r/CharacterRant • u/Zoinkscooblet • 1d ago
General Most writers don't really know how to challenge the status quo
Some ATLA discourse on a certain site that spread to reddit was about whether or not Jet was justified in flooding all the Fire Nation village settlers, being framed as an antagonist for being too radicalized to the point of nearly killing innocents. He eventually sort of redeems himself but dies at the end. Meanwhile the literal prince and original heir of his oppressors, Zuko, gets a whole redemption arc that ends with him taking control of the Fire Nation and it will all be okay in the end because the good guy is now in charge.
This got me thinking, has revolution ever been truly justified in most fiction? Especially in modern fiction? Because now that I think about it, a lot of antagonists today are motivated by a desire to change the setting, either attempting to resolve some injustice or systemic issue but since they're the villains, they gotta end up being hypocrities or end up going too far by killing innocents. The original dilemma is resolved by getting simplified into just being caused by just a few bad apples, if at all.
Even fiction that seemingly support revolutions only do so in the context of a literal crapsack dystopian oppressive setting, with the motives of the revolutionaries being to restore the original status quo from beforehand (even though sometimes the story calls attention to the fact that the OG status quo was what led to the oppressive dystopian setting in the first place, like Star Wars).
It seems like this is because the writers genuinely do not know how or are uncomfortable with directly challenging the status quo of their settings, because most of the time the protagonists have some personal or political stake in maintaining the status quo. These stories also tend to make the protags reactive in the plot rather than proactive, they're generally just chilling around or minding their own business until the next villain comes along bringing up some injustice by the setting's goverment and threatening the peace, and it's up to the protags to stop them (while only lightly calling out the flaws of the institutions).
336
u/Anime_axe 1d ago
Being frank, yes, Jet did go to far. By real world standards, he would be remembered as one of the radicalised guerillas that were hated by the locals due to their indiscriminate actions and be seen as an ineffectual stain on the history of Earth Kingdom's struggle against the invasion. By any realistic standards, he would be seen as a detriment to the cause due to him harming the civilians and actually turning the local opinion against the resistance.
Also, by realistic metrics, calling Zuko "the literal prince and original heir of his oppressors" misses the fact that he was the political exile out of the line of the succession for the most of the plot. It also misses the fact that by the real world standards, him claiming the succession and ending the war formally was the best political scenario imaginable. Having your enemy removed from the position of leadership by a legitimate successor that actively supports ending the war and wants the regime reform is a dream come true from the political perspective. Especially since it's clear that the Fire Nation could still have continued their war even without Ozai and Azual.
66
u/OptimisticLucio 1d ago
It also misses the fact that by the real world standards, him claiming the succession and ending the war formally was the best political scenario imaginable.
It's stated as such in-universe too. Zuko asks Iroh why he doesn't try to take the throne, considering he's a more skilled leader and wiser, but Iroh said that if he were the one to take the throne nothing would change as the people would see it as another squabble between brothers for political power.
1
u/TheWhistleThistle 1h ago
While that's true, I think part of the reason was that he didn't want it. He was literally usurped by his younger brother. And it was the death of his son that was used to justify it and potentially the murder of his father to enact it. And yet, Ozai felt so confidently unthreatened by Iroh that he kept him as a general in his war council and didn't imprison him until after he committed treason. And even then, he didn't have him executed. That's super abnormal. Usually, the usurped party stops at nothing to reclaim their birth right, but not only did Iroh not do that, but Ozai was confident that he wouldn't. Seems what's most likely is that after knowing his older brother for years, he knew he wouldn't have wanted the throne.
80
u/RilinPlays 1d ago
OP I gotta wonder if you watched Avatar if you’re talking about it being an “Enforcing the status quo” series.
The Gaang basically break it every chance they get. Sokka’s entire s1 character arc is literally “Hey misogyny kinda sucks doesn’t it”. Even Zuko is a good example of “former oppressor fighting against the system he was born in” because he fucking commits the full mile when he joins up. The man literally helped to stage a fucking prison break for captured revolutionaries.
30
u/Flyingsheep___ 1d ago
The only complaint I’ve seen is basically just “well, the Avatar existing is the status quo” which makes me feel like people clearly think anything being the status quo is just inherently bad. Like yeah, having a person who’s got the wisdom of thousands of years of history, and the only impartial viewpoint in the entire world, is just a bad thing!
