"The point is that the character(s) are unlikable,the point is that the deaths were unsatisfying,the point is that it was supposed to make you mad/feel like It was unfair",Cool,then don't get suprised when people feel those things.

"We trained him wrong, on purpose, as a joke"

There's a difference between being mad at something and understanding that's the point, and being mad at something and thinking it's a problem.

That's a valid criticism of entertainment, but it can't be a comprehensive criticism of art.

Artists can have good reasons to make the audience feel frustrated, uncertain, angry, or miserable.

The expectation for all art to be entertainment in service of the audience's base desires, is bad.

the only thing that was going through my head here was jasper batt jr. from no more heroes 2 "The boss was supposed to be an frustrating, unfair, unfun boss to show how revenge is empty and unsatisfying!" Cool, the final boss of your game still sucks ass

I will always say that if something is intentional, that doesn’t make it less boring/stupid/uninteresting. But I do think people are allowed to enjoy things which make intentional decisions like that, but let’s not convince ourselves that marvel’s tone problems are suddenly not real criticism just because josh weed man thinks he’s being tongue in cheek.

Edit: TIL it’s tongue in cheek not tongue and cheek. I feel kind of silly.

It takes a very good writer to pull those off well, i personally think Cyberpunk is a good example. For 9 episodes we see David struggling, sure, but also coming into his own, maturing, bonding with his new family and exalting his new freedon. And on the 10th episode when he goes insane from cybernetic psychosis and dies along with half of that family the emptiness we feel as an audience reflects how Lucy is feeling and we finally see the otherside of the coin, running the edge means you're free but you have to fall sometime.

I think Cyberpunk was able to do it well not just because of the aforementioned writing but also because the show is a tight, contained 10 episodes and there's so much foreshadowing to help prepare you for it.

A counter example is any version of the common shonen trope of a depraved, lazy, coward like Mineta from MHA or Zenitsu in Demon Slayer. Their characters are a blight on the show that raises my blood pressure when they're on screen. And what do the properties do with that annoyance at the characters? Do they ever get a comeuppance, do they ever get changed or seriously challenged on their behavior? No, we're expected to forget all their terrible annoying traits when it gets serious so zenitsu can spam clap and flash or mineta pull out his balls and the shows expect the audience to applaud.

So like I said, the negative feelings a work can give you aren't bad, they just have to be well directed by the work

But that means that it wasn’t badly written. It’s only badly written when the author doesn’t get the intended reaction.

..Cool, then why are you shocked that people are upset at those unsatisfying/frustrated moments or unlikable characters

Because that is treating the author as a failure for succesfully making the audiences feel the emotion that they wanted the audience to feel, which is like, the exact goal of a author.

u/Apprehensive_Ring_39 back with another rant totally not about jjk.

I understand the complaint though. Directionless and sustained invoking of negative feelings in the audience can lead to burn out.

"Wow, that death was terrible" "Uh, that's the point!" "I'd probably write a different way" "WHAT DO YOU MEAN?"

Forgive the strawman but if it's supposed to make me feel shitty, why get defensive that I didn't like it?

Why some people have such a hard time acknowledging "I don't like this" and instead try to portray their tastes as some objective failure of the author to tell the story the way you wanted?

Something worse than a character being an awful person is when the creators decide to "redeem" him/her because they like him/or the fans like him but don't like that he's completely bad. So basically you can't say anything bad about the character or his writing anymore because they will respond with phrases like "character realized his mistakes" "that's why he tries to be better" "character doesn't expect to be instantly forgiven."

This is me with Evangelion. Any time I bring up the point that I didn't like the characters and shit ways the show handled certain moments I got hit with that. Intentional does not automatically equal good.

Another jjk rant 🙃

I'm not, which is why I don't say anything to people who find a character unlikable or a plot unsatisfying or whatever when that was the author's intent and I'm pretty sure 99% of the people you're trying to reach with this argument don't either

I and others say shit to people who go "this character is unlikable and therefore the writing is bad!" or "this character's death was pointless so the writing is bad!" or "this scene is awkward so the writing is bad!" and then double down or hide behind arguments like yours when told "yeah, that's the point"

be disappointed, be unsatisfied, be annoyed, be whatever but if you say that, get told "yeah, that's the point", then cry "but that's bad writing!" then you're not surprising anyone that you had the reaction that they author expected, you're whining because the book wasn't written for you

You basically described Overlord (The anime) and its fanbase 👍

I think I hate people on both sides of the argument.

