3 ms·

Consider: what is the purpose of each story beat? Why does the girlfriend create the spreadsheet? Why does the main character react so extremely to it? Why does

Consider: what is the purpose of each story beat? Why does the girlfriend create the spreadsheet? Why does the main character react so extremely to it? Why does she feel the need to get revenge instead of just moving on? If your answer to each is just "because otherwise there would be no story" it does not make for a compelling, realistic story. Sure, there are women who keep spreadsheets like this, and sure, there are women who have outsized reactions. But none of the surrounding context feels reasonable or meaningful. It misses the reason why people keep spreadsheets like this (more to get a better understanding of themselves than to linearly rank their partners) and why someone might react so extremely or try and get revenge (they had already been through some atypical situation that made them this way or otherwise, for example; nearly any explanation would do but we're not given one). It's not just that the author is male. It's that the author is male and is making contrivances that don't feel realistic, that could feel more realistic after some sort of consultation with either a more experienced writer or just like a woman or whatever. The characters are just cardboard cutouts that move a story forward and that doesn't make for a good read. And is it really sexist to point out (especially in combination with the above) that the author is a man when the whole story is intended to be a relationship between two women, a kind of experience that the author is unlikely to have personally had?

stavros 3y ago
> Consider: what is the purpose of each story beat? Why does the girlfriend create the spreadsheet? Why does the main character react so extremely to it? Why does she feel the need to get revenge instead of just moving on? If your answer to each is just "because otherwise there would be no story" it does not make for a compelling, realistic story. I took the story as satire, with the over-the-top reactions of both the spreadsheet-maker and the spreadsheet-reader. I don't know why the spreadsheet-maker made the spreadsheet, but I also don't know why Romeo and Juliet fell in love, beyond "otherwise there would be no story". Your points are reasonable, it's just that I enjoyed the story as satire even with these elements. > And is it really sexist to point out (especially in combination with the above) that the author is a man when the whole story is intended to be a relationship between two women, a kind of experience that the author is unlikely to have personally had? I'll reuse the same example, do we need Shakespeare to have attempted suicide with his 13-year-old lover before he could write the play?
- striking 3y ago
  You can take the story for whatever genre you see it as, but being satire doesn't excuse it from being shallow. Romeo and Juliet fall in love for some very grounded, realistic reasons. They are adolescents, which are known to be particularly susceptible to falling in love, and also doing it with someone your parents don't like is extra hot, and so on. And the way the story plays out requires some suspension of disbelief (wait, how did they get married if the royals would forbid it?) but it is always explained in a way that at least feels like it logically follows (oh, the Friar believes secretly marrying the two might bring peace; funnily ironic that they then should die instead). Shakespeare did not have to experience these situations in order to portray them. When they start to get over the top and imaginative we at least feel like we started from some sort of grounded position, so it isn't so hard to suspend our disbelief. The entire play is building up to this ultimate tragedy and it earns it. This contrasts with the other work, which does not set up anything before attempting to claim a payoff. The characters just are the way they are, things just happen. They don't have to be explained or have reasons that follow, because it's just satire. I am not blaming the author for taking creative license in the way that Shakespeare did in describing the suicide of a pair of romantically involved individuals. Nor am I blaming the author for being a man. I am blaming the author for producing a work that is just shallow in a gendered feeling way. Were the author a woman, they might have realized that women don't just do things randomly but instead, drawing on her past experience being a woman, that they usually have a backstory where these things originate from. If you like stories like this, don't let me yuck your yum. But also it is good to take the time to more deeply think about a work and what it means, why the characters act the way they do, why the author produced it in the first place.
  - stavros 3y ago
    I see what you mean, thanks, that's insightful. I don't know how I'd feel if it were two men, with nothing else being different, but I suspect I'd think the same. Basically, I can see why you find the writing bad, I'm just not sure I agree on whether it would be better if the characters were men.
ofcourseyoudo 3y ago
But you're a man, and so is the original commenter, so we can freely disregard your POV as well.
- striking 3y ago
  You can freely disregard anyone's POV at any time, regardless of their gender. I won't stop you if that's your prerogative. However, I've also talked to people (to women!) on the subject of these dating spreadsheets, and found those discussions to be way more nuanced and interesting than the puppet show the original work's author put on. So disregard my POV (and theirs, and everyone else's) if you like, but I find discussing the actual experiences had by affected individuals to be way more interesting than whatever game the rest of y'all seem to be playing. Also, man or otherwise, the original work fails in terms of like, plain literary merit. The fact that a man wrote it only comes up because a woman would have been unlikely to make so many mistakes and to have put up so many extraordinarily shallow characters if she were working with lived experience.

