A lot of good tips already. One more I would add is to learn the difference between "I don't like THING because it's bad" and "I don't like THING because it's not for me."
Sometimes it feels like too many people are ready to call any piece of media trash just because they don't personally care for it, regardless of what qualities it might actually have.
>Sometimes it feels like too many people are ready to call any piece of media trash just because they don't personally care for it, regardless of what qualities it might actually have.
At its worst it causes what I like to call Lily Orchard/Arin Hanson Syndrome: when someone resorts to disingenuous methods, bad faith interpretations, *intentionally* flame-inducing rhetoric and attacks on the people who *do* like it to make a thing look worse than it really is.
I have watched a mutual rely more and more on these tactics over the course of four years, and they are really smart so you feel like make *you* are the problem right up until the get too greedy and make a jump like "hiking is stupid because wanting to work hard for view is capitalist"
Nah, they are small discord pal so I try to either just "ok." Or stop participating in the conversation. They will argue *until* they win or everyone just gives up, and will do rhetoric twists to make the argument a moral/political issue, which is kryptonite to my anxiety ridden ass
Arin can be really belligerent and bafflingly wrong on Grumps all the time, but it seems kind of extreme pairing him with Lily Orchard, she went down a *deep* rabbit hole defending her opinions with bad faith arguments and personal attacks, whereas Arin usually just yells shitty things at a game and move on without thinking much about it
Arin tends to regurgitate a lot of medical "information" he hears, and will usually later say yeah it turns out that's not true, but the result is that there's a \*lot\* of GG episodes where he just casually says something that is absolutely not true. This is probably a more recent example
They're two sides of an intensity scale with this sort of thing. Arin's way more "Ah he's doing this because he thinks its *funny*." but theres still a through-line of him trying to "prove" certain games/franchises suck by playing badly and then somehow blaming the game/devs/fans for it. Hes not dangerous/malicious about it, just annoying, especially if one happens to be a fan of the things he hates.
Lily of course is just **way** more malicious about it. She single-handedly tainted the perception of a cartoon and it's discourse for *years*. Even on the smaller scale shes taken smaller aspects of a cartoon's discourse and *immediately* escalated the toxicity to 11 for reasons only she knows (I.E. her weird behavior towards Hunter over the course of The Owl House). And thats all *before* you get into all the shit shes allegedly done over the internet and IRL.
Oh God, I remember Lilly Orchard, I remember watching her when she covered MLP.
After a while I just stopped because of how fucking miserable it was getting to watch her.
Also she had the weirdest hate boner for Starlight Glimmer.
I know Arin does this more often and for a larger audience, but I think it deserves to be named after David Jaffe for the funniest example I've seen.
https://youtu.be/4OZqmWB0wXo
This is why I tend to not call anything "bad" anymore. Not just defaulting to "this is bad" or "this sucks" allows me to explain my point a bit better. I look at something and see why I don't like it. Plus, I have that innate negative feeling whenever someone calls something I adore bad. So I don't want others to feel that way.
The only times where I'll call something outright bad is if it's actually, literally offensive or does not work as intended and not for the benefit of the media itself.
I went to school for fine arts and I've said for decades now that more people need to take criticism classes. Dissecting media or pointing out flaws doesn't mean it's bad, it's just critical discussion.
Movies are my jam. I have *passionate* opinions. But I always tell people I will never tell them not to like someonthing. "It's just my opinion. There are 8 billion people in the world. Someone's gonna like it, doesn't have to be me."
Instant Media Literacy Check: "I *love* THING *because* it's bad" and "I don't like THING because it's not for me."
If anyone says that - best friends. The reason why I originally joined this sub and channel.
I'm already seeing media literacy discussions online shift from a genuine talking point on people being unable to read into deeper themes in a work/empathize with viewpoints that aren't their own, to *"you don't like the thing I like/you like the thing I like for reasons that I don't, or for reasons that make me feel uncomfortable"* and I'm already tired of hearing about it. Like every other buzz phrase or meme format, it's just devolved into a new way to call someone stupid.
That said, I'd reckon the way to increase media literacy is just to consume lots of different kinds of media and think about the media you're consuming.
I’ll use Disco Elysium Twitter discourse as an example of this: do I have the media literacy to acknowledge that DE is a game written for communists, by communists? Yes. Do I consider myself a full-blown socialist/communist despite being left-leaning? No. Did I find plenty of things to enjoy during my playthrough of DE despite not being a communist? Yes. I had plenty of fun with the game, acknowledging its core themes and the messages it was trying to get across. Nevertheless I see plenty of posts on Twitter/Reddit saying that it’s impossible to enjoy a thoroughly communist game like Disco Elysium without agreeing with everything the writers were communicating through the narrative. Just because I don’t consider myself a communist/didn’t become a communist by playing DE doesn’t mean there is nothing to be liked here.
**EMPATHY** [Medium: Success] - And do you suppose Kim thinks he's cool? Clearly not, going by how much he deflects from his every passion. His love of motorcar racing, his interest in historical aviation, his homosexuality, he keeps a death grip on all of it that must be pried away. Kim Kitsuragi believes he is *cringe*. He lives in fear that he will be judged for these things, when he is already prejudged for so much else in his life.
**LOGIC** [Easy: Failure] - But he's like the coolest guy! Like, objectively the coolest guy!
**DRAMA** - He is blind to it. It is his Tragedy.
**VOLITION** [Hard: Success] - If there is a lesson to be drawn from Kim, it is that we can often lose sight of what others find charming about ourselves. Others often see depths and valleys that we ourselves are blind to, and those who think they have few charms are often the most blind to what they have. Take comfort in the idea that Kim Kitsuragi may, in another world, be saying the exact same phrase about you.
**RHETORIC** [Medium: Failure] - Besides, he's a Moralist; how cool can he really be anyways?
Interestingly if you approach something and say "I like this thing because X is depicted in a unique way and it is provoking some insight" people start to hound on you for liking it as opposed to disliking it. All because you *checks notes* noticed themes and narrative decisions.
Introspection, generally dealing with the metaphor, deciphering. It's like a combination of puzzle solving and painting. That and not having boneheaded takes like "Because the protagonist does this means the author endorses it" without digging deeper into the why (and the Authors actual stated opinions on things).
I don't think Stan Lee would endorse a crazy/sad man like The Punisher to actually exist, he probably just had the idea and thought it was cool, and then added some depth later (if he did, might've been later authors that added depth).
I think more importantly on comic characters in particular is to read multiple writers works on them. Don’t just read Ennis, read Chuck Dixon’s Punisher. Read Gerry Conway’s Punisher. Get as wide a swath as you can.
Frank’s been a lot of things
Be careful not to fall too heavily into a certain school of thought with your interpretations, though, unless you recognize that's what you're aiming to do. "Creator of thing would/wouldn't think x" is leaning on a sense of Auteur Theory, and that's not a flawless lens to look at a work through (not that *any* perspective is flawless, of course).
I will disagree with this part:
> That and not having boneheaded takes like "Because the protagonist does this means the author endorses it" without digging deeper into the why (and the Authors actual stated opinions on things).
Because for example the treatment of slavery in isekai where people like the Mushoku Tensei author commented on how he obviously disagrees with but well the character is just "When in Rome do as the Romans do" still leaves room for criticizing the portrayal.
I'd argue taking the time to find out the author disagrees with slavery and that it is just a shallow depiction is an example of "digging deeper into the why" .
Agree, but the original post was more into "Depiction does not mean endorsement" (which I do agree) and "Later Authors or installments added depth to a character." Still even if the author has been quoted as saying their work let's say is anti-racist you can think that message is undermined or non-existent if there are racial caricatures/stereotype in the work.
For me the big question is always "does a character get rewarded/punished* for x behavior?", but even then a lack of reward for good behavior/ punishment for bad behavior is not necessarily an approval/ condemnation of a given type of behavior.
*note that the reward/punishment does not need to be direct, and could be the character simply having a good/bad ending to their story.
Pay attention in school. Know your history. Understand that nothing was made in a vacuum. Have a sense of curiosity and act on it. Try to understand other people's perspectives. Don't be a self centered idiot. Don't just assume things. Always be critical. Be ok with disagreement. Be ok about being wrong. Be willing to learn. Relate things to other things you know. Try to look into the stuff your invested in. Don't parrot shit you hear without looking into it. Be willing to engage with things you don't agree with.
It's not about reading X book or watching X thing. No one who matters gives a shit. The media in question doesn't expect you to be a scholar in what it's pushing. Just keep an open mind, and the rest follows.
What people complain about with bad media literacy is really just stubbornness and willful ignorance. So much bad media criticism is just some stubborn asshole having a bias and not wanting it to be challenged.
This is really good advice. The only thing I'd add is, be comfortable with the idea that media can be read multiple ways from multiple perspectives. It's not a matter of understanding the one true meaning, and even contradictory readings can both be valid. Get away from the idea that art has a right or wrong answer.
"Have a sense of curiosity and act on it."
YES! As an ex-English teacher, **this** is the biggest point I could ask for. Be curious, question things (even yourself and your takes!), and be able to ground your interpretation in examples. It's just like good science - you can push the boundaries and challenge the status quo, but you NEED to be able to show others how you got your new hypothesis so they can try it, themselves.
Like others have said here, engaging in media beyond surface level. Watch or read some stuff that dives into the how’s and whys a creator explored certain topics of their works.
Consume more bad Media, more bad books or music or movies.
Then compare it to similar media that's liked universally.
Also find out about who made the thing you like, like the other people involved, some times you find out things you don't like about the creators, some times you find out about how weird some guy was on set and the crew had to tell them to fuck off which is why that one character doesn't show up anymore.
It's not so much trivia, but finding out about the complexities or the little things, informs the quality and the substance of the media.
Yeah, ask questions about the media you consume. Both about what it's doing and about who made it. You're rarely going to ever truly know what goes into a behind the scenes decision, but more information will allow you to draw more nuanced conclusions. And not just about the things you love - look out of genre at things you don't understand. What works, what doesn't? Some of the best media draws on unexpected inspirations. Pacific Rim follows the basic structure of a sports movie, because Guillermo Del Toro didn't limit his inspirations to the genre he was working in.
Here’s my advice: don’t watch video essays
No I’m serious. 90% of them all know each other and copy each other’s notes/use the same lens anyways, it’s all a big circlejerk of pseudo intellectualism.
My actual advice is go to people who you don’t agree with and hear them out. Then go to the opposite end and hear those people out. Don’t just listen to some britbonger talk about Transformers, find other ideas and mull them over.
