DISCUSSION: Let's talk "Subversion," shall we?

[matt0044]

the recent discussion in regards to subversion and shocking the audience has taken an interesting turn. It’s never been anything new as gritty reboots like Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman have been dressed down for striving for what they saw as “realistic” at the expense of the story as well as the characters. Trope Talk made an excellent video all about it:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9_ODNTNDrY


However, that was more in regards to how being overly dark and bleak in its tone at the expense of how their source material tended to be more light-hearted or, at the very least, a balance of both. The criticisms have often been about how DC has been so keen on making Batman do what he does because he’s “cracked” and “damaged” rather than having a genuinely good heart.

Now, with Game of Thrones dropping the ball big time as of recently, it has become a rallying point for how writers are flagrantly throwing out the rules of basic storytelling for the sake of a “flash-in-the-pan” shock for the audience. A moment that wears off and comes apart at the seams the second that one puts any basic thought into analyzing it. And far from it for me to disagree with this.

To grant some amount of sympathy (to those who aren’t totally jerks at least), there always has been this amount of unspoken peer pressure put on writers to try innovating on storytelling. Not fall into the same old, predictable plotlines we’ve seen on repeat. Not just from the “snobbish” critics but also the audience where the regular Joe might say things like, “Eh, it wasn’t anything special…”

For amateurs, there’s a burning need to burst onto the scene with the next big thing or get swept away in the tide of new content being pumped out almost every other day. For the more experienced, there’s a growing fear of losing your touch if you can’t challenge yourself to think outside the box. The word “predictable” sends the message of, “What makes you worth anybody’s time?”

And that’s not even getting into certain big name franchises that are aware that sticking to the status quo or a certain formula is detrimental to their longevity. Unfortunately, many of these writers and (most especially) their producers have it in their head that subversion involved flipping the switch from “boring writing” to “spectacular storytelling” within just one second’s thought. No more, no less.

However, any writer worth their salt will tell you that it’s NEVER that simple. Rules are meant to be broken but that only WHEN you know how to break them and if you should break them. Innovate but don’t rush into something you haven’t fully thought through first. Subvert expectations but don’t do it for the audience. Do it because you thought it over on how it’d work for your own story.

Writing is hard. Full stop. There are no shortcuts. That said, what I said earlier still applies in how a lot of us kind of let this culture of “ugh, so predictable and boring” grow unnoticed. It’s the natural evolution of the “realism” craze of the 2010s and all we can do is, at the very least, get a conversation truly started.

 

[Snuggle Tier List]

I read this post s few days ago, and it's been nesting inside my brain ever since. Something seemed off, but I couldn't pin it down. But after suppressing my knee-jerk reactions, I think I found the source:

What does "subversion" mean?

Are we subverting tropes? Audience expectations? Tropes for which medium(s)? Expectations of which audience{s)? The target audience? The work's medium? Maybe the work's genre? The regular Joe? Who even is the regular Joe?

I think this murkiness is preventing me from joining the conversation. Tastes are subjective, everyone has different experiences with media, and so I can't imagine "subversion" as an abstract concept unless we know who a work's audience is. And that's data points I'm not comfortable generalizing.

Thus, when I hear this:

To grant some amount of sympathy (to those who aren’t totally jerks at least), there always has been this amount of unspoken peer pressure put on writers to try innovating on storytelling. Not fall into the same old, predictable plotlines we’ve seen on repeat. Not just from the “snobbish” critics but also the audience where the regular Joe might say things like, “Eh, it wasn’t anything special…”

It strikes me as a bold claim. But technically speaking, it can be proven or disproven, though there'll have to be a working definition of subversion.

And so, here are the most recent New York Times fiction bestsellers, as well as highest-rated prime-time television shows and weekend box office bestsellers. Make of them as you will, however you define subversion. Note that sales do not necessarily mean a positive audience reaction, nor does it account for streaming services. TV viewership is also US-exclusive. Statistics is hard.