stavros 3y ago

> Consider: what is the purpose of each story beat? Why does the girlfriend create the spreadsheet? Why does the main character react so extremely to it? Why does she feel the need to get revenge instead of just moving on? If your answer to each is just "because otherwise there would be no story" it does not make for a compelling, realistic story. I took the story as satire, with the over-the-top reactions of both the spreadsheet-maker and the spreadsheet-reader. I don't know why the spreadsheet-maker made the spreadsheet, but I also don't know why Romeo and Juliet fell in love, beyond "otherwise there would be no story". Your points are reasonable, it's just that I enjoyed the story as satire even with these elements. > And is it really sexist to point out (especially in combination with the above) that the author is a man when the whole story is intended to be a relationship between two women, a kind of experience that the author is unlikely to have personally had? I'll reuse the same example, do we need Shakespeare to have attempted suicide with his 13-year-old lover before he could write the play?

striking 3y ago
You can take the story for whatever genre you see it as, but being satire doesn't excuse it from being shallow. Romeo and Juliet fall in love for some very grounded, realistic reasons. They are adolescents, which are known to be particularly susceptible to falling in love, and also doing it with someone your parents don't like is extra hot, and so on. And the way the story plays out requires some suspension of disbelief (wait, how did they get married if the royals would forbid it?) but it is always explained in a way that at least feels like it logically follows (oh, the Friar believes secretly marrying the two might bring peace; funnily ironic that they then should die instead). Shakespeare did not have to experience these situations in order to portray them. When they start to get over the top and imaginative we at least feel like we started from some sort of grounded position, so it isn't so hard to suspend our disbelief. The entire play is building up to this ultimate tragedy and it earns it. This contrasts with the other work, which does not set up anything before attempting to claim a payoff. The characters just are the way they are, things just happen. They don't have to be explained or have reasons that follow, because it's just satire. I am not blaming the author for taking creative license in the way that Shakespeare did in describing the suicide of a pair of romantically involved individuals. Nor am I blaming the author for being a man. I am blaming the author for producing a work that is just shallow in a gendered feeling way. Were the author a woman, they might have realized that women don't just do things randomly but instead, drawing on her past experience being a woman, that they usually have a backstory where these things originate from. If you like stories like this, don't let me yuck your yum. But also it is good to take the time to more deeply think about a work and what it means, why the characters act the way they do, why the author produced it in the first place.
- stavros 3y ago
  I see what you mean, thanks, that's insightful. I don't know how I'd feel if it were two men, with nothing else being different, but I suspect I'd think the same. Basically, I can see why you find the writing bad, I'm just not sure I agree on whether it would be better if the characters were men.

ofcourseyoudo 3y ago

But you're a man, and so is the original commenter, so we can freely disregard your POV as well.

striking 3y ago
You can freely disregard anyone's POV at any time, regardless of their gender. I won't stop you if that's your prerogative. However, I've also talked to people (to women!) on the subject of these dating spreadsheets, and found those discussions to be way more nuanced and interesting than the puppet show the original work's author put on. So disregard my POV (and theirs, and everyone else's) if you like, but I find discussing the actual experiences had by affected individuals to be way more interesting than whatever game the rest of y'all seem to be playing. Also, man or otherwise, the original work fails in terms of like, plain literary merit. The fact that a man wrote it only comes up because a woman would have been unlikely to make so many mistakes and to have put up so many extraordinarily shallow characters if she were working with lived experience.