dsheinem wrote:There's a long line of rhetorical critics and scholars dating back to Aristotle that would disagree with this. Understanding tropes/commonplaces and their power AS SUCH is quite useful, both for those who employ them and critique them.
Arguing that narrative devices exist "AS SUCH" that is, as a platonic ideal, is very debatable but I don't think that's how Sarkeesian frames the subject. Sarkeesian frames it from the lenses of second wave feminism, that is, she upholds the sexism is not a mere act (1) but a consequence (or otherwise part of) of power structures (2) that are detrimental to women (3) and that to understand acts (or games) we have to go frame it from that power structure (4).
dsheinem wrote:I don't have to read trashy romance novels to know that it is a genre where most of the cover art...and likely the content...features idealized notions of beauty/bodies.
You are making the same logical leaps she does which mostly boil down to judging a work of art not by what it is, but what you
think other works are which would be debatable in and on itself.
I'm also saddened you have also decided that you don't have to read a book to judge it, or to claim it belongs to a "trashy" genre you are not well-versed on. To me it's anti-intellectual, unfair and damaging.
Jmustang1968 wrote:She is citing specific examples, not just discussing genres.
The issue is that she wants to discuss parts (Games) by using a whole (Tropes) as a reference but she cannot explain the whole without discussing its parts. It's circular.