i got three, one is a dude who says he is too employed to be here and has been crying for 4 months, another one larping the novel and another AI generating stuff
if you hate re zero you dont have an IQ
so I read a post in here that had so much coping and mental gymnastics attempts at trying to justify this retarded subreddit that I thought I wanted to call it out, ts will not be long
i will avoid names cuz the mods loves his censorship
so first of all the person posting this was not a re zero fan, they made a post long ago calling re zero overrated and badly written, so they are pretending to be one so that anyone who criticizes them can be called out for fanatic or smth, really lame and unemployed:
as you can see they think re zero is badly written slop so they are not a fan, and they post at a hate sub, which also makes them not a fan
so case closed, this is intellectual dishonesty, but what they say now is peak
"Re:Zero fans who criticize the show are often met with animosity or apathy in the main subs. Either they're completely downvoted, someone says "here we go again another one", or they just dismiss your criticisms."
and they put a bunch of out of context screenshots, as if they were a re zero fan to begin with, one in which they lied about having evidence of thousands of bot accounts
but this really is easy to prove wrong, I mean, this guy has never stepped into the main sub there have been a lot of high upvotes and interaction posts making critiques about the aspects of the story:
it is just that when you make a stupid ass critiques that people are tired of respond to bcs it is dishonest or objectively wrong, fans are not gonna react fine specially when you post with a level of condescension saying that anyone rating rz highly doesn't know what they are talking about
so then he says this
"The fans here who brigade are justification for the sub's existence. Re:Zero fans here can't handle if someone doesn't like the quality of the show so they personally attack you and your ability to criticize instead of providing a sound argument."
this sub existed way before any fan brigaided anything or the fandom of re zero became more toxic, it exists because the mods was butthurt about people disagreeing with him about re zero and wanted an echo chamber to endlessly complain about it:
so this doesn't justify much bcs causality is inverted, re zero fans are here as a result of you wanting a whole place to bitch out about the story, you didn't want a whole place to bitch about the story because re zero fans were here, so this is a lie
"I don't think it is inherently wrong or morally incorrect to criticize, dislike, or even hate on a piece of fiction. That is the nature of art and part of the fun for many. What I don't like is people who dump on others for liking or disliking art. If you loved it? Awesome! If you hated it? Awesome! But I think a safe space to do this can and should exist."
no it shouldn't, there shouldn't exist a safe space to hate on a piece of art or where people can actively hate on a piece of art because it is contradictory and mentally ill: spending a lot of time talking about something you think is good makes sense because that object brings u satisfaction and joy, constantly talking about a series that you dislike and you think is trash is contradictory since it implies the trash is worth a place in your head and the time of your die, like a dude complaining about needless yet constantly stabbing himself with them for no good reason
same thing here cuz honestly you are doing nothing beyond just ranting, contrary to say a fan that comes here to correct missinfo or criticize your behavior for being bad, that at least has a reasonable purpose
"I haven't really seen a ton of responses to criticisms of the show that I resonated with. Most of them were just opinions and even the ones who used the source didn't feel like it supported their claims or was genuine."
okay so this is insane cope, handwave dismissal, being blind or confirmation bias, because u cannot talk about lacking responses to your critiques after you block everyone who debunks you, even if your replies to them consist of nothing but insults and dishonesty, for example, this one is one fig sent me:
he commented allat and engaged with your points, the response you had was
red is ad hominem
green is an attempt at counter arguing
yellow is misrepresentation/strawman
purple is lying
and after that you blocked him... like, if u just plug your ears whenever someone proves u wrong of course you won't find any critiques to what you do
anyway that post was insane cope, leave a like and subscribe if you agree
unironically defend this sub = mentally ill
W diddy
the extra 1 is intentional reflecting the re zero haters inability to count
a lot of writing debates become pointless because people confuse personal dislike with objective criticism.
