Fame and Misfortune has a bad moral.

[Will Guide 21,360]

20 minutes ago, Dark Qiviut said:

The journal contains lessons primarily from season 4, Return of Harmony's the lone exception. No other lesson from the other seasons was recorded into it.

1. For shows like this one, continuity operates primarily as a tool to tell their stories while not getting newcomers lost. With over 140 episodes to begin season 7, this goal becomes more important. F&M relies on continuity for the audience to fully understand it. If the audience doesn't understand it, the story makes lesser sense than it already does.
2. The continuity F&M relied on was broken front and back. Daring Do's secret identity and adventures are outed. The background ponies, which have grown a massive fanbase over the years, suddenly act like OOC assholes just for the sake of it (and it's one of Larson's biggest problems with F&M). The RM6's growing popularity (and vice-versa) comes as a result of publishing their journal, when they're already national AND international celebrities. The whole premise contradicts continuity, because there's no care for backstory, lore, or characterization just to teach a broken meta-centric lesson to the periphery demographic.

Because the straw critics claim they haven't grown and don't even exist, and the episode did a very lazy attempt to prove them wrong.

Then again, the RM6 are arguing and abused by walking fallacies, so maybe you'd have to retool the whole piece of the plot to not make it a bigger fustercluck than it already is. After all, the setting is Ponyville, not Ponutville.

I have big problems with the story, too. But I long covered that point and don't need to go so over it.

---

@Barique

1. The context absolutely matters. Why? Because it determines the execution of the moral and whether unfortunate implications are attached to it or not. The story leading up to the moral was really bungled, thanks in part to the antagonists being written as abusive, quarter-dimensional straw characters, artificially serious tone, and the journal's treatment as a piece of fiction instead of nonfiction.
   
   Secondly, the "we're flawed" argument doesn't accurately apply to what the Canterlot reporter said. He was critical of the journal, because details explained from Twilight's entries make little sense.
   
   On top of that, the straw characters view the RM6 as completely fictional characters…even though in story, the RM6 are very real and standing before them. The allegory completely falls apart, because neither side's on equal ground. The abusers are painted with such an enormous stupid stick that the fandom allegories collapse on top of themselves.
     That's not a moral in the episode, nor was it even implied.
    

2. They absolutely imply it.
   
   a. The RM4 mock Spike because he did and wore something "feminine" and treat the concept of dragons with such a xenophobic tone…yet the episode sides with them.
   
   b. "Boyish" activities are attached to sexist stereotypes of dragons, thus painting their activities (and variations of it) as a bad thing.
   
   By painting one activity and folks of a specific gender in the wrong, you're encouraging sexism, even if it's not your intent.

3. When the lyrics have crap like this: …You're not saying that you like them for being them, but that the flaws are to be celebrated for bringing the "real-life" group together and shouldn't be improved upon. Many of their flaws caused massive conflict between each other or others, sometimes to the point of really heated. For example, Rarity in RTM almost fell out with her friends after her massive breakdown. Twilight's newfound patience in Zeppelin finally wore off to where she lashed out at her family and feigned apology to Star Tracker for stepping on his hoof. Their actions were understandable for different reasons, yet NOT written in the right. Neither Rarity nor Twilight excused their behavior and actively worked to improve. A character flaw isn't justification for bad behavior.
   
   Secondly, liking them for being them makes much more sense when dealing with with their quirks, interests, and strengths. In short, liking them in spite of their flaws and seeing their positives trump the negatives. The Little Red-Haired Girl from The Peanuts Movie liked Charlie Brown for his honesty, dedication, bravery, sticking up for his little sister, and sweet personality. Had she said she liked him because of his bad luck and failures, you'll really insult the audience.
   