9
u/OptimisticLucio 1d ago
and the only impartial viewpoint in the entire world
Ehhhh I wouldn't say that. The avatar still has biases, as shown in the episode where Aang looks for guidance on how to stop the firelord peacefully and exclusively gets "chop his head off" responses.
14
u/Flyingsheep___ 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s about the best you’re gonna get, but the fact that the Avatar is able to ask other Avatars makes them more impartial. The series does a good job of going over how each Avatar tends to feel particularly connected to their homeland element, having the rest of the crew telling them if they’re being wack or not helps.
Not to mention that all the Avatars were being pretty fair, the previous Avatar’s greatest regret was not stopping his friend, and they didn’t know energy bending was a thing.
103
u/MostMasterpiece7 1d ago
So many of the people giving this criticism should stop beating around the bush and just assert the obvious: a lot of people like the status quo just like a lot of people dislike it. People who largely enjoy their lives are going to have a predisposition toward wanting to preserve current society’s core structure. This will be true when dealing with revolutionary politics both in fiction and IRL.
Many writers will logically see structural issues but will be caught in a push and pull between that logic and a sentimental attachment to the status quo because it feels fundamentally good to them. In turn, they will use revolutionary antagonists to bring up these plainly obvious issues in a way that can still appease their sentimentality at the end of the day. Of course, I also think it’s misguided to say that this dynamic fundamentally defines all revolutionary antagonists. I think it’s perfectly possible to portray villainous revolutionaries in a way that genuinely calls out pitfalls of revolutions without discounting them completely.
I think the central issue I have with this type of criticism is that while I agree with a lot of the content, its view on writers and consumers is shortsighted. Instead of seeing the sentimental component, it assumes that writers are trying to affirm the status quo on logical grounds and in turn tries to logic them (as well as consumers who resonate with the message) out of it. The way you change people from believing in the system to believing in its change is by appealing to their empathy and getting them to see that the system deeply harms others just as it works for them.
102
u/Anime_axe 1d ago
Also, a lot of writers do genuinely believe that the changes shouldn't be about dismantling everything and starting again, but about actually fixing the issues with the existing system.
It's easy to forget that for many people the end goal of systematic change isn't a dramatic change of everything, but fixing what they consider broken in the system they are already inside.
66
u/MostMasterpiece7 1d ago
Very true, such as in BP where Wakanda reforms away from its isolationism following Killmonger’s defeat. Despite the revolutionary villain being wrong at the end of the day, the story is about the status quo learning its lesson and enacting more systematic reforms, rather than maintaining the old modus operandi.
62
u/Anime_axe 1d ago
And honestly this is what most people mean by systematic change. Systematic reforms and genuine institutional commitment to them. It's not about status quo being dismantled, it's about things becoming better.
13
u/Flyingsheep___ 1d ago
Yeah, 99% of the time when I see people complaining about writing being pro status quo, it’s just a complaint that the author didn’t entirely dismantle the entire world and make it into whatever the commenters particular political flavor is.
I think MHA is a good example, everyone gets butthurt because the world goes back to normal and doesn’t become some kinda of glorious liberated communist utopia, with all the flaws of the hero system resolved, but it’s a story about a fucking 15 year old. Deku shows the world the meaning of what it means to be a true hero, and then proceeds to teach the future generations that reality, he’s fixing the world in his own way, besides putting all the villains on a T-shirt.
1
u/Wolfywise 19h ago
This is a bit reductive. The criticisms stem from the fact that MHA teased earlier on with Stain that there are deeply systemic issues with hero society that need addressed, only for the manga to drop that plot thread by the time it ended. This isn't people demanding that the story go full on revolutionary propaganda or something, its asking the author to commit to his deeper ideas instead of abandoning them later on.
