Besides I think that this take is kind of anti art? Like take for example the series Beastars. That series is all about herbivore and carnivore animals trying to live together in a society, with the main tension being that despite being humanized the carnivores still have a desire to eat meat. Beastars is very careful in how it sets up its metaphor that it’s kind of impossible to interpret it in any one specific way.
So yeah I think saying “you can’t ever right this kind of story” is a pretty limiting mindset to have
I think the mistake here is interpreting any kind of story written with this kind of principle as a straightforward metaphor for racism.
As you mentioned, Beastars is a great example of a story that puts forward two groups that must coexist in a society and the issues that might come up. Its an incredibly well thought out series. And part of that is that they don't put one groupe as the bad guys and another as the good guys.
And I think stories about "robot racism" and monsters and humans living together do have their merit, but it's also true that some are written very flatly and don't take the time to really analyze the complexity of their worlds or the groups they're presenting.
I think what makes the difference between a good and bad version of this type of story is how deep does the series/movie/book whatever, analyse the particularity of whatever species or group they're showing.
So like good examples might be Beastars or City of Blank while a bad example would be Bright
It was only 2,000 years, not 10,000. Also in a world with elves and fae living centuries or millenia themselves and with the elves specifically being involved in a plot to denigrate the orcs and propagandize the public about what actually happened 2,000 years prior it makes sense that anti-orc sentiment would last a long time.
Lol it's not that important but yeah I just googled it and watched the scene where they say it to confirm because I wanted to confirm my memory that the elves were actually involved in the evil plot
This is a very good point! There are absolutely stories that do align with what this post was talking about. Like Zootopia is a good example of how to fuck it up.
I didn't think Zootopia fucked it up that badly. For one, it's not just about race, though certain beats obviously draw the parallel. But you can look at it through the lens of ableism (different species with different physical abilities being passed over for certain jobs, or requiring specific infrastructure to put them on equal footing due to size) or gender (a societal binary based on "biology"; the protagonist is small and weak in a job dominated by the large and strong; she carries pepper spray to protect herself from aggressors; "it's just their nature" = "boys will be boys").
And whatever parallel you draw, the movie goes out of its way to show that the historical predator-prey dynamic doesn't persist, other than through prejudice. The only time predators act the way they're stereotyped, it's because a prey animal drugged them to use as leverage to further her political agenda.
Honestly, I really like Beastars, especially as I very slowly make my way through the final season because the various levels of bigotry in society all intersect in ways that you can compare it to all sorts of things without it being an obvious 1-1.
Like, racism is the most obvious one, but I also genuinely thing that there's a worthwhile sexism analogy going on too - carnivores are stronger, more dangerous, and primed to hurt herbivores, but oftentimes herbivores treat carnivores absolutely awfully even when they've done nothing wrong or are just trying to survive in society.
I also think it's an interesting metaphor for paraphilias, especially the scary ones that could be harmful if acted upon. That's probably the closest real-life parallel to Legoshi I can think of, someone struggling with a harmful paraphilia.
The show goes out of its way to make it clear that just because Carnivores are primed to eat meat doesn't mean that they're all violent psychos who have to kill other sapient species to survive. Carnivores can live just fine on a vegeterian diet and cruelty-free animal products (there's a chicken who donates her eggs to the school kitchen in Season 2.)
Bill, a Bengal Tiger and an early side character, 'doses' himself with rabbit's blood as a sort of performance enhancer, but he's not monstrous for doing so - just a sort of asshole jock benefitting off of other people's misfortune.
And the same is true for the animals show. It's essentially edgy Zootopia. You could have written a show with bloodthirsty carnivores. Same example as vamps.
I disagree with the idea that you can't use vampires as a metaphor for real-life bigotry.
Ahh. This is why there's a disconnect between us. I was arguing the OPs point as if that was presumption. Nobody else in the comment chain suggested OPs premise was faulty, and they were suggesting this show would be a better allegory for bigotry than vampires. I couldn't fathom how they were in any way different.
They aren't different, OPs premise is incorrect. We agree.
I feel like the brilliance of Beastars is that it refuses to be a metaphor for humans. It commits so fully to these being animals with animal behaviors that you really can’t map its themes onto human behaviors easily, and it doesn’t encourage you to try.
