Analysis, Brony Analysis, and Criticism · 3:07am Jan 8th, 2015
In my time in the fandom I’ve noticed several sub groups form around certain concepts or around certain things. There’s the fanfiction community on FimFic where we are now. There is the art community, the music community, the PMV community, and the analysis community.
The analysis/reviewer community was something of a strange thing for me when I became aware of it. Making videos that go in depth to discuss the show and why they enjoyed it was fascinating. It was all new back then. I was still trying to puzzle out just what got me caught up in it myself. However, things change. Tastes change. A lot of people started grow sour toward the analysis community and the things they were saying. Arguments ensued and it’s here that things started to bother me a little.
A common statement was that the over-thinking and over-analyzing (separates the body from the mind) was “ruining the show” for some viewers, and they no longer enjoyed it. Analysts and reviewers didn’t take too kindly to a statement such as that, and naturally called it out as foolish.
> Those who make that claim are simply scapegoating the Analysis Community for their own reasons. And honestly, if it’s ruining the show, then they never liked the show anyway.
Now, I can certainly understand the scapegoating part. I more or less agree with that. Likewise I would never allow something as trivial as a few reviewers I’ve grown sour on to ruin a show that I liked. The thing that makes me pause a moment is the last part. It seems a bit much to me, and it smacks of a bigger issue I see a lot with some critics and reviewers.
How dare they dislike or discredit a critic! How dare they find faults with criticisms put forth! How dare they perhaps have a differing opinion!
I’ve seen similar attitudes put forth by some reviewers in the community. How they react to their own criticisms being criticized and put under scrutiny can be odd, and sometimes embarrassing. It’s as if they hold their duty as legitimately sacred, and any who fight them or their opinions don’t know what they’re doing. This is usually because they work under the belief that criticism is there to improve a work. The whole, “I’m so hard on it because I love it, and because I care.” I think that’s fair, but it’s not bulletproof.
I’ve mused about this for a while, and that’s mostly what this blog post is. Just simple musings. I’m not trying to make a statement or sway anyone one way or another.
Some of the brony reviewers think what they’re doing has real tangible benefits. That they’re helping the show. But are they really? Just what is the point of it all?
I tend to break down the people who receive criticism (in media for this case) into two groups.
1) Creators
2) Consumers
For creators, criticism is an invaluable asset. There is no question. Without it, you’re flying blind. Things improve when ideas are thrown around and put through their paces. Ultimately at the end of it all, the end product should be better off. Creators can look over their criticisms after one project and apply what they learned to the next one. For this circumstance it’s pretty cut and dry. For the next, it gets a bit more complicated.
For consumers, it’s all about them being informed. Consumers consume, they spend their income on the media they enjoy. Movie critics and game critics are there to educate and advise their audience on where to spend their hard earned money. Games aren’t cheap nowadays, especially if you’re not shopping during a sale. Movies are cheaper, but still it would be nice to know a dud before you spend two hours in a theater, right? Reviewers are a great resource to seek out info on a piece of media before it’s purchase.
The question is, where does the brony analysis/reviewer community fall into? Let’s examine the justifications for what they do, and what critics can do as described above.
> The creators need criticism since it will help them do better in the future.
The claim that this is for the show staff - mainly the writers - is one I hear often. Only, there’s a bit of a problem. The way the staff operates is not really conducive to receiving criticism and acting on it quickly. If a season of FiM is currently airing and an episode is seen as bad, it gets panned. The reviewers state their criticisms and hope that the writers will do better next time. The problem is, the scripts for the next season have likely already been locked. Season 4 was locked in around the time Season 3 began to air. By the time the writers see this criticism, the earliest it will be applied to their work will be the season after next, if there even is one.
Second, this assumes the writers even watch the reviews. Many claim they should, that any self respecting writer should watch their work be put through it’s paces to become better. This is true to a point, but some would argue the brony demographic is not the place to look for such criticism. That it would be unhelpful, and that the writers ultimately serve a different, more important master than bronies. As time goes on, I find myself understanding this line of thought more and more.
> It’s for the consumers, the bronies. It’s for them to watch.
If bronies watch these reviews because they enjoy the reviewer, then that’s all well and good. Each one has a different spin on how they do things. However, bronies aren't consumers in the same way gamers and moviegoers are. Most of them aren't buying anything when it comes to the show itself. The vast majority do their viewing online, and those that actually do own the Discovery Family Network aren't just paying for pony, they’re paying for the whole channel.