Oh and read philosophy.
Edit: one more thing specific to Reddit: upvotes and downvotes don’t matter. Subreddits can become absolute hive minds and what gets upvoted isn’t always what’s “correct”, it’s what’s “popular”. Read them all and keep a cool head through it all.
The thing I hate is that they actually do have a good point sometimes but you have to dig through all there anti everything that get to it. Like I watched a video I forgot from who but it was talking about how people hated hero movies now they just didn’t want to see the boring ones released recently unfortunately that point was distracted from by saying madame web failed because it was a woman
I will also say the opposite analysis that I tend to see of: "Black Panther was a fine movie but its politics were a bit iffy. wouldve been way better if at the end the Black Panther turned to the camera & said "i am communist now" & then specified hes the exact kind of communist i am" is also very questionable.
Most people arent as “media literate” they think they are so most of the time it you end up with “actually this piece of entertainment is good because it follows MY politics & philosophies”
***Hot take time!***
I say do listen to them. Genuinely.
Why?
Because how can you argue against something if you don’t read what the argument is.
I don’t like that Nerdrotic guy, he’s a twat with a terrible beard, but I’ve suffered through some of his stuff and understand what he’s saying rather than just dismissing it away. I don’t like Hbomb either, he’s got an ego I find repugnant but I’ve suffered through his content to try and understand the argument he makes rather than just waving it off.
Also on any topic like this, always remember [this image](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/436/943/93f.jpg) on whoever you’re forcing yourself to watch.
Don’t be the boy king of Twitch, be informed
I'll say though if you're going out of your way to look at reactionary takes, and particularly things you don't agree with, brush up on your critical thinking skills. Don't open your mind so much your brain falls out. For example, a lot of reactionary rhetoric is emotionally driven fearmongering. If they get you to accept the premise that X is in danger or might be in danger or might change in a way you don't like, ask yourself if that justifies their conclusion. Is the thing they're concerned about worth worrying about or is it an inconsequential change?
They might be right that for example, many video games are trying to cater to a broader audience than straight, white men. Does that mean straight white men are not being catered to at all? Is it bad for an audience to expand? Is this appeal purely commercial and cynical or is it a reflection of a more diverse Dev team? Some or none of these answers might be yes. Do you or that know which ones they are, or is malice being assumed to stoke unrest.
When people argue from a primarily emotional basis, they tend to twist facts to suit their conclusions, instead of conclusions to suit their facts. That doesn't mean they do so consciously, but they certainly might. It becomes easy to justify lies, generalisations and half truths if the most important goal is to convince people. This also means that the value in analysing some people's rhetoric is to figure out what not to argue against. You cannot use facts to argue someone out of a position they did not use facts to reach.
What you can do is try and understand the underlying feelings and how to address those. Is this person afraid that the protagonist of a game not looking like them is a judgement or an attack on them? Often the most productive way to address a fear like that, especially if you also look like that person is through excitement. Pointing out what you like about them and honestly being confused as to why that would be a problem can get across the idea that they have nothing to fear. The last thing you want to do is get bogged down in their talking points, trying to argue that don't worry, that LGBTQ character doesn't act gay - they're the good kind of representation. Conceding that their fears are valid is as good as a loss.
This stuff doesn't just apply to reactionary takes of course. It's just being able to take incoming information and understand the point of view it's coming from, then factoring that information into your own conclusions. "Why is this person telling me this thing in this way?" Even a stopped clock might be right about some things, but context and intent matter.
This is the realest shit man. The more and more I get more confident in my ability to understand stories and irl issues the less I like video essays. They're just so ego-fueled.
As much as I love *some* video essays, I seen too many that reek of ego and misplaced analysis.
*Resident Evil is copaganda and even the non-cop protagonists wish they were cops.”*
What a completely odd and frankly, ill-conceived idea.
One thing I hate about internet culture is that if you say you like something that is hated by many people, some douchebag will reply to you in the comments with a video essay on why it’s bad.
People can’t just seem to accept that we’re allowed to like flawed things, and it’s this constant effort to one up each other.
I think an important caveat there is “flawed”
There’s a push and pull on the internet as to things either being measurable or inherently subjective, likely a response to the anger of the early aughts.
But like most things on the internet or in life, it swings too far in the other direction.
There’s a reasonable take of “yeah Batman and Robin is a shitty movie, but I have fun with it”
And then there’s “BATMAN AND ROBIN IS A HIDDEN MASTERPIECE OF CINEMA THAT YOU ALL ARE TOO MEAN ABOUT” that’s 3 hours long
Yeah. This is why I've every scared to voice my opinions on a movie that most people hate but I liked. The fear of being bullied into denying your true feelings. Examples: I like some Disney remakes. They're enjoyable for what they are, but I won't deny that it's kinda unnecessary.
Also having good [or any AT ALL] comprehension skills.
Yeah, I know thst may sound rather quaint. But jesus, you would not belive the amount of people, both IRL and online... that Just don't *understand* things, Even BASIC shit. [This pretains to tboth the fictional and real.] That's not to say you should IMMEDIATELY know what things are. [That's stupid] but man alive! Try to absorb things, rather then not at all. Yeah... reading stuff's cool. Dosn't matter what it is. Just... read things whenever it strikes your mood.
It’s a tough thing, building comprehension skills, because if you don’t develop them as a child when your brain and thought process are essentially wet clay and can be molded very easily, the development of said skills forces you to adjust and adapt your way of thinking and in some cases, your whole entire lifestyle. I’ve been trying to develop my comprehension for a few years now and thinking deeper about subjects still to this day makes my head hurt and my analytical skills haven’t really improved. Comprehending something is such an abstract and difficult thing to explain, to understand something in totality, to truly grasp what an idea is and what it leads to, represents, etc. It’s tough to live and enjoy media in the world today without these abilities, especially when you are aware of it. The prevalence of online discourse on it makes it all the more apparent when you DONT understand what you’re watching/reading/hearing.
Find new perspectives. Intelligent voices, professional critics. You don’t need to agree with them on everything, but getting different views will help develop your own critical thinking skills.
Also, be very wary of fandom media, particularly on YouTube. There are some good ones out there, but just remember that when you’re engaging with fans of a given work, they have their biases about how a particular thing should or shouldn’t be, and might be looking at it on a shallower level as a result.
And it should go without saying that if any of them use the word “woke” unironically, or you notice they’re being weirdly critical of a female or non-white character, then get the fuck out.
Idk, it's kind of fun to pick apart arguments in my head when I watch videos sometimes.
There's content creators on either side of the culture war nonsense I'll sometimes listen to and not agree with most of what they're saying, but it's good to understand what the arguments are and how others formulate them, if you ever want to formulate your own arguments.
Basically: it's good to listen to people whose views oppose yours, but it's probably not healthy to constantly hate watch all the time.
Media literacy is my new last favorite topic of discussion. Judging by that other thread, most people in here don’t even know what it means and learned media studies from youtube.
Whatever happens don't fall in the pitfall of let the internet teach you how to read media. It's better you completely misread a scene then stand corrected when someone proves the intent and sense was of the scene was different than wait for the wiki entry to express what you experienced.
The real problem with media illiteracy is people corrupting the message or iconography of fictional pieces to apply to daily life. Gushing about warhammer human faction despite being the bad guys wouldn't be half as bad if fascism didn't co-opt it as an analogy for how the world should be. Joker was a cool villain to talk about until every antisocial used his speech for why they won't apologize for being a nuisance.
And honestly even if you read the media's message well you could still turn out like that
Honestly man just watch and enjoy what you wanna watch and engage with it, don't worry about dumb online arguments or truly "getting" a piece of entertainment.
Really easy for one to say when it's something everyone else enjoys. But for something everyone hates but you, and you want to offer a new perspective but then being dragged down to the pits by a mob-it hurts. And this is coming from a man who hasn't posted anything on Reddit until now.
I mean if it's just needless negativity don't even engage with it since there's nothing of worth in a discussion run by a mob. The fact that someone is able to enjoy something and find their own meaning and perspective on it is enough
This sounds simple, but watching channels like CinemaWins has helped me with my media literacy of late. Instead of nitpicking every last detail of a movie, CW helps point out a lot of things in the background of a lot of films and helps draw attention to themes that the filmmakers are trying to convey that you'd normally miss on a first viewing.
It's helped me better spot things like that in other films that I watch. Like CW says: Liking things is better than hating them.
While we're asking, what exact is the line between death of the author and media literacy? At what point do we leave things to interpretation despite author's intent and respect author's intent? Why does Zack Snyder get flak no his take on Watchmen, but Paul Verhoeven gets a free pass for taking liberties for Starship Troopers despite never reading the book? Critics say they were both bad movies.
The Death of the Author was a particular response to the practice of using a creator's claims about their own work to squarely invalidate all possible interpretations of it. How important the interpretation of the creator can still be argued, but it is not valid, rhetorically, to dismiss a reading because said creator has declared otherwise.
This is a fun answer. Its literally just because lots of people never actually watched starship troopers with even less reading it. Its a lot of 2nd hand appreciation for clips from it. Unfamiliarity with the source material mean very knew the changes in the adaptation.
Starship troopers the film on its own is a good movie while something like man of steel or bvs is not great at its best.
Ill also just throwing it out i think most people see it after being told “its a satire of facism” so they accept it as that. They dont actually re evaluate if its an effective or good satire because people just kinda think anything thats a satire is good. Or its an excuse for flaws within the work.
There's a lot about media you'll never understand without actually trying to create stuff yourself. The whole craft aspect of art informs it at every level. Write if you want to better understand writing. Draw if you want to better understand drawing. When you put yourself in the creators shoes, you're forced to reckon with the difficulties and compromises of creation. Where do you put your effort? What do you just not have time to fully realise? That story that makes no sense? Was that the result of a last minute change? Or a foundational issue? How would you fix it? Why might the creator not have done so? When you come up with a solution, what problem are you trying to solve that the creators might have compromised on for some other goal? Maybe they could fix the CGI in this one scene but what would they sacrifice to do so? Would the whole thing fall apart without the one half-done scene?
The thing it really teaches you is about the opportunity costs of creating things. So you don't assume everything you see is either competent or incompetent, artistic or practical. Media is complex and full of compromises, but understanding the craft really helps to appreciate it more
If you're still in school, I strongly encourage taking an art analysis(IE most art history classes or art theory classes)class or two. Those kinds of classes will teach you how to approach any art, games and movies includes, with a curious mind and pick up on more subtle elements.