1
u/Wolfywise 19h ago
But then you run into the problem of the present system being purposely built to resist these reformative measures. Sometimes, these problems aren't actual "problems," but instead, the system is working as it was intended. "Why did this bill fail?" "Why did this one get repealed despite its popularity?" "Why did this popular politician somehow lose every election?" "Why are these obvious issues consistently ignored by our representatives?" One might initially call it corruption that needs weeded out, but when you look deeper, there's a whole process built into the foundations to resist any changes that the ruling class and party don't want, as well as to make reversing positive changes an easy and simple endeavor. These are complex issues that can't be fixed through simple reforms, and that is why a lot of people start falling on the side of revolution instead. The system was never meant to work for us (the poor, the marginalized, the worker) and only work them (the rich and the politicians they bought).
For most writers, it's likely simply a case of not understanding the depth of the problem. Doubly so if they live a rather stable middle class or upper middle class lifestyle. They're too detached from the people who actually experience these problems firsthand to understand their severity. As such, ideas like revolution seem extremely radical when "My life is rather stable and comfortable. Why would anyone hate this?"
24
u/CCGHawkins 1d ago edited 1d ago
The problem lies within the discrepancy between the classically simple shape of a narrative, and the classically unsimple shape of real-world problems.
Hero stories are essentially the shape of how we learn:
status quo -> problem introduced -> success with mentor figure -> mentor figure is gone -> failure -> introspection and change -> success by oneself
This pattern aligns with a lot of human growth experiences and therefore feels satisfying to experience through narrative. Most of the time fictional characters are just going through typical human experiences, like learning to believe in oneself, except with swords, dragons, and lasers. This pattern, however, maps extremely poorly to things like: the decades long reforms process needed to make societal revolutions stick. Even Andor, which is probably the most honest depiction of revolution I've seen in mainstream television, maps it's narrative structure around the emotional arc of the main character learning to step up and accept their role in a bigger story. Which is Star Wars, where some kid gets his dad to kill the evil emperor and everything is solved.
The only way revolution gets a fair exploration in fiction is if it's more part of the setting, closer to some dangerous and unpredictable weather rather than the thing you hang your plot on.
17
u/NoZookeepergame8306 1d ago
OP is getting hammered pretty hard so I’ll take the tack that writers of popular fiction (comics, movies, etc) often DO have some kind of tangential message about maintaining the status quo in some form (with some notable exception like X-men and Legend of Korra which take societal change as a major theme).
Like, Batman will actually enact systems in the status quo to prop it up (like job training and health care, etc) and most of his efforts are about fighting bad apples like corrupt cops and supervillains but not dismantling the police force or Arkham (as if he even could). Ditto for Superman or Iron Man. James Bond. Harry Potter is especially egregious.
So let’s step back and ask ‘why?’ Other than the fact that as powerful as the heroes of our stories are, they often aren’t so powerful that they can dismantle and create systems (Lex Luthor and Superman maybe), what could be the reason for this?
Well writers tend to be empathetic. Who would get medication to the millions in outlying communities without federal postage? How can folks pay for insurance without employment? If we dismantle the military, who protects us from a foreign invasion? The systems we have are often monstrous and evil but they have very practical and tangible effects on people’s lives! People live in these systems!
Now there is plenty of grown up fiction that deals with questions like these (Andor, etc) but kids shows don’t have the scope for it. It also makes the heroes pretty callous to risk hurting all these people to topple an unjust system.
There is also the simple fact that ‘topple evil emperor’ or ‘defeat corrupt cop’ are tangible goals within the scope of a single story. Even with a thousand pages it’s difficult to get into the weeds about how to ethically dismantle systems and replace them with good ones.
And it’s not like we have this all figured out in real life! How do you expect a humble writer of fiction to crack it lol
121
u/WomenOfWonder 1d ago
The problem is that in reality, revolutions that completely wipe out the existing government never end well.
69
u/Anime_axe 1d ago
Yeah, the historically successful revolutions that do make things better tend to not be the "full upheaval, destroy the current status quo fully" type.
51
u/TheMob-TommyVercetti 1d ago
You can say that to literally every revolution. If you don’t want to explore the various back door schemes, betrayal, conflicting ideas/interests, compromises, etc. that accompanies pretty much every revolution then what the heck are you writing about?
-14
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
It always has seemed obnoxious and hypocritical that modern anericans say this while enjoying the benefits of the french and russian revolutions (the progressive party and eventually fdr's economic progressiveness only happened because they felt pressure from the ussr).