That said, bronies are just that... bronies. They are fans of the show. I’d argue it’s a foregone conclusion whether they are going to watch the show or not. Most are going to do it, at the very least once. When they do, they’ll be able to formulate their own opinion.
> It’s for fun, and for us as reviewers. We like to share ideas, and our viewers like to take in different opinions on each episode.
Fair enough. Just understand that some people won’t feel the same. When they voice their dislike of the content, don’t patronize or insult them by insisting that to properly enjoy the show, one must over analyze it to the nth degree. Some people watch the show to see cute ponies doing cute things, that is just as valid.
This upcoming season I don’t think I’ll be watching any reviews or critics. I’m just not enjoying it anymore. It’s run it’s course. For those who do, I’m glad you can enjoy it. Just realize that perhaps it’s not so noble or sacred. That maybe... it’s just a kids show we all enjoy.
Ohh...
Interesting blog. And fine points. Can't say I ever really spent a lot of time thinking about Analysis videos. I stopped watching them a long time ago. I might pick it up again in Season 5. If just because it's sometimes nice to hear other people's thoughts on what I recently watched. But really, I just got tired of these guys spinning sprawling, elaborate and silly headcanons over time. The fact that they would sit there lambasting episodes which were legitimately entertaining just made them look like total grumps too, which isn't very fun.
But it's quite true, isn't it? As 'feedback' it's pretty useless. The scripts for Season 5 are already in, and in production. They won't be changed. They might already be working on the scripts for Season 6. All of these things often happen years in advance. The timeframes involved in making a cartoon are pretty startling.
And chances are more glaring faults will be pointed out pretty instantly all across the fandom, and the writer won't find it in one random shmuck's YouTube video. I mean, I'm sure Merriweather Williams knows exactly why so many people dislike The Mysterious Mare Do Well. And I doubt they learned that in an analysis video.
But... yeah. Analysis isn't going to make or break if I watch the show at all. I can accept that FiM isn't perfect. I can also accept that it's pretty awesome. And at the end of the day, if I enjoy an episode is really more important to me than the its obscure implications in someone's eyes, or what might have been.
2708694
What might have been is a huge issue that many reviewers need to work on. If they want to hold the mantle of critics, they had better do their job and critique what's there.
I mean, there are things in the show that I think might send an inappropriate message. But honestly, my attitude isn't so much accusatory so much as cautionary.
For instance. How "in-depth" should an analysis be to grab one interpretation and seriously use it to accuse a kid-oriented fiction of "controversies," with no regard to the plausibility of this interpretation in the established setting, characters and author's intent?
How "deep" a discussion of My Little Pony must be to require talking its protagonist as a murderer, for instance? (Twi in Too Many Pinkie Pies) It looks more like tabloid-style scandalous scoop scanning than like literary analysis to me. Some people do simply make fun of such analysis (like a post I once saw describing in detail what multiple disorders all of Mane Six display), that's fine. But when people start taking all this stuff seriously... I mean c'mon. Just c'mon.
Funny thing about that, too. Last I checked, people weren't too happy with the results of an infamous interpretation that The Last Roundup was making fun of mentally challenged people. That's what can happen when you over- analyze something. It's really not a good thing.
The delivery of it can be hard to stomach as well. It can often come across as "under-analyzing", funny as it sounds. Since the analyst stops at one interpretation and proceeds to pitch it against the work, accusing the author of carelessness, mishandling of the material or even incompetence. Further analysis and assessment of how this works in the general canon be damned, these people already know better. It's the hubris, and it can work against them. They end up sounding less like someone with reasoned criticisms and more like an angry fan with an ax to grind.
It just get's to be too much. "Rainbow Dash seals the deal tying her friend to a remote service contract and Twilight claims she can't just nullify it? Sonneborn just made slavery legal in the land of little ponies!" I don't think I can cringe any harder.
"Derpygate" is not only the same - it was one of the first cases of this I encountered back when I was still learning about this fandom. It's not about whether a kids' show can or can't have deep subtexts for exploration. It's about whether a kids' show - verified and approved by more people than these "analysts" can even imagine working on an animated production - can just go and dump controversial or offensive stuff on an audience as delicate as kids, especially the younger ones. And as many episode discussions/reviews show, establishing "can and does!" is often done in what seems like 10 seconds flat. Is it an analysis? Or is it a flaw-finding speed contest?