Trauma as entertainment

[DokiDokiTsuna]

So the recent release of Pokemon Legends Z-A got me re-interested in an old idea I had, about a very edgy parody of the Pokemon concept. Although when I say ‘edgy’ I don’t mean self-deprecating 'teehee isn’t this genre stupid’ edgy; it’s more like…just absurdly dark subject matter. Like it’s such a terrible world to live in it’s almost laughable. ^^;

Now, I think it’s interesting despite that. I think the concept has the potential to explore some very relevant issues in the entertainment industry and contemporary views on mental healthcare. However, the fact that it takes the form of a Pokemon parody raises a concern that I have about game-ification of those relevant issues…

First, let me just explain how my idea works; I think you’ll understand what I’m worried about when you hear it– so basically, the “Pokemon” in this setting are actually semi-autonomous manifestations of the “trainer’s” traumas. A certain evil (?) corporation originally created this technology to simply remove trauma from people’s brains, and although they succeeded in making it the norm, they were never able to force it on the global populace to the extent they wanted. So instead, they came up with a way to incentivize participation by making it into a spectacle: now people can choose to ‘partially’ remove their traumas, keeping them around as separate beings that they can use for profit…by making them fight each other.

Because the “Pokemon” are extensions of the “trainers”, battles consist of essentially attacking and exacerbating your opponent’s concerns and mental issues– like, this is the idea of ‘psychic damage’ taken literally. When someone else’s “Pokemon” hurts your “Pokemon”, you are the one who suffers, and your ability to continue battling and making a living out of it more or less depends on your capacity to withstand humiliation and dish out emotional abuse. ^^;

^That’s the gist of it. And I think it’s clear through my framing and the story I’m telling (where the MC’s main motivation isn’t to “be the very best” at this nightmarish game, but instead to help a friend and solve a mystery) that this isn’t supposed to be positive or fun. It’s supposed to look and feel like exploitation, where the “gym leaders/champions” are aspirational figures in-universe, but tragic figures to the MC and the audience, literally selling their souls and encouraging impressionable kids to do the same.

BUT…I already know all of that is gonna get at least partially lost in the fun edginess of the concept, because that’s how media works. ^^; Like, I can’t help but imagine someone actually trying to make a Pokemon-like game out of this, and having to incentivize mechanics that aren’t really supposed to be incentivized.

In the world of the story, the reasons to battle are widespread wealth inequality in a collapsing world, and societal pressure to either make money out of your fears and weaknesses or get rid of them immediately. Meanwhile, the reason to battle in an actual game…would naturally be to win. ^^; To train your “Pokemon” and make them stronger so you can win more battles, to completely buy into the worldbuilding and go along with it for """fun""". And yeah, it probably would be """fun""", and you could buy into the worldbuilding in an ‘ironic’ sense…but I’ve already seen that go sour too many times. ¬‿¬;;

Obviously Squid Game is the first example of this that comes to mind, where the series went “isn’t it sick and twisted to live in a society that forces people to suffer and die for the entertainment of others, just for a chance at having money…?” and the general public went “yeah…but, like, it’s kind of a mood, ngl” and then we got metric tons of merch along with the IRL game show. =_=

But I think the Hunger Games is also a good example of this phenomenon– if it had come out more recently, I guarantee it would have become a game show too (if there wasn’t one already…I kinda don’t want to know). But the commodification that did happen at the time was bad enough, tbh…one thing I heard that I was never able to unhear was that they apparently made a ‘pop remix’ version of the Hanging Tree song…? Like…they wanted people to be singing and dancing to that?? Excuse me???

Now, tbh, these things don’t really offend me that much (I guess I’m too jaded…), but they do turn my stomach a bit, and it’s definitely not a line of thinking I want to encourage. It’s the reason why I came up with the parody in the first place, to criticize this phenomenon…unfortunately the idea is so close to being part of it that I’m not sure how I’m gonna make that separation clear when I talk about it. ^^;

Which is why I started this topic, to see what other people have to say about things like this in media. Because it takes a lot of forms, from “misery porn” in fiction, to the usual shock value-based exploitation in reality TV, to entire genres of TikTok, to stuff that happens in the ACTUAL Pokemon games, like that time they retroactively claimed one of their special evolution gimmicks (I don’t remember which) causes your Pokemon actual pain and agony every time you make them do it, but you’re supposed to just continue playing with that knowledge because ???? o_O It’s edgy and dark and that makes it cool I guess??