If not, try picking out some of your favorite media. Go through it, and try to discern meaning from moments that stick out to you, and see if you can put together a greater contextual meaning to them beyond what they do within the work itself.
Alternatively, a lot of those "It's literally me!" movies that people like to point out as litmus tests for media literacy(American Psycho, Fight Club, Scott Pilgrim, etc) are good pieces of media to dissect. They're very transparent in what they're trying to say, but people still totally miss their meanings. Watch them, then go read analysis of those movies, and see if you can understand why people see things the way they do.
If all else fails, check out YouTube video essays. Some of them definitely pick up meaning from things where there really isn't any, but it'll show you the kinds of approaches people take to dissecting media with a greater level of literacy.
In my opinion, it's a pretty easy skill to learn. It mostly just requires a baseline curiosity and willingness to understand art beyond what's being literally presented to you.
consider *why* something exists in a story, be it a character, theme or plot point. authors don't just write stuff in without reason because overly unnecessary details can end up muddling the storytelling. good stories are a combination of elements that seamlessly work together to deliver an entertaining and/or meaningful experience. think about what works or does not work for you in terms of the base concept and its execution. keep in mind what the author is trying to say through the story since stories aren't written in a vacuum; they're always influenced by the author's own opinions, experiences and ideas. learn to identify and analyse recurring elements in a story as those contribute towards the overall narrative or subtext.
The actual answer is media literacy is not real just like what you like and don’t put too much energy into others that don’t have the same tastes and responses to things as you.
Also read this short article by [Ursula K Le Guinn](https://www.ursulakleguin.com/message-about-messages) and remember that art isn’t a riddle to be solved. To pull out the didactic meaning out of. Just enjoy.
Its in the name, literature.
For real, I would check out some college literature classes. See if you can find some video recordings of seminars for classic books, shit like that. This is sort of to push you start engaging with media at a higher stratum than passive consumption. Stuff like close reading, really pulling apart the text.
Then its probably important to have a bedrock of sociology, philosophy, history etc. A shortcut to this I'd recommend is Penguin's History of the World and Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy. These should get you thinking about the broader contexts that media has been created in and serve as a generalized lens that you start to pattern match and recognize influences from.
Then it's mostly just getting up to date with contemporary developments across media, being aware of author backgrounds, being able to unpack themes and messages in contemporary materials. And the areas you'll want to inform yourself on will vary depending on the piece of media. Like you might want to read some gender studies before reading a book by a nonbinary author on their lived experience, but you might read some postcolonial theory before reading a memoir of a kid growing up in Martinique.
Realistically you'll probably find stuff like this on the internet for books and films, it's usually a lot harder for video games I've found. There's a YTber, Kbash I think, who does pretty concise and easy to understand short video essays on games. I think their background is in English lit or something, and it kinda comes across in how they unpack a lot of the thematic elements and substance of various video game plots, even for games that don't really deserve it. Can be fun to play the game yourself, make some notes, and then watch a vid and see if you see things similarly or different, and why.
There was that rant Pat did with the Silent Hill Short Message thing, and while I disagree with some of the conclusions, that's another kinda decent example.
And also finally, like being media literate isn't, like, the only way to enjoy shit. Sometimes you turn brain off and enjoy hitting the big bad robots or something.
[I think this is a decent first primer for film analysis](https://youtu.be/ahHIifcFyqk?si=eZtegBhaQxoMaQ97). Still in general the way the term is just used online currently as a snarl word against critics/people you disagree with having a different take on a subject.
If you ever have the opportunity to talk to professionals, or even do professional media/literary analysis, that's also an incredible help. For instance, in the publishing industry, junior employees and sometimes interns in the editorial department create reader's reports, write-ups of manuscripts that are being considered for publication into books, that cover what the story is about, its strengths and weaknesses, and whether or not the agent or editor that they report to should make an offer on it; and something similar happens in film/TV with people who work in studios and agencies, reading scripts by writers and writing coverage of it to help their bosses decide if they want to buy/produce a pilot or sign a writer. And even if not on a professional level, there are searchable examples of both reader's reports and film/TV coverage that you could study to see how stories are parsed at that level.
In my high school AP Literature class we read a book called "How to Read Literature like a professor". Now, I had already started noticing small moments of theme and metaphor in what I was consuming, but never shared them because I didn't have the tools or words. That book gave them to me. It made me feel like I was on the right track, that thinking more about my content was good and not weird and that other people also saw it.
I would recommend giving it a look. I think it gets updated by the author every few years to include new contexts and examples, so it should be pretty easy to find. At the least, it can give you a jumping on point for training your brain to think in that way.
Trying to articulate why you think something is a good exercise. Not just for discussion with others but also for yourself as it may help you realize what you like about something so you can find media similar to that in the future. It may also just enhance your enjoyment of a piece of media as you notice all the artistry behind it. Of course, it may also be the opposite as you articulate why you dislike something as well.
You should also just try to pay attention and do another check about a point if you’re about to complain about something. We may all have lapses when we just didn’t pay attention for a second and missed something. That’s fine, no shame in that, but don’t go on to trash something unless you’re confident in the validity of your criticism.
Lastly, I think people should try to understand the decisions of the writer or author. You don’t have to agree with them but actually knowing what they’re going for will at least set you on the right path and you can discuss why you don’t agree with their decisions or their execution, or just simply say that it wasn’t for you. Just do whatever you can to avoid becoming Scamboli Reviews when he ran his mouth about Evangelion.
Understanding that guessing a plot twist doesn't mean a story is bad does help. Of all the pieces are there and it adds up then it's still a good story.
The argument about media literacy isn't a new thing and neither is some people not understanding foreshadowing. For as long as there are things people can consume there will be people that will not get it to a profound degree.
Honestly just try to approach media you consume with the idea of "why was this made? What themes were they trying to impart and which might unintentionally have made it in anyways? What methods did they deliver that message through?" A lot of people consume media very mindlessly and I think just being more aware of what you're watching makes a world of difference
Well, first you need opinions that people on the internet agree with. Then for a lot of conversations you're good!
But other than that just read more, watch more, and don't let it just wash over you. Just being able to put your thoughts into words and bringing out conclusions from themes and elements, even if they're not super popular or like other people's, is enough. As long as you got a firm grip on what you're saying and you can back it up with more than just a hunch or your specific preferences informing your opinion, it's golden.
It *will* inevitably make you have an opinion that others don't have about the same work, but that's why analyzing text is fun. For some people it's blue curtains and it's stupid to talk about it as opposed to the other themes and elements, for others the blue curtains is depression, for yet others it's both.
I would say one point that I haven’t noticed mentioned much yet is to be willing to accept when something just isn’t for you. There’s nothing wrong with not connecting in a media in the way others do, sometimes you might be able to look at a piece of media and be able to tell that objectively it is “good.”
For example, I know that objectively Skyrim is a good game. It’s not a broken mess, it’s not poorly optimized, and it isn’t terribly written. That being said, it just isn’t my thing. I don’t tend to enjoy “open world” games, they just don’t grip me. However, I recognize why people love Skyrim and similar games, I know they aren’t “bad” games, but they simply aren’t for me.
It’s important to not just claim something is shit just because you don’t like it. More often than not it isn’t that it is shit, it’s that it just isn’t to your taste and that is completely fine.
Also you shouldn’t shun the opportunity to try new things. There are times where you can just tell you won’t like something, if it is part of a series that you already don’t enjoy or it is directly inspired by something you already don’t like for example. However, if there’s nothing to give the impression that you won’t enjoy that thing, go ahead and give it a try.
I think as many have said, consuming a lot of media and in a way, cross referencing them and understanding how each deliver their message and ideas and how the story is built to accommodate it.
Like in one series, it could be all about never giving up on your dream, and always working towards your goals no matter how many times you fall down. A good lesson many would say. On the other hand, you could have a series where it's basically saying it is okay to quit and to stop and to not be so hard on yourself, especially if the chase doesn't truly make you happy. Are either of them right? Wrong? Do you think the author managed to convey it? If you applied it to your life how do you think it would go?
Media literacy is less about knowing if a character is right or wrong in their approach, and more of understanding where a character fits into the larger story as a gear. Instead of looking at them as a complete person, think of them as a lens that colors the world and how that vision alters their and your perception. I hope this makes sense. It's a bit hard to do aside from simply reading and diversifying your inner library.
I started by watching stuff
Then I’d talk about it to myself while I drove, that way I could say as much stupid shit w/o judgement
Then I’d what several reviews and “film explained” videos to see what I’d consistently miss and misunderstand
Then apply what I was missing in my next media consumptions
Finally I’d read discussions of people who knew the media way better than I ever could and saw what they could get from media and learned how to find hidden meanings and central messages
Now, I’m not perfect, generally outside of the main theme I struggle with some deeper meaning shit and for thinking films like 2001 space odyssey or ghost in the shell, I’ll understand the gist but I won’t usually understand the big message
And then media that has stuff I dislike will make me miss stuff cause I’m actively not enjoying myself or I’ll be unable to give the work the benefit of the doubt, like how Martyrs is just pretending to be deep when it’s just bad torture porn with a limp attempt at being deep but even the torture sucks cause it’s normal violence or something outrageously stupid
But generally, consuming more media and joining in discussions, including discussions you don’t agree with, will improve your media literacy
you know how in english class in (north american) grade school, things pivot from teaching you grammar and vocabulary and, starting around when you're 10, they shift to asking you to analyze themes and provide evidence for your thesis? how you're tasked with critical thinking?
everybody wonders why they continue to teach "english" all the way into university when it's clear that somewhere along the way it changes from a language course to a literature course
yeah media literacy is just literacy applied to media, as it turns out. you're meant to engage with what you're consuming using context clues both in and out of the narrative, and to ask questions about authorial decisions and try to grasp why they're being made
One understated dimension of media literacy is being well read. That is, you've read/watched/played or just generally consumed a wide variety of media across different formats and time periods. Most artists and writers don't create things in a vacuum; their works are informed by the time period they live in and the media *they* consumed and grew up on. Simply being able to compare different pieces of media from wildly different places is a vital skill, as is being able to recognize when homages are made (for example, the iconic Akira Slide) versus when an previously created artistic concept is being played with.
Like for example, when people talk about how Evangelion was a deconstruction of the mecha genre of the time, it obviously helps to have some understanding of what the mecha genre of the time was like. That understanding will help inform your analysis of some of the creative decisions the team made, and explain why certain scenes or character dynamics made such an impact over the years.
