This phrase has already entered my vocabulary re: media criticism where like. The viewer has a concrete view of what they expect a story to be based on the tropes and cliches they're used to seeing together, and when that doesn't happen, they judge it as a failed depiction of what they assumed it was going to be instead of judging it as what it actually is.
"This show is problematic because the hero didn't kill the villain at the end": When does he steal the bread?
"These two characters who were close friends throughout the series don't kiss at the end! What the fuck?": When does he steal the bread?
"This feels like it's missing a conclusion! Like, the protagonist does bad stuff and because of a critical decision he makes as a result of his major character flaws, meets tragedy in the end! Where's the part where he learns better and brings is love back from the dead and becomes a good guy and gets a happy ending?": When does he steal the fucking bread??
I heard this out as "When criticizing something, you must judge it for what it is, not what it isn't"
Years ago I read this criticism from an actual professional critic of Jane Austen. He said her work was not as good as everyone said because she didnāt talk about things like the napoleonic wars and the sugar trade. You know, dude stuff. Instead of seeing Austen as a brilliant writer who brought to light the stories of women and the things that concerned them, he thought she was rubbish for not bringing up stuff all the male writers of her time were already covering. He was seeing her work for what it wasnāt, instead of what it was, which was revolutionary. Iām so āgladā to see people still fucking this up.