Everyone disagreeing with OP by saying that you're the problem and not the writer is aggravating as hell, like the writer could have just made a mistake no one's perfect and story telling is subjective as hell anything.

But also yes, a writer can make a character with the intent to be unlikable and that's not a bad thing, or making a death unsatisfying. However I tend to weigh the pros and cons of these actions, what is gained from it versus what is lost.

If this is about jjk, which I feel like it is with the discussion of an unsatisfying death, then there are examples of good and bad executions of this. Spoilers for jjk manga, characters like Nobara or Yuki could've added a lot more to the story then the shock that came from their deaths. But then Gojo was pretty much at the end of his narrative relevance anyways so we don't lose anything from his death, in fact everyone expected him to die to Sukuna anyways. Sure I wish the story hadn't shit on him after his death and they stopped glazing Sukuna but the actual death is relatively fine.

Just because “The Point” makes you feel like shit doesn’t mean it’s bad.

Maybe the show simply isn’t made for you. Or maybe you simply don’t have the patience to see if that “wasted death” will actually become more important later (like for instance Gojo’s death in JJK).

Worst is when people try to accuse you of "not getting the point!!!!". No, I did, but let's be real, I just thought the point fucking sucked. Like maybe it was weirdly dehumanizing of a group of people, or was shallow, or whatever.

I definitely think there are ways to handle that.

The protagonist from No Country for Old Man died an unceremonious way, but that was because the point was to depict just how unpredictable the underworld was.

Anton survived and possibly got away with it, but his calm and perfect facade was cracked when he got into a car accident and his philosophy was destroyed by Carla Jean.

Are you talking about The First Law? Ahah I loved the series.

"Not necessarily talking about any piece of media" Uh-huh.

And, to start, there are 2 different points:

-A character being annoying/really unlikable.

This is usually some stereotyped character which ALMOST serves as a counter to the own protagonist of a history, or the basic, weak-ass boring-ass edgy character.

While another tangent of said character can actually be actually feasible, as in perhaps the character had some sort of shitty past, untrust of others, or any other reasons which one can attribute to their personality. This isn't per se saying that X character sucks because he's an asshole, but more that he's... an asshole. There's a difference between making a Heathcliff at the end of Wuthering Heights asshole of an character and a Bakugo MHA "imma cunt" character.

-This death wasn't made to be satisfying/good and you're supposed to feel frustrated.

I don't know in which way death can be satisfying (in shounen I'd imagine if it's causing some damage to the villain or outright killing him, like that netero vs. meruem fight), but, most of the time, this is influenced by factors outside of the author's hand. I mean, he can be a jackass and just make the story as he goes, but japanese manga press can also just make him milk the fuck out of a series, completely devoluting it from it's original stand-point. But in this case, I'd imagine your rant is about when a death comes out of nowhere and the idea is that you're supposed to be like "wowie, how did that happen?", but instead you're just "that's fucking bullshit".
Which is to say... it's kind of 99% of shounen mangas, where shock value is always at it's peak.

This is a very good rant,but you forgot one thing: people can mistake or miss what is the actual point of a certain moment (long comment):

I remember having a discussion about Chojiro death (Bleach) as a major critique for the serie to deserve to fall in quality because of not giving any emotional impact

Now don't get me wrong,I'm the first saying that some Bleach characters should have recived more screentime than others or for themselves. Chojiro is among one of the characters not used. Which is bad indeed

However,how can you act like "uh this character that never did matter in the story died and I didn't feel anything from it"

I'm about to say what you (op) will probably hate to hear,but yes you weren't suppose to cry for him. That's where the surprise come from. Every single fan knew about that death not giving you a sad feeling at all,so it's weird seeing someone acting surprised at the obvious

Were you really expecting to feel something from a death of the most sided of the (side) character group? The point wasn't in fact that

The point was to show the cruelty of the moment,making others feeling worried about the situation and most importantly,building up Yamamoto's rage. Now does this,the actual point,suck? I can't say that for sure but I don't see why not

Was the moment still well executed? Yes,in my honest opinion at least. Then we go for the sadness of Yamamoto losing and knowing he failed

Unfortunately,that moment wasn't good at all because his death and aftermath weren't well executed. And Yamamoto,an actual important side character,didn't recive the right amount of screentime (and so,characterization) for people to care a lot about him as a character (there are people who did feel sad,which is totally fine and not unusual,but still). I honestly felt despaire for the moment and sadness for those who were sad for his departure

But at least,it makes sense being mad about him and the criticism about his moment are totally valid. But what about Chojiro?