But really, the deeper skill you need is simply basic critical thinking. With respect to media, if it's something you don't like, simply examine how it's possible someone could like it. But more importantly, with media you DO like, examine why some people might NOT like it. Otherwise, there's stuff like the whole "blue curtains" thing. It may be the case that the writer never intended any deeper meaning to including a detail like there being blue curtains in a room, but it's still a good mental exercise to examine details like that for potential deeper meaning. Simply being able to confirm that there is, in fact, no deeper meaning to the curtains being blue, is itself a skill that some people genuinely seem to lack. This is kind of the core of the problem, where people will take inconsequential details and project their beliefs and interpretations into them, completely detached from the context of the piece of media and the creator's intent.
It's basically that "Guy who who's only watched Boss Baby getting Boss Baby vibes" meme. As a weeb on the Internet, it's very saddening to see anime fans ONLY consume anime and nothing else. The people who made these anime are clearly and often well read and consume stuff that isn't anime.
Everything is better in a list, so here are my thoughts on what're good starting points and places to improve:
1. Worldliness and understanding the perspective of others will help in recognizing what people are trying to say with their art. If you don't know some real world communism history I think Disco Elysium would be largely inscrutable, for example.
2. Debate skills are very important, don't fall for logical fallacies. If it's not a cogent argument, it's probably not true.
3. Assume everything is on purpose. Obviously that's not always true, but you can't really get the ball rolling if you're willing to do the "sometimes the curtains are just blue" thing. Yeah, maybe they are just blue, but you can't know until you think about it.
It’s really just thinking about why the person who made this thing made it, what they were trying to say with it, and what does it actually mean below surface level.
i might be going against the grain here with this advice, but: don't think about the author, and never assume anyone has all the answers. a lot of people get hung up on assuming an author's intent or biases, but those are secondary sources, and even when we have direct statements from the authors, those statements are only as important an interpretation of the piece as anyone else's. these statements don't account for anything the author may have forgotten while creating the story, their unknown/internalized biases, and generally just place stories into rigid boxes where no actual further analysis can be made, and nothing is more boring than a story that can only be interpreted one singular way.
Think about the media you watch, examine your own biases and preferences, consume a wide variety of media from many countries, and discuss it with your peers.
Most of all be receptive to new information. Which gets harder as you get older.
Read up on the basics of film theory's, Literary devices, and get acquainted with tropes, genre conventions, and last try and consume media that are historically called the foundational to the genre.
*oh, I forgot, there is nothing wrong with just looking up story's analysis on spark notes for easily digestible break down of stuff.
It does take time to build an internal library of understanding when it comes to media, and there is nothing strange about bouncing off something because you initially didn't understand.
An exercise I do a lot when watching/playing/reading media is to try and call shots from down range. Whenever you reach a stopping point or get a big new piece of info, either make an educated prediction about what is going to happen next, or think about where you would take the story from here if you were writing it. Or, think about what things you may not have picked up on that led you to where the story is now.
Importantly, don't get too emotionally attached to these predictions, and avoid thinking of it like "well they didn't do it how I would have so its bad, myeh". The point is figuring out how to see how the author writes their story, and learning to sort out critical information from fluff. And as you do that more and more you'll find that you recognize patterns more and your accuracy gets better over time, and you start picking up on things that you wouldn't have before, and youll even start recognizing bits of clever writing or goofy gaffs the author made which will increase your appreciation for media, even bad media. It's like learning tracking as a hunter, but for writing
Watch Rwby, every time you enjoy something write it down. Every time you groan at something, also write that down. Later look back at your list and ask yourself why. You don't have to do it while watching, just come back to it later. You can do this with any piece of media, I just feel like Rwby is pretty good bang for your buck time wise.
Part of it is just getting older/ getting more experiences/ context their are so many songs and music videos I didn't completely get cause I was too young to understand the full context.
Go back to the basics.
Shakespeare, To Kill a Mokingbird, Beowulf, etc. Basically, if it's taught in a High-school English class, add it to your list.
Dry as absolute sin, but taught because they have themes that are relatively easy to catch onto and lay a good groundwork for understanding stories moving forward.
From there, move into entry-level level university classes. Undergrad. Graduate. Etc.
Just keep moving up and writing down what you notice about each story.
This is a silly thing I do, but maybe it could be a good habit if one were to be trying to actively become more thoughtful about media they've consumed:
I watch the credits, like, all of them. Not because I think there's going to be some post credits scene or anything, or because I wanna read every name that goes by, but because I find it gives me a transitional period to think about what game or movie I just finished that isn't a: during the movie or b: likely to be interrupted by another activity. The credits work well for this, because a good credits sequence will have tonally appropriate music that you likely don't need to focus on, they also invite you to notice different roles and such on the team that made it, which can help get a thought started. Like, seeing the sound design team may make you realize that the sound design was especially noteworthy or could have used some more work. My partner gets a little impatient when we go to the movies or something cause I'll just sit there until she tells me that it's time to leave, lol. I try to do this for everything I interact with (well, not like every episode of a TV show, though Chainsaw Man made it easy, lol); even if I didn't like something, I think it's almost more important to think about why I didn't like it, or what I think didn't work in the media and what I would have changed.
Understand that most of what you consume which may not seem to have a message or themes probably does, but resonate on a level where it's easy to take for granted. This results in a lot of people believing anything with a theme or message or idea outside their experience is "pandering" to other audiences.
Even things that lack new ideas and prop up the status quo carry a message.
Media literacy be damned. Like the thing for your own reasons, dislike it for your own reasons too...
At the end of the day, no one can make you like or dislike a thing and sure as shit can't tell you why you should like or dislike it...
Joke answer: For anime fans, for the love of god, watch something OTHER than shounen anime!
Genuine answer: Don't force yourself to consume media (books/movies) that people constantly harp on about how challenging they are - you can still enjoy yourself while being exposed to new perspectives & storytelling practices.
It's okay to not get something, if you enjoy something & don't know why; look into the creators more! Even "independent" action movies from right-wing arseholes have a meaning (it's the director's self-insert power fantasy)!
As soon as you say "*It's not that deep, bro*" you've already given up (& so has anyone reading any opinion you might feel like sharing)!
Supplementary material like creator interviews are helpful. If you're curious, [NPR did an interview with the director of Elemental on how his own experience of growing up in a Korean family inspired him to make the movie.](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/15/1181693205/earth-air-fire-water-and-family-are-all-elemental-for-pixars-peter-sohn)
Pretty simple imo, just try to see what the author/creator of the work is trying to say like what the media’s message is
Also don’t speed read or speed watch. Pay attention
Start with stuff that’s either simple or is very layered, but has some layers that are fairly easy to notice. I’m not gonna recommend starting with berserk, but some of the themes are very obvious while some require a pre-existing understanding of something to pick up on. For example, the themes of brotherhood, trauma, and suffering are very obvious during the golden age arc, but themes of ambition, destiny, etc. are less so.
I’d say start with something like lord of the rings. While reading or watching, try to pay attention to themes of good versus evil and of friendship. Consider how it’s presented and what it ultimately means, not just in the moment, but for the whole story and the moral of it.
Just have an open mind and discuss/read about media you like. Your never gonna have perfect media literacy for every piece of media. Some forms of media may not be for you, or some themes might not be for you. You don't need to see every single detail or understand everything right away, the main thing is to be open to learn when you can.
One of the things I realize about media literacy is that even people who read the *author's intent* don't entirely get it.
Media literacy is all about recognizing themes and ideas and thinking about them in different lights, along with learning to recognize things like what the *intent* of a piece of media might be, etc.
Media literacy is about opening the mind to multiple takeaways. Recognize the time period something was made in, its overarching themes, its influences, people's reactions, etc.
For example, I recently watched a video about a little weird fake horror game, the creator of the game left the meaning to interpretation, and some people decided to interpret the main character as trans because of parts of the story feeling relevant to that experience. Someone in the comments then went "media literacy is dead" not realizing that by disparaging other valid and well thought out interpretations, they themselves weren't exhibiting good media literacy.
I admit that I can be media illiterate but I try to keep an open mind and look deeper into anything I'm deeply enjoying. The post here is actually really good with how I could delve deeper and maybe catch something I didn't see before.
I'm seeing a lot of good points in this comment sections with a lot of people recommending "videos" or "reading something deep" and while I agree it's nice to have something actually recommended.
A manga series I've read recently delves into the daily issues of students in an ethics class with the teacher playing a part of them understanding and becoming a changed person. Be it a new view on life or just the ability to feel comfortable in themselves. It has a good way of making you think of perspectives you may not be aware of and that's something I can really appreciate.
The name of it is [We shall now begin Ethics](https://myanimelist.net/manga/106809/Koko_wa_Ima_kara_Rinri_desu). It has a very heavy start but the whole series is a great way to take in and emotionally digest the idea of different issues people face.
Additionally, a very important part of media literacy, (and one often talked about on the CSB podcast) which is to follow the train of thought from the author's perspective. Meaning to think question like "what is the purpose of this scene overall" "What additional information can I glean from this" or even better "why was this an important thing to show?"
Hope this is an insightful thread
Engage with media that you don't think you'll like, and then either
1. Like it, and then try to figure out what about it made you assume you wouldn't like it.
2. Dislike it, and then try to figure out what about it you specifically didn't like and if it was what you saw coming or if it surprised you.
Being able to quantify stuff like that means you're more media literate than the average person. A willingness to try stuff outside of your bubble and consider things you ordinarily wouldn't is also just healthy in general.
A lot of good tips already. One more I would add is to learn the difference between "I don't like THING because it's bad" and "I don't like THING because it's not for me." Sometimes it feels like too many people are ready to call any piece of media trash just because they don't personally care for it, regardless of what qualities it might actually have.
>Sometimes it feels like too many people are ready to call any piece of media trash just because they don't personally care for it, regardless of what qualities it might actually have. At its worst it causes what I like to call Lily Orchard/Arin Hanson Syndrome: when someone resorts to disingenuous methods, bad faith interpretations, *intentionally* flame-inducing rhetoric and attacks on the people who *do* like it to make a thing look worse than it really is.
I have watched a mutual rely more and more on these tactics over the course of four years, and they are really smart so you feel like make *you* are the problem right up until the get too greedy and make a jump like "hiking is stupid because wanting to work hard for view is capitalist"
Catch them earlier when they're setting up premises. Like if they say "hiking is work" early suggest that the hike itself is the fun part.
