In an interview with one of the creators, Kenn Navarro, carried out by G4, it was revealed that the intention of the show was to entertain and give viewers a good laugh. However, it seems like they have failed to realise that their sense of humour does not suit everyone, and the impact of HTF would go beyond their initial intention. The idea that the more gory it is the more laughter it invites sounds terribly wrong and corrupts our minds, at least subliminally which seems to be worse when people do not realise that they have slowly accepted and violence and gore, and there is the gradual inclination towards it.
G4: Who are your inspirations?
KENN: There are soooo many, I don't think I can pin it down to a list. I get inspired and learn something from everything. Movies, TV shows, comics... heck, even a nice little design on a coffee cup can turn into something. You just never know when lightning can strike. Specifically relating to Happy Tree Friends, the look and feel of the show is inspired by Mary Blair, a legendary Disney artist who designed the Small World ride at the park. We also used the classic Golden Books series as a basis for the opening of the show.
Animation wise, the show obviously owes a lot to The Simpsons. That show is such an institution that it would be hard NOT to be influenced by it. I also love Ren & Stimpy and John K.'s whacky take on things. Also can't deny that South Park's brand of unabashed and unforgiving comedy has seeped its way into the show. We're just standing on the shoulders of giants and trying to kick it up to the next level.
As for film, I love horror, action, sci-fi...pretty much anything good. Again, it's hard to distill it because I'll watch anything as long as it's interesting and well put together. Even bad movies are fun to watch and, like everyone else, I've got my own personal list of guilty pleasures when it comes to bad movies. If you look closely, we actually make nods to all our favorite films, shows and comics in the show.
G4: What is your favorite episode of the show so far?
KENN: From the internet series, if all the episodes were in a burning building and I had to save one or two, I'd point the water hose in "Eye Candy" and "Out on a limb." Those are just quintessential and classic Happy Tree Friends episodes that are simple and straight to the point. With the new, longer format of the TV series, we're able to expand and add a lot more depth and character to our cast of misfits and misanthropes that we were never able to do before. I love the new episodes like "Wishy Washy," where we get to explore Petunia's Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and how that leads to trouble. In "A Change of Heart," we find that Disco Bear really isn't in the greatest of shape and has really bad eating habits. We also see why Lumpy shouldn't be given any type of medical job (or any job!) at all. "Aw, Shucks!" is a heart warming tale of a Moose's relationship with his favorite vegetable. All real fun episodes that still crack me up whenever I watch them.G4: Are there ever idea where even you say, “Geez maybe that’s a bit too gory and insane?”
KENN: That's when we know we're doing something right! When somebody flinches, that's a sure sign that we hit a nerve...which is always a good time, in my book. The only thing that comes close to that was the original ending for the "Chip Off the 'Ol Block" episode which called for Pop purposefully hiding and then burning Cub's body in the pile of leaves after he discovers he had just murdered his own son. We thought that was a little too malicious and changed it so that he's more oblivious to the fact that he just killed and burned his son.
However, fortunately, the creators still put a limit to the ideas of cruelty as shown in the change they did to "Chip Off the 'Ol Block", though the prevalent gore is still disturbing.
Chip Off the 'Ol Block
*Interview taken from G4TV at Blood & Bunnies: HTF Co-Creator Kenn Navarro Speaks -- written by Frank Meyer on Tuesday, September 26, 2006.
*Video taken from YouTube by MondoMedia at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABpbMPpWdP4
Labels: Chip Off the 'Ol Block, creators, cultural anxieties, SinYee
The "Happy Tree Friends" phenomenon is part of the massive shift of eyeballs away from traditional media like TV toward the Internet.
"Happy Tree Friends" is at the forefront of a number of brands that are defining their success first in the online space, and then building from this strong audience base toward other media like TV, interactive, etc. The audience is in the millions online, clamoring for original content that they can share with their friends.”
It seems that the Internet is gaining a strong foothold… Do we consider the Internet a mainstream media then considering that its reach might even exceed that of the television?
Or is television still THE mainstream media? What do we mean by mainstream media anyway?
It seems to me that in today’s society, being able to please online audience is more important than pleasing audience at home watching TV… considering that success is more dependent on the Internet that is wider in reach?
Take the success of "Happy Tree Friends" for example. Many are concerned about the show, especially now that it is being screened on TV… Parents are afraid that their children might be exposed to “bad influence” as they would call it. But it doesn’t seem to be so simple anymore. These concerns might be raised but that’s not stopping "Happy Tree Friends" from being screened on TV.