like, when you day "X show is bad" you are talking about the writing of the show, not about your dislike of it
there is a difference between saying "i don't like X because i found the pacing boring" and saying "X has bad pacing", the first one is a statement about your personal experience, while the second one is a criticism of how the story is constructed.
of course, people can dislike whatever they want. nobody needs to justify why they didn't enjoy something. but if you start making claims about the quality of the writing, then you need to actually analyze the writing itself.
writing quality is not entirely objective, but if you make a lot of sweeping claims about a show like "characters are bad, it is full of plot holes, characterization is inconsistent" u cannot try to excuse yourself by saying "but it is just my opinion dude"
Just to preface, I have only read Hamlet and Macbeth. I know a bit about King Lear and some bits from the other plays but I won’t bring them up in this argument because I believe I am qualified to talk about his works in its entirety.
I have 2 main issues with Shakespeare and I’ll try to discuss them here at length and I hope to be as clear as possible.
What I mean by this is that Shakespeare prioritizes driving the point home rather than leaving it linger in the viewer. It constantly ensures that the audience knows why the characters behave in a certain way and leaves no room for actual thought (Because if a character ever explains what they’re thinking, interpretation instantly ceases to exist, that’s just how literature works).
For example, Hamlet constantly reflects on his own indecision and emotional state instead of simply letting us infer it from his actions. Of course his hesitation creates enormous psychological strain and affects every decision he makes. Yet the play doesn’t let you figure that out on your own. It constantly reaffirms it through his soliloquies. (We all know that in literature and theatre, soliloquies and monologues are bad writing because they insist on things that can be understood with less words. Why waste time actually evoking an emotion when the reader can just check the 'he is sad' box on their spreadsheet and move on? If we already technically know he's depressed, making us sit through the poetry of it is just bad writing).
The part where Hamlet asks himself whether “to be, or not to be” is unnecessary. It’s already self-evident from everything he’s done that he’s conflicted. Shakespeare didn’t trust me to notice (Thankfully he repeated it in one of the most famous passages ever written so even I couldn’t miss it).
Or even when Macbeth struggles with murdering Duncan, he spends entire speeches explaining his doubts and ambition. The floating dagger, his hesitation, his behavior, those already tell us everything. But Shakespeare just keeps going. (Imagine writing characters with an internal conflict).
The play cannot risk the audience feeling ambiguous toward Hamlet’s thoughts. It needs to ensure that whatever Hamlet is thinking, you’re thinking about that too. Every time he launches into another philosophical speech, Shakespeare makes sure you’re emotionally invested and can easily recognize Hamlet’s motivation. (As opposed to… not understanding the protagonist of the play you’re watching).
Hamlet is weak, miserable, indecisive, and often painfully self-aware, and Shakespeare knows that all too well, so in an attempt to make the audience sympathize with him he has him verbalize every emotion. (Characters communicating their psychology? Bad writing).
This problem persists whenever Hamlet makes a mistake. Characters like Horatio, the Ghost, Gertrude, and Claudius constantly discuss what happened, why it matters, and what Hamlet should do. This would be fine, but Shakespeare deals with it too quickly. At times he poses a question which he then immediately lets another character respond to, leaving the audience with no actual stance on the matter (Unless, of course, they decide to disagree with the character… but let’s not get carried away).
The dialogue often functions less as actual human one-to-one communication than as a means for thematic resolution.
Normally humans don’t behave like that. We don’t speak in carefully structured speeches and the people we’re talking to don’t respond with equally well-structured speeches. It’s just not realistic. It’s just a tool to make sure you’re on the same level as the story (That is why we know that theatre drama is bad writing).
It’s like Hamlet argues Thesis A, then Horatio gives Counter Thesis B with reasons X, Y, and Z why Hamlet should reconsider.