   If the RM6 explain they like and admire each other for their ability to overcome a lifelong phobia (FS), standing up to do the right thing at a cost of something dear to them (RD), dedication to keep them happy (PP), triumphing against personal demons (SG), pursuing a higher standard of learning to help spread the magic of friendship abroad (TS), spending quality time to help others at the cost of her own (Rarity), and sticking up to friends despite not seeing them for years (AJ), that would work much better. Why? Because you're highlighting strengths from the RM7 and explaining personality flaws that some of them not only realize, but also successfully overcame or in the middle of doing so. You're turning what they learned into something positive and constructive for everyone.
   
   The RM6 don't do that. They not only acknowledge their flaws very passively; but also act happy about them. The only time Flawless acknowledges self improvement — It took me a while to be confident; To really come out of my shell — was quick, expository, and too vague to take beyond face value. They don't back up their claim.
   
   To echo @Scootaloved (who calls out the false debate much better than I), this episode intentionally blurs the line between fiction and reality to attack the critics. The audience loving fictional characters for their flaws is fine, because flaws are important to make them three-dimensional. But this show's primary goal is to teach real-life lessons of friendship to kids, and we're supposed to take what they say seriously. F&M applies a false equivalence to teach the bold-faced lie that real-life flaws are universally okay. It's not.
    

4. a. To repeat, FIM episodes traditionally operate under a self-contained format so newcomers don't get lost when watching it for the first time. Continuity's a tool to create stories, despite the timeling being continuous.
   
   b. You're talking to a veteran brony who understands this series quite well. I know what I'm talking about.

5. I am denying, and I'll keep denying, because it doesn't show the message well at all. The "story" is lazy, confused, and broken. Nothing makes sense. An autobiographical journal's treated as a piece of fiction to tell the audience there's a right and wrong way to view the show; fiction never works that way. The "Death of the Author" theory exists for a reason. But usage of its vessel falls apart on a fundamental level, because the journal is nonfiction, yet the straw critics view it as fiction. Continuity's blatantly disregarded.
   
   That lazy storytelling and horrendous editing bled across other parts of the story. The main moral to conclude F&M's a complete pile of shit, because it's executed so poorly. The RM6 write the "critics" off as harmless, when their lives are still ruined thanks to the abuse they suffered all day. The target demographic is talked down to and considered expendable through two token characters getting the "right interpretation," when kids were also treated with the same level of contempt with adults five minutes before. The moral spoken during Flawless is fundamentally backwards and works neither on its own nor in conjunction with the story.

I don't say this word anywhere nearly so often anymore, but here, it applies: F&M is objectively awful. The morals are among the worst of the series. Neither deserve the support they get.

Those are your opinions and you really shouldn't FORCE your opinions onto others. Different people can take different meanings from the same piece of art.

Watch this video:

"Don't force your opinion, share it." That line best sums up my point.

Heck if you watch the ending part of his Ghostbusters 2016 review, featuring 2 opposing Extremist fanbases on the movie, he brings up the most important thing (I recommend playing from 18:17 if you just want to get to more important stuff of the video that I've taken great notice in seeing the similarities to the situation)

I don't expect you to agree with me. I'm just leaving this POV review for anyone interested.

[Nyactis Mewcis Catlum 672]

3 minutes ago, WiiGuy2014 said:

Those are your opinions and you really shouldn't FORCE your opinions onto others. Different people can take different meanings from the same piece of art.

I don't recall anywhere in DQ's post him suggesting that you shouldn't like the episode. He is explaining the unfortunate implications that can be gleaned from it, and why he thinks it doesn't deserve the good rep that it gets; that's not the same as saying that you shouldn't like it, as liking something is an entirely subjective experience.

He's not forcing his opinion on other people by discussing it on a forum literally purposed for the sake of discussing the show.

If anything, I think DQ would love to like this episode, as do most of us when we watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. We would adore to enjoy every episode that they put out, because it's not fun to watch an episode and then come out of it feeling dissatisfied. But that's how this episode made him, and me, feel after we watched it. We were dissatisfied and disappointed by it.