Also, a point to note is that even though parents might oppose to their children watching "Happy Tree Friends" on TV, there’s no telling that their children would not turn to their alternative – watching it on the Internet itself which is so readily available.
With the power of the various media today, my opinion is that it is no longer a one-man show... Television no longer in control? Television might be the official mainstream media in name but the Internet might be the mainstream media that is in power… If we think about it, it seems as though we can do without a TV these days. All we need is the Internet.
To put it simply, what we can get from TV, we can easily get from the Internet – news, even television programmes, and we are not talking about just what we get on local channels… it’s what is shown on other people’s local channels (it’s international!) and we can even get it real-time.
What about our TV? Can it do the same?
In the past, the TV was considered to be our “eyes” in the sense that the TV is the window, which allows us to “see” the world through it.
But today, is that really the same? Are we still as reliant on the TV?
Look at what "Happy Tree Friends" can achieve by simply starting out on the Internet… What does this imply?
Coming to think about it, if the Internet can do what the TV does, but the TV is not able to do what the Internet can do…
Can we then say that the day will come when the Internet will replace the TV? And that day might be imminent…
Take your pick
If you were stranded on a deserted island, which of the following would you pick given 2 choices:
A) TV
B) Internet (of course, I mean with a computer attached if you pick this option)
Think about your choice… Why? What is this telling?
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, Media, personal opinion, technology
1 Comments:
I would of course choose the internet! Mainly because I can get help with the internet to return, but that's not the point here.
The internet, whether for entertainment or for information, is far more flexible than the tv, and therefore better suit our differing needs and wants. I can watch my favourite shows as and when I am free or want to, I can get more objective information (no/less censorship by the authorities), I can have just what I want and filter everything else out, and not have to wait for hours for the next show I'm interested in.
But most importantly, on top of that, the internet is interactive, which brings it to a higher level. We are no longer passive consumers, we can decide on what we see and what we don't. Everyone can communicate over the internet, but not on tv(teletext service aside).
Nonetheless, I believe the tv still has its function, perhaps for bonding and network convenience. The TV is after all still a more widely used item as compared to computers.
The crew that brings us Happy Tree Friends!
Kenn Navarro
Director, Animation Director, Writer [2000 – present]
Rhode Montijo
Director, Art Director, Writer [2000 - 2004 ]
Aubrey Ankrum
Director, Writer, Storyboard artist [2000 – 2006]
Warren Graff
Story Editor, Writer [2000 – present]
Ken Pontac
Story Editor, Writer [2004 - present]
Jeff Biancalana
Writer, Animator, Storyboard artist [2001 - 2005 ]
David Winn
Writer, Animator [2003 - present ]
Alan Lau
Animator, Writer, Director, Storyboard artist [2001 - present ]
Jason Sadler
Animator, Writer, Director [2001 - present ]
Mark Fiorenza
Writer [2000 – 2003 ]
Brad Rau
Animator, Storyboard artist [2001 - present]
Roque Bollestros
Writer, Animator, Director, Storyboard artist [2001 - present ]
Paul Allan
Writer, Animator, Director [2000 - present ]
Nica Lorber
Animator [2000 - present ]
Michael "Lippy" Lipman
Storyboard artist, Animator, Director, Writer [2000 - present ]
Peter Herrman
Storyboard artist [2000 – present ]
Jim Lively
Sound Designer, Music [2000 - present ]
Francis Carr
Foley artist [2004 - present ]
Jeremy Rossen
Music Composer [2005 - present ]
Liz Stuart
Producer [2000 - present]
*data obtained from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_tree_friends]
From the table above, I’ve observed that the people involved in the production are mostly males. What does this signify?
The main theme of HTF is violence and gore. Males are more involved in this production then females. Does this mean that males are more able than females to cope with this issue? Or is it that males like the theme better than females hence they prefer to work for HTF? So does it mean that males are more violent than females?
We have always known the man as the more aggressive of the two sexes. Physically, they are stronger. This could lead to the idea that men are generally more violent than woman. However, members of the opposition advocate that it is because man finds it more difficult to come to terms with their feelings, that they find it difficult to talk to anyone about their feelings, being afraid to be called a woose and choose to protect their ‘pride and dignity’. In the end, they choose to express themselves in another way - violent acts. Such examples include punching the wall with their fists or kicking the furniture.
