This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think it was the trauma from the retcon that did it, since Vecna didn't catch Will in S1; he'd just fallen prey to the environment at that point. Though perhaps maybe the spores and the tentacles can infect you with the gay re: Robin, and why the gay characters didn't think the atmosphere in the Upside Down was dangerous when asked. They were already carrying it, you see.
Vecna as a metaphor for the show's writers. You've correctly identified that it is child abuse, but not for the reasons you're probably thinking of.
"Let's just use children as props to [ab]use because we're too lazy to write them as actual human beings" is an incredibly apt description of S5, and most of the good parts of S5 were... starring a 14 year old playing a 9 year old in full jailbait uniform for basically no reason (clearly, practical for trudging around in the forest and desert heat)[1]. You do kind of forget that after a while, but it presses the "child beauty pageant" button.
It's a grown woman wearing child-face. Which is consistent with how the rest of the formerly-kid characters act, come to think of it (it's especially jarring with 11, since that character's design means they can't hide it... even though they kind of did in S4), and probably why the writers wouldn't see much problem with it either. After all, how else are you going to convince the audience this [again, obviously grown woman] is A Child? Remember, the original cast was actually physically younger than their stated ages (and, uh, that's how it is in real life too), but if you forget why that works this is the result.
As for those nice, veiny, oral intubation scenes with Vecna... I think they were just going for shock value and stock "villain is a walking pedo stereotype". They had a schedule to keep, after all. That's not really anti-woke, though[2]. It also blows suspension of disbelief because Stranger Danger accompanied the Satanic Panic, and the latter was a massive plot point in S4- there's no fucking way those "kids" should have believed that, and yet.
And it didn't even do that effectively, because it basically destroyed that ship (and the teenage girls most interested in it) for a moralizing gotcha. Again, an example of "how adults think sexuality works", not how it actually works[2, again].
Contrast S1, where as you said, the characters acted fucking normal. The kid characters in particular weren't just cheap throwaway props, especially and most relevantly Will, who exercised agency and intelligence every time he was actually interacting with something (and even better- every time he takes the advice of adults- suffers overwhelmingly negative consequences of doing so instead of using his fucking brain; this was a massive plot point in S2 and basically every season thereafter, because [the writers needed a prop, so they made sure] he never learned). And it's not like the writers forgot how to write a character like this, since Derek (of all people) does this every time he's on screen.
[1] Adventuring outfits don't look like this, they look like this. One would expect an artist who draws the latter character nude on occasion to have the more sexualized design, yet in fact the opposite is true.
[2] But it is what traditionalists will think is anti-woke, because they're usually incapable of noticing that "forcing an adult outlook on kids with respect to sex" is the specific mode of abuse (and is correctly called out as a bad thing when it happens to Will in S1), rather than suggesting the actual act itself. It's a very feminine mode of sexual abuse, which men don't usually understand (they can only identify suggestions of the actual act).
I think this is a bit hyperbolic (perhaps deliberately so). Plenty of 14 year old girls are still pretty far from physical adulthood.
Then perhaps they should have cast one that was "still pretty far" rather than heading straight into the uncanny valley?
Even Max, who's supposed to be (and her actor is, to my knowledge) significantly older, actually looks younger than Holly does; the illusion also quickly falls apart when she's standing next to (and being physically overpowered by) the other kid actors.
I think they did. I didn't for a second look at Holly Wheeler and think "that's an adult woman".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I immediately wondered why they swapped out the actress for Holly with one that was, for lack of a better term, "lolita-esque."
The show was pretty good at finding 'real' looking actors for the kids, even at the expense of them being 'ugly'. Derek being a great example. Holly though, hoo boy. Looked like they even gave her perfectly coiffed eyebrows and she kept the pigtails the entire time rather than swapping to a more practical ponytail. I couldn't ignore that it was like watching a de-aged Sidney Sweeney.
This was made worse when she's next to Max, who is a GREAT representation of a tomboy.
I think "lolita-esque"- as in "adult/not-child pretends to be a child pretending to be an adult"- fits just fine.
Wait, which kid character was ugly? I mean sure, 11 is a bit of a gimme there, but "weird and butch" was part of the job description for that one.
In S1, outside of 11, you had:
And then in S2, we got:
And then in S5, we got:
Dustin is notable for having an actual deformity. Jonathan is contrasted to Steve as the creepy-looking awkward kid. And there's Derek.
Oh, and Barb, who isn't 'ugly' but could fairly be called 'Homely' and was, I'd say, designed to represent a particular archetype.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link