Spoiler: New York Times Combined Print & E-Book Fiction (accessed July 19th, 2019 Eastern Standard Time)

Link to archived source: Best Sellers - The New York Times
Link to unarchived source (in case of display errors): Best Sellers - The New York Times

1. "Under Currents" by Nora Roberts
2. "Where the Crawdads Sing" by Delia Owens
3. "Summer of '69" by Elin Hilderbrand
4. "The Reckoning" by John Grisham
5. "Knife" by Jo Nesbo

Spoiler: Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at international theaters (Source: Comscore, via Associated Press, article published July 14th 2019 local time)

Link to archived source: 'Spider-Man' does victory lap over 'Crawl,' 'Stuber'
Link to unarchived source: 'Spider-Man' does victory lap over 'Crawl,' 'Stuber'

1. "Spider-Man: Far From Home", $100 million (US dollars)
2. "The Lion King", $54.7 million
3. "Toy Story 4", $48.1 million
4. "White Storm 2: The Drug Lords", $33.6 million
5. "Annabelle Comes Home", $18.1 million
6. "Aladdin" and "The Secret Life of Pets 2", $14.6 million
7. "Yesterday", $7.8 million
8. "Crawl", $4.8 million
9. "Fate/Stay Night: Heaven’s Feel - II. Lost Butterfly", $3.5 million
10. "Stuber", $3 million

Spoiler: US television prime-time viewership numbers (Nielsen, via Associated Press)

Link to archived source: Nielsen's top programs for July 8-14
Link to unarchived source: Nielsen's top programs for July 8-14

1. "America's Got Talent", 9.81 million
2. "MLB All-Star Game", 8.15 million
3. "60 Minutes", 6.35 million
4. "The Bachelorette", 6.05 million
5. "Bring The Funny", 5.97 million
6. "Home Run Derby", 5.41 million
7. "The $100,000 Pyramid", 5.044 million
8. "Celebrity Family Feud", 5.041 million
9. "American Ninja Warrior", 4.5 million
10. "Big Brother (Sunday)", 4.2 million
11. "Big Brother (Wednesday)", 4.16 million
12. "To Tell The Truth", 4.058 million
13. "Big Brother (Thursday)", 4.055 million
14. "Holey Moley", 3.96 million
15. "ESPY Awards, 3.87 million
16. "The Code", 3.85 million
17. "Bull", 3.84 million
18. "Dateline NBC", 3.76 million
19. "Blue Bloods", 3.739 million
20. "America's Funniest Home Videos", 3.738 million

 

[canisaries]

Snuggle is right in that whether something is subversive or not depends on who the person experiencing it is. Anything is subversive for someone who's only ever witnessed or heard of the trope being played straight - this is why children tend to have a harder time telling when a movie is "predictable". On the other hand, if a subversion is done enough times, it becomes a trope in itself. "Gritty reboot" was once a subversion of typically lighthearted franchises and felt like a fresh idea, but now it's an idea so well known that, well, I can say the somewhat vague term "gritty reboot" and you instantly know what I'm referring to. There have been parodies and jokes aplenty, which is a good indicator that an idea is well in the public consciousness - although its is true that this trope in particular offers opportunities for humorous juxtaposition in general, and therefore doesn't necessarily need people to be well aware that it's a thing for it to be joked about.

Subversion also naturally depends on the genre and context. If a movie aimed towards older audiences has the protagonist slowly turn into the antagonist until they realize in the end what they've become (such as the 1993 film Falling Down which I love mmwah) then it's simply a story with a Face-Heel Turn and a Villain Protagonist and whatnot. If you find something as morally complex as that in something you put on for your four-year-old cousin to watch on TV on a Saturday morning, though, you're gonna go, "whoa, didn't expect that". idk maybe this wasn't the best example but you get my point and I'm kind of sick and I've watched relatively few movies in the end so I just wanted to shill Falling Down, it's a very entertaining movie.

When I was deepest in my TV Tropes phase, I was a real big fan of subversions and deconstructions and what have you. I loved thinking of story scenarios where a trope rarely subverted gets turned on its head and the audience is caught off guard. It's also a great source of comedy if you find a way to poke fun at a trope in a way that people haven't often considered - after all, the unexpected is a crucial element of humor. It also makes a viewer feel respected when they aren't presented the same old thing for the silmarillionth time as if it was something new. Lastly, it's always an exciting thought to consider oneself to be treading on new unconquered ground and being the one to show it to the world.