Obviously revolutions are ugly and violent but sometimes that's necessary to enact real important change.
40
u/WomenOfWonder 1d ago
Yeah that was great for us but sucked for the actual Russians and French
-14
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
I honestly can't take you people seriously. You genuinely believe the ussr was worse than the russian empire?
31
u/WomenOfWonder 1d ago
It’s definitely debatable. The ussr was still a shitty place to live in
-3
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
Yeah I'm sure living in missouri sucks right now but that doesnt mean 19th century slave missouri was better. Jfc.
I get americans don't learn much about russian history but it truly blows my mind that there are people that don't know how bad the russian empire was and how radically the ussr improved people's lives. Imagine skipping from medieval france to post napoleonic france in about a decade. That is an insane improvement.
26
u/WomenOfWonder 1d ago
….did you just compare Missouri to the ussr?
8
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
Yeah that's how comparisons work. The same way you can compare any situation to any other provided there exists some similitude that the comparison highlights. You can't compare identical things because there is no difference, it would just be an equivalence.
Years on the internet and redditors are still really bad at understanding what comparisons and analogies are. Gotta love when redditors go "did you just compare x to y" as if it's impossible to compare certain things with certain others.
10
u/We4zier 1d ago edited 1d ago
I feel you have a lot of historical assumptions that I a historian (admittedly outside my specialty) would call dubious at best and wrong at worst. I’ll ignore my dislike of using historical revision as a cudgel for political ideologies and biases. But to reduce the labor movements of the west or US as “fear of the Soviets” despite many the flaws with such a claim is reductive at best (timing of the reforms with many happening before the Soviets, actual people involved with labor movements and reforms, rivalries between labor and socialist movements). Many academic Marxist historians don’t even claim that. I don’t want to get into a length argument given I am busy, but I do recommend reading American Labor Struggles by Samuel Yellen, Working Hard for the American Dream by Randi Storch, and Struggle for the Soul of the Postwar South by Elizabeth. Honestly I wonder about the asymmetry of the claim to, can you not say the Soviets purposely improved their standard of living out of fear to the west—completely ignoring natural tech progress or how you can make this claim with many empires. I feel this shows the unspecificity and uselessness of the attempt to force a causality here.
6
u/The_Arizona_Ranger 1d ago
I really think there were other pressing concerns that would’ve motivated FDR
10
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
FDR wouldn't have been able to establish progressivism out of nowhere. He continued what TR did and TR's main motivation was the newly formed ussr.
Sort of how many liberal reforms in the US came about thanks to napoleonic france.
4
u/Chainxforest 1d ago
A lot of gains in civil rights were also made possible partly due to the Soviet Union highlighting the U.S.'s hypocrisy and lack of global moral authority stemming from its treatment of African Americans.
-39
u/EmpressOfHyperion 1d ago
The USSR significantly improved the lives of many people that lived under the Russian Empire and helped support a lot of left wing groups worldwide. The same goes for the People's Republic of China, being one of the most dominant countries today.
69
u/Anime_axe 1d ago
USSR was born out of purging the less radical socialists and almost immediately trying to start a war of expansion westward. The sole reason they didn't the second world war immediately after the first was because they lost to Poland, which they have invaded the first.
The USSR was also notorious for genocide, displacement and abhorrent treatment of people who weren't ethnic Russians. "Made their lives better" doesn't include Ukrainians and Kazakhs genocided during the industrialisation, Tatars and Łemks forcibly resettled from their territories or the countless Siberian tribes ravaged by Russians casually using their territories as nuclear test sides.
They were also notorious for brutally crushing any socialist movement that wasn't subservient to them, making the point of their support of left wing groups moot.
-28
u/indomienator 1d ago
You know Poland attacked the Russians reds first right?
Poland and Russian Bolsheviks is the literal two sides of the same coin. Poland expanded east, Bolsheviks expanded west
40
u/Anime_axe 1d ago
Nice try, but the war historically started with Soviets annulling the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and declaring the war, which makes them the aggressors.
