I'm having thoughts about the Condescending White Man brand of media criticism popular on YouTube - Plinkett, Yahtzee, CinemaSins - and how these characters are both fictional and aspirational for their intended audiences.
Thread incoming.
Thread incoming.
So I was thinking about this after watching @thelindsayellis' recent Q&A video:
In it, she mentions that useful media criticism is often a matter of having an emotional reaction to the media and putting into words what you think the media did to provoke that reaction.
Which, I think, helped me understand what Yahtzee, et al, are doing.
Their channels are essentially what happens if the emotional reaction is decided in advance.
Their channels are essentially what happens if the emotional reaction is decided in advance.
Their brand is built around a specific reaction.
Yahtzee is going to shit on everything.
Plinkett is going to say the film ruined the franchise/his life.
CinemaSins is going to nitpick.
Angry Joe is going to get angry.
Et cetera.
Yahtzee is going to shit on everything.
Plinkett is going to say the film ruined the franchise/his life.
CinemaSins is going to nitpick.
Angry Joe is going to get angry.
Et cetera.
So, then, the process becomes asking not "what did this media do to provoke my reaction," but "if a person were to hate this, what about it would they hate?"
Like, all these men are playing characters, and the audience is theoretically SUPPOSED to be in on the "joke."
CinemaSins' nitpicks aren't meant to be taken 100% seriously. Yahtzee's ridicule isn't meant to read as wholly sincere.
CinemaSins' nitpicks aren't meant to be taken 100% seriously. Yahtzee's ridicule isn't meant to read as wholly sincere.
This isn't to say that the opinions are lies, exactly, but that they are performative.
When Yahtzee loves a game, he has to find a way to fit his praise into the idiom of a man who hates everything.
When Yahtzee loves a game, he has to find a way to fit his praise into the idiom of a man who hates everything.
He's going to spend the video complaining about minor things, apologizing for being positive, or complaining that people don't appreciate the game's greatness.
And I think the appeal of these characters is getting to imagine yourself as someone who hates everything, is smarter than everyone, who cuts everyone down, who sees through all the bullshit.
Again, the audience is SUPPOSED to know that this persona isn't real. But the pleasure in watching is the vicarious thrill of placing oneself ABOVE the media one consumes.
To think what it would be like to watch a movie and just constantly, in real time, rattle off all the plot holes and inconsistencies. To be that perceptive.
It doesn't even matter if, actually, CinemaSins is usually wrong. It's a performance, it's not supposed to be accurate. It's supposed to give the FEELING of being right all the time.
To a degree, these personae are created based on the desires of the fandom. Yahtzee didn't start out as negative as he quickly became; he doubled down on what his audience responded to.
I did a thread about that a few years back:
I did a thread about that a few years back:
It's curious that these men are all popular in extremely nerdy, territorial fandoms. Plinkett come up on Star Wars and Star Trek videos, Yahtzee and Joe are in games, CinemaSins is mostly geeky properties and blockbusters.
Why is it the fandoms that are most defensive of anyone talking shit on their favorite properties are also the ones that most enjoys one of their own shitting on them?
What is it about imagining yourself as smarter than the media you love the most that appeals?
It seems that people are very defensive of The Medium, The Franchise, The Fandom AS A WHOLE, but are not precious about any individual part.
Please, talk shit about any Star Trek movie, but don't you dare talk shit about the Star Trek BRAND.
Please, talk shit about any Star Trek movie, but don't you dare talk shit about the Star Trek BRAND.
Like, there's an idealized version of Star Trek, of video games, of blockbuster movies, that they hold in their minds, and they criticize any work that doesn't live up to that ideal.
They want to imagine that they understand that ideal better than the creators do.
They want to imagine that they understand that ideal better than the creators do.
So lower-case games are always trash, but capital-G Games are always wonderful.
This is what the audience wants, and they will shape any media critic who gives them a taste into a faucet that pumps it on them weekly.
Anyway, it's fundamentally dishonest, and not as harmless as it seems, and I don't think we should encourage it.
/thread
/thread
you don't actually see through all the bullshit
you are inventing bullshit to see through
and you know that's what you're doing
but you still feel smart for doing it
you are inventing bullshit to see through
and you know that's what you're doing
but you still feel smart for doing it