So are men really more violent than woman? Just because they show more of their violent side, does it justify that the nature of man is more violent than the woman? It could just be the MAN way of letting off steam.
When more man is working on this production, could it be because man actually like violence more than the woman? Since young, boys play with toy guns and swords. Girls play with Barbie dolls. The notion that man has to be more aggressive is actually inculcated in us. Could it be that violence has always been part of the man’s life that they actually accept and embrace it?
Of course, it might just be that men are more creative than woman in churning out ideas for the various episodes of HTF.
Labels: cultural anxieties, geckying, gender issues
1 Comments:
I would agree with Geck Ying that gender IS a social construct, i.e. whatever it means to be masculine or feminine has been inculcated into us through socialisation and not predetermined by biology (that would be our sex), which may have a trickle down effect onto production, especially in the way they script violence in.
However, perhaps more than the issue of whether males really are/like to be violent is how each gender is perceived and the impact of having such 'appropriate behaviour' drilled into each individual.
Because of such concepts of masculinity and femininity, the 'appropriate behaviour' that comes along with it affects and polices us as much as the producers are policed by these ideas of gender. They then reproduce it in their work as a belief/norm that they subscribe to, in the content, in their choice of production crew.
This simply further drives home gender division and through that, gender ideology.
This TV episode (available online here: 1 & 2) of HTF features Disco Bear trying to fight the bulge, which ends up with tragic consequences - almost everyone featured in the show eventually dies due to his misadventure - but nonetheless, he attains his goal of losing weight not by shedding pounds but through decapitation, as the Mole illustrates by weighing his head (which he mistakes for a watermelon).A Disco Bear with a bulge is constantly slighted by others, particularly members of the opposite sex. Every attempt he tries at charming the ladies with his disco dance moves is met with rejection and dismissal. Herein lies the notion that what is on the inside doesn't count, so long as the outside appeals to others; a very narrow concept of beauty.
Throughout the feature, one sees the recurring motif of the scale, exercise machines, mirrors
Msg#1c Heterosexuality
Msg#2 Dangers lurk in the urbanscape
Much as Lumpy tries to avoid treading onto danger, he ends up hurting himself anyway. This is a stark contrast to Disco Bear, who enters and leaves the diner unproblematically, without having to deal with the snares that threaten Lumpy.
Labels: cultural anxieties, emily, Ipso Fatso, motifs, TV episodes
Cartoons = children as audience?
Genres and target audiences are often explicitly and inextricably linked, genres are often defined (especially industrially) by an assumed audience segment. Often, by labeling a genre as cartoons, we naturally associate it with children, and thus tend to assume that it is appropriate viewing for children.
But is that really the case in today’s context?
Just by looking at the characters from "Happy Tree Friends", we are often misled. But when we finally catch an episode, we experience for ourselves that appearances can be deceiving…
"Happy Tree Friends" is rarely ever happy and far from family-friendly. In a sense, it seems that cartoons have taken a turn toward catering to mature audiences.
Ramin Zahed, editor of Animation magazine, said "Happy Tree Friends" may be only the latest in a continuum of content once thought offensive, like "The Simpsons" or "South Park," but now accepted as mainstream. Cartoons already airing on cable networks like SpikeTV are more outrageous than "Happy Tree Friends," he said.
Considering the fact that such controversial cartoons are actually well received and almost becoming a trend, what is it telling? That controversy is the way to go?
Also, the question that I’m wondering now is, why cartoons? Why of all genres, are cartoons chosen to depict controversial content?
Is there a certain masking effect that is embedded within cartoons?
Do we find it easier to consume controversial content through cartoons because we tend to assume them to be harmless, and thus much anxiety is exempted from the genre?
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, Genres, personal opinion
1 Comments:
I guess the reason why we find the use of cartoons more appropriate for raising controversial issues is that we tend to relate cartoons to 'fiction', taking shield from cartoons' main purpose which is to entertain, while others like human-acted shows would invite stronger backlash as the message they deliver would tend to be more clear and direct, similar to watching documentaries? I really think it is for their convenience to try to avoid trouble from the controversy, and perhaps to lighten the mood.
With my constant exposure and touch with HTF in order to understand it more, I cannot deny the fact that I have grown to be more immune to violence, and slightly indifferrent to gore, considering my strong repellence against it before that. It sure looks like a bad sign to me, suggesting that our compassion might slowly be eroded away, unknowingly.