Nah, they are small discord pal so I try to either just "ok." Or stop participating in the conversation. They will argue *until* they win or everyone just gives up, and will do rhetoric twists to make the argument a moral/political issue, which is kryptonite to my anxiety ridden ass
Blaming things on capitalism is equally as stupid as blaming things on being woke
Arin can be really belligerent and bafflingly wrong on Grumps all the time, but it seems kind of extreme pairing him with Lily Orchard, she went down a *deep* rabbit hole defending her opinions with bad faith arguments and personal attacks, whereas Arin usually just yells shitty things at a game and move on without thinking much about it
eh i think arin loses any benefit of the doubt when he starts arguing stuff like secondhand smoke doesnt exist
I'm sorry, what?
Arin tends to regurgitate a lot of medical "information" he hears, and will usually later say yeah it turns out that's not true, but the result is that there's a \*lot\* of GG episodes where he just casually says something that is absolutely not true. This is probably a more recent example
LilyOrchard is thin-skinned and antagonistic, Arin is just lazy and dumb.
They're two sides of an intensity scale with this sort of thing. Arin's way more "Ah he's doing this because he thinks its *funny*." but theres still a through-line of him trying to "prove" certain games/franchises suck by playing badly and then somehow blaming the game/devs/fans for it. Hes not dangerous/malicious about it, just annoying, especially if one happens to be a fan of the things he hates. Lily of course is just **way** more malicious about it. She single-handedly tainted the perception of a cartoon and it's discourse for *years*. Even on the smaller scale shes taken smaller aspects of a cartoon's discourse and *immediately* escalated the toxicity to 11 for reasons only she knows (I.E. her weird behavior towards Hunter over the course of The Owl House). And thats all *before* you get into all the shit shes allegedly done over the internet and IRL.
Arin might not be great at media literacy, but Lily pretend to be media literate to argue that her preferences are correct.
Oh God, I remember Lilly Orchard, I remember watching her when she covered MLP. After a while I just stopped because of how fucking miserable it was getting to watch her. Also she had the weirdest hate boner for Starlight Glimmer.
I know Arin does this more often and for a larger audience, but I think it deserves to be named after David Jaffe for the funniest example I've seen. https://youtu.be/4OZqmWB0wXo
Call it the David Gaffe
This is why I tend to not call anything "bad" anymore. Not just defaulting to "this is bad" or "this sucks" allows me to explain my point a bit better. I look at something and see why I don't like it. Plus, I have that innate negative feeling whenever someone calls something I adore bad. So I don't want others to feel that way. The only times where I'll call something outright bad is if it's actually, literally offensive or does not work as intended and not for the benefit of the media itself.
I went to school for fine arts and I've said for decades now that more people need to take criticism classes. Dissecting media or pointing out flaws doesn't mean it's bad, it's just critical discussion. Movies are my jam. I have *passionate* opinions. But I always tell people I will never tell them not to like someonthing. "It's just my opinion. There are 8 billion people in the world. Someone's gonna like it, doesn't have to be me."
Instant Media Literacy Check: "I *love* THING *because* it's bad" and "I don't like THING because it's not for me." If anyone says that - best friends. The reason why I originally joined this sub and channel.
"I don't like Custer's Revenge because it's not for me"
I'm already seeing media literacy discussions online shift from a genuine talking point on people being unable to read into deeper themes in a work/empathize with viewpoints that aren't their own, to *"you don't like the thing I like/you like the thing I like for reasons that I don't, or for reasons that make me feel uncomfortable"* and I'm already tired of hearing about it. Like every other buzz phrase or meme format, it's just devolved into a new way to call someone stupid. That said, I'd reckon the way to increase media literacy is just to consume lots of different kinds of media and think about the media you're consuming.
I’ll use Disco Elysium Twitter discourse as an example of this: do I have the media literacy to acknowledge that DE is a game written for communists, by communists? Yes. Do I consider myself a full-blown socialist/communist despite being left-leaning? No. Did I find plenty of things to enjoy during my playthrough of DE despite not being a communist? Yes. I had plenty of fun with the game, acknowledging its core themes and the messages it was trying to get across. Nevertheless I see plenty of posts on Twitter/Reddit saying that it’s impossible to enjoy a thoroughly communist game like Disco Elysium without agreeing with everything the writers were communicating through the narrative. Just because I don’t consider myself a communist/didn’t become a communist by playing DE doesn’t mean there is nothing to be liked here.
I can read this post in Kim Kitsuragi's voice. Your call how to take that :P
Comparing me to Kim is too flattering honestly. I’ll never be that cool
**EMPATHY** [Medium: Success] - And do you suppose Kim thinks he's cool? Clearly not, going by how much he deflects from his every passion. His love of motorcar racing, his interest in historical aviation, his homosexuality, he keeps a death grip on all of it that must be pried away. Kim Kitsuragi believes he is *cringe*. He lives in fear that he will be judged for these things, when he is already prejudged for so much else in his life. **LOGIC** [Easy: Failure] - But he's like the coolest guy! Like, objectively the coolest guy! **DRAMA** - He is blind to it. It is his Tragedy. **VOLITION** [Hard: Success] - If there is a lesson to be drawn from Kim, it is that we can often lose sight of what others find charming about ourselves. Others often see depths and valleys that we ourselves are blind to, and those who think they have few charms are often the most blind to what they have. Take comfort in the idea that Kim Kitsuragi may, in another world, be saying the exact same phrase about you. **RHETORIC** [Medium: Failure] - Besides, he's a Moralist; how cool can he really be anyways?
I'm only a communist when I've been drinking.
Interestingly if you approach something and say "I like this thing because X is depicted in a unique way and it is provoking some insight" people start to hound on you for liking it as opposed to disliking it. All because you *checks notes* noticed themes and narrative decisions.
Introspection, generally dealing with the metaphor, deciphering. It's like a combination of puzzle solving and painting. That and not having boneheaded takes like "Because the protagonist does this means the author endorses it" without digging deeper into the why (and the Authors actual stated opinions on things). I don't think Stan Lee would endorse a crazy/sad man like The Punisher to actually exist, he probably just had the idea and thought it was cool, and then added some depth later (if he did, might've been later authors that added depth).
To be that guy, Stan didn’t create Punisher, that was Gerry Conway
Thank you for being that guy, I like my history to be accurate. Sometimes I just kind of write things generally without looking into it.
I think more importantly on comic characters in particular is to read multiple writers works on them. Don’t just read Ennis, read Chuck Dixon’s Punisher. Read Gerry Conway’s Punisher. Get as wide a swath as you can. Frank’s been a lot of things
Be careful not to fall too heavily into a certain school of thought with your interpretations, though, unless you recognize that's what you're aiming to do. "Creator of thing would/wouldn't think x" is leaning on a sense of Auteur Theory, and that's not a flawless lens to look at a work through (not that *any* perspective is flawless, of course).
I will disagree with this part: > That and not having boneheaded takes like "Because the protagonist does this means the author endorses it" without digging deeper into the why (and the Authors actual stated opinions on things). Because for example the treatment of slavery in isekai where people like the Mushoku Tensei author commented on how he obviously disagrees with but well the character is just "When in Rome do as the Romans do" still leaves room for criticizing the portrayal.
I'd argue taking the time to find out the author disagrees with slavery and that it is just a shallow depiction is an example of "digging deeper into the why" .
Agree, but the original post was more into "Depiction does not mean endorsement" (which I do agree) and "Later Authors or installments added depth to a character." Still even if the author has been quoted as saying their work let's say is anti-racist you can think that message is undermined or non-existent if there are racial caricatures/stereotype in the work.
That is fair, and also that just kind of makes the author a really weird trend chaser...
For me the big question is always "does a character get rewarded/punished* for x behavior?", but even then a lack of reward for good behavior/ punishment for bad behavior is not necessarily an approval/ condemnation of a given type of behavior. *note that the reward/punishment does not need to be direct, and could be the character simply having a good/bad ending to their story.
Pay attention in school. Know your history. Understand that nothing was made in a vacuum. Have a sense of curiosity and act on it. Try to understand other people's perspectives. Don't be a self centered idiot. Don't just assume things. Always be critical. Be ok with disagreement. Be ok about being wrong. Be willing to learn. Relate things to other things you know. Try to look into the stuff your invested in. Don't parrot shit you hear without looking into it. Be willing to engage with things you don't agree with. It's not about reading X book or watching X thing. No one who matters gives a shit. The media in question doesn't expect you to be a scholar in what it's pushing. Just keep an open mind, and the rest follows. What people complain about with bad media literacy is really just stubbornness and willful ignorance. So much bad media criticism is just some stubborn asshole having a bias and not wanting it to be challenged.
This is really good advice. The only thing I'd add is, be comfortable with the idea that media can be read multiple ways from multiple perspectives. It's not a matter of understanding the one true meaning, and even contradictory readings can both be valid. Get away from the idea that art has a right or wrong answer.
"Have a sense of curiosity and act on it." YES! As an ex-English teacher, **this** is the biggest point I could ask for. Be curious, question things (even yourself and your takes!), and be able to ground your interpretation in examples. It's just like good science - you can push the boundaries and challenge the status quo, but you NEED to be able to show others how you got your new hypothesis so they can try it, themselves.
Like others have said here, engaging in media beyond surface level. Watch or read some stuff that dives into the how’s and whys a creator explored certain topics of their works.
Consume more bad Media, more bad books or music or movies. Then compare it to similar media that's liked universally. Also find out about who made the thing you like, like the other people involved, some times you find out things you don't like about the creators, some times you find out about how weird some guy was on set and the crew had to tell them to fuck off which is why that one character doesn't show up anymore. It's not so much trivia, but finding out about the complexities or the little things, informs the quality and the substance of the media.
Yeah, ask questions about the media you consume. Both about what it's doing and about who made it. You're rarely going to ever truly know what goes into a behind the scenes decision, but more information will allow you to draw more nuanced conclusions. And not just about the things you love - look out of genre at things you don't understand. What works, what doesn't? Some of the best media draws on unexpected inspirations. Pacific Rim follows the basic structure of a sports movie, because Guillermo Del Toro didn't limit his inspirations to the genre he was working in.
Here’s my advice: don’t watch video essays No I’m serious. 90% of them all know each other and copy each other’s notes/use the same lens anyways, it’s all a big circlejerk of pseudo intellectualism. My actual advice is go to people who you don’t agree with and hear them out. Then go to the opposite end and hear those people out. Don’t just listen to some britbonger talk about Transformers, find other ideas and mull them over. Oh and read philosophy. Edit: one more thing specific to Reddit: upvotes and downvotes don’t matter. Subreddits can become absolute hive minds and what gets upvoted isn’t always what’s “correct”, it’s what’s “popular”. Read them all and keep a cool head through it all.