A criticism isn't unvalid completely,but if I have to be honest,this one really has less value than others. Since it is missing an entire point

This situation is practically the exact side of a coin,where in the other side there is your rant. You mentioned people being mad at a character's death and how fans act surprised despite the point being exactly "this death was supposed to make you feel mad"

While for Chojiro,his death was never supposed to make you feel sad or mad. Yes,we know no one would have felt bad about him at all,so it makes sense you felt nothing. But the whole point not only wasn't that,but it was missed completely (by the guy I talked with)

Especially since,as I said,it can be a critique,but it's like saying "the Sun is way too hot" as a critique. It really has no right to be a great critique because it doesn't have that much importance or value. Literally there are so many good points you can brought up as Bleach flaws,but this one feels more like an excuse to bring more just because

Plus,as much as we are concerned,we don't even know if the author,Kubo,still tried to make us feel sorry or not (maybe he tried,since he recived a backstory,sad it was very short,maybe something more like JJK S2 hidden inventory arc would have actually helped,showing us more about some characters origins or/and pasts)

Again,the whole point is not even feeling nothing about his death,but it's other things completely. If you miss the point,then it's valid to say "sorry,you didn't get the point"

That being said, I still feel like Kubo did a great mistake with Chojiro as a character. Especially since he was supposed to be important as Yamamoto right hand and the head of the liutenants

I haven't even read JJK and I already know this rant is about it

I also hate this. I have to read a lot of literature for my degree and I find the absolute worst characters. They're so bad that I end up not enjoying the book. When I voice this, I always get the "bUt tHe aUtHoR mEaNt fOr tHaT." I don't care about author's purpose. They must not want to see books.

Whenever I see rants like these, I’m reminded that most people consume art as a product and it makes me very sad.

Sometimes, you aren’t the person the work is trying to speak to. Sometimes, that work isn’t what you are trying to speak to. And that’s okay both ways. It doesn’t make someone necessarily a bad reader, and it doesn’t necessarily make the work bad, either.

Art is communication like that. The creator communicates to a medium to make something and then that something will go on to communicate with as many people as it can. But we live in a time where everyone is hyper connected and the possible things to communicate with are overwhelming. With so many things vying for attention, it’s almost a task to not treat engagement as an investment—like your time and energy has bought you the right to a sense of ownership. It’s so entrenched in the way we engage with art, it’s a part of the common vernacular. And when you feel you own something, it’s hard to not get frustrated when it doesn’t give you what you want.

I don’t think readers own the stories they read, but I don’t think the authors own the stories they write either—not in the artistic sense, anyway. I think people own their own relationships with the art they engage with, either as a creator or consumer. And since it’s a relationship it’s important to ask not just how something makes you feel, but also why. This applies to things that you enjoy and things you don’t enjoy. It’ll give you the perspective to understand why some people like something you don’t like or dislike something you do like.

I mainly bring this up because people get caught up in whether something is “objectively” good or bad, which is usually just inviting toxicity where it’s completely unnecessary.

I can see it in your rant, too. You think you have an objective understanding of writing—what’s “good” is what’s pleasurable.

You like characters with likeable protagonists because you like reading stories about people you could see yourself being friend with. Your empathy is more pliable when you find a character magnetic, and because of that you have a preference for it since it’s easier to reach that level of engagement. That’s fine.

You like to read stories where every character reaches a satisfying end. The heroes regularly triumph over the villains. That’s fine.

You like stories where a lot of time is given to show off characters bonding to build the relationships because you value that experience of gradual understanding that can only happen over the course of a story. You need that time to feel engaged. That’s fine.

But not everyone needs all those things to enjoy a story. Not everyone who writes engages with that kind of writing. You’re not wrong for disliking it. They aren’t wrong for liking it. You’re both talking to the wall between you rather than each other. But I’ll admit, I’ll hear out the people who enjoy something before I hear the people who dislike something. I think it’s better to err on the side of appreciation whenever talking about something that someone else made because art is what happens when someone breaks off a piece of themselves and tosses it out into the void. That doesn’t always mean they break off the piece they way they expected to or that they break off the piece they meant to break off. I just don’t like approaching part of someone they willingly shared and talking down to it. It’s why I level with it. Engage with it on its own terms. Give a little something of myself when I have something less than kind to say.

Plus Something being "The Point" doesn't always make sense or change the fact that "The Point" Fucking Sucks or is Bad.