I…have never seen a company try to punish their audience’s investment so needlessly, especially in a series like Pokemon that’s already rife with worldbuilding issues that they’ve spent decades handwaving and glossing over. Like, pick a lane??? Is Pokemon a utopia where every potential bad outcome is a non-issue until some supervillain decides to fixate on it, or is it a realistic world where magical animals are commonly used and abused just like IRL (to the point where the player is expected to participate in that abuse)?? I simply cannot understand this creative decision, someone needs to explain it to me…

Anyway, TL;DR- what do you think about how trauma is used as entertainment in media, especially in scenarios like The Hunger Games and Squid Game (and my thing) where that dynamic is the main focus? Do you feel like the social commentary is worth the inevitable misunderstandings and commodification? Have you ever seen a writer/company misunderstand and commodify their work before anyone else even gets a chance…? ^^;

[narrativegold]

Interesting line of thought! Thanks for sharing.

I think that the "rightness" of portraying trauma, suffering, and emotional turmoil in media ultimately depends on what we think stories to be-- entertainment, or expression of something more.

I find that the majority of stories set in these grisly environments (Squid Game, The Hunger Games - Heck, Dangan Ronpa, even the Saw movies) aren't merely using the setting as "entertainment", but trying to explore a similar set of ideas, including perhaps "the transformation of the kind, decent, polite, and docile person under extreme circumstances."

Rarely are stories merely making people suffer so we as the audience can watch in horrified awe. Usually there is a deeper exploration of themes.

However, those artists need to make money to survive and provide-- and we do live in our wonderfully flawed world.

So bring on the merch!

[justincarbunkle]

Does trauma naturally come out as creatures? Are they/can they be altered in anyway after being separated from the host? Do similar traumas share similar design traits or types? Does it have to be trauma, or negative emotions/memories, or can you also make creatures out of positive ones?

The trauma creatures are still connected to the user? Do they have to be for the creature to exist? You mean, by physically hurting the trauma, the memories of it get stronger in the user? Or, like an abstract sense of the creatures going into each others minds and forcing you to relive being abused?

It’s an interesting idea you go many different directions with. The concept itself isn’t necessarily dark, though its definitely open to a lot of dark directions. Like, the people being basically forced to do this for the money, like Squid Game. Or the creatures + battles somehow present the images of the users being beaten/raped/ect in an entertaining way. Or people are encouraged/want to be abused so they can create stronger monsters. There’s a lot of ways to go with this.

That was mega evolution. Specifically the Gen 7 pokedex had those dark entries stating they cause the Pokemon pain. The series hasn’t really mentioned it since. It’s not in Legends Z-A. I believe the idea for that was, mega evolution is dangerous and can cause pain, which is why it’s only done by special trainers that have a strong enough bond with their Pokemon to control and use this power for a limited time. There were other dark entries in Sun and Moon outside the megas, I think the writer was just having fun and didn’t think of the implications it would cause the entire series.

It’s a children's series concept that you’re not supposed to think that hard about. The majority of kids just wanna collect + battle + go on adventures with cartoon monsters. In-world, you just have to accept that these monsters enjoy fighting, and form genuine bonds when they’re captured with a poke ball. The series has touched upon realistic + sad actions existing in the universe, but they’re not going to go that far with it because this is meant to be an E rated utopia for the most part.

I like Hunger Games. I don’t care about people making remixes of the soundtrack, or merchandise being made of the abused or evil characters. The story was entertaining and it has a good message. Viewers + corporations can do whatever they want with that.

[NickRowler]

Isn't a lot of horror, especially psychological horror, focused on trauma?

There are also plenty of dramas that focus on trauma, sometimes to tell a story about someone overcoming all odds. Precious (2009) is a good example of this.

I guess when it comes to stuff like Pokemon, it's kid's media so it's just for fun and it doesn't really get into deeper adult topics. Despite liking Naruto, the fact that the story doesn't really address the trauma of what it's like to be a child soldier was something that sort of bugged me.

[jwabeasley]

I think your setting might be better off as a Digimon knock off than a Pokemon one. Digimon has a lot more focus on trainers having a single beast that changes and has a deep connection to them than Pokemon does.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using and exploring trauma in fiction, in theory. In practice, it gets dull if it is approached in a trite, tasteless, or cliche manner, but doesn't anything?

My main issue with using psychological issues/traumas as the basis of fiction at this moment is that we've culturally decided that there's a small number of acceptable things to say about common problems, and most authors and artists use the lens of modern psychotherapy when they approach those issues, rather then communicating the experience in a unique or creative manner. The therapy-speak is used regardless of how appropriate it is to the setting or the characters.