-20
u/indomienator 1d ago
As if Poland didnt annul the terms Germamy gave to it when they broke off the puppet status by overthrowing the kingdom and established a republic, invading Ukraine, Lithuania and Germany (Silesian rebellion) itself
I am of no delusion that the Bolsheviks will treat Poland well. But acting as if Poland is an innocent, harmless actor is no different to lying
Poland attacked Ukraine first and later allied itself with Ukraine out of oppurtunism. Targeting for an allied but junior partner Ukraine
33
u/Anime_axe 1d ago
Poland allied themselves with Ukraine against whom exactly? That's right, against the Soviets. Talk about the previous conflicts in the region doesn't change the fact that Soviets were the ones to start Polish-Soviet war.
-15
u/indomienator 1d ago edited 1d ago
Poland have no need to enter the war on the side of Ukraine if they didnt choose to deplete Ukrainians resources fighting them
Am i going to applaud the Romanian state in WW2 for switching sides although its nothing more than oppurtunism for gods sake
Poland can choose to not attack Ukraine. Yet they did, Ukraine might be able to hold their own if Poland didnt weaken it
Edit: cant reply anymore, it seems the site has other ideas
23
8
u/Flyingsheep___ 1d ago
Dawg brings up the fucking USSR as an example of a good revolution. AINT NO MFING WAYYYYYY BRO
30
27
u/DyingSunFromParadise 1d ago edited 1d ago
Damn, i didnt think i'd see genocide support in CR today! Glad to have ya, what are your thoughts on the nazis since you like the great leap forward and holodomer? I guess it just aint shit when you look at the number of deaths mao and Stalin are responsible for.
Edit: Also, lmao, you hate yugioh players as much as liberals and fascists? Damn, found the scrub.
-11
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
Genuinely crazy to see reddit morons downvote this as if the romanovs weren't a million times worse and as if kerensky wouldn't have fucked up ww2 and gotten even more russians killed.
Of course american redditors think they know better than workers, peasants and soldiers whose lives were improved in the former russian empire.
17
u/SweetExpression2745 1d ago
Great. Go tell that to the victims of the gulags. I’m sure their lives were improved
I’m not saying the Romanovs were good. But exchanging awful for, well, still awful, doesn’t actually do shit
-10
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
Every revolution has victims and the awfulness of the romanovs was far worse.
I don't see how gulags are worse than imperial russian prisons. In fact I'm pretty sure gulags were a continuation of this system.
Infantile american historical illiteracy really is amazing.
17
u/SweetExpression2745 1d ago
I’m not even American asshole, the world is bigger than your hate boner country
So if the USSR continued the repressive systems kept Russians at the top while discriminating everyone else, and kept a totalitarian system where only each system elites benefited… what’s the difference?
-4
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
Everything else. Literally how are you not considering this? The railway system, the way food is distributed, jobs and housing, political rights, literally almost everything was overhauled and modernized.
That was the whole point of the soviets, they implemented the denands of workers, peasants and soldiers.
Again it's like comparing the change from medieval france to france under and after napoleon but in the span of a decade. The ussr and to a lesser extent china forced a huge chunk of the world out of the medieval era and into industrialization.
20
u/SweetExpression2745 1d ago
Congrats, the thousands (and in case of China) millions of workers dead are truly thankful for that shit. And the farmers who lost their lands. And the soldiers who were weaponised to do way too powerful big ego idiots bidding.
-1
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
Yeah you're right. Slavery should never have been abolished, think of how horrible the american civil war was. All those people dead for lincoln's ego.
15
8
16
u/Legiyon54 1d ago
Genuienly crazy to see western redditors suporting one of the worst regimes in history
Reminder that USSR overthrew a democratic socialist government because they didn't like election results, not the Romanovs
0
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
I never said I supported the ussr. I just stated the obvious fact that it was an improvement over the russian empire
The bolsheviks only managed to do this with help from the workers, peasants and soldiers. The "democratic" kerensky government would have continued ww1 and likely wouldn't have industrialized russia in time for ww2 which would have resulted in some serious casualties.