We're only so harsh on this episode because we want and expect better from MLP. We're not doing this because we "hate" the show or we're not fans of it, we're doing it because we are fans of it and we want it to improve and move forward. The episode "Zeppelin" is much more in line of what we expect the show to do when it addresses fans. It has a far more tactful approach to critiquing fan behavior, without outright villainizing them and sounding condescending in the process.

If you think MLP is the only work I look at with this critical eye, then you can guess again. Danny Phantom is another TV show I'm a huge fan of, that I was invested in for two seasons... But the third season really disappointed me and let me down; but it disappointed me and let me down because the first two seasons were just that damn good. The same thing applies here. Fame & Misfortune doesn't disappoint me because I feel like getting down on MLP, it disappoints me because MLP brought me amazing episodes such as Hurricane Fluttershy, Flight to the Finish, and the aforementioned Zeppelin. The writers CAN do better than this. I know they're capable of learning from their flaws, and I'm concerned that their idea of writing an episode based on pushing critics down will stifle MLP's growth as a show, which is a shame because that would prevent it from reaching greater heights than it's already achieved.

[Dark Qiviut 22,396]

28 minutes ago, WiiGuy2014 said:

Different people can take different meanings from the same piece of art.

You reiterated what I pointed out at the bottom of the quote. In canon, the RM6 accuse the abusers of not having the "right" interpretation of the journal or the lessons attached. Out of canon, Fame and Misfortune accuses the critics of not following what it wants them to see out of this show. Just like any piece of fiction, no one sees FIM the same way, and that's completely okay. "Death of the Author" theorizes how the audience will get different experiences than what the creator expects. Art creates a wide array of emotions and reactions. Abstract art, like Pollock's, is known for this. A Flurry of Emotions's B-plot exploits this theory to a T. The show has no right telling the audience what to find more important or get out of it.

14 minutes ago, Scootaloved said:

The episode "Zeppelin" is much more in line of what we expect the show to do when it addresses fans. It has a far more tactful approach to critiquing fan behavior, without outright villainizing them and sounding condescending in the process.

Zeppelin is awesome(!), and it handles F&M much better than F&M itself. One of its biggest strengths is fans have a very real reason to be there, and it treats fans as people rather than stereotypes.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Dark Qiviut

[Will Guide 21,360]

To quote Starlight: They're just focusing on the wrong thing.

Besides, I much prefer looking for the good in an otherwise bad episode. Example: As much as I hated "Hard to Say Anything" at first for unintentionally giving the unfortunate lesson that "Fairy Tales are dumb and anyone who tries to emulate them is a fool", I learned a much better lesson that "sometimes you need to think about the episode and try looking at it in a more positive light to realize that it's the absolute worst thing in the entire world."

@Dark Qiviut

I DO agree that Zeppelin is executed better than F&M, but it's just that I don't like how all the haters act like there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good or worth taking away from the latter. That's always been my thing: As long as the episode or any kind of media I see has given me something, I wouldn't consider it the worst thing ever.

I personally enjoyed F&M for what it is. Surely, you can at least respect my opinion.

[Nyactis Mewcis Catlum 672]

6 minutes ago, WiiGuy2014 said:

To quote Starlight: They're just focusing on the wrong thing.

And that's the part that I disagree with. There's no "wrong" thing to focus on in an episode. If you didn't want it to be talked about, you shouldn't have put it in the episode to begin with.

7 minutes ago, WiiGuy2014 said:

Besides, I much prefer looking for the good in an otherwise bad episode. Example: As much as I hated "Hard to Say Anything" at first for unintentionally giving the unfortunate lesson that "Fairy Tales are dumb and anyone who tries to emulate them is a fool", I learned a much better lesson that "sometimes you need to think about the episode and try looking at it in a more positive light to realize that it's the absolute worst thing in the entire world."