Show me media that communicates the trauma experience in a unique way, that has something to say that I haven't heard before!

[narrativegold]

Absolutely agree.

Often times the way we talk about emotional trauma in media, it's either way too vague, or way too psychiatric.

Finding a creative way to characterize and describe afflictions and human suffering makes it interesting-- calling it by a single prescribed name is flat.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Does trauma naturally come out as creatures? Are they/can they be altered in anyway after being separated from the host? Do similar traumas share similar design traits or types? Does it have to be trauma, or negative emotions/memories, or can you also make creatures out of positive ones?

1. No, they have to be custom-generated through """therapy""" ^^;
2. Yep...that's actually one of the main plot points. Still working on the extent of it...
3. Yes; that's one of the more game-ified aspects of the concept. Similar traumas share the same form (albeit with slightly different attributes), making it possible for different "trainers" to have the same "Pokemon".
4. It doesn't necessarily have to be trauma, although most of the negative emotions people use are trauma-linked. Theoretically, you could use positive emotions/experiences, although that would mean becoming mentally detached from them, which most people wouldn't want...also, they would make for very weak "Pokemon" in most cases. ^^;
   If anything, someone might choose to detach their positive emotions and discard them just to strengthen the negative ones...which would be very sick and twisted; I'll have to hang onto that idea~

The trauma creatures are still connected to the user? Do they have to be for the creature to exist? You mean, by physically hurting the trauma, the memories of it get stronger in the user? Or, like an abstract sense of the creatures going into each others minds and forcing you to relive being abused?

1. We're getting into the actual plot again...but yes, the "Pokemon" cannot exist without the "trainer". More or less...this is where the 'semi-autonomous' part of the definition comes in. They have to be purposely summoned by the "trainer", but once that's done, they're pretty much free agents until they're returned. If they're returned...
2. The way 'hurt' works is specific to the person...sometimes it does mean you relive your traumas, and if that's extremely distressing for you then your "Pokemon" will be defeated easily, and you probably won't last long as a "trainer".
   But for most of the old pros, it's mild discomfort at most...like when you're lying in bed thinking over all the embarrassing stupid stuff you've done in your life; that level of discomfort. ^^ Like, it's not a good feeling, but it's usually not bad enough to make you spiral or anything.

Or people are encouraged/want to be abused so they can create stronger monsters.

...I think ^that might actually be too dark for this concept. ⚆◡⚆;;;
Or maybe...it's more like it's too unrealistic. I mean, this world is supposed to be a reflection of attitudes in real life, so...rather than having certain characters become masochists for the sake of battle, I think it would be more appropriate to have people sourcing their "Pokemon" from relatively minor struggles, yet insisting on trying to battle with them...the same way many people IRL decide any mild inconvenience they run into is a 'trauma', just because they want the attention and validation they see given to people with bigger issues.

I mean, I'm sure there are people out there who do actually try to hurt themselves and make their lives worse so they have more negative emotions to 'profit from', but I think the vast majority of people don't actually want to be victims. They just want the perceived benefits of victimhood.

...Anyway, this was fun; really helped me work out some details of the concept. So thanks~

There were other dark entries in Sun and Moon outside the megas, I think the writer was just having fun and didn’t think of the implications it would cause the entire series.

See, that's what confuses me...because like you said immediately after this line, "It’s a children's series concept that you’re not supposed to think that hard about". So...I would assume, then, that you wouldn't want to make the children think about the possibility of torturing their cute little cartoon monsters?? o_O If you want your audience to just ignore something, you're supposed to ignore it too; not bring it to their attention in graphic detail and wait for them to decide it doesn't matter (???). How did something this disturbing make it all the way into the final product without anyone thinking "hey, maybe this doesn't fit the tone of the franchise"??

Like, I can accept the Pokedex entries about the Pokemon doing creepy/evil things in the wild; I think it fits with them being inspired by real animals and youkai/mythological creatures. But writing that I broke my Pokemon partner's jaw every time I used the special power-up gimmick that the game encouraged me to use is on a totally different level. Like I said, it feels like it's just punishing the player for their investment; suddenly making them feel bad for enjoying the game as it was meant to be played.

When this first started making the rounds on the internet, a lot of people brought up that detail about the 'bond between trainer and Pokemon' supposedly making this less messed-up, but:
(a) I still think the whole thing is totally unnecessary. Like, in the next game they could start claiming that normal evolution is extremely painful and dangerous 'unless your bond is strong enough', and it would feel just as needlessly edgy and pointless. It doesn't need to be a thing, and if they have stopped mentioning it, I hope it's because they've realized that, and they're quietly retconning it.