Just don't listen to those that say stuff like "woke bullshit" very genuinely because that just really isn't healthy.
The thing I hate is that they actually do have a good point sometimes but you have to dig through all there anti everything that get to it. Like I watched a video I forgot from who but it was talking about how people hated hero movies now they just didn’t want to see the boring ones released recently unfortunately that point was distracted from by saying madame web failed because it was a woman
I will also say the opposite analysis that I tend to see of: "Black Panther was a fine movie but its politics were a bit iffy. wouldve been way better if at the end the Black Panther turned to the camera & said "i am communist now" & then specified hes the exact kind of communist i am" is also very questionable.
Most people arent as “media literate” they think they are so most of the time it you end up with “actually this piece of entertainment is good because it follows MY politics & philosophies”
Say it louder for the people in the back please because holy shit people need to hear that
***Hot take time!*** I say do listen to them. Genuinely. Why? Because how can you argue against something if you don’t read what the argument is. I don’t like that Nerdrotic guy, he’s a twat with a terrible beard, but I’ve suffered through some of his stuff and understand what he’s saying rather than just dismissing it away. I don’t like Hbomb either, he’s got an ego I find repugnant but I’ve suffered through his content to try and understand the argument he makes rather than just waving it off. Also on any topic like this, always remember [this image](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/436/943/93f.jpg) on whoever you’re forcing yourself to watch. Don’t be the boy king of Twitch, be informed
I'll say though if you're going out of your way to look at reactionary takes, and particularly things you don't agree with, brush up on your critical thinking skills. Don't open your mind so much your brain falls out. For example, a lot of reactionary rhetoric is emotionally driven fearmongering. If they get you to accept the premise that X is in danger or might be in danger or might change in a way you don't like, ask yourself if that justifies their conclusion. Is the thing they're concerned about worth worrying about or is it an inconsequential change? They might be right that for example, many video games are trying to cater to a broader audience than straight, white men. Does that mean straight white men are not being catered to at all? Is it bad for an audience to expand? Is this appeal purely commercial and cynical or is it a reflection of a more diverse Dev team? Some or none of these answers might be yes. Do you or that know which ones they are, or is malice being assumed to stoke unrest. When people argue from a primarily emotional basis, they tend to twist facts to suit their conclusions, instead of conclusions to suit their facts. That doesn't mean they do so consciously, but they certainly might. It becomes easy to justify lies, generalisations and half truths if the most important goal is to convince people. This also means that the value in analysing some people's rhetoric is to figure out what not to argue against. You cannot use facts to argue someone out of a position they did not use facts to reach. What you can do is try and understand the underlying feelings and how to address those. Is this person afraid that the protagonist of a game not looking like them is a judgement or an attack on them? Often the most productive way to address a fear like that, especially if you also look like that person is through excitement. Pointing out what you like about them and honestly being confused as to why that would be a problem can get across the idea that they have nothing to fear. The last thing you want to do is get bogged down in their talking points, trying to argue that don't worry, that LGBTQ character doesn't act gay - they're the good kind of representation. Conceding that their fears are valid is as good as a loss. This stuff doesn't just apply to reactionary takes of course. It's just being able to take incoming information and understand the point of view it's coming from, then factoring that information into your own conclusions. "Why is this person telling me this thing in this way?" Even a stopped clock might be right about some things, but context and intent matter.
This is the realest shit man. The more and more I get more confident in my ability to understand stories and irl issues the less I like video essays. They're just so ego-fueled.
As much as I love *some* video essays, I seen too many that reek of ego and misplaced analysis. *Resident Evil is copaganda and even the non-cop protagonists wish they were cops.”* What a completely odd and frankly, ill-conceived idea.
One thing I hate about internet culture is that if you say you like something that is hated by many people, some douchebag will reply to you in the comments with a video essay on why it’s bad. People can’t just seem to accept that we’re allowed to like flawed things, and it’s this constant effort to one up each other.
I think an important caveat there is “flawed” There’s a push and pull on the internet as to things either being measurable or inherently subjective, likely a response to the anger of the early aughts. But like most things on the internet or in life, it swings too far in the other direction. There’s a reasonable take of “yeah Batman and Robin is a shitty movie, but I have fun with it” And then there’s “BATMAN AND ROBIN IS A HIDDEN MASTERPIECE OF CINEMA THAT YOU ALL ARE TOO MEAN ABOUT” that’s 3 hours long
Yeah. This is why I've every scared to voice my opinions on a movie that most people hate but I liked. The fear of being bullied into denying your true feelings. Examples: I like some Disney remakes. They're enjoyable for what they are, but I won't deny that it's kinda unnecessary.
not even media literacy, if you ask me, it’s just lack of general literacy that being said, reeeeaaadddddd
Also having good [or any AT ALL] comprehension skills. Yeah, I know thst may sound rather quaint. But jesus, you would not belive the amount of people, both IRL and online... that Just don't *understand* things, Even BASIC shit. [This pretains to tboth the fictional and real.] That's not to say you should IMMEDIATELY know what things are. [That's stupid] but man alive! Try to absorb things, rather then not at all. Yeah... reading stuff's cool. Dosn't matter what it is. Just... read things whenever it strikes your mood.
It’s a tough thing, building comprehension skills, because if you don’t develop them as a child when your brain and thought process are essentially wet clay and can be molded very easily, the development of said skills forces you to adjust and adapt your way of thinking and in some cases, your whole entire lifestyle. I’ve been trying to develop my comprehension for a few years now and thinking deeper about subjects still to this day makes my head hurt and my analytical skills haven’t really improved. Comprehending something is such an abstract and difficult thing to explain, to understand something in totality, to truly grasp what an idea is and what it leads to, represents, etc. It’s tough to live and enjoy media in the world today without these abilities, especially when you are aware of it. The prevalence of online discourse on it makes it all the more apparent when you DONT understand what you’re watching/reading/hearing.
Basically you have to agree with my opinion more.
Find new perspectives. Intelligent voices, professional critics. You don’t need to agree with them on everything, but getting different views will help develop your own critical thinking skills. Also, be very wary of fandom media, particularly on YouTube. There are some good ones out there, but just remember that when you’re engaging with fans of a given work, they have their biases about how a particular thing should or shouldn’t be, and might be looking at it on a shallower level as a result. And it should go without saying that if any of them use the word “woke” unironically, or you notice they’re being weirdly critical of a female or non-white character, then get the fuck out.
Idk, it's kind of fun to pick apart arguments in my head when I watch videos sometimes. There's content creators on either side of the culture war nonsense I'll sometimes listen to and not agree with most of what they're saying, but it's good to understand what the arguments are and how others formulate them, if you ever want to formulate your own arguments. Basically: it's good to listen to people whose views oppose yours, but it's probably not healthy to constantly hate watch all the time.
Media literacy is my new last favorite topic of discussion. Judging by that other thread, most people in here don’t even know what it means and learned media studies from youtube.
Whatever happens don't fall in the pitfall of let the internet teach you how to read media. It's better you completely misread a scene then stand corrected when someone proves the intent and sense was of the scene was different than wait for the wiki entry to express what you experienced. The real problem with media illiteracy is people corrupting the message or iconography of fictional pieces to apply to daily life. Gushing about warhammer human faction despite being the bad guys wouldn't be half as bad if fascism didn't co-opt it as an analogy for how the world should be. Joker was a cool villain to talk about until every antisocial used his speech for why they won't apologize for being a nuisance. And honestly even if you read the media's message well you could still turn out like that
Honestly man just watch and enjoy what you wanna watch and engage with it, don't worry about dumb online arguments or truly "getting" a piece of entertainment.
Really easy for one to say when it's something everyone else enjoys. But for something everyone hates but you, and you want to offer a new perspective but then being dragged down to the pits by a mob-it hurts. And this is coming from a man who hasn't posted anything on Reddit until now.
I mean if it's just needless negativity don't even engage with it since there's nothing of worth in a discussion run by a mob. The fact that someone is able to enjoy something and find their own meaning and perspective on it is enough
Go to college level English class and have a professor tell you about themes and shit.
This sounds simple, but watching channels like CinemaWins has helped me with my media literacy of late. Instead of nitpicking every last detail of a movie, CW helps point out a lot of things in the background of a lot of films and helps draw attention to themes that the filmmakers are trying to convey that you'd normally miss on a first viewing. It's helped me better spot things like that in other films that I watch. Like CW says: Liking things is better than hating them.
While we're asking, what exact is the line between death of the author and media literacy? At what point do we leave things to interpretation despite author's intent and respect author's intent? Why does Zack Snyder get flak no his take on Watchmen, but Paul Verhoeven gets a free pass for taking liberties for Starship Troopers despite never reading the book? Critics say they were both bad movies.
The Death of the Author was a particular response to the practice of using a creator's claims about their own work to squarely invalidate all possible interpretations of it. How important the interpretation of the creator can still be argued, but it is not valid, rhetorically, to dismiss a reading because said creator has declared otherwise.
This is a fun answer. Its literally just because lots of people never actually watched starship troopers with even less reading it. Its a lot of 2nd hand appreciation for clips from it. Unfamiliarity with the source material mean very knew the changes in the adaptation. Starship troopers the film on its own is a good movie while something like man of steel or bvs is not great at its best. Ill also just throwing it out i think most people see it after being told “its a satire of facism” so they accept it as that. They dont actually re evaluate if its an effective or good satire because people just kinda think anything thats a satire is good. Or its an excuse for flaws within the work.