There are a few bad episodes that I like certain aspects of. "The Mysterious Mare Do Well", for example, is an episode that I don't like. I do like, however, that it validates an aspect of Rainbow's character - more specifically, the scene where Rainbow said that she "hates being all alone". It further cemented Rainbow as an extrovert who cares a lot about her self image, which falls in line with her depiction in previous episodes but makes it fully realized and coalesced. Essentially, her character was "complete" thanks to that scene.

It unfortunately made the actions of the rest of the M6 look worse by extension, but it was a really good moment in the episode.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to focus on the positive aspects of an episode, but it doesn't invalidate saying that the bad parts of it outweigh the good.

[Will Guide 21,360]

7 minutes ago, Scootaloved said:

And that's the part that I disagree with. There's no "wrong" thing to focus on in an episode. If you didn't want it to be talked about, you shouldn't have put it in the episode to begin with.

There are a few bad episodes that I like certain aspects of. "The Mysterious Mare Do Well", for example, is an episode that I don't like. I do like, however, that it validates an aspect of Rainbow's character - more specifically, the scene where Rainbow said that she "hates being all alone". It further cemented Rainbow as an extrovert who cares a lot about her self image, which falls in line with her depiction in previous episodes but makes it fully realized and coalesced. Essentially, her character was "complete" thanks to that scene.

It unfortunately made the actions of the rest of the M6 look worse by extension, but it was a really good moment in the episode.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to focus on the positive aspects of an episode, but it doesn't invalidate saying that the bad parts of it outweigh the good.

Sorry, madam but your last paragraph still sounds elitest. It sounds like you're saying a bad episode should be hated by everyone just because the "bad" outnumber the "good". To my eyes, Your post is missing my point. 

*This is getting us nowhere. I'm leaving before you say something that would really push my button*

Edited March 10, 2018 by WiiGuy2014
Gender correction

[Nyactis Mewcis Catlum 672]

6 minutes ago, WiiGuy2014 said:

Sorry, madam but your last paragraph still sounds elitest. It sounds like you're saying a bad episode should be hated by everyone just because the "bad" outnumber the "good". To my eyes, Your post is missing my point. 

If that is how it sounds, then it's not the message I intend to convey. Let me rephrase. I'm saying that it is absolutely your choice to focus on the positive in bad episodes, and it would not be the wrong one; but conversely, it is not the wrong choice for other people to focus on those negatives in your stead.

I don't believe an episode should be hated by everyone. I'm not in charge of other people's feelings, nor do I want to be. I'm just suggesting I have as much a right to my feelings as someone who disagrees with me.

EDIT: To add onto this, if my feelings were that there's a wrong way to feel about this episode, then I would be a hypocrite, as it's the message of "they're just focusing on the wrong thing" that I have contention with.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Scootaloved
had more to add i realized after i posted

[Dark Qiviut 22,396]

22 minutes ago, Scootaloved said:

I know they're capable of learning from their flaws, and I'm concerned that their idea of writing an episode based on pushing critics down will stifle MLP's growth as a show, which is a shame because that would prevent it from reaching greater heights than it's already achieved.

What's so ironic about F&M is it goes out to refute the critics of legit issues within the show at the time those problems existed, this case being Season 4. But after season 4 completed, the criticisms mostly died, because FIM worked to fix some of those stated mistakes.

Criticism by fellow bronies resulted in better writing time to time. Princess Spike was panned for its scapegoating treatment of Spike. The result? Season 6 featured better Spike episodes and consistent characterization. The buttmonkey label doesn't apply to him anymore.

One of this show's biggest strengths is persevering following a so-called "jump-the-shark" episode.

1. Not long after Princess Spike came Amending Fences
2. Hearth's Warming Tail and Saddle Row aired not long after Newbie Dash
3. 28 Pranks Later ripped off Mare Do Well; Times debuted soon after.
4. A few weeks following Fame, FIM began its best run since Green Isn't Your Color to Sisterhooves Social.

So I'm not worried about it not being able to continue growing yet.