(b) Even as someone who's not that familiar with the franchise, I'm tired of them using 'bonds' as a cop-out all the time. The protagonist character is always going to have the strongest closest bestest bond with their Pokemon; it's not a real qualifier if you can just take it for granted without consequences.
If they were serious about this, they'd make it a game mechanic, where mega-evolving in battle damages your Pokemon if they're not close enough to you by some metric. But they didn't, so we either have to assume we're the pure-of-heart protag the game implies we are, or accept that we could be mutilating our Pokemon the whole time, and we'll just never know. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

(c) Just, like, from the POV of an actual trainer in this universe...I wouldn't care how strong our bond was. I wouldn't want to hurt my animal friends on purpose just to win a stupid game, and I would actively avoid mega-evolution on principle.
Like, I could also ask my Pokemon to set themselves on fire to win a battle, and if they loved and trusted me enough to risk the pain, they'd probably do it...but does that make it a less fucked-up thing to do?? o_O I mean, Jesus...I feel like no one talks about how ridiculously immoral this is no matter how they try to justify it. If Pokemon like fighting, that's whatever, but I don't think Pokemon like being tortured while they fight. I can't suspend my disbelief that far.

...I feel like I'm getting way too heated about this. ^^; But I swear, it just does not make sense to me...

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I think your setting might be better off as a Digimon knock off than a Pokemon one. Digimon has a lot more focus on trainers having a single beast that changes and has a deep connection to them than Pokemon does.

Maybe...maybe when I do start talking about it, someone else will explain that to me. But as it stands, I can't really get behind that, because I do not understand Digimon, and never have. ^^; I've been vaguely familiar with the franchise since I was in preschool, and yet every new thing I learn about it just confuses me more; tbh it feels more like an isekai concept than a creature-collector one (I guess it's sort of both?). I don't even understand the central conceit. :T

Now, granted, I've never actually tried to understand it...but I've never really tried to understand Pokemon either; never played a single mainline game and I haven't watched the anime since I was, like, 9...but as you can see by all my ranting, I've come to understand it pretty well secondhand. Not so for Digimon, unfortunately.

All that is to say, even if I tried to parody Digimon it probably wouldn't go very well. :T Besides, if there's one impression I have gotten about the franchise, it's that the partner Digimon are basically secondary protagonists with a large degree of autonomy, and that's not really how my concept works: besides all the social commentary stuff, one of my main goals with it was to create a 'creature collector' paradigm that doesn't have the infamous dogfighting parallels...so, the "Pokemon" being little more than psychic extensions of the "trainers" is kind of necessary.

My main issue with using psychological issues/traumas as the basis of fiction at this moment is that we've culturally decided that there's a small number of acceptable things to say about common problems, and most authors and artists use the lens of modern psychotherapy when they approach those issues, rather then communicating the experience in a unique or creative manner. The therapy-speak is used regardless of how appropriate it is to the setting or the characters.

I agree with this, and I gotta say it drives me up the wall. ◉_◉ Like, it makes my teeth itch; it's a visceral reaction when I see this happening...often because writers usually have no idea they're doing it.

Like, usually I'll get drawn into a story (or even just a concept) by someone who genuinely believes they're writing all their characters with unique struggles and perspectives, and it'll be alright in the beginning when everyone's just starting their character arcs-- the messy characters are still messy, the mean characters are still mean; everyone is very different for the sake of conflict. But as those arcs start closing, and the characters gradually overcome their flaws and slowly begin to morph into the same confident, kindhearted protagonist in slightly different fonts, I start seeing the patterns and I want to throw myself out a window...

...Like, I think it goes beyond therapy speak (i.e. many writers think avoiding therapy speak means they're avoiding the problem, which is untrue): it shows a lack of true ideological diversity; the ability to write from different perspectives, rather than different interpretations of the same perspective. For some people, that perspective is that of an ideal human being who understands their thoughts and feelings completely and can pick them apart as if they're writing a clinical case study on their own life. For others, it's that of an ideal human being who would do anything for any of their friends and will stop at nothing to reach their neatly-defined singular dream. Both are excruciatingly limited.

...Although, oddly enough; I don't know if my concept is built to showcase that variety of interpretations on suffering and trauma; it's almost a little too raw. Like, if you have faith in my skills as a writer, you'll probably be able to see it, but even if I were writing the whole plot out as a proper narrative (jury's still out on that) I don't think I'd be giving it a lot of focus. Most of the characters would probably have very brief, open-ended appearances, where you'd get to see how they've been hurt and how they're coping with it at present, but not much else. The full arc of 'event-->immediate reaction-->long-term motivation-->conclusion' might be experienced only by the two MCs...everyone else is gonna have pieces missing.