When real human discourse happens, usually it’s awkward and messy. If somebody trauma dumps, people don’t immediately answer with a perfectly organized philosophical rebuttal. Yet Shakespeare falls into this error a number of times: Hamlet with the Ghost, Hamlet with Horatio, Macbeth with Lady Macbeth, Brutus with Cassius, Lear with Kent… honestly people in Shakespeare just keep talking about the themes instead of bottling up their feelings like normal people.
The characters just feel like mouthpieces reflecting what Shakespeare is trying to deliver, deconstructing any audience interpretation or agency over how the audience should feel. At times Shakespeare shows what characters are feeling through action, but then he ruins all that by having them explain themselves (Because obviously showing and telling can’t coexist).
And even though I dislike bringing in other writers as comparison, I will mention a couple here just to reiterate my point.
Such examples of stories handling deep issues better include modern films where the protagonist silently stares out of a rainy window for seven minutes. This really drives home how awkward human interaction is. Another example is Unimeko, which is well known for having characters talk like normal people and not engage in monologuing ever.
This point is pretty self-explanatory with the main differentiating factor of his stories literally just being tragic misunderstandings, ambition, revenge, and kings making terrible decisions. Yet I want to expand on it a little more, especially regarding Hamlet’s character development.
As stated before, Hamlet is indecisive, miserable, emotionally unstable, and talks a big game. The play does a very good job exploring this. Nonetheless, the way Shakespeare treats his character is more like a reset point to fall back on.
At the beginning of every act, it feels like Hamlet starts doubting himself again, literally overshadowing every advancement that’s been made. (Characters relapsing into old habits? Again, bad writing)
Almost every Shakespeare tragedy is as follows:
The protagonist acquires a flawed mindset (ambition, jealousy, indecision, pride, etc.).
Their flaws lead to catastrophe.
They emotionally break down.
Another character gives them advice in a very verbose speech.
The protagonist reaches a revelation.
They continue making mistakes anyway.
The tragedy ends with everyone dying.
Shakespeare is quite flawed in how he deals with character progression, and at its simplest there are two problems.
His protagonists are always set to similar emotional states.
Hamlet doubts himself.
Macbeth doubts himself.
Lear doubts himself.
Othello doubts himself.
It’s basically the same issue every time: humans having recurring psychological flaws. (The fact that all of these are executed differently does not matter at all, also, people should permanently solve their emotional issues after one good conversation. Anything else is bad writing).
Each play adds a nuance, but they just feel like iterations of each other and no new advancement has been made (Apparently different characters exploring different facets of similar themes is now called “repetition").
As stated, each play handles a different issue and then eventually resolves it.
Which is a problem in and of itself because real character growth shouldn’t be defined that easily; it should feel natural.
Anyone arguing for Hamlet’s development can very easily point to one scene and say, “See? There he developed.”
Unfortunately, natural character progression doesn’t work like that.
Development is where, when inspecting the same character, you notice behaviors he wouldn’t have exhibited before or when he mentally matures. It should feel like a never-ending slope, because there is neither an end goal nor a definite checkpoint.
Rather, Hamlet’s development feels like concrete steps, as if Shakespeare intentionally wrote dramatic turning points into a five-act tragedy (The audacity).
The framing of these breakthroughs can make them feel more concrete than Hamlet’s later behavior justifies.
In defining these crucial moments where he develops, Shakespeare overrides the fact that Hamlet’s defining trait is his inability to completely escape his own flaws.
It creates a dissonance because every time Hamlet hesitates again, I can’t help but ask:
“Didn’t we just deal with that?”
(Because every single time self-doubts happens it is just the exact same identical thing, and bad writing)
---
In conclusion,
These are just a few critiques I had while reading Shakespeare and I hope I was able to deliver my points clearly.
Thanks for reading.
(If these arguments sound ridiculous when applied to Shakespeare, that’s largely because they’re treating deliberate literary devices like soliloquies, thematic recurrence, dramatic rhetoric, and non-linear psychological growth as if they were accidental writing mistakes. That’s the joke).
re uploaded because of bad translations