Of course there are also things that you either can't or shouldn't subvert. It's going to be real dang hard to have your story never end or start, for example. Tropes do exist in the first place for a reason - a good bunch of them simply work. Even cliches, which people often mistake for needing to be avoided like the plague (a phrase that, in itself, is cliche), can have their own useful purpose. I think it was in this video where it was said that cliches are basically cultural shorthand. Using cliches with purpose and awareness can allow for more progress in story, worldbuilding and characterization in less time, leaving more space for the elements that are the real draw of the story.

As for things you shouldn't subvert, well... while extreme, not killing real people during the creation of your film is a pretty good example. Then there are things that can be detrimental to the quality of the work if not played straight or how the audience expects. In order to achieve a satisfying ending, you might have to take some creative liberties in how real life law or physics work even if the rest of the work was relatively grounded. You can't really go all out in sci-fi if you only limit yourself to technologies we know for absolute certain that we could have but just don't have the practical techniques or resources for. You can work with that premise, don't get me wrong, but you should know what you're getting into and also let your audience know lest they feel like they've been falsely advertised to.

This is all pretty general stuff, though, so I'll end on some more grass-roots level notes. One form of subversion I like to use in my stories is featuring Pokémon species that are underused or don't feel like the first pick for the type of character they are. The easiest implementation of this is just to have a mon with a feminine design be male or a mon with a masculine (or neutral, as unfortunately the male gender is seen as the default in our culture despite it only being the majority by less than a percent) design be female. Usually that's even backed up by the in-game gender ratios since, well, mon gotta breed. In the end, though, flipping the gender can only be so interesting, so I'm a bigger fan of say, having a Tangrowth as an archer. You don't think archer when you look at Tangrowth and you don't think Tangrowth when you look at an archer, but it's really not impossible to imagine a Tangrowth as an archer when you're given that connection. That's a zone I like to dabble in.

Perhaps a less gimmick-y example of subversion in my stories is how Mr. Akai the cannibalistic serial killer spends a lot of his time doing mundane and relatable normal people stuff. He takes the bus to places and likes spending time reading books in the library or walking in the woods. He hates spiders and people who litter. He gets the big sad. He just wants a quiet life. Not only is this more realistic than the psycho who only exists when he's slashing up the frisky teenagers having sex in his spooky cabin or standing menacingly in the distance, but it also helps in getting closer to my daunting, possibly impossible goal of making the audience feel bad for a person as horrible as this.

It's about one in the morning now and I can't think of a way to end this post so I'll just say thanks for reading bye

 

[matt0044]

What does "subversion" mean?

In this case, it's to do with the audience reactions surrounding popular shows like GOT and movies like Avengers: Endgame. As in something that the viewer would expect either as "that's just how the story goes" or "that's just how this character arc specifically should go." Defying these feels like they're ignoring "basic storytelling" and flying in the face of "natural narrative payoffs" for a cheap shock.

This has opened up an additional can of worms in some circles I've been in. Specifically, what's the difference between a "natural narrative payoff" and a popular fan theory that seems plausible but isn't something the writer actually had in mind? Because my experience in fandom has taught me how slippery of a slope this mentality can be. Like... really based on presumptions and a whole lot of guesswork.

For "The Written Word," my question has to do with how you'd apply this to your own works.

 

[Beth Pavell]

"Subversion" is rapidly becoming Network ExecuBot speak for "wildly unpredictable plot point that generates social media activity".

When it comes to my works that concept is irrelevant. Nobody follows my work that diligently for this tactic to have any kind of impact, and even if I did have that large following, it's difficult to see how I would benefit from it

 

[matt0044]

"Subversion" is rapidly becoming Network ExecuBot speak for "wildly unpredictable plot point that generates social media activity".

What's baffling is that it use to be that executive producers would try to cast a story into a certain mold with certain tropes that'd be "required." I saw "Ugly Dolls" a while back and found that it seemed keen to check off every Animated Movie trope in the book with little innovation. I enjoyed it yet could sense a producer dictating how the story should be told in a "proper way." Now it's the reversal where a good story is still put in jeopardy by an attempt to be a crowd-pleaser but in going against conventions.

If you want a good subversion, then Mysticons did it perfectly:

Spoiler: This is an underrated show Nick slept on but what else is new for networks?