Pretty much sums up the arguments I've had amongst more controversial stories and media. Examples being The Last Jedi, The Last of Us Part 2, Attack On Titan etc.

The people who defend those stories usually resort to "you missed the point" or "you didn't understand it" as a refutal for why I think those stories are shit.

And my refutal to their refutal is "I get the fucking point, but the point fucking sucks, is poorly executed, or just isn't convincing."

I know The Last of Us Part 2 wants me to like Abby, wants me to NOT want for Ellie to kill Abby, wants me to think that what Joel did at the end of the previous game was horrendous shit, the problem is the game simply didn't convince me to think that way of those characters and those story beats.

Same with AoT: Eren's corruption post-timeskip, the team-up between the Survey Corps and Marley's Warriors, how the Rumbling is ultimately stopped and the curse removed, or with TLJ: Luke's failure, Luke's death, Snoke's death or pretty much every other development in that film.

I UNDERSTAND what those stories were going for, I just think that what they were going for was shit, and the poor execution only further convinced me that it was shit, whereas a good execution could've changed my mind.

Not all stories exist to entertain, I person subscribe to the narrative art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/s/ilTvNcP8PH

I did a post on a thing concerning unlikable character on purpose vs unlikable unintentionally made and while the latter ruins things

Give it a watch might form a link to your post OP

I hear this a lot from Persona 3 fans, and it's a really insufferable argument. Cool, half the social links in the game suck but it was totally intentional, which makes it better than P5 and P4 (they have characters I actually want to spend time with)

This also happens with certain Shonen fans (a story about cleaning detergent and sorcerers fighting, for example). Every flaw of the series is treated as though it was intentionally written to make the readers feel a certain way. Therefore, it is good.

I'm a huge fan of the Nasuverse, and I think Nasu had a huge overreliance on sexual violence in his stories (Especially Tsukihime), even as someone not particularly sensitive to the subject matter it got bad enough to the degree that I got brought out of the story and got pissed at the author. I was talking about it with my friend, and he made a point that 'it shows how dark the world is.' Yes, that's the problem.

I know people will hate this sentiment. But, I've been saying this about Tarintino forever. "The movies are SUPPOSED to be bad!" Cool, well uhh.. mission accomplished I guess?

Except there are people who will legitimately think that annoying characters are by default badly written, that’s the issue.

Wake up babe new JJK character rant

Me and my friend when I first got him into South Park and he'd groan audibly "I hate him! He's the worst!" whenever CARTMAN was on screen I'm like chill 😭

To further extend this point, this is where I know I get weird looks from people for essentially not continuing a show or anime because I know it’s not for me. Even though I understand the story the author is trying to tell, certain things are just too cruel or too weird or too sad for me to be invested in. I don’t blame the story for it, because it’s obvious the creator is telling a different one from what I would want to see, but it is frustrating when people get weird at you for saying you dropped a show because of how it treats its characters.

Art should be allowed to express all sorts of complex human emotions and such. Even the negative and tragic. Some of the greatest, most moving, and touching versions of art originate from terrible and horrible circumstances.

But fundamentally, when I sit down to watch something, or read something, or experience something, I can be awed by its creative and artistic vision but I’m watching it to be entertained. And if I can’t be entertained because the themes of a show focus too much on human suffering or too much on the futility of life, then it’s not a piece of media I’m interested in. Because I already get enough of that in the real world.

To give some examples of things I can’t watch.

I can’t watch Berserk, it looks fucking amazing, but the general despair and atrocities that just casually happen is too much for me. I can’t watch Invincible, because the gore and wanted disrespect for human life, or any life really, is just excessively cruel and nauseating for me. I can’t watch The Boys for the very same reason. Re:Zero just pissed me off with how much of a dumbass the main character is. And The Watchman just depresses me.

I’ve learned over time that these pieces of art, and these pieces of media aren’t for me. So, I don’t bother to judge the things that I know most definitely aren’t for me.

I don’t like Invincible and The Boys because as I get older, I value the symbolic nature of Hero’s and what they are supposed to represent over the deconstruction of hero’s. That’s why I can’t get into any of these Deconstruction of hero’s type shows. It doesn’t mean they are bad. They clearly have a message to tell. But it’s not for me, and when I tell that too people they look at me like I’m crazy for not being entertained by something that clearly makes me uncomfortable.

Edit: Also, add JJK to the list. Just have not liked the show from a fundamental level based on what I’ve seen. Even if I do think it’s cool.