Viewers might not link violence in HTF to real-life violence to fellow human-beings, but what about animals? We cannot be sure that corrupted viewers would not exert the violence they picked up in the cartoons on small animals like rabbits, cats and dogs, just like how violence on rabbits is portrayed in the shows. This is especially true when animal abuse is common among children, when they fail to realise what is wrong in it, and enjoy abusing animals so much. Children most probably cannot understand how the animals are suffering, even from the minor acts of cruelty like throwing a cat into a bucket of water or kicking these animals, and they derive entertainment and joy from doing this.
With HTF, I believe the problem would get worse, with the cuddly figures being maimed in all sorts of creative ways, the children get inspired on ways to abuse animals, or may get curious of how the real-life animals would react to such situations. I really cannot imagine what fate the small animals will suffer when ignorant children carry out what they see on the HTF shows. Instead of educating children on stopping cruelty towards animals, the shows actually 'promote' animal abuse. Children's minds are easily corrupted, and un-doing the damage would seem difficult.
*Image taken from www.freewebs.com/stampoutanimalcruelty/.
Labels: animal abuse, cultural anxieties, SinYee
A warning against the encroaching influence of the media?
A parody of children's cartoons, a greater call for discernment? - On the outset, the characters resemble those of any typical cartoon character in the children's genre:
"All the characters are anthropomorphic animals. Many of them show two front large buckteeth when they smile. All the Happy Tree Friends except for Lumpy and Sniffles have the same pink Care Bear heart-shaped noses." - Wikipedia
"Each episode starts with introduction credits resembling a children's book, which portray the show's logo, the episode's name, which is usually a pun, and cast. After the ending credits, a moral follows. Examples include "
However, it turns out that HTF is a hybrid - a mix of various genres ranging from horror, children's story, 'moral' story, comedy. Does this challenge the assumption that all cartoons are meant for children - a warning to not judge a book by it's cover since cutesy-looking stuff have a sinister side to it?
Upsets the moralistic Aristotelian narrative characteristic of - problem (mortal flaw in characters), realisation of problem, reversal of fortunes that results in a happy ending.
Could the sadistic and violent nature of the cartoons be challenging the stereotypes typical to genres, i.e. the belief that round, cuddly shapes are not belligerent?
Human paranoia
"At the beginning of each episode, the characters are typically found in everyday situations. However the situations always escalate to violence, mostly because of very unfortunate, surprising accidents with common, otherwise, harmless props." - Wikipedia
Could this be reflective of a fear of man's inability to fully control one's environment, and thereby one's fate? (Power issues)
At the same time also reflecting a fear of death and the sudden loss/robbing of one's youth?
Or is it working as a social commentary, reflecting the sadistic, selfish state of human nature in the producers' eyes?
Also, is it trying to say that life is meaningless because we will all die (in a less spectacular , graphic way) anyway?
Relationships: parental, self, urbanscape/nature, heterosexual love,
- Case study: “And the kitchen sink” – parenting 101? Benign descriptions of the episode that are rather unsuspecting of its twisted nature. Moral: “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” – to show how dated this saying is?
- Case study: “Ipso Fatso” – obsession with outer appearances/weight? Episode starts off with a concern about weight and tracks how this pursuit to cut down on weight leads to disaster where everyone dies – even those who are not concerned (or do not need to be) about achieving this goal. Ends off with the blind guy weighing his head that shows he is much much lighter now. Moral: the way to one’s heart is through his stomach.
(Re)defining the boundaries of accepted norms and values
At the same time, does the gruesome, violent and sadistic nature of the cartoon help (re)define the boundaries of what norms and values are acceptable in society?
In the beginning, I remember finding some of the clips funny despite its gory nature - could laughing be a coping mechanism? - but subsequently, it gradually became not funny at all, almost like a turn off.
The exaggeration of such everyday scenes leading to and ending in violence and death could come across as disgusting and far-fetched, perhaps even wrong, thus helping to show that this violent behaviour is unaccepted and thereby reinforces how behaviour in society should be (think reverse psychology?).
The differences between web minute episodes and TV episodes: a less distinct
Some new thoughts: does the violence and gory nature actually deter people from watching? Does the messages of violence and gore encoded into the text really have an effect on the audience or are these messages reappropriated by audiences to mean something else? Are the messages encoded of violence and gore or are we simply looking at these episodes through the rose tinted glasses of ideology? If so, what sort of ideology is being perpetuated?