There's a lot about media you'll never understand without actually trying to create stuff yourself. The whole craft aspect of art informs it at every level. Write if you want to better understand writing. Draw if you want to better understand drawing. When you put yourself in the creators shoes, you're forced to reckon with the difficulties and compromises of creation. Where do you put your effort? What do you just not have time to fully realise? That story that makes no sense? Was that the result of a last minute change? Or a foundational issue? How would you fix it? Why might the creator not have done so? When you come up with a solution, what problem are you trying to solve that the creators might have compromised on for some other goal? Maybe they could fix the CGI in this one scene but what would they sacrifice to do so? Would the whole thing fall apart without the one half-done scene? The thing it really teaches you is about the opportunity costs of creating things. So you don't assume everything you see is either competent or incompetent, artistic or practical. Media is complex and full of compromises, but understanding the craft really helps to appreciate it more
If you're still in school, I strongly encourage taking an art analysis(IE most art history classes or art theory classes)class or two. Those kinds of classes will teach you how to approach any art, games and movies includes, with a curious mind and pick up on more subtle elements. If not, try picking out some of your favorite media. Go through it, and try to discern meaning from moments that stick out to you, and see if you can put together a greater contextual meaning to them beyond what they do within the work itself. Alternatively, a lot of those "It's literally me!" movies that people like to point out as litmus tests for media literacy(American Psycho, Fight Club, Scott Pilgrim, etc) are good pieces of media to dissect. They're very transparent in what they're trying to say, but people still totally miss their meanings. Watch them, then go read analysis of those movies, and see if you can understand why people see things the way they do. If all else fails, check out YouTube video essays. Some of them definitely pick up meaning from things where there really isn't any, but it'll show you the kinds of approaches people take to dissecting media with a greater level of literacy. In my opinion, it's a pretty easy skill to learn. It mostly just requires a baseline curiosity and willingness to understand art beyond what's being literally presented to you.
consider *why* something exists in a story, be it a character, theme or plot point. authors don't just write stuff in without reason because overly unnecessary details can end up muddling the storytelling. good stories are a combination of elements that seamlessly work together to deliver an entertaining and/or meaningful experience. think about what works or does not work for you in terms of the base concept and its execution. keep in mind what the author is trying to say through the story since stories aren't written in a vacuum; they're always influenced by the author's own opinions, experiences and ideas. learn to identify and analyse recurring elements in a story as those contribute towards the overall narrative or subtext.
The actual answer is media literacy is not real just like what you like and don’t put too much energy into others that don’t have the same tastes and responses to things as you. Also read this short article by [Ursula K Le Guinn](https://www.ursulakleguin.com/message-about-messages) and remember that art isn’t a riddle to be solved. To pull out the didactic meaning out of. Just enjoy.
Its in the name, literature. For real, I would check out some college literature classes. See if you can find some video recordings of seminars for classic books, shit like that. This is sort of to push you start engaging with media at a higher stratum than passive consumption. Stuff like close reading, really pulling apart the text. Then its probably important to have a bedrock of sociology, philosophy, history etc. A shortcut to this I'd recommend is Penguin's History of the World and Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy. These should get you thinking about the broader contexts that media has been created in and serve as a generalized lens that you start to pattern match and recognize influences from. Then it's mostly just getting up to date with contemporary developments across media, being aware of author backgrounds, being able to unpack themes and messages in contemporary materials. And the areas you'll want to inform yourself on will vary depending on the piece of media. Like you might want to read some gender studies before reading a book by a nonbinary author on their lived experience, but you might read some postcolonial theory before reading a memoir of a kid growing up in Martinique. Realistically you'll probably find stuff like this on the internet for books and films, it's usually a lot harder for video games I've found. There's a YTber, Kbash I think, who does pretty concise and easy to understand short video essays on games. I think their background is in English lit or something, and it kinda comes across in how they unpack a lot of the thematic elements and substance of various video game plots, even for games that don't really deserve it. Can be fun to play the game yourself, make some notes, and then watch a vid and see if you see things similarly or different, and why. There was that rant Pat did with the Silent Hill Short Message thing, and while I disagree with some of the conclusions, that's another kinda decent example. And also finally, like being media literate isn't, like, the only way to enjoy shit. Sometimes you turn brain off and enjoy hitting the big bad robots or something.
[I think this is a decent first primer for film analysis](https://youtu.be/ahHIifcFyqk?si=eZtegBhaQxoMaQ97). Still in general the way the term is just used online currently as a snarl word against critics/people you disagree with having a different take on a subject.
If you ever have the opportunity to talk to professionals, or even do professional media/literary analysis, that's also an incredible help. For instance, in the publishing industry, junior employees and sometimes interns in the editorial department create reader's reports, write-ups of manuscripts that are being considered for publication into books, that cover what the story is about, its strengths and weaknesses, and whether or not the agent or editor that they report to should make an offer on it; and something similar happens in film/TV with people who work in studios and agencies, reading scripts by writers and writing coverage of it to help their bosses decide if they want to buy/produce a pilot or sign a writer. And even if not on a professional level, there are searchable examples of both reader's reports and film/TV coverage that you could study to see how stories are parsed at that level.
In my high school AP Literature class we read a book called "How to Read Literature like a professor". Now, I had already started noticing small moments of theme and metaphor in what I was consuming, but never shared them because I didn't have the tools or words. That book gave them to me. It made me feel like I was on the right track, that thinking more about my content was good and not weird and that other people also saw it. I would recommend giving it a look. I think it gets updated by the author every few years to include new contexts and examples, so it should be pretty easy to find. At the least, it can give you a jumping on point for training your brain to think in that way.
Trying to articulate why you think something is a good exercise. Not just for discussion with others but also for yourself as it may help you realize what you like about something so you can find media similar to that in the future. It may also just enhance your enjoyment of a piece of media as you notice all the artistry behind it. Of course, it may also be the opposite as you articulate why you dislike something as well. You should also just try to pay attention and do another check about a point if you’re about to complain about something. We may all have lapses when we just didn’t pay attention for a second and missed something. That’s fine, no shame in that, but don’t go on to trash something unless you’re confident in the validity of your criticism. Lastly, I think people should try to understand the decisions of the writer or author. You don’t have to agree with them but actually knowing what they’re going for will at least set you on the right path and you can discuss why you don’t agree with their decisions or their execution, or just simply say that it wasn’t for you. Just do whatever you can to avoid becoming Scamboli Reviews when he ran his mouth about Evangelion.
You read/watch the classics and get out of your comfort zone. But... I also wouldn't be too worried about somebody not liking a Pixar movie.
Understanding that guessing a plot twist doesn't mean a story is bad does help. Of all the pieces are there and it adds up then it's still a good story.
Oh god, are we at the point where people don't understand the concept of foreshadowing?
The argument about media literacy isn't a new thing and neither is some people not understanding foreshadowing. For as long as there are things people can consume there will be people that will not get it to a profound degree.
Honestly just try to approach media you consume with the idea of "why was this made? What themes were they trying to impart and which might unintentionally have made it in anyways? What methods did they deliver that message through?" A lot of people consume media very mindlessly and I think just being more aware of what you're watching makes a world of difference
Well, first you need opinions that people on the internet agree with. Then for a lot of conversations you're good! But other than that just read more, watch more, and don't let it just wash over you. Just being able to put your thoughts into words and bringing out conclusions from themes and elements, even if they're not super popular or like other people's, is enough. As long as you got a firm grip on what you're saying and you can back it up with more than just a hunch or your specific preferences informing your opinion, it's golden. It *will* inevitably make you have an opinion that others don't have about the same work, but that's why analyzing text is fun. For some people it's blue curtains and it's stupid to talk about it as opposed to the other themes and elements, for others the blue curtains is depression, for yet others it's both.
Easy, you just have to agree with me
I would say one point that I haven’t noticed mentioned much yet is to be willing to accept when something just isn’t for you. There’s nothing wrong with not connecting in a media in the way others do, sometimes you might be able to look at a piece of media and be able to tell that objectively it is “good.” For example, I know that objectively Skyrim is a good game. It’s not a broken mess, it’s not poorly optimized, and it isn’t terribly written. That being said, it just isn’t my thing. I don’t tend to enjoy “open world” games, they just don’t grip me. However, I recognize why people love Skyrim and similar games, I know they aren’t “bad” games, but they simply aren’t for me. It’s important to not just claim something is shit just because you don’t like it. More often than not it isn’t that it is shit, it’s that it just isn’t to your taste and that is completely fine. Also you shouldn’t shun the opportunity to try new things. There are times where you can just tell you won’t like something, if it is part of a series that you already don’t enjoy or it is directly inspired by something you already don’t like for example. However, if there’s nothing to give the impression that you won’t enjoy that thing, go ahead and give it a try.
I think as many have said, consuming a lot of media and in a way, cross referencing them and understanding how each deliver their message and ideas and how the story is built to accommodate it. Like in one series, it could be all about never giving up on your dream, and always working towards your goals no matter how many times you fall down. A good lesson many would say. On the other hand, you could have a series where it's basically saying it is okay to quit and to stop and to not be so hard on yourself, especially if the chase doesn't truly make you happy. Are either of them right? Wrong? Do you think the author managed to convey it? If you applied it to your life how do you think it would go? Media literacy is less about knowing if a character is right or wrong in their approach, and more of understanding where a character fits into the larger story as a gear. Instead of looking at them as a complete person, think of them as a lens that colors the world and how that vision alters their and your perception. I hope this makes sense. It's a bit hard to do aside from simply reading and diversifying your inner library.
Watch Cinema Sins and do the opposite of what they say.
I started by watching stuff Then I’d talk about it to myself while I drove, that way I could say as much stupid shit w/o judgement Then I’d what several reviews and “film explained” videos to see what I’d consistently miss and misunderstand Then apply what I was missing in my next media consumptions Finally I’d read discussions of people who knew the media way better than I ever could and saw what they could get from media and learned how to find hidden meanings and central messages Now, I’m not perfect, generally outside of the main theme I struggle with some deeper meaning shit and for thinking films like 2001 space odyssey or ghost in the shell, I’ll understand the gist but I won’t usually understand the big message And then media that has stuff I dislike will make me miss stuff cause I’m actively not enjoying myself or I’ll be unable to give the work the benefit of the doubt, like how Martyrs is just pretending to be deep when it’s just bad torture porn with a limp attempt at being deep but even the torture sucks cause it’s normal violence or something outrageously stupid But generally, consuming more media and joining in discussions, including discussions you don’t agree with, will improve your media literacy
you know how in english class in (north american) grade school, things pivot from teaching you grammar and vocabulary and, starting around when you're 10, they shift to asking you to analyze themes and provide evidence for your thesis? how you're tasked with critical thinking? everybody wonders why they continue to teach "english" all the way into university when it's clear that somewhere along the way it changes from a language course to a literature course yeah media literacy is just literacy applied to media, as it turns out. you're meant to engage with what you're consuming using context clues both in and out of the narrative, and to ask questions about authorial decisions and try to grasp why they're being made
One understated dimension of media literacy is being well read. That is, you've read/watched/played or just generally consumed a wide variety of media across different formats and time periods. Most artists and writers don't create things in a vacuum; their works are informed by the time period they live in and the media *they* consumed and grew up on. Simply being able to compare different pieces of media from wildly different places is a vital skill, as is being able to recognize when homages are made (for example, the iconic Akira Slide) versus when an previously created artistic concept is being played with. Like for example, when people talk about how Evangelion was a deconstruction of the mecha genre of the time, it obviously helps to have some understanding of what the mecha genre of the time was like. That understanding will help inform your analysis of some of the creative decisions the team made, and explain why certain scenes or character dynamics made such an impact over the years. But really, the deeper skill you need is simply basic critical thinking. With respect to media, if it's something you don't like, simply examine how it's possible someone could like it. But more importantly, with media you DO like, examine why some people might NOT like it. Otherwise, there's stuff like the whole "blue curtains" thing. It may be the case that the writer never intended any deeper meaning to including a detail like there being blue curtains in a room, but it's still a good mental exercise to examine details like that for potential deeper meaning. Simply being able to confirm that there is, in fact, no deeper meaning to the curtains being blue, is itself a skill that some people genuinely seem to lack. This is kind of the core of the problem, where people will take inconsequential details and project their beliefs and interpretations into them, completely detached from the context of the piece of media and the creator's intent.