Is like when I say "Shigaraki is a shit villain and a waste of panel time" then his stands are like "he supposed to suck as villain you don't get the story themes!" how annoying these people are

"you don't get it, it sucks on purpose" do you hear yourself

OP, in your opinion unlikeable = badly written? When Denethor, the Steward of Gondor, behaves like a complete douche in Lord of the Rings is he badly written? When Shinji from Fate: Stay Night behaves atrociously is it also bad writing, are we not supposed to hate him just like Emiya does? Is Judas not supposed to be an unlikeable scoundrel who sells out his closest friend, Jesus, for thirty pieces of silver? Is this also bad writing?

I agree on the points that things have to be written well and not just for shock value, but seeing you list unlikeable characters among the sins of fiction is so, so bizarre to me. It's better when characters make you feel different things, as this speaks to the diversity of emotion that the author can invoke. Of course, works of fiction that invoke only the positive emotions exist, aka the "feel good" works, but negative emotions are just as important to a narrative, if that narrative aims to achieve any level of complexity whatsoever.

Is this about JJK

I know a JJK rant when I see one

tbh, sometimes people can thnk a character is unlikable even if it's not the case, and it's not the fault of the writting necesseraly,, I noticed this tend to happen with flawed good guy a bunch with some acting like they're as bad as the bad guy even if the media make it clear it's not the case. People are also able to view a situation way worst than it really is (per example, the doom headcanon for after the ducktales finale when huey had a verry speciic line where he told scrooge he doesn't have to worry about him and the other or some acting like he's only overprotective of webby when the scene has him carrying more than 1 lifejacket showing he wasn't going to be just for webby or the idea that he doesn't care about may and june, him not being with them at that verry specific moment doesn't mean he doesn't care about them).

I have to agree, like the best example for this is Haruhi Suzumiya's Endless Eight arc. I don't care if it's the intended artistic vision, I hate it. I will, however, add that when it comes to unlikeable characters, it can be a boon to their likeability in a roundabout way. I have on occasion used the phrase "God, this character fucking sucks, I love him".

The worst version of this meanwhile is when a character is unlikeable, and meant to be unlikeable, but the reasons for both are completely separate. A good example is RWBY's Cinder Fall, who is meant to be unlikeable because she's a power-hungry homicidal maniac... but who is unlikeable because she's just annoying, and never really develops beyond a cartoon villain despite how much better it would make her as a character. Ironically, in the much less serious chibi spinoff she goes full ham as a cartoon supervillain, wih evil laughs and evil poses and yelling about dastardly schemes, and she's my favourite character there.

I get your point completely but I also get the other point. Because a lot of people believe because a something in a media is bad because they feel a certain way about it, but of the author intended it for people to feel that way, then its not really an issue… like I can criticize an author writing an unsatisfactory ending if they were going for one, but if they didn’t want it, who am I to criticize it? I will still complain because I hate endings that leave me unsatisfied but I won’t be criticizing the media because whats the point?

i think it depends

as an example there’s a moment about halfway through the xenoblade chronicles 3 video game where the party is infiltrating into a prison to break someone out, and they have to temporarily act as actual inmates, and for maybe about 30-60 minutes, the game has you doing basically the equivalent of menial prison labor: go out and grab some berries in the yard for dinner, hey a couple monsters are in this area kill them real quick, etc

a lot of people cite this as a really low moment in the game, calling it “padding” “boring” “mandatory busywork”, whatever you can think of. but like, yes, that is the point, that section is an obvious commentary on how parts of the prison system function and affect the inmates and the game at large is a commentary on people in power manipulating, using, and not caring about others. being bored during that segment IS the point, your party is bored too! when a writer can instill in the reader/viewer/player the exact same emotions that the characters in-universe are feeling, that is a success of the writing and should not be seen as a negative.

griffith from berserk is an absolutely vile person, one that couldn’t and shouldn’t ever be forgiven. a literal demon, violated one of his most trusted comrades in front of his own best friend who was the lover of the girl, sacrificed the comrades he spent years and years with as if they were nothing AFTER they rescued him, and then built a literal empire on their figurative corpses, /BUT/, he’s a fucking fascinating and masterfully written, and miura’s ability to write that intrigue and sort of depth into such an abhorrent person is something to be admired

writers and artists in general do not “owe” anybody “entertainment”

as an example of something that didn’t do this well, let’s use the last of us 2, i think the messages the game wants to convey make sense, but they are not delivered in a way that, imo, is as effective as it could be, and i think a large portion of that could have been remedied with some small changes. for example i don’t like how the structure of the game is basically ALL of ellie’s journey, THEN all of abby’s, then the final part. i think presenting them in parallel would’ve amplified the messaging much more (i.e. you do day 1 ellie, then day 1 abby, etc). ellie’s descent further into the depths of revenge, pushing away those closest to her directly contrasted in almost real time with abby’s journey thats basically a big rescue mission, caring for and bonding with others after her own revenge, namely lev.

