I only watch the ofmd fandom from afar but some people give the impression of not conciliating well how the show is light hearted and comforting but also deals with heavy subjects in a general violent contex. the fact I've seen people say there's no homophobia when it's the central driving force of the plot is the most exaggerated example. but it's also in this attempt to flatten characters into "uwu baby" and "who's right vs who's wrong" (or at worse who's an abuser) when the show clearly does its best to create a likable flawed cast. Stede is extremely insecure and a horrible father/husband even before he abandons his family. Ed is an abuse survivor and he struggles with anger. Izzy is an asshole and it's funny- I mean he's a brit working class caricature. those things interact and its what makes the show human and interesting. why try to smash it into a simplistic dichotomy. it won't work 😭😭

and obviously you know all of this. so I guess it's: thanks for having braincells 😘😘

I don't actually know how old this ask is, but, it's been in my inbox for a while lol, sorry!

I think observing from a distance might be the most enjoyable way, it's been years since I was this close to the centre of a fandom and it's wild.

But yes, you're absolutely correct, it's a show about flawed characters and their ability to realise they're in the wrong, and change themselves - if that's what they want! Obviously not every character is given this opportunity, nor should they be, but I think my main issue with people coming down on the characters either way is that currently, they're unfinished!

...maybe Izzy will get worse next season, maybe his racism/general abusiveness and manipulation will become his main character traits, maybe his arc is that he rejects offers of kindness and belonging because of his own prejudices/self-importance and in the end this destroys him. I'd love to see that play out, but I'd love to see whatever they do with him play out too.

Taking a break for a while really made me realise that actually, this is a comedy show about pirates? What Are We Doing??

I love the meta and the drawn out explanation - I am an English Literature and Media Studies graduate, like literally I dedicated years of my life to this stuff! But one of the main reasons for these analyses is that it's supposed to be a discussion, there are supposed to be disagreements and alternative theories, and you should look at whether the evidence is actually in support of what is being said.

It isn't about deciding what is moral/immoral content to consume. Especially in a comedy show, where the character people are angry about is so cringe-fail within the show itself, and who's worst traits seem only to be evident through close-reading.

One of the first things you learn if you take Lit/Media in higher education is that you can be wrong about a text. You can't just say whatever you want without actual textual evidence (and, pet-peeve, but I personally do not count interviews etc). And sometimes, completely contrasting information can be true - because of the ambiguity! Whether these meanings are intentional or not - this is unknowable. And of course you can have your own personal opinions or readings of a text, but it's weird to decide that because you are right, everything else must be wrong.

I also see posts that essentially read - "this character is deep and multifaceted and we should look closely at them. But this character sucks and if you engage with content that looks closely at them then you suck too!" And I can't help but feel that that's worse than if we weren't to engage with textual analysis at all. Ignoring the actions of "evil" characters, who shape the narrative, feels very dismissive to me - disrespectful both to the text itself but also to the real world issues that it draws from.

I suppose in conclusion, everyone continue to think critically, consume media critically, but also, touch grass sometimes. and maybe read a book too.