Labels: cultural anxieties, emily
Check out this interesting “Tom & Jerry” episode I found on YouTube.
Do this experiment if you are game. It’s pretty interesting. Watch this episode twice. (Advisory: Do it only if you have the time)
The two videos feature the same episode.
Tom & Jerry - Jerry's Cousin (Sound Dubbing)
Tom & Jerry - Jerry's Cousin (Original)
How did you find this episode?
Personally, I found it really interesting… It’s obviously an episode of “Tom & Jerry”. Yet, with the sound dubbing that’s done (with lots of vulgarities), it feels kind of awkward (even uneasy?) to know that it’s coming from “Tom & Jerry”.
The point here is to note that the scenes are still originally “Tom & Jerry”. But why do we feel that the episode is suddenly so violent. Is it just the vulgarities?
Think again.
The scenes are noticeably violent as well. Why haven’t we noticed that before? I find it really interesting that generally, we accept “Tom & Jerry” as a family-friendly cartoon where children and adults alike can sit down, watch it together in the living room, and have a good laugh over it.
These are obviously very violent cartoons that we are watching. Why is it acceptable then? What is this telling?
Some questions that we can think about the whole notion of cartoons. How do we define cartoons anyway? What is considered acceptable or not acceptable?
1. Is violence in Tom & Jerry acceptable because it is a cartoon? Why is it then that we cannot accept "Happy Tree Friends"?
2. Is violence in Tom & Jerry acceptable because the characters do not speak a regular language, so no vulgarities? Isn’t this the case for "Happy Tree Friends" as well?
3. Is violence in Tom & Jerry acceptable because there is no blood spilled in there? So this is the difference that separates "Happy Tree Friends"?
§ Just like in good old cartoons where the characters never die no matter what mishaps they face?
§ Is that even reality? In reality, there are obvious consequences. Are we then afraid to face consequences? Is that an anxiety that we face?
§ Does that explain why we cannot accept "Happy Tree Friends”? Because the show is very graphic with blood and guts pouring out at every possible occasion and no character is spared?
One fan, Matt Kramer, 17, of Los Angeles, defended "Happy Tree Friends" -- or HTF, in Internet shorthand -- in an e-mail: "Tom and Jerry was incredibly violent," he wrote, but "Tom the cat simply had a pancake face when hit with a skillet, his skull didn't crack like medical science tells us it should. With HTF, every little thing leads to their ultimate death, thus showing consequence."
In fact, "Happy Tree Friends” shows why it is perhaps not the best idea to have a campfire in your wooden tree house, or hang your head out of the window of the school bus, and plays the modern counterpart to the old-style fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, which showed naughty children just what happened if they wandered too deep into the forest.
I came across this interesting reading from a book entitled On media violence by Potter, W. James.
What caught my attention was that in the book, he mentioned that social scientists continually find cartoons to be the most violent of all television genres.
Cartoons do present very high rates of shootings, stabbings, bombings, and the like. These are violent actions… the cartoon “Tom & Jerry” contains so much violence that if you took away the violence you would be left with nothing. But the public discounts these actions when they appear in a fantasy or humorous context, such as a cartoon. The public reasons that when “Tom & Jerry” are stabbed or blown up, they are not really hurt, so there is no harm there is no violence.
“Tom & Jerry” would be considered very violent by content analysis and not violent by the public. The difference in definitions is traceable to the focus of concern. The public wants formulaic action – that is, safe, sanitized violence (no graphicness, low harm) that does not threaten them (not shocking, low reality), and in which the good guys are strong and prevail (high revenge, high justification). When members of the public see this formula in action, they see no violence and no need to complain.
How do you relate to this? I hope this leaves you thinking…
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, Genres, Jerry's Cousin, Media, motifs, personal opinion
Upon reaching the site, we are greeted by bright and vibrant colours, cute little characters and catching slogans. One of those that caught my eye was the warning – CV CARTOON VIOLENCE Not recommended for small children or big babies.
However, it is only left as such. There have been no other signs to indicate that the show is not appropriate for children. Looking at the warning that has been posted, it seems almost like a kind of joke. Big babies? What are big babies? Obviously, they are poking fun at people that feel adversely towards their videos. If that is the case, the warning loses its initial meaning. It now becomes a form of sarcasm.