I find that the frustration tends to either come from

A- disliking a character because of technical execution rather than thematic intent and the author not wanting to separate the two

Or

B- the reader being the type of person being criticised by the "unlikable" elements of the story trying to claim the existence of the theme in the story is in and of itself technically bad.

Or

C- the author thought they were doing something cool and in reality completely missed the point and people are pointing out that the character is more or less unlikable for the wrong reasons. (Think "story tries to portray the scary and alienating existence of being mentally unwell, ends up playing into the stereotype that mental health is monsterous/ dangerous/ abusive" but the author doesn't understand that's the issue, not the "likability" of the mentally unwell character ")

Like if a story is about how femme trauma and anger is only accepted by society if that anger is sexualized/ fetishized- being upset at a male lead who is a chauvinistic pig or a female lead who is manipulative and materialistic? You can say those characters are assholes sure- but that doesn't make it a bad movie. If those characters are being portrayed like middle school anti bullying PSAs? That's bad writing.

Some of my favorite characters are glorious assholes, I would never want to be friends with them- and frankly ime, you have to be a better than average writer to sell me on someone I should hate. Same goes for when the point of a movie is one I generally disagree with- think the vaguely manifest destiny vibes a lot of stories about adventure and space exploration have- If I'm already in a critical mindset towards a character/theme my mind is going to be alert to faults in the writing in general.

Buuuuuut to be frank a lot of people are not Uber nerds for literary/ storytelling analysis and don't really have the toolset for distinguishing what they don't like about a story from what is good/ bad about a story.

This reminds me of the Torchwood episode "Countricide", where the ending is supposed to be very unsatisfactory, because that ties into an ongoing character arc and a storyline that runs through the season. And I get that, I respect that, I understand what the goal here is, and I think they accomplished it.

But in succeeding in creating an unsatisfactory ending to the episode, I have an ending that I find unsatisfactory. As such, I don't like it, because I feel unsatisfied.

TBF look at Van Gogh. Lived his whole life getting shit on til he died and now hes hailed as one of the masterclass artists

Unrelated to the post but, JJK?

I just wrote a rant about something similar, and this basically sums up every single issue I have in the rant with the media I was talking about so perfectly lmao.

I fucking love reading revenge themed stories but they are littered with this bullshit/hack writing, "Erm you're supposed to feel bad!!" yeah, no, when I'm reading something about revenge I want to see some god damn revenge man!! They always cop out with some stupid moral shit "Erm revenge will leave you unfulfilled!!" or "Sometimes revenge is bad and u die" like oookay please quit writing garbage

Nope, I entirely disagree because I spent too many years seeing bad takes from people hating on Evangelion exactly because they wanted a generic mecha anime and instead got a deep story about the human experience and how you should live your life in the real world instead of removing yourself from society and living in a fantasy world just because you are afraid of being hurt.

Yeah, I agree. Some writers are absolutely full of themselves and then wonder why nobody likes their stuff.

why does no one on this sub ever want to give examples it's ridiculous

I won't be surprised when people "feel" that way.

But it's a totally different thing to treat feeling those things as a bad thing or the "fault" of the story.

---

There's also a difference between those type of reactions being intended plus actually servicing the story and those type of reactions being intended but making the story worse.

At this point it's a lot more subjective and depending on the audience's interpretation and what some people personally want.

I loath the argument of 'this thing was supposed to make you feel frustrated!'

Like... I did not come here to be frustrated by my escapism media. I came here to forget about my frustrations in my actual life, to have fun, and enjoy a thing. Not that I can't be frustrated with a thing, but somebody telling me that it was supposed to frustrate me is infuriating.

Again,Something being "The Point" doesn't change if the Point fucking sucks.

I don't think the point sucks, so...

This sounds like a vaguely different complaint because if the intended purpose was to make the audience happy a character is dead or meant to be unlikable the reaction would be…happiness. If a lot of people frustrated at an outcome means the author didn’t correctly portray their intent.

Bad media literacy strikes again