To You Who Were Buried - Oneshot

[DinoBirdsBoi]

Anyone can like or dislike whatever, but if you prioritise "worldbuilding" over internalising how art made you feel, then you're a fucking nerd and should go back to reading slop.

that's a take i never thought i'd ever see for how crazy dumb it is

"don't analyze the world of a story, just analyze the story" is absolutely wild

i mean, there are so many stories whose entire point is the setting.

i don't even know what to say because there's so much i could say about this take - and the fact that people have agreed with it???? 5 people??????????

i mean, have you ever read dystopian or utopian stories? you know, where the worldbuilding is used to criticize social and political constructs?????????????? where the entire point of creating emotion with a variety of techniques is to send a message that is inextricably tied to the worldbuilding?

i can't believe you just tried to say that part of the story isn't part of the story and thus isn't worth integrating into your thinking and i can't believe you call people nerds for doing that, and furthermore, you tell the people who disagree to "go back to reading slop"

this story is an amazing allegory for dementia and is a great criticism of our society's willingness to keep everyone alive even when the person in question wants to die. it tells a story where the status quo is maintained at any cost and the consequences society faces as a result of that. it's a criticism where we're shown the main character's emotions as she attempts to come to terms with the new status quo that everyone strangely accepts. it's heartbreaking.

but at the same time, the worldbuilding brings up so many questions that simply detract from the statements it's trying to make. or maybe the author believes that humans will simply accept their deaths in the face of a soon-to-be-dead society. maybe the author believes that humans will choose to spend time with the ones they love by reviving them before everyone dies forever. maybe the author thinks humans are calculative but at the same time, emotional beyond belief, and that drives them to give up and simply spend the rest of their days loving. because if that is the case, then the death of the main character's friend is all the more painful - in society's attempt to let people live and love, they inadvertently caused so much pain.

that's just an interpretation, which, oh wow, is lifted from the worldbuilding!

i now see why manga and anime consumers get the "lack of media literacy" badge

 

[cynthiacrescent]

that's a take i never thought i'd ever see for how crazy dumb it is

"don't analyze the world of a story, just analyze the story" is absolutely wild

What I said was only a sentence long, yet you fail to read it. Worldbuilding must be subservient to the story within it, and acts as a backdrop for what the art is meant to tell. Did I tell you to not analyse it? No, I'm pretty sure I didn't. Did I tell you to not integrate it in how you read the work? I didn't do that either. It was meant for people who got hung up on how the world got to the beginning of the story (not suspending their disbelief because of a minor personal gripe), rather than how the characters in it are reacting (what the author is trying to project). That's the meaning of "prioritise", the word I use, which you seem to have misconstrued all the way to 9 paragraphs and run-on question marks.

Spoiler: As for the rest of your babble

Your beloved "dystopian" novels aren't inherently dystopian because of what it portrays, but what the author projects onto the characters living in it. To draw an example, in the novelistic abortion "Ready Player One", it is implied that the world was once bad, and then it was good, inferred from the attitude of the characters before and after the events of the story. The worldbuilding itself doesn't "criticise" anything, because even though I believe that nothing has improved in any meaningful way from one end of the book to the next, that isn't what the text says. That's what the story is for, genius.

Once you're able to think about it a bit more, you would realise that worldbuilding is a tool for the author as much as it is for the reader. You can tell the kind of world-view and belief system enshrined in how one build a so-called "world". When J.K. Rowling wrote how house elves have a propensity to be slaves without satire or examination, the opposite in fact, that is a critique of her. When Brandon Sanderson wrote how only women are able to read, write, and bookeep, yet only exist as secretaries for men, that's him dropping a fat log of Mormon propaganda onto your lap. When the racist imperial lapdog George Orwell touted fear of a constant state of war between communist superpowers, he was inadvertently writing future CIA propaganda as he pisses himself in his breeches seething about Stalin.

