Why woke stories always fail

Letters from O'Brien #36

Dear Mr Smith,

One of the prevailing themes over the past decade has been the propensity for the entertainment industry to destroy its own creations. This was initially a rare occurrence, with only the most ideologically subverted writers and creators developing projects which were doomed to fail. Now, however, practically all forms of entertainment has been subverted by the woke ideology, yet despite the push to normalise it, these woke narratives always seem to fail.

Looking through the ideological and ‘religious’ underpinnings of woke culture, it is immediately obvious that this self destructive trend is not an anomaly, but rather a deliberate method, stemming primarily from Intersectionality and its modernised forms. Intersectionality asserts that everything must fall into its proper place in the pyramidal structure of power. This is why ‘woke’ characters are essentially one dimensional, as their ‘character’ in the eyes of the writer is not a byproduct of personality, but of intersectional oppression and their relationship with power. This is painfully obvious in most modern films.

GOOD VS EVIL

Objectivity in the form of good vs evil is sacrificed in exchange for intersectional identity as paramount. Thus, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ become labels with no meaning beyond the subjective. If group identity (and indeed intersectional oppression) dictate all, then morality can be cast to the side. This is why woke ‘heroes’ usually come off as unlikable, since they often lack clear morals, but are somehow ‘justified’ by identity alone. This fits in to the same intersectional lens described earlier, in which power and oppression form the core of a character, not personality or values.

Sometimes this is extended to narrative structure as well, as even a coherent story may interfere with the intersectional framework. If it does interfere, then it is blasphemous through the woke lens. Thus, it is almost always rejected in favour of prioritising the ‘correct’ and fair presentation of power dynamics in relation to oppression or privilege. This leads to half-baked stories which often fall short of inspiring anyone, yet thanks to studio backing can often live on.

Apart from this ‘sacrifice’ on the part of objective morality and story structure, there has also been a deliberate attack on both of these attributes. While this is not as widespread, it nevertheless seeps in too many productions - particularly films - and destroys them from within. This includes the deliberate destruction of cultural icons (popular films/TV series, games, novels, etc.), done so as to limit the ability for a culture to gather around a point of common reference. Great examples of this in recent memory include Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings - deliberately butchered in a recent television series - and the Star Wars franchise - damaged beyond repair with a billion dollar modernised film trilogy and lacklustre television shows. These subversion of these two series was not accidental, but I believe a rather deliberate attack with the goal of demoralisation.

Two goals are achieved by doing this. Firstly, stories which hold value within a culture are destroyed, quickening the destruction of ‘reality’. Secondly, an alternative narrative is presented which ‘flips’ power dynamics and culturally established standards such as objectivity. Both of these ideas comes from Herbert Marcuse and his writings on Critical Theory. Marcuse wanted reality to be completely destroyed through ‘revolution’, as he believed that reality itself was a prison, and Utopia could only be achieved if the existing culture and society was completely uprooted and destroyed.

PREDICTABILITY

Using the intersectional framework as a sort of ‘narrative guide’, it becomes easy to predict exactly how a story will unfold based purely off of intersectional attributes. For example, the race, gender, disabilities, religious beliefs, political opinions, and sexuality of the characters are good indicators of whether they will be ‘heroes’ or ‘villains’ within the story. By mapping this on to an intersectional chart (race and belief on X, gender and sexuality on Y) one can build a near-perfected prediction tool. Gender predicts ‘competence’ (female characters are gifted higher competence than males), whilst race predicts privilege or lack thereof. Sexuality adds further points to the intersectional chart (gay woman holds more competence than a straight woman). Beliefs also factor in to this, as characters usually lean either towards conventional morality and values (anti-revolutionary, more likely to ‘betray’ other characters), or hold a radical destructive view on reality (revolutionary, destroy everything, ‘good’).

Thus, since the quest usually involves something akin to ‘revolution’ (either literal or metaphorical) against the ‘prison reality’, it makes sense that characters would be rank-ordered based off of their intersectional oppression. The most oppressed are most awakened to the actuality of reality (a prison), and thus have the most to gain from destroying it, whilst the characters who lack intersectional oppression are more likely to uphold the system.

Narratives based around an intersectional framework never draw the attention of wide audiences (beyond those which hide under iconic brand names), since there is practically no symbolic or psychological depth. It’s not even that people do not want to see woke entertainment. It’s that it essentially stands in contrast to the psychologically attractive ideas people search for in stories. This is why storytelling through a woke lens never fails to disappoint audiences. This also explains why those who push various woke narratives usually avoid defending these narratives, since there isn’t really a justification to be made in their defence which wouldn’t result in the defendant looking foolish. So the failure of psychologically compelling and attractive storytelling is simply ignored.

Most of this seems to stem from a hermetic outlook on reality, which also correlates with the broader idea held by many woke activists. This idea essentially boils down to a definition of reality as a sort of prison. This is the same belief held by many neo-Marxist sects. Reality is oppressive to various degrees, hence why oppression and privilege are such dominant themes within woke entertainment. Intersectionality broadens the idea to include subject traits which are also correlate with privilege or oppression. Initially, it may seem that class is an oppressive structure, or perhaps sexuality. Both can be altered. However, it can then be extended to gender (which requires considerable alteration) and then such things as race (which cannot be altered). Many eventually seem to realise that their own existence is in some way or another oppressive. There is always something ‘oppressive’ to ruminate on; be it face, height, personality, etc. The end result of this seems to be the realisation that reality itself is an oppressive prison, and thus everything is in need of overturning (as Marcuse said it needs to be).

Another problem is that I find all of this woke output blatantly uncreative. It’s probably not creative because it can’t be creative - it has to follow a rather banal philosophical script. It is not longer storytelling but rather a type of ideological reinforcement, akin to paying respects to Comrade Stalin so as to not be shot in the back of the head. Since these projects have no creative value in terms of narrative structure, then that leaves only two options; the ideology continues to propagate, but due to the lack of creativity it begins to reverse into a less articulate mess, OR people voice their criticism of the destruction of storytelling. While the changing tide suggests that people are beginning to voice discontent with the prevailing narrative, many still pay for the product, so it is anyones guess where this will end up.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien