the AVGN anecdote (or, “a portrait of the artist's self-esteem as two video essays”)
last modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago
I was writing another post and I wanted to share an anecdote about my life, but I got crazy off topic, like I tend to do. Usually, I just cut the tangent once I realize what it is, but I thought I could make this its own post, so I'm copying and pasting it here...
It's actually a pretty inconsequential story. It's more descriptive than anything. I thought to share it to kind of illustrate my own character. I went overboard with the build-up and the explanation for the things I mention, and the punchline to the anecdote is not actually very "punchy" at all. That is, it's not really funny. Still, I'd like to share it, at least partially so I can link this post on the other post instead of straying so far from the subject matter there...
I was writing about a certain quirk of my mindset when I thought to retell this. See, I have a tendency to empathize with and outright relate to fictional characters —and, occasionally, real people— who I think most of my friends and loved ones would consider my opposites. Specifically, I feel a great sense of kinship towards shallow, unimaginative, weak, cowardly, morally infirm, cynical, unambitious, stupid pseudo-intellectual bastards. They're usually also hypocrites, manipulators, cowards, and highly self-obsessed, but these are things I think are a lot more likely for others to actually identify in me (since I haven't been described as the exact opposite by multiple unrelated people).
This behavior I have is born of two other aspects of my beautiful and oceanic brain mind. The first part is that I have the hyper-empathetic kind of autism. Don't get me wrong: I'm not particularly good at guessing how people actually feel with any sort of accuracy. It's more like I have a tendency to overthink how other people might be feeling, if I were in their shoes, and rounding it down to "bad" whenever I'm uncertain. This hyperempathy leads me to sympathize with a lot more people and characters than I really should.
The second part is the fact that I actually have pretty low self-esteem (as you can imagine...). Furthermore, it's a very particular flavor of low self-esteem. That is, I'm specifically very insecure about being insufferable: either as a shallow pseudo-intellectual who pretends to be far smarter than he actually is, or as someone who is (in my own words) "ontologically annoying". I have other insecurities, but these are the relevant ones to the anecdote.
(Don't worry, though, everything is under control! I have friends and family that love and support me, I'm working on getting better self esteem, and I go to at least two types of therapy. And I'm also figuring out ways to improve as a person! It's all pretty slow going, but I'm hopeful someday I'll be satisfied with the person I am. I already make myself laugh, I just need to stop being nervous about it).
(I'm considering "act kinder to others and to myself" as a potential resolution for the next year, actually... I think this would be good!)
Anyway, this poor self image and that obsession with others' inner selves combine to make me feel very identified with personalities most people dislike. The reason I mentioned this is because I was talking about a certain type of "grating" first-person narrator in fiction. The following anecdote is meant to illustrate just how far this feeling of kinship has gone. And to laugh a little bit about it, in retrospect...
Last year, the Youtube channel Folding Ideas posted a video titled I Don't Know James Rolfe. It reflected on essayist Dan Olson's relationship with the titular youtuber, better known by his alias, "the Angry Video Game Nerd".
The Angry Video Game Nerd pioneered a particular genre of early Youtube entertainment sometimes nicknamed "caustic critics", a type of amateur online sketch comedy review shows where an overexaggerated and (indeed) highly caustic character, based on their actor but ultimately fictional, made humorous reviews of low-quality old media; usually, what's reviewed inspires nostalgia for the channel's creator and audience, such as videogames or movies from their childhood years.
The AVGN was not the first "caustic critic" Dan Olson had made a video about on his channel. Several years earlier, the channel had uploaded a video called The Nostalgia Critic and The Wall. This was a lengthy and scathing critical takedown of youtuber "The Nostalgia Critic", and the album (and homemade film) he'd released parodying Pink Floyd's The Wall.
Olson's main points were that the Nostalgia Critic, real name Doug Walker, had made a shallow parody that mocked The Wall on a very surface-level and unfunny way, because it refused entirely to engage with any part of the movie or album that comprised Pink Floyd's project; and furthermore, that Walker unintentionally revealed through his parody just how unimaginative, shallow, childish, self-centered, unimaginative, hypocritical, and cynically cash-grabby he was as a person.
I'm a little bit of an obsessive rewatcher of certain long videos, and The Nostalgia Critic and The Wall is one of them. (Someday I might compile a list of the videos I like rewatching, since they're all over the place...) It's weird: I'm not usually the sort of person who can stomach scathing takedown videos. For example, I'm allergic to the "...is Garbage and Here's Why" series done by the channel hbomberguy, despite greatly enjoying its more positive counterpart, "...is Genius and Here's Why". However, there's several Folding Ideas videos that I'd describe