Sometimes good critiques can be mean, and that can actually be a good thing in certain contexts. In looking at that text, you can see how much a couple key people not being up to the task can make such a giant endeavor into a bad show. I wasn’t planning to watch RWBY before I saw it, and I’m definitely not going to watch it now, but I’ve watched the critique three times since it came out because it’s such a well-composed and interesting analysis. A great example of that last case is hbomberguy’s massive “ RWBY Is Disappointing, And Here’s Why” video.
![struggle session hbomberguy struggle session hbomberguy](https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/3eec2ff8-5529-4adc-86d1-450722c27319_900x900.png)
I’ve seen some really compelling analyses of texts that I had no interest in consuming either before or after taking in the critique, but I’m entirely happy I went along for the ride. Sometimes the analysis itself becomes the object of interest. But I only went to see it because I read a review that made it sound like more interesting then the initial summary made it our to be.Īnalysis can also help to deepen your appreciation of something you already like by showing you new dimensions, or it can show you new perspectives that make you reevaluate something you’d written off as either bad or average. Is Pig a film that showcases a dimension of Nicolas Cage’s acting that I didn’t know existed, and was it just this strange, and quietly beautiful film that was among the best releases on 2021? Yeah, yeah it was. The immediately obvious one is to help people figure out if a particular piece of media is worth their time and/or money. That isn’t to say that you can only critique media when you’re asked to or there is a clear path to improving the original text. So, the purpose of critique is pretty clear here you’re trying to improve someone’s writing, and they’re coming to you specifically for that service. What’s consistent in these examples is that everyone, at least implicitly, agreed to be there. In that context, you usually read other people’s work, they read yours, and then you spend a bunch of time talking about what things worked or didn’t work in each other’s pieces and try to suss out why that is. It’s been a long time since I was in a creative writing class (creative writing has always been more of a thing I do on my own time, whereas my academic writing was essay, not narrative, focused), but that’s one more venue where I was used to this sort of critique. Before that, I worked as a tutor in my university’s writing center when I was in undergrad, and that role involved talking people through the problems with their writing so that they could learn and improve. Yes, it sucks to hear that you did something bad, but having someone explain why it was bad is a useful tool in helping you improve. Now, the goal of this process is to make students into better writers. I’ve written countless comments on student papers over the years, and some of that involved pointing out things people did poorly and explaining why they’re not working (ideally, you also try to highlight the parts that are good so that the writer knows what is working). There are a lot of reasons to analyze texts, and different goals tend to structure how you approach that process. That sentiment is sort of fiddly to explain, so bear with me here because we’re going to need some contextualization.
#Struggle session hbomberguy how to
While I’m very comfortable performing such an analysis, I’m not actually sure how to do it in a useful way here. This is a little odd, insofar as that sort of close reading, analysis, and critique of texts was essentially what I did professionally before I left academia. But what I haven’t done is look at any individual piece of lore and given a critical reading of it as text.
![struggle session hbomberguy struggle session hbomberguy](https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_264,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:best,fl_progressive:steep/https:%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0c85be5d-be0d-4a4e-97aa-b576012064fe_988x988.png)
And elsewhere in this Mega Update, I critique how FAB uses certain tropes and stumbles on characterization. That may sound weird because I’ve written pieces before critiquing things like how FAB underutilizes the actual cards to develop their characters and storylines. But, I’ve been struggling to figure out a productive way to do it.
![struggle session hbomberguy struggle session hbomberguy](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/little-girls-rifle-practice-featured.jpg)
So, for a while now, I’ve been trying to figure out how to write a piece that does a close reading of the FAB lore focused on the technical elements (like the prose itself as opposed to the broader narrative themes and plot details).