[Nyactis Mewcis Catlum 672]

3 minutes ago, Dark Qiviut said:

What's so ironic about F&M is it goes out to refute the critics of legit issues within the show at the time those problems existed, this case being Season 4. But after season 4 completed, the criticisms mostly died, because FIM worked to fix some of those stated mistakes.

Criticism by fellow bronies resulted in better writing time to time. Princess Spike was panned for its scapegoating treatment of Spike. The result? Season 6 featured better Spike episodes and consistent characterization. The buttmonkey label doesn't apply to him anymore.

One of this show's biggest strengths is persevering following a so-called "jump-the-shark" episode.

1. Not long after Princess Spike came Amending Fences
2. Hearth's Warming Tail and Saddle Row aired not long after Newbie Dash
3. 28 Pranks Later ripped off Mare Do Well; Times debuted soon after.
4. A few weeks following Fame, FIM began its best run since Green Isn't Your Color to Sisterhooves Social.

So I'm not worried about it not being able to continue growing yet.

You have a good point!

It's also clear that not all of the writers share the perspective the episode conveys, given that M.A. Larson had reservations about writing it, among other things, and Zeppelin came out afterward, I believe? I didn't keep up with the schedule of the episodes after season 5, so I'm a little behind and haven't watched all of them, correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Scootaloved
fixed a silly grammatical mistake because i will hate myself if i leave it in

[Will Guide 21,360]

41 minutes ago, WiiGuy2014 said:

 

@Dark Qiviut

I DO agree that Zeppelin is executed better than F&M, but it's just that I don't like how all the haters act like there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good or worth taking away from the latter. That's always been my thing: As long as the episode or any kind of media I see has given me something, I wouldn't consider it the worst thing ever.

I personally enjoyed F&M for what it is. Surely, you can at least respect my opinion.

@Dark Qiviut

You never answered my question in the last paragraph. Please at least give me a simple yes or no.

Edited March 10, 2018 by WiiGuy2014

[Dark Qiviut 22,396]

@WiiGuy2014 If you like Fame, I respect that. No worries.  

[Hierok 11,831]

14 hours ago, SummerHaven said:

I thought the moral was to not let’s others opinions of you chance who you are? 

Exactly. Try to be yourself, but also try to listen to others if they are being reasable. 

[ggg-2 3,553]

Fame and Misfortune really is a bad episode, and the fact that it comes directly after Perfect Pear makes it even worse.

[Hierok 11,831]

2 hours ago, ggg-2 said:

Fame and Misfortune really is a bad episode, and the fact that it comes directly after Perfect Pear makes it even worse.

It's not a bad episode at all in my opinion. The story is really well, and has good humour in it.  Of course, you could say something about the writers turn on the fandom, but we shouldn't be offended by that, because it is ment to teach us something.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Hierok, Scoffer of Music

[Azureth 687]

1 minute ago, Hierok, Scoffer of Music said:

It's not a bad episode. The story is really well, and has good humour in it. 

Yes, it is. Did you watch Mr enters review? He explains very well why.

[Hierok 11,831]

Just now, Azureth said:

Yes, it is. Did you watch Mr enters review? He explains very well why.

Who is Mr. Enters? 

[Azureth 687]

Just now, Hierok, Scoffer of Music said:

Who is Mr. Enters? 

The guy who made the video in the opening post.....

[Hierok 11,831]

6 minutes ago, Azureth said:

The guy who made the video in the opening post.....

Well, I think he looks at this totally wrong. It is a fan service episode, like Slice of Life. It is ment to teach us something. I actually like this one better then Slice of Life, because there the lesson is even less then here. The fact nobody changed a thought, is part of the lesson. Some fans and haters make life terrible indeed, but the solution is just to ignore that. And that is exactly what happens here. 

