only talks about pest extermination. Pretty simple, right?
So long as we remember that subtext works best when it ignores both text and context. That way, I can read whatever I want, whenever I want, into a story. Now I can claim that the subtext is there, and that if someone else doesn’t see it, then they are an idiot! Isn’t it great! Not only can I read whatever I want into a story, I can even belittle other people for not seeing the clear subtext in a scene. Like in my previous example, clearly, there is romantic tension between the Captain and the man he’s talking to. Obviously, the Captain has a barely restrained yearning for his opponent, yet their opposing ideals keep them tragically apart! Remember that context doesn’t matter. Unless it does support my reading of the subtext, in which case, all of a sudden, context does matter an awful lot. Feel free to switch between these positions in the same sentence, no less.
But what if I am poor at spotting subtext? Ha! As if being completely unable to grasp subtlety has stopped anyone from leaving a flaming hot take on the internet. The best thing about a blunt reading of the text is that I can use the text directly, like an artillery shell lobbed into my opponent’s argument. I’ll just approach understanding a story’s meaning with the same complete lack of tact and grace I apply to my day-to-day social interactions. Well, if I ever actually left my house, I suppose. Yes, my inability to read between the lines will make me come across as either willfully stupid, completely daft, or so literal-minded that I should probably stick to middle management rather than any kind of media analysis. But understanding that would require that I also have the ability to pick up on subtle cues to adjust my behavior, and that’s not going to happen, so I’m all in on a literal, surface-level reading of the text.
That’s not to say that even a complete lack of understanding of subtext restricts me to merely reading context. As I said earlier, context can be ignored or championed purely based on if it supports my point or not. This never leads to problems! Like, for example, this story has a bad thing in it, then the story is obviously endorsing the bad thing! All of that context showing the bad guys doing the bad thing? Framing showing the tragedy of the bad thing occurring? Whole chapters dedicated to exploring the full negative effects of the bad thing’s wake? No. Merely having the bad thing exist in the story is obviously a tacit endorsement and morally equivalent of doing the bad thing! This goes doubly so if the protagonist does the bad thing! For example, what if the protagonist begins to take a series of morally questionable actions in the pursuit of unchecked power? Well, that’s bad! I’m going to launch a long diatribe against the main character and endlessly point out how the protagonist is becoming a monster. Then, when I accuse the protagonist of supporting fascism, I’ll act shocked when I find the author right next to me nodding along in agreement. What? The story is a cautionary tale? I’m not supposed to agree with every action the protagonist takes? But everyone knows that every protagonist’s morality aligns one hundred percent with the author’s! Next thing you’ll tell me is that not every protagonist is meant to be a wish-fulfillment self-insert! I can’t acknowledge the story’s context of it being explicitly a cautionary anti-fascist story featuring a protagonist who falls from grace and becomes a totalitarian tyrant. Because then that might make me look like a tyrant after sending the author death threats for endorsing fascism because I’m too stupid to separate a fictional character’s morality from the author.
In fact, the story shouldn’t even have villains at all! See! People are buying the villain’s merchandise and branding! They even think the villain is cool! This must mean that people think the villains are right and are such sheep that only I can save them from falling into darkness by advocating the complete removal of any kind of bad think from all stories ever! This is a very realistic goal, and the political capital and popular support for achieving it is readily available! I’m just going to ignore that many people see being a villain in a story as a form of wish fulfillment and a way to indulge in negative actions without it actually hurting anyone in reality. You know? Reality? That thing I left behind so I could advocate for all stories to become sanitized gruel completely lacking in meaningful conflict? Reality doesn’t sound nearly as important as condemning stories to satisfy my savior complex.