[KevinReijnders]

Tbh I don't see why this needs to be anything pokémon related at all. If anything the core concept feels more related to something like SMT/Persona than pokémon.

I also don't understand why you're worried about commercialization of the idea of gamification, as far as I'm aware you plan to develop this as an independent artist and not under some big studio with corporate financing. So unless you plan on doing those things, I think you should be safe from the clutches of capitalism.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Tbh I don't see why this needs to be anything pokémon related at all. If anything the core concept feels more related to something like SMT/Persona than pokémon.

Okay, now this is genuinely confusing me?? ^^;; Because I actually * have * played SMT (just one game, and I never finished it, but still), and I still don't see the similarities. Tbh it feels more like what I thought Digimon had going on, where the demons are their own people and have to decide on their own if they like you enough to join you. And in SMT3 Nocturne in particular, I don't think anyone else is even traveling around with teams of demons; it seems like that's just the Demi-Fiend...like, when I play that game I feel more like it's a traditional RPG where I'm collecting party members, not "monsters", at least in terms of worldbuilding-- it's not uncommon to be interacting with non-party demons as if they're just citizens of the world, which isn't really something you get in Pokemon or my thing.

...All that is to say, it's really interesting to see what this is gonna get compared to in the future. ^^ I'm only using Pokemon terminology now because that IS its main inspiration, and because I'm keeping my actual terminology under wraps. So later on, when the Pokemon terminology isn't there at all...I'm wondering how many people will see that inspiration, and how many will see something totally different.

I also don't understand why you're worried about commercialization of the idea of gamification, as far as I'm aware you plan to develop this as an independent artist and not under some big studio with corporate financing. So unless you plan on doing those things, I think you should be safe from the clutches of capitalism.

Well, yes. ^^; It's not really the concrete mutations of the concept I'm worried about, just the conversation around it. Because I already know the most common comments, if they arise, are going to be things like "this should be a real game" "what if this was real" "what if [insert franchise] worked like this"
...And I'm trying to anticipate how I'm going to respond, to both general stuff like that and more specific stuff like what @justincarbunkle was asking. Like I said, I think there's an interesting conversation to be had here, and if it turns into something like "omg getting traumatized makes you so cool and powerful waow" I don't want to be the one pushing it in that direction. ^^;

[jwabeasley]

Now, granted, I've never actually tried to understand it...but I've never really tried to understand Pokemon either; never played a single mainline game and I haven't watched the anime since I was, like, 9...but as you can see by all my ranting, I've come to understand it pretty well secondhand. Not so for Digimon, unfortunately.

There's only one Digimon worth watching as an adult IMO, Digimon Tamers, which was written by the same guy behind Serial Experiments Lain and Hellsing. Tamers is actually good, although it's better to watch if you have some school-age children to watch it with. The rest is irrelevant, and the lore is disconnected between different Digimon editions.

But I agree with @KevinReijnders, drop the relationship to any pre-established media entirely and just makes something that works on its own terms. That's what I'd do, and at this point you're so far off of Pokemon that it's only causing you problems.

it shows a lack of true ideological diversity; the ability to write from different perspectives, rather than different interpretations of the same perspective

Lack of true ideological diversity is something you could say about almost every aspect of modern culture. For stories though, it just kills me to have a team of heroes that all pretty much agree on everything and react the same way to any given event. There are many ways to be good, even heroically good, without necessarily seeing eye to eye on issues and still having unique personalities.

The therapy-to-blandness pipeline might be mostly due to a misunderstanding of character arcs "This arc is how my character goes from interesting broken person to boring hero/normal person/etc." vs. "This is how this interesting broken person gets revealed and recontextualized into someone who can work with others while retaining their interesting personality."

[KevinReijnders]

Okay, now this is genuinely confusing me?? ^^;; Because I actually * have * played SMT (just one game, and I never finished it, but still), and I still don't see the similarities.

Well that's why I specified SMT/Persona, because in that branch of the game series it's all about the psychology of the characters. Your team's persona will manifest through undergoing a difficult psychological trail where, upon self-actualization, they unlock the power of their persona. The villains too come to being through unstable psyche's.

So instead of self-actualization it's a trauma extraction machine for you.

The monster catching aspects aren't really all that relevant here imo, your story doesn't have that either iirc.