>>54560314Judging somethog based on how "relatable" it is is bad because its not a mark of how good it is at all. This isnt about being le edgy 4chud. Its a pattern i have seen increase over and over where "relatable" is senselessly tossrd and bumperbstickered on everything seemingly as a substitute for "good", which is weird and narcissistic thinking as it presents a very specific narroe collectionnof things as falling under this umbrella to the the exclusion of other experiences or scenarios.
9/10, what it really translates to is "appeals to lower class, insecure introvert social outcasts ".
Its often used as a shortcut gor having to actually write compelling or tjought out characters because you can bypass all that by making projection fodder that makes someone go "its me fr", so their brain shuts off.
Its a blight on modern writing and modern media analysis in general.
These things arent inherently bad, but the way they are used and judged in analysis is a massive problem.