Like this story that has the protagonist trying to build a railroad! Colonialists build railroads, therefore trains are inherently colonialist, and so are the protagonist by extension! Association fallacy? Excuse me! I don’t associate with association fallacies! Now, getting back to realistic critique, I think a pretty reasonable criticism of a story is that it doesn’t exclusively cater to my demographic, and by my demographic, I mean pretty much just me. Franchises can only survive by solely pandering to the most hardcore and specific set of fans, and all other voices should be shut out and ignored. All stories belong only to me! I think everyone can agree that’s a pretty reasonable position to take. Besides, my money is magically worth more than all of these underrepresented people with cash to burn on entertainment, and will take pretty much whatever they can get at this point. Don’t listen to those people! Only listen to unpleasable media warriors with niche followings who scream the loudest obscenities on the internet! You can tell these people are worth listening to because their laundry list of story sins include the most petty nitpicks. Even the mightiest of franchises can be felled by a thousand cuts. I am sure my list of nitpicks makes me look smart and deep, and not that I have no attention span. Yeah, it can’t be I lack an attention span since I spent so much time mad that the story doesn’t establish plot, setting, character, exposition, tone, foreshadowing, plot twists, climax, central theme, symbolism, and establish pacing in the opening sentence, and therefore is a failure of a story! Jeez! What would you people do without me to tell you to stop having fun? People might think that teasing out mysteries is good writing! Thank goodness for the brave internet warriors with zero suspension of disbelief to save us from enjoying things. Just like me when I point out that because a story twist occurs that was heavily foreshadowed, this means that obviously the story has failed to surprise me and is therefore objectively bad. A real writer would have simply pulled a story element from nowhere to truly surprise the audience rather than feed them clues. I can’t believe the author is that stupid! I’ll leave a tactless, mean comment, and that’ll put them in their place and impress everyone!
In fact, lack of tact is a key advantage. Especially when one understands one essential thing: The verboseness of an analysis is directly proportional to its validity. Why be concise and communicate a point succinctly and clearly when I can instead drone on and on and on? Hammering home a single point can be effective when it comes to critique and reviews to stress the importance of it, which is why it’s fine to go completely overboard and belabor the point well past its expiration date. This has the extra bonus of being able to squeeze in more ad breaks. Um… I mean, obviously, it’s because I am so smart, and I’m definitely not using this to cover for my lack of actual wit and analytical ability. In fact, any doubts about my media literacy will vanish the moment they see that my responses are full of nothing but buzzwords. It will tip my hand to my true genius and not give people an easy excuse to filter me out. Yes, a lot of buzzwords are either loaded with enough dog whistles to summon every canine on the continent, or are so diluted through overuse that they have become vague static background noise for a jaded and cynical internet who will be sick of hearing about it. But I’m going to wear my buzzwords proudly like a label, even as I make fun of other people for doing the exact same thing. See. My buzzwords are from academia, though! So they’re official buzzwords, even if I’m using them incorrectly because my only knowledge of them comes from my Twitter feed and not the dry academic books they originated from. Not that the people arguing about it have read them either. Never mind that buzzwords can act as a barrier to getting people to understand what I’m talking about, or will make people like me use them as red flags to prune their channel recommendations, but I insist on using them anyway so I can display my allegiance to my cause. Even if I’m using them wrong.
Besides, I can’t be wrong because the stakes are too high! This isn’t a hot take, but a crusade! I must trash this Metacritic score! Western civilization depends on it! It’s us vs. them! If they win, then all pop culture belongs to them, so we must fight them! I mean, you know, so long as I don’t have to actually leave my screen or go outside.
Media analysis, at its most accurate, when seen as a great battle between good and evil. Yes. This is definitely a great battle and not like a couple of chronically online shut-ins arguing in the comment section. Oh no! My deadly opponent has managed to score a critical hit all the way from his mother’s basement! He had a legitimate point about the piece of media we were arguing over! There’s a lot of moves I can make. I could move the goalpost, construct a straw man argument, pull out a whataboutism, but this is about media literacy, so instead of attacking my opponent, I’ll resort to attacking the piece of media instead. I’ll accuse it of bias.
Now, all stories are made by people, and all people have bias. Bias is simply an inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something. The main thing to keep in mind is that one should always assume that they do not have bias, though. Remember that truth is something that can be possessed, therefore bias is something that only people I don’t agree with suffer from. Accusations of bias are also a great time to whip out the word “objectivity” for a good one-two punch! After all, when critiquing a work, it’s important to put myself on a pedestal to sneer down upon the object of my critique from a throne made of pure truth and objectivity, while I rain down righteous condemnation upon it. “Objective” is also a great buzzword to throw around, too, so long as I ignore the literal definition of it and rewrite it in my mind to “I am always right.”