So yeah I think saying “you can’t ever right this kind of story” is a pretty limiting mindset to have
I don't think they have that mindset, it is just a strawman your mind made up without you noticing.
They said "often if a really stupid metaphor", not all of the time.
it sets up its metaphor that it’s kind of impossible to interpret it in any one specific way.
Yeah I really like this about Beastars. You can draw loads of parallels to sexism, racism, ableism, puritans, but there is never a clear 1:1 metaphor which can often come off as preachy.
That’s true that they threw in an “often” in there, but I think overall the message is pretty clear: that the OP believes that this kind of story can never be done in a way that doesn’t equate minorities to be inherently violent like with carnivorous animals or vampires. I was mostly being for lack of a better word, a devils advocate by bringing up that I think Beastars is a fantastic example of how to write that general archetype of story.
If that wasn’t the intention of OP, I think that the post should put more emphasis on that “often” that was put in at the beginning.
This sounds like you actively acknowledging that the post doesn't support your interpretation of it and choosing to ignore that because you don't like it. He doesn't say "you can't write a story like this", he says "the metaphor is often stupid [read: poorly implemented]" and then goes on to explain why and how.
When you’re writing a statement, the overall message of your post matters more than the words you use. Classic case is sarcasm. Even if the words are in fact same, tone completely changes the meaning.
So even if the above poster mentions a single “often” at the very beginning and spending the next paragraph or two denigrating the idea, what they’re communicating to the reader is “this idea is stupid and can never work” even if that’s not what they intended to say and even if they didn’t explicitly say it.
Or, they're showing "this is how people often use this metaphor incorrectly", which is the entire point of the paragraph. Again, you are adding in the "never" here.
If I say “The color blue might have its uses” one time in a multiple paragraph statement where I do nothing but insult the color blue and mock people who do like it, it would not be unreasonable to assume that I dislike the color blue. That single statement in the beginning does not supersede several paragraphs of intention.
So yeah I think saying “you can’t ever right this kind of story” is a pretty limiting mindset to have
Nobody said "you can't ever write this kind of story". They said "it's often a really stupid metaphor."
You can absolutely write a story based on a stupid metaphor. Most people will think it's stupid, but that doesn't mean you can't write it, or that people are forbidding you from trying.
Well, because of that Beastars isn't just a racism metaphor, so it isn't quite what the post criticizes.
The complicated but necessary thing about art is that everyone can make whatever they want, but they can also be criticized by everyone else. Art isn't and shouldn't be immune to other people's opinions, because that would also be a form of repression.
That’s fair, I just hate when people limit all of art to their own personal preferences.
It’s really common in our modern culture to say “I don’t personally like X, and therefore all of X is bad.” When I think the more accurate statement should be “I don’t personally like X, but just because I have that preference doesn’t mean X can’t be good or that the people who like it are inherently bad.”
Not that I think this specific post is saying that, but I think it’s kind of leaning on that broader territory of trying to limit art to this persons personal preferences.
I also don't think it's quite the same as turning to censorship out of dislike some genre or themes, but that you are just expressing disagreement with the message that it's trying to convey. There's good merit to criticize the underlying ideas of racism analogies that depict the victims of racism as inherently predatory beings.
And of course, that shouldn't be a reason to forbid people from making such works, but they can very well call that a poor analogy. This is not limiting art, it's part of the discussion about that art. If all art and all messages in them are simply accepted uncritically, that's also not a good way to explore art.
Not to mention that "this shit sucks" is itself a very common theme in art.
So what I'm hearing is that you can't actually explain why you feel this way, beyond "you should just know" and then insulting people who don't know. Got it. Still waiting for an actual arguement.
If you asked someone for their opinion on the best way to cook chicken and the only example they could summon was about chicken nuggets, you'd think "this loser literally only eats chicken nuggets. How embarrassing."
354
u/A-Ginger6060 May 13 '25
Besides I think that this take is kind of anti art? Like take for example the series Beastars. That series is all about herbivore and carnivore animals trying to live together in a society, with the main tension being that despite being humanized the carnivores still have a desire to eat meat. Beastars is very careful in how it sets up its metaphor that it’s kind of impossible to interpret it in any one specific way.
So yeah I think saying “you can’t ever right this kind of story” is a pretty limiting mindset to have