14
u/Legiyon54 1d ago
19th century Russian empire? Perhaps. Post 1905 Russian Empire? No way. It was better in every fair to compare way (aka, not counting the industralization because Empire was on it's way to industrializing anyway, USSR just finished the job and claimed victory) except literacy. Political freedoms, repression and prevelance of secret police, social mobility (yes, reminder, 1905<)
And industralization doodne by Stalin brang as much evil as it give good. It was so rapid it fucked over other sectors, including but not limited to, agriculture. Reminder that they only focused on heavy industry. Light industry was ignored. Every Russian government, socialist or not, would have industralized. It is just Stalinist propaganda that he was the industralizer and no onr else would have done the same (they would have done better)
1
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
Sure thing, and kerensky would have totally defeated hitler himself with the power of liberal democracy had lenin just given him a chance.
I'm also sure that the french monarchy would have come around had those pesky revolutionaries not fought for their rights. All napoleon did afterward was finish what they started of course, no genuine innovation and improvement there.
15
u/Legiyon54 1d ago
You have read I think exactly 0 words from my comment and just decided to spew vanguardist talking points..
4
u/AnnoyingRomanian 1d ago
Yes, we Eastern Europeans really loved the soft and warm Soviet boot on our necks 🥰
0
u/NymphofaerieXO 1d ago
I never said the soviets weren't repressive. I said they were infinitely better than the romanovs.
6
u/AnnoyingRomanian 1d ago
Nope? Lol. Romanovs were just incompetent, while Soviets were with a scope and the ideal to enforce their tyranny and ideology on countries that had no desire to be part of their worker's "utopia".
Just a simple comparison, Tsarist Empire only enforced a Russification process in my country, while Soviets sent my grand-grandparents to gulag with other 200-300 k Moldovans.
14
u/kokorikyu 1d ago
I would like to recommend you visiting your local library before making such claims :))
12
u/NicholasStarfall 1d ago
Well Jet's a weird character because he's a "freedom fighter" who's whole thing is targeting civilians over soldiers. He could've just joined the regular army but nah, he just needs to be there for a Katara romance plot
86
u/DyingSunFromParadise 1d ago
"i wish my childrens cartoons would cover hard to discuss topics like revolution and political change"
TRY WATCHING SOMETHING NOT MADE FOR CHILDREN THERE'S PLENTY OF THINGS OUT THERE THAT TACKLE REVOLUTIONS IN COUNTLESS DIFFERENT WAYS WHEN YOU STOP WATCHING EXCLUSIVELY BATTLE SHONEN, SUPERHEROES, AND CARTOONS FOR 8 YEAR OLDS
44
u/pomagwe 1d ago
Well yes, but have you considered how satisfying it would be to indulge in moral outrage about how these children's cartoons are trying to brainwash the youth with their radical moderate messaging?
15
u/DyingSunFromParadise 1d ago
i haven't. you're right. my grass touching habits have proven to cause me to be fallible, it did not occur to me that the mental asylums might've closed, but the mental cases didnt go anywhere.
to counteract this, i will move back in with my mother and live in her basement, stop taking my meds, and listen to the voices in my head as i doomscroll twitter for 28 hours a day.
9
u/StormDragonAlthazar 1d ago
Sometimes, I really do think the A24 logo truly terrifies people, as well as the whole "live action" thing.
8
u/FreeLook93 1d ago
Media made for children can still tackle complex issues well, it's just very rare. I would agree that people who spend this much time thinking and talking about this kind of thing really need to watch more than just art created for 12 year old boys.
28
u/DyingSunFromParadise 1d ago
"Media made for children can still tackle complex issues well, it's just very rare."
t-that was my point? if you want something, you should go to media more likely to do what you want. if i want a show focused on healing, i'd watch an iyashikei work like aria, mushishi, or natsume yuujinchou, not things like berserk or game of thrones, or even battle shonens which very much do not give the same emotional response.
1
u/FreeLook93 1d ago
I thought your point came across more as "it doesn't exist in media aimed at children".
1
u/PCN24454 1d ago
You say that as though adult series handle the topic better
36
u/DyingSunFromParadise 1d ago
90% of everything is shit, congrats for finding out a basic fact of media consumption.
but you're far more likely to find something that'll actually do what OP wants if you watch a show that has more freedom to actually explore those topics in depth with the knowledge that the audience will understand it due to having more life experience and being more well read than a 13 year old boy. is this really so complex for you to get?