[Jeric 46,851]

This episode didn't happen in a vacuum, or without substantive development proceeding it. Also, there is only one well known analyst in this fandom that actually applies theories of literary criticism to this show, of which there are many non-compatible approaches. Most of the complaints simply apply personal taste, while others feel awfully similar to a child who memorizes some words and definitions for a test. When a large amount of the analysis community and fandom misuses deus ex machina with the confidence and virtue of a sailor on leave, I submit that the elements of this episode were appropriate. 

And, the simple answer is the 'problematic' phrase was basic lyrical stlyling.

 

 

[ChB 18,550]

6 hours ago, Jeric said:

There is only one well known analyst in this fandom that actually applies theories of literary criticism to this show, of which there are many non-compatible approaches.

Who?

[Dark Qiviut 22,396]

10 hours ago, Scootaloved said:

It's also clear that not all of the writers share the perspective the episode conveys, given that M.A. Larson had reservations about writing it, among other things, and Zeppelin came out afterward, I believe?

Mhm, you're correct.

Also, a few episodes following F&M had very reason to plug it in somehow, notably Daring Done? and Marks & Recreation. But no S7 episode directly acknowledges it in any way; Daring's identity remains a secret, and the blank flank backlog — not the journal — resulted in the CMCs' cutie mark day camp. Almost as if DHX retconned the episode and/or shared Larson's feelings for it. The ragged journal's small cameo in Shadow Play, Part 2, is the closest FIM's come to a F&M callback, but since the journal's treated as a joke, it's very vaguely implicated.

[Thrond 3,263]

Alright, I haven't seen the video yet, but I do have a few comments about this episode. 

The song is actually one of the things I liked about it, because most of what I took from it is that you can't expect people to be perfect, and I guess the contrast between these criticisms and where the mane six are at now is supposed to emphasize that. I think the broad idea here is not to get demoralized by criticism, because you can improve and your work is still inspiring people, and I don't see how that's a bad moral. Could it have been delivered more gracefully? Probably; I don't have an English degree, so it's not like I can comment on specific literary theory, but I do think the sheer forcefulness of the message is somewhat one-sided, and I guess certain lyrics of that song can be interpreted uncharitably. But the intended moral seems unobjectionable to me. 

I think part of why reviewers and analysts like myself get so annoyed with this one is that it spends a lot of time trying to refute criticism, which gives off the impression that the show is trying to strike back at its critics. When I reviewed the show, I did it out of love, which is also why I stopped reviewing after I had a bad time with season 7. I kind of don't feel like the love is being shared when the show seems upset at me for making those criticisms. And while I can see what the "we're not perfect" message is going for, juxtaposed with the surprising amount of time the characters spend getting mad about being criticized - even when they're not being directly harassed - I do get a "don't criticize us" vibe which I find wrongheaded. 

And am I wrong to not want people telling me that I'm part of some problem if I didn't care for this episode? 

Edited March 10, 2018 by AlexanderThrond

[Jeric 46,851]

6 hours ago, Azureth said:

Yes, it is. Did you watch Mr enters review? He explains very well why.

His views do not align with mine. 

4 hours ago, AlexanderThrond said:

I think part of why reviewers and analysts like myself get so annoyed with this one is that it spends a lot of time trying to refute criticism, which gives off the impression that the show is trying to strike back at its critics.

Quite a bit of the critics in this fandom are rather ... amateurish. Not saying you are, however far too many posture thenselves as some form of pseudo authority. TV Tropes does not an expert make. Again, it's just a general opinion, no more objective than the next. My eight year old neice has as much credibility as most of the critics who try and pedestal themselves. 

And yes, I did intend that to sound elitist and I certainly am hoping it is taken that way. 

[Nyactis Mewcis Catlum 672]

6 hours ago, Jeric said:

This episode didn't happen in a vacuum, or without substantive development proceeding it. Also, there is only one well known analyst in this fandom that actually applies theories of literary criticism to this show, of which there are many non-compatible approaches. Most of the complaints simply apply personal taste, while others feel awfully similar to a child who memorizes some words and definitions for a test. When a large amount of the analysis community and fandom misuses deus ex machina with the confidence and virtue of a sailor on leave, I submit that the elements of this episode were appropriate. 