Armed with this arsenal of tools, I am now the master of media literacy and can now begin my reign of terror upon all those who dare oppose my hot takes, critiques, and reviews. Now, the point of all this is for people to take me, and my takes, seriously as media criticism and analysis. This gives me a smoke screen of legitimacy while I rain bile and hate upon works that don’t match my stifled worldview and 24-hour news-poisoned brain. Now I can act in bad faith with impunity. Remember, the goal isn’t to analyze and think critically about media. Instead, it should be more like, “Look at me! I outsmarted the author!” And if I end up looking like an idiot instead, well, there’s always willful delusion!
SOLDIER: And so, our new orders are to stand down and…
Ex-General? Sorry, but you’re not allowed to be here any-
GENERAL: Soldiers of the Federation! The time has come. The civilian weaklings and bean counters don’t have what it takes to make the real hard decisions. Social scientists have brought our society to the brink! They don’t know what we are fighting for! For years, I have watched them debate and whine while our enemies run rampant through the galaxy! Vile Space Communists, Evil Empires, Megacorp Brand Xenomorphs and Space Zombies. And now they sell out to Greed itself. And what do the Federation leaders do? Nothing but give themselves another pay raise! No longer! It’s time for us to rise up! I’m taking charge now! It’s time for the military to call the shots and do what needs to be done like real men! No more of this ‘connecting with your feelings’ or ‘give peace a chance’ nonsense. There hasn’t been a problem yet that couldn’t be dealt with the copious application of firepower. We shall march on the Federation capital and oust those decayed, hippy politicians so I can take charge! Then finally, I can have the war I deserve! Just blood and guts and explosions and screaming death, mostly yours, as far as the eye can see. But don’t worry. It will be wonderful! So who’s with me?!
GENERAL: Traitors! Mutiny! You don’t respect the chain of command!
SOLDIER: Well, technically, General. The entire Federation Military is under the Executive Branch, so really, it’s you who isn’t respecting the chain of command by trying to overthrow it. Enjoy your due process since you wanted to ignore it to seize power.
GENERAL: Cowards!
GREED: Greetings, General. Are you enjoying your jail time?
GENERAL: Greed! I will-
GREED: Don’t bother to respond. This is a recorded message. Sorry about that. I have a political campaign to win, and all.
GENERAL: GRR…
GREED: Don’t worry. I’ll take good care of the Federation and keep it a peaceful place with zero war. Why, I may even completely demilitarize it.
GENERAL: You fiend! Wait…
GREED: Enjoy your stay, but since you’re stuck there, why don’t you learn a new skill since I’ve included this video’s sponsor, Skillshare, to keep you company. Skillshare is an online learning platform full of creative classes from writing, art, design, and even more practical classes like cooking or business management. People pay you for what you know, and it’s always helpful to learn something new. I can even recommend a few classes to get you started, like Storytelling 101 by Daniel Older for writers, an excellent class on making Fantasy Maps by Ira Marcks, or Science Fiction and Fantasy: Creating Unique and Powerful Worlds by Professor Lincoln Michel [Mi shell] for the aspiring world builders. A newer feature is that Skillshare has helpfully organized their classes into learning paths that can guide you from starter to advanced with each lesson, whether it being learning Adobe software I use to make these videos or gaining creative confidence and silencing your Inner Critic.
INNER CRITIC: … HEY!
Especially useful since the Inner Critic has destroyed far more worlds than I ever could. If you wish to join Skillshare’s community and begin your learning journey, then the first 1000 people who click the first link in the description will get a one-month free trial of Skillshare. And for the month of April ONLY, they are offering 40% off your first year using my second link. You are free to choose whichever link better suits you below. You might as well, General. You are going to be there for a very long time. Enjoy the live coverage of my victory!
ANNOUNCER: The polls are in! Every major network has called it. The winner by 352% of the vote? That’s odd. Well, the winner is by a landslide the Ancient Conspiracy…?