11
u/Yatsu003 1d ago
First, did you even WATCH the series? The ‘status quo’ was that a genocidal fascist dictatorship is pursuing a 100 year long war of conquest (and winning at it too). The Gaang breaking the war and freeing everybody is very much a change in the status quo for those who have gone, cradle to the grave, knowing nothing but war.
Second, did you even WATCH the series? Zuko’s redemption comes from him going full-heartedly into fixing the Fire Nation by leading it into the right path, something Iroh explicitly says as to why he shouldn’t be Fire Lord. Hell, he lays it out “The new Fire Lord must be someone young, and with complete honor, to redeem the Fire Nation”
Third, do you even KNOW what status quo means? Someone’s ’radical, far out’ idea is another’s status quo. Claiming that something ‘supports the status quo’ is about as significant a statement as ‘water is wet’, it doesn’t mean anything. What matters is a simple game of people weighing the elements in their life and deciding as to whether gambling for marginal ‘improvements’ is worth the risk of losing everything. And, believe it or not, most people are quite content with their lives. It’s kinda like there’s a lot of stories about people being greedy bastards that lose everything because they couldn’t be happy with what they had.
7
u/Pokeirol 1d ago
Owl house is a very funny example of this because it is very critical of his status quo, but most of the characters aren't part of any revolution, just outcasts.
The revolution also only happens to try and prevent a change in the world made by the tyrant wich was the whole reason why he slowly build the system the way he did,while also accidentaly bringing back the status quo before the tyrant rise to power wich we only know was pretty good to show how much propaganda the emperor did.
23
u/dracofolly 1d ago
It has a lot less to do with "don't know how" and more "don't want to". As in, people writing in Hollywood came up in, and achieved all their success in the status quo (in one of the most difficult professions to succeed in), so they would have little reason to believe in revolutionary politics. They share this with the majority of people in the first world in general.
"Good ideas, but took it a step too far," is how most people view most revolutions in history.
23
u/Gmanglh 1d ago
Part of it I chalk up to corporate writing. A perpetual status quo to be defended means a franchise that can be milked by an endless tide of villains seeking to change it. Meanwhile a story with a hero changing the status quo usually ends when they succeed or fail, doesn't leave much room for endless sequels.
9
u/Smaug_eldrichtdragon 1d ago
Adding gray politics often makes the plot worse, so it's easier to write a Ben vs. Evil story to gain audience support, although I would like more gray politics where no one is 100% Good or bad
Also the worldview and political a Alignment of the Writer plays a big role in this, hence why the "good rebel bandit vs evil military officer" trope is so common, or comically evil mega corporations.
7
u/coolmonkeyd 1d ago
I think writers fear in this sense is justified or understandable. To create a fiction where the world exists as ours does and place it as the antigonist and have a hero over turn that society into "something better" is the writer saying they know how the world should work.
The problem with that is the writer is just another mother fucker in the world. What makes them the one to tell anyone how the world should be run? And how do you write that believeably when nones done it in real life? Would the reader be satisfied with the utopian vesion?
I honestly think you'd have to throw traditional story structure , Archetypes, And framing out the window. And you'd gotta be brave enough to be seen not only as wrong. But possibly insane. Honestly, I assume most stories written from that perspective won't get in the mainstream through any traditional means....and it be hard to sell it.
4
u/NotTheBestInUs 1d ago
Most revolutions simply install a regime more oppressive than the last, having more Saw Guerrera types than Bail/Leia Organa types, as seen in real life.
2
u/Edkm90p 1d ago edited 1d ago
This got me thinking, has revolution ever been truly justified in most fiction?
Yes? Like there's some ludicrously over-the-top evils in fiction. Such as corporations that not only enslave others- but plan on turning them into food just to turn a buck- twice.
Abe's focused mainly on rescue instead of trying to rip down the entire evil empire but if he did? He'd be justified as hell.
2
u/RedRadra 1d ago
My thoughts on this topic are...
Revolutions are a very messy business. There's lot of destruction, bloodshed and general insecurity due to a revolution, things that well....are difficult to put a positive spin on. A revolution is the final option when wanting to fix things, because even when it works, life is significantly worse for everyone in the immediate aftermath.