The warning also seems like it is on the site just for the sake of putting it on. When it says ‘Not recommended for small children’, how many of the small children out there would actually adhere to what is on the warning. Nobody will know if the small children watches HTF. Anybody could have access to the internet. If I was a ‘small children’, I would definitely ignore the warning and venture on, curious about the content that I was not supposed to see.
It seems to be that the producers of the show simply put the warning to get themselves out of trouble as well. The theme that they are dealing with is definitely not suitable for children, yet their mode of delivery is. Hence, to avoid people from ‘slamming’ their websites, a certain form of warning have to be stated on the web. If you continue to watch the website, it would be of your own responsibility. You have been forewarned.
Actually, it is really our own responsibility to choose what sites that we want to go to. HTF is just like any other websites on the World Wide Web. I’m sure that that there are other websites that could be just as controversial or violent. Take pornography for example, there are no warnings or strict signs that could deter people from entering the site. Ultimately, we have a choice to choose what we want to watch.
Labels: cultural anxieites, geckying
There is much care taken by the creators of the episodes to subvert expectations, assumptions and stereotypes that come with genre, i.e. the 'formula' of the creating content.
A children's genre or not?
On the outset, the characters resemble those of any typical cartoon character in the children's genre; these are clearly anthropomorphic animals and a running motif - all (save for Lumpy and Sniffles) share the same pink Care Bear-esque heart-shaped noses and a huge, toothy grin that exposes two front buckteeth.
Furthermore, "[e]ach episode starts with introduction credits resembling a children's book, which portray the show's logo, the episode's name, which is usually a pun, and cast. After the ending credits, a moral follows. Examples include "Wash behind your ears!" and "Don't bite off more than you can chew!"." (Wikipedia)
However, it challenges the formula of the children’s genre by creating a hybrid – a mix of various genres ranging from horror, children's 'moral' story and macabre comedy – subverting the expectations of a children’s genre to the extent that it is almost a parody. As noted in Wikipedia: "...while adding to the children's book theme, the moral sharply contrasts with the violence portrayed in the episode. Since the episode "Happy Trails Part 2", the moral is an ironic reference to what happened to the characters in that episode." – (Wikipedia) This derailing of genre defamiliarises the audience from the usual formula genre, bringing to light genre as a construct.
Further, it challenges the expectations of the flow of the plot in children’s genres by upsetting the format of an Aristotelian narrative - problem (mortal flaw in characters), realisation of problem, reversal of fortunes that results in a happy ending - since there is never a happy ending where peace and order is restored. More often than not, all the Happy Tree Friends die very painful, violent, unhappy deaths.
Clearly, the blood and violence featured challenges the stereotyped assumption common to children’s genres that round, cuddly shapes are not belligerent. Outer appearances aside, the characters reveal an inner violent-prone self reminiscent of a Hobbesian view of human nature – chaotic, ‘brutish’ and selfish – as exemplified in the episodes whereby the characters view the only way out is through maiming/annihilating themselves/others.
What does this do? Impact of such subversive use of genre
#1 Does this challenge the assumption that all cartoons are meant for children - a warning to not judge a book by its cover since cutesy-looking stuff have a sinister side to it? A parody of children's cartoons = a greater call for discernment?
We've all heard/read of reports of parents finding out only much later of the 'inappropriateness' of exposing their children to HTF only after actually watching the content instead of simply dismissing it at 1st glance based on the assumption that all cartoons are directed at children, hence appropriate for them to watch.
Reveals another feature of society: hierarchy of cultural capital. Cartoon animation is to children as news is to adults.
#2 Does it propagate a stereotypical concept of masculinity?
My take on it is this form of reading of HTF perhaps could be a form of resistance against 'weaker' sensitive softie. To quote the disclaimer/warning put on the site - "Not for small children and big babies" [my emphasis]. It seems to be putting forward a concept of masculinity that is violent and tolerant (to say the least) of such graphic material. Macho males should find this content entertaining and vindictive.
And it should be noted that while we're on the topic of subversive content in genres, it could argued otherwise.
Hence, nothing seems to be clear, everything is left open-ended for the audience to read and make their own conclusions. What is clear though is that HTF's use of genres brings to light the constructed-ness of cultural texts and thus becomes a site of negotiation of meaning(s), in which the meaning(s) drawn by the audience reflects one's experience and view of society.
Labels: characterisation, cultural anxieties, emily, Genre