But why must a critic apply theories for their criticism to be considered worthy of hearing and existing? And why are complaints of personal taste non-legitimate? Being bored of an episode, or saying that it isn't funny, is always a matter of personal taste since humor is primarily subjective, and yet such a thing can really hold back an episode when its primary focus is humor for someone.

Misuse of terms does not necessarily mean that a view on an episode is inaccurate. There's actually a name for that claim - it's called the fallacy fallacy. That isn't to say that such lack of proper articulation shouldn't be critiqued, but that doing so by dismissing them entirely is not the way to go.

A criticism still deserves to exist even if it's wrong, or it hasn't been articulated well. The best way to combat such criticism is to debate it respectfully. The problem with addressing them like this in the episode is that there is no dialogue going on here. There's no back and forth because the fans don't have a direct influence on the show, and thus can't write the dialogue for the ponies they're being represented by. Did I personally think that some criticisms they brought up were silly? Of course; I rolled my eyes, like many, at the complaints about Twilight Sparkle being an alicorn when they happened, because we had no idea how it would shift the status quo yet and people were being hasty in their judgments. But never would I suggest that the people who stated this concern didn't have a point behind it and that the people who held this concern were "looking at the show the wrong way", as this episode likes to insinuate they are. Being afraid of the unknown is a very common fear with humans, and that's exactly what was being reflected in those who were upset with the status quo being unraveled; there's a reason why it's an uncommon step for shows, and it can and has broken shows for people. Some people would argue that that fear was legitimized. I disagree, but just because I disagree, doesn't mean I think these people should be mocked for their point of view, even if they're not able to articulate it in a way that I can clearly understand.

If nothing else, these opinions are nice for people to hear to get someone thinking, or to find someone who shares a similar opinion so they know they're not alone. Trying to stifle what people take away from the show can lead to a very dangerous echo chamber, which never bodes well in any community.

(Also, perhaps I'm missing something, but is it really common for actual bronies to invade people's houses and create mobs around the staff at Hasbro?)

[Jeric 46,851]

18 minutes ago, Scootaloved said:

But why must a critic apply theories for their criticism to be considered worthy of hearing and existing? And why are complaints of personal taste non-legitimate? Being bored of an episode, or saying that it isn't funny, is always a matter of personal taste since humor is primarily subjective, and yet such a thing can really hold back an episode when its primary focus is humor for someone.

Wr agree here, mostly. It's the tone of the reviewer and their style of writing that I take issue with, not their final conclusion. 

I wasn't trying to disprove anything so that particular fallacy wouldn't apply. Amusingly enough, my point was that the pseudo intellectual types who don't know the proper application of the terms they use did deserve to be taken down a peg. I approach the episode as mostly addressing them, not the general audience who may not feel a particular episode lands. The misuse of terms, along with how a reviewer carries themselves, does say something about someone's psychologocal profile. In this very thread we have seen simple statements that a reviewer had an opinion that they agree with, leaving the implication of authority. If people are going to assign weight to another's view as an authority, they should be aware of the technical flaws of these reviews. Terms like Mary Sue, DeM, and even pacing are often misunderstood. Often, when I ask a reviewer of great renown to name a piece of media that effectively utilizes shifting pacing to the benefit of the audience, I am greated with the deafening sound of crickets.  

For what it is worth, there are plenty of episodes that I dislike, and often fight back on the other side of the equation that seemingly takes any less than favorable opinion as a statement that they the individual that enjoys the episode is somehow incorrect. We have seen this very phenomenon in this thread as well. I have disdain for both approaches, and while I will not dismiss that a person dislikes or likes something, I will marginalize their professed authority. 

I also have to say ... the greatest personal sin any entertainment can make (for me), is to bore me.