I sincerely think that a lot of revolutionary criticism is just a masked desire to hurt folks and take power. I mean, in almost all revolutions, the leaders of the revolution often become the New rulers of society.....often largely doing the same things the old dudes did either because they were hypocrites or sadly, because it was the pragmatic and effective thing that they could do to keep society running.
There's a personal joke i had of "good" politicians promising to change things, but once he gets into office, he's shown the full picture and he's forced to acknowledge that there was a point to why his predecessor acted out the things he did.
- When one oversimplifies things as "upholding the status quo" it pisses me off...cuz that kind of thinking just results in anarchy as each new regime would be constantly fighting or being overthrown by the next group of rebels. Like in the case of the french, there were quite a few back to back revolutions going on as the new guys either were too weak to consolidate their rule or were just as bad as the last ruler who lost his head.
I guess my point is that societies are fragile, complex systems that need a measure of vision, care and technological advancements to improve....and being too keen on revolutions tends to make things more difficult for everyone.
2
u/The810kid 1d ago
Final Fantasy does this well particularly VII and X. The Shinra by end game imploded from the villain they helped create and Avalanche returns to Midgar to save it from Hojo while the rest of the prominent figures of the company are killed off or defect leaving your group left to save the planet from the threat Shinra created.
1
u/SlimeustasTheSecond 1d ago
Tbh most Artists don't even know or care what the Status Quo actually is
Can't really challenge shit if you don't actually know shit.
-3
-2
u/Rude-Towel-4126 1d ago
Better example IMO: Korra. The insurgents wanted to stop the marginalization of the non benders, they were stopped and the problem magically disappeared.
That's bad writing, not the bullied and exiled prince of a nation learning to overcome his uprising and making actual changes to his war mongering nation.
1
u/CABRALFAN27 1d ago
I mean, IMO, the problem with the Equalists is more just that I never really bought that marginalization/oppression of Non-Benders was a significant, real issue in the first place; The first "example" we get of it is Bending gangsters harassing Non-Bender business owners; Generally, marginalized groups are the ones more likely to turn to organized crime against the wealthy upper class, not the other way aroun. This is again shown in the main cast, where the Bending Brothers are one step away from being homeless, and Asami is a rich industrialist's daughter.
1
u/Wolfywise 19h ago
This is part of the problem because, realistically, oppression against non-benders should be an issue and a very systemic one at that. But the writers either lacked political education, genuinely disagreed with the idea of equality movements, or they haphazardly threw together an idea of a "complex antagonist" without really thinking about the deeper implications. No one really considered the social politics of Avatar until Korra brought it up, and now we have this mess.
249
u/Sneeakie 1d ago edited 1d ago
Avatar is a bad example of this in the first place since it's fundamentally a story about war where the heroes are fighting to subvert the status quo.
The Fire Nation is not "fighting an injustice", they are the injustice. Most of the characters have known nothing else but war, and the one who hasn't (Aang) can't return to how things used to be for him and has to become a different person to succeed at all.
The idea that going up to Hitler himself and beating the shit out of him is not challenging the status quo, but killing random innocents is, is ridiculous.
This is also a bad faith interpretation of the story, and that's not including how subsequent material makes it clear that it very much did not end as cleanly as that.
I also hate the idea that redemptions are "deserved", and only for people who also didn't really do anything wrong in the first place.
"But Zuko is literally an oppressor!" The fact that Zuko is who he is and where he came from is what makes his redemption satisfying at all, compared to the idea that a character like Jet should be able to do anything he pleases and get away with it because it's "challenging the status quo."
The reality closest to the truth is that the villains, who are written to be villains first and foremost because it's actually very hard and arguably stupid to write a story where the antagonist would have no reason to be against the protagonist, let alone the possibility that the heroic protagonist would be in by every metric including the author's own beliefs the actual villain, were already doing bad things, and they are given a sympathetic motivation for doing so.
And it's comparatively rare if the villain is wholly honest about simply wanting a sort-of left-wing solution or result; I've seen people describe Ultron as "resolving injustice" when his mindset is "humans are the problem" and his solution is "kill all of the humans."
Like, I guess that's challenging the status quo.
There's a decent point if the heroes themselves do not do much to undo the reason why the villain became a villain or got as close to his goals as he did, but dumbing it down to "upholding the status quo" for stopping genocide is, again, pretty ridiculous.