Mysticon Dragon Mage, Arkayna, is revealed to be part of a prophecy where reuniting with a long lost twin of her's would allow their enemies to awaken an unstoppable dragon. At first, Proxima, a reoccurring supporting character by then, is revealed to be Arkayna's twin sister.

A few episodes pass before their foes bring them together for a ritual only for... nothing to happen. That is, until the other three Mysticons show up. Proxima is rescued but Zarya, Mysticon Ranger, triggers this ritual with Arkayna and unleashes the dragon. The lost twin was in plain sight this entire time since episode one as those who had separated them took precautions to make Proxima the decoy.

Even after being outed as the decoy, Proxima later becomes the next big bad for the second season as she falls prey to the Spectral Hand itself in her insecurities. It's a brilliant way to shock the audience AND have the story progress naturally.

Pulling on over the audience can be fun but we need to get something rather than simply having it taken away from us.

 

[AetherX]

Gonna shift gears a bit to the context of our own writing. I've always had the belief that sticking to the tried and true and following the rules is an underrated methodology. Especially for amateurs. This might be a unpopular opinion, but I don't think that most of us here are good enough to bend the rules and defy expectations in a way that is interesting and satisfying. Common plot structures and "tropey" character arcs are popular because they work well. I think there's a lot to be said for writing something normal and not trying to blow anyone's mind. Shock factor is not inherently good, and is remarkably difficult to pull off well in a way that doesn't feel contrived.

 

[matt0044]

Gonna shift gears a bit to the context of our own writing. I've always had the belief that sticking to the tried and true and following the rules is an underrated methodology. Especially for amateurs. This might be a unpopular opinion, but I don't think that most of us here are good enough to bend the rules and defy expectations in a way that is interesting and satisfying. Common plot structures and "tropey" character arcs are popular because they work well. I think there's a lot to be said for writing something normal and not trying to blow anyone's mind. Shock factor is not inherently good, and is remarkably difficult to pull off well in a way that doesn't feel contrived.

I think that you've hit on something that's underdiscussed. While tropey plots and characters "work," amateurs often feel a pressure to defy them right out the gate rather than start out basic. In fact, a lot of creators have a desire to hit the big time and not just "settle for less" with their craft.

 

[kintsugi]

I think that you've hit on something that's underdiscussed. While tropey plots and characters "work," amateurs often feel a pressure to defy them right out the gate rather than start out basic. In fact, a lot of creators have a desire to hit the big time and not just "settle for less" with their craft.

I think it’s simpler than that — following good tropes/story structure involves being aware of them and being able to identify them in the narratives that you’re consuming, or actually being aware of the mold you’re trying to follow. It’s easy to conflate subverting standard rules to defy expectations (GRRM) with never being aware of those rules in the first place (Benioff and Weiss).

For a cross-disciplinary parallel, in art classes, you spend years learning the fundamentals and practicing the same shit everyone else does — composition, color, lighting, perspective, etc. Traditionally you don’t start messing with those rules until you understand what they are + why you’re breaking them. Whereas by contrast because the barrier of entry for writing is perceptibly lower, a lot of that foundation that ends up being distilled as tropes (pacing, character development, conflict resolution, three-act structure) never gets learned, and those rules are broken by accident rather than with intent -> expectations subverted!!1!

 

[Beth Pavell]

The plot twist, or subversion, or whatever you want to call it, should still work even if the audience figures it out. That's what Benioff and Weiss don't get, and what Network ExecuBots don't care about (Because social media buzz today is considered worth more than rewatchability tomorrow, and a controversial story is considered the same as a good one). Looking at another HBO story, The Sopranos, the audience routinely didn't get what they were expecting ("Less yakkin' more whackin'), but for the most part this subversion made sense in the context of the characters

It's ironic in all this Game of Thrones complaining that subverting expectations in A Song of Ice and Fire doesn't always work. I can think of several places across the books where George Martin ends up beating the reader over the head with how gritty and not at all high fantasy the story is - and it gets ridiculous at times.