Yet, none of these would've been so transparent had it not been for how the story portrays these supposedly mundane facts of (fantasy) life uncritically. If Hermione's efforts to free the slave were treated with the necessary gravitas instead of a running joke, we'd have a very different view of Joanne and her works. Instead, it's plain to all that the author's very happy with the status quo, thus reflected in the actions of her characters and the outlook of her famous series "Wizard Cop". It is this outlook that should dictate people's feelings towards the art they consume, not its coat of paint.

That is media literacy.

 

[splatsoni]

i think this is mostly abt dementia if you think about it. heartbreaking af

 

[o1ivegr1]

i don’t get the ending, did she kill herself too ? it looks like she’s injured/covered in blood, and she says she wasn’t brave enough to stay around to see humanity die.

 

[Syapaaye]

Oh yes, inject this shit into my vein. Let me be SAD, baby.

 

[DinoBirdsBoi]

What I said was only a sentence long, yet you fail to read it. Worldbuilding must be subservient to the story within it, and acts as a backdrop for what the art is meant to tell. Did I tell you to not analyse it? No, I'm pretty sure I didn't. Did I tell you to not integrate it in how you read the work? I didn't do that either. It was meant for people who got hung up on how the world got to the beginning of the story (not suspending their disbelief because of a minor personal gripe), rather than how the characters in it are reacting (what the author is trying to project). That's the meaning of "prioritise", the word I use, which you seem to have misconstrued all the way to 9 paragraphs and run-on question marks.

Spoiler: As for the rest of your babble

Your beloved "dystopian" novels aren't inherently dystopian because of what it portrays, but what the author projects onto the characters living in it. To draw an example, in the novelistic abortion "Ready Player One", it is implied that the world was once bad, and then it was good, inferred from the attitude of the characters before and after the events of the story. The worldbuilding itself doesn't "criticise" anything, because even though I believe that nothing has improved in any meaningful way from one end of the book to the next, that isn't what the text says. That's what the story is for, genius.

Once you're able to think about it a bit more, you would realise that worldbuilding is a tool for the author as much as it is for the reader. You can tell the kind of world-view and belief system enshrined in how one build a so-called "world". When J.K. Rowling wrote how house elves have a propensity to be slaves without satire or examination, the opposite in fact, that is a critique of her. When Brandon Sanderson wrote how only women are able to read, write, and bookeep, yet only exist as secretaries for men, that's him dropping a fat log of Mormon propaganda onto your lap. When the racist imperial lapdog George Orwell touted fear of a constant state of war between communist superpowers, he was inadvertently writing future CIA propaganda as he pisses himself in his breeches seething about Stalin.

Yet, none of these would've been so transparent had it not been for how the story portrays these supposedly mundane facts of (fantasy) life uncritically. If Hermione's efforts to free the slave were treated with the necessary gravitas instead of a running joke, we'd have a very different view of Joanne and her works. Instead, it's plain to all that the author's very happy with the status quo, thus reflected in the actions of her characters and the outlook of her famous series "Wizard Cop". It is this outlook that should dictate people's feelings towards the art they consume, not its coat of paint.

That is media literacy.

really? sorry, i just thought it was impossible your opinion was that nuanced because you used an absolute generalization lol

edit: oh yeah, but i still disagree with the idea of worldbuilding being subservient to the characters portrayed in it, because the way i see it is that the world guides its characters. it's not a tool for the author or reader, something you use to work another, instead its just another cog in a wheel. well, at least it should be.

i think jk rowling made the worldbuilding servile to the characters and plot, and that turned out disastrous.

idk if you've read world war z but thats sorta the book that changed my perspective on worldbuilding, so yeah i totally get how you feel about the worldbuilding not criticizing anything if you haven't read it

anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding because i thought you were just being snobbish lol

 

[sebaasdf]

Sad but kinda beautiful

 

[___DEKU___]

This hurt my kokoro

 

[Youseffff]

This the kind of manga that u feel emptiness after reading it.