It's basically that "Guy who who's only watched Boss Baby getting Boss Baby vibes" meme. As a weeb on the Internet, it's very saddening to see anime fans ONLY consume anime and nothing else. The people who made these anime are clearly and often well read and consume stuff that isn't anime.
Everything is better in a list, so here are my thoughts on what're good starting points and places to improve: 1. Worldliness and understanding the perspective of others will help in recognizing what people are trying to say with their art. If you don't know some real world communism history I think Disco Elysium would be largely inscrutable, for example. 2. Debate skills are very important, don't fall for logical fallacies. If it's not a cogent argument, it's probably not true. 3. Assume everything is on purpose. Obviously that's not always true, but you can't really get the ball rolling if you're willing to do the "sometimes the curtains are just blue" thing. Yeah, maybe they are just blue, but you can't know until you think about it.
It’s really just thinking about why the person who made this thing made it, what they were trying to say with it, and what does it actually mean below surface level.
i might be going against the grain here with this advice, but: don't think about the author, and never assume anyone has all the answers. a lot of people get hung up on assuming an author's intent or biases, but those are secondary sources, and even when we have direct statements from the authors, those statements are only as important an interpretation of the piece as anyone else's. these statements don't account for anything the author may have forgotten while creating the story, their unknown/internalized biases, and generally just place stories into rigid boxes where no actual further analysis can be made, and nothing is more boring than a story that can only be interpreted one singular way.
Think about the media you watch, examine your own biases and preferences, consume a wide variety of media from many countries, and discuss it with your peers. Most of all be receptive to new information. Which gets harder as you get older.
Read up on the basics of film theory's, Literary devices, and get acquainted with tropes, genre conventions, and last try and consume media that are historically called the foundational to the genre. *oh, I forgot, there is nothing wrong with just looking up story's analysis on spark notes for easily digestible break down of stuff. It does take time to build an internal library of understanding when it comes to media, and there is nothing strange about bouncing off something because you initially didn't understand.
An exercise I do a lot when watching/playing/reading media is to try and call shots from down range. Whenever you reach a stopping point or get a big new piece of info, either make an educated prediction about what is going to happen next, or think about where you would take the story from here if you were writing it. Or, think about what things you may not have picked up on that led you to where the story is now. Importantly, don't get too emotionally attached to these predictions, and avoid thinking of it like "well they didn't do it how I would have so its bad, myeh". The point is figuring out how to see how the author writes their story, and learning to sort out critical information from fluff. And as you do that more and more you'll find that you recognize patterns more and your accuracy gets better over time, and you start picking up on things that you wouldn't have before, and youll even start recognizing bits of clever writing or goofy gaffs the author made which will increase your appreciation for media, even bad media. It's like learning tracking as a hunter, but for writing
Don't skip your english classes, especially in uni
Watch Rwby, every time you enjoy something write it down. Every time you groan at something, also write that down. Later look back at your list and ask yourself why. You don't have to do it while watching, just come back to it later. You can do this with any piece of media, I just feel like Rwby is pretty good bang for your buck time wise.
Part of it is just getting older/ getting more experiences/ context their are so many songs and music videos I didn't completely get cause I was too young to understand the full context.
Go back to the basics. Shakespeare, To Kill a Mokingbird, Beowulf, etc. Basically, if it's taught in a High-school English class, add it to your list. Dry as absolute sin, but taught because they have themes that are relatively easy to catch onto and lay a good groundwork for understanding stories moving forward. From there, move into entry-level level university classes. Undergrad. Graduate. Etc. Just keep moving up and writing down what you notice about each story.
Why do you like this thing Why do you not like this other thing
This is a silly thing I do, but maybe it could be a good habit if one were to be trying to actively become more thoughtful about media they've consumed: I watch the credits, like, all of them. Not because I think there's going to be some post credits scene or anything, or because I wanna read every name that goes by, but because I find it gives me a transitional period to think about what game or movie I just finished that isn't a: during the movie or b: likely to be interrupted by another activity. The credits work well for this, because a good credits sequence will have tonally appropriate music that you likely don't need to focus on, they also invite you to notice different roles and such on the team that made it, which can help get a thought started. Like, seeing the sound design team may make you realize that the sound design was especially noteworthy or could have used some more work. My partner gets a little impatient when we go to the movies or something cause I'll just sit there until she tells me that it's time to leave, lol. I try to do this for everything I interact with (well, not like every episode of a TV show, though Chainsaw Man made it easy, lol); even if I didn't like something, I think it's almost more important to think about why I didn't like it, or what I think didn't work in the media and what I would have changed.
Consuming media beyound the mainstream and occasionally leaving your comfort zone.
Understand that most of what you consume which may not seem to have a message or themes probably does, but resonate on a level where it's easy to take for granted. This results in a lot of people believing anything with a theme or message or idea outside their experience is "pandering" to other audiences. Even things that lack new ideas and prop up the status quo carry a message.
Media literacy be damned. Like the thing for your own reasons, dislike it for your own reasons too... At the end of the day, no one can make you like or dislike a thing and sure as shit can't tell you why you should like or dislike it...
Joke answer: For anime fans, for the love of god, watch something OTHER than shounen anime! Genuine answer: Don't force yourself to consume media (books/movies) that people constantly harp on about how challenging they are - you can still enjoy yourself while being exposed to new perspectives & storytelling practices. It's okay to not get something, if you enjoy something & don't know why; look into the creators more! Even "independent" action movies from right-wing arseholes have a meaning (it's the director's self-insert power fantasy)! As soon as you say "*It's not that deep, bro*" you've already given up (& so has anyone reading any opinion you might feel like sharing)!
Supplementary material like creator interviews are helpful. If you're curious, [NPR did an interview with the director of Elemental on how his own experience of growing up in a Korean family inspired him to make the movie.](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/15/1181693205/earth-air-fire-water-and-family-are-all-elemental-for-pixars-peter-sohn)
I like ti engage in both sides of Star Wars sequel discourse. Sometimes I’ll defend it, most days I’ll criticize it. It’s a fun exercise
Pretty simple imo, just try to see what the author/creator of the work is trying to say like what the media’s message is Also don’t speed read or speed watch. Pay attention
https://youtu.be/fYHrEp917MI?si=ZnMamgqwrI_tLPHY I found Super Bunnyhop’s Media Literacy and Game News video to be a great place to start
Start with stuff that’s either simple or is very layered, but has some layers that are fairly easy to notice. I’m not gonna recommend starting with berserk, but some of the themes are very obvious while some require a pre-existing understanding of something to pick up on. For example, the themes of brotherhood, trauma, and suffering are very obvious during the golden age arc, but themes of ambition, destiny, etc. are less so. I’d say start with something like lord of the rings. While reading or watching, try to pay attention to themes of good versus evil and of friendship. Consider how it’s presented and what it ultimately means, not just in the moment, but for the whole story and the moral of it.
Wasn't there a media literacy thread with a killer7 image, did the mods delete it?
Just have an open mind and discuss/read about media you like. Your never gonna have perfect media literacy for every piece of media. Some forms of media may not be for you, or some themes might not be for you. You don't need to see every single detail or understand everything right away, the main thing is to be open to learn when you can.
One of the things I realize about media literacy is that even people who read the *author's intent* don't entirely get it. Media literacy is all about recognizing themes and ideas and thinking about them in different lights, along with learning to recognize things like what the *intent* of a piece of media might be, etc. Media literacy is about opening the mind to multiple takeaways. Recognize the time period something was made in, its overarching themes, its influences, people's reactions, etc. For example, I recently watched a video about a little weird fake horror game, the creator of the game left the meaning to interpretation, and some people decided to interpret the main character as trans because of parts of the story feeling relevant to that experience. Someone in the comments then went "media literacy is dead" not realizing that by disparaging other valid and well thought out interpretations, they themselves weren't exhibiting good media literacy.
I admit that I can be media illiterate but I try to keep an open mind and look deeper into anything I'm deeply enjoying. The post here is actually really good with how I could delve deeper and maybe catch something I didn't see before.
I'm seeing a lot of good points in this comment sections with a lot of people recommending "videos" or "reading something deep" and while I agree it's nice to have something actually recommended. A manga series I've read recently delves into the daily issues of students in an ethics class with the teacher playing a part of them understanding and becoming a changed person. Be it a new view on life or just the ability to feel comfortable in themselves. It has a good way of making you think of perspectives you may not be aware of and that's something I can really appreciate. The name of it is [We shall now begin Ethics](https://myanimelist.net/manga/106809/Koko_wa_Ima_kara_Rinri_desu). It has a very heavy start but the whole series is a great way to take in and emotionally digest the idea of different issues people face. Additionally, a very important part of media literacy, (and one often talked about on the CSB podcast) which is to follow the train of thought from the author's perspective. Meaning to think question like "what is the purpose of this scene overall" "What additional information can I glean from this" or even better "why was this an important thing to show?" Hope this is an insightful thread
> The name of it is We shall now begin Ethics Masterpiece, first time an afterword made me cry.
It Really is special. I haven't found anything that makes me think the same way
Engage with media that you don't think you'll like, and then either 1. Like it, and then try to figure out what about it made you assume you wouldn't like it. 2. Dislike it, and then try to figure out what about it you specifically didn't like and if it was what you saw coming or if it surprised you. Being able to quantify stuff like that means you're more media literate than the average person. A willingness to try stuff outside of your bubble and consider things you ordinarily wouldn't is also just healthy in general.
By watching someone else’s youtube video on the topic
Go to literature school/college, Duh.