 

[kintsugi]

The plot twist, or subversion, or whatever you want to call it, should still work even if the audience figures it out. That's what Benioff and Weiss don't get, and what Network ExecuBots don't care about (Because social media buzz today is considered worth more than rewatchability tomorrow, and a controversial story is considered the same as a good one). Looking at another HBO story, The Sopranos, the audience routinely didn't get what they were expecting ("Less yakkin' more whackin'), but for the most part this subversion made sense in the context of the characters

I see you too are a man of culture.

It's ironic in all this Game of Thrones complaining that subverting expectations in A Song of Ice and Fire doesn't always work. I can think of several places across the books where George Martin ends up beating the reader over the head with how gritty and not at all high fantasy the story is - and it gets ridiculous at times.

tHe MoRe ShE dRaNk tHe MoRe ShE ShAt

For a series whose ultimate reveal seems to be an intricate leadup to a chosen one prophecy, ASoIAF gets a lot more cred for being subversive than you’d expect. However, I think it stands out and gets tons of recognition for a key point that I didn’t really tie back to in my previous post — it is aware of and specifically subverts tropes that we the readers are already accustomed to seeing played straight. Noble people conquering cunning ones; sons avenging their fathers; children overcoming the cruel legacies of their parents; outcasts of society enduring until they can prove themselves to a people who rejected them. It’s specifically because these are the common/cliche/fundamental tropes that Martin plays with that everyone leans in, recognizes, and then react with shock and awe when they don’t play out the same way they always have.

 

[matt0044]

With a lot of Anime in recent years, many fans hold up the likes of Hunter X Hunter and Madoka Magica as spectacular subversions of their respective genres whether or not what makes them "subversive" has been done before:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUQfInd0gLA

 

[Beth Pavell]

I see you too are a man of culture.

I don't recall whether Ellis also commented on retwatchability or social media obsession. but it wouldn't surprise me.

I suppose it depends on how quick on the uptake the audience is. Episode 9 of Game of Thrones season 1 was enough to convince me heroes won't get plot armour in this story at least for a few seasons, and likewise I was halfway through A Clash of Kings when I realised there would be no good guy army in this war narrative. There were no shocks for me after that, per se - if anything I was more surprised when these new narrative rules were broken, which occasionally they are

 

[kintsugi]

I don't recall whether Ellis also commented on retwatchability or social media obsession. but it wouldn't surprise me.

Haha, she did, and she even used the Sopranos finale as a supporting argument. She also drew some interesting parallels that I hadn’t seen mentioned in this thread regarding authors feeling the need to become increasingly more out the window as they attract viewers who are more cynical/less likely to have their expectations subverted in order to continue generating that shock value. It’s an interesting trap that I think actually gets amplified by internet discussions, where people who “get it” are more easily able to share their theories with those who don’t.

I suppose it depends on how quick on the uptake the audience is. Episode 9 of Game of Thrones season 1 was enough to convince me heroes won't get plot armour in this story at least for a few seasons, and likewise I was halfway through A Clash of Kings when I realised there would be no good guy army in this war narrative. There were no shocks for me after that, per se - if anything I was more surprised when these new narrative rules were broken, which occasionally they are

just wait until it turns out Tyrion was the villain all along

 

[Beth Pavell]

The Sopranos has its own subversion, in a series increasingly forgotten since Breaking Bad. To elaborate on my earlier point, you don't see much inter-mob violence on The Sopranos, contrary to what the mob genre might lead you to expect. The reason is that this is the modern mob - like all mobsters, the characters care about money before everything, and mob wars are expensive.

I think, ironically, David Chase got more stubborn rather than cave to the expectations of viewers, as Game of Thrones essentially did for all its claims to subversion, leading The Sopranos to become altogether too mundane.

She also drew some interesting parallels that I hadn’t seen mentioned in this thread regarding authors feeling the need to become increasingly more out the window as they attract viewers who are more cynical/less likely to have their expectations subverted in order to continue generating that shock value

The cold, metallic hands of the producers (As well as hacky writing from showrunners) has a lot to answer for there. Game of Thrones started to be marketed not by its plot, but by how much blood and sex were on screen. By season 3 nobody was surprised by the sight of a fantasy story with that level of grit in it, so showing more of the same was no subversion whatsoever. The obvious issue is that this cannot be sustained with sensible writing, so damn the plot in favour of excuses to fit more blood, more sex, and more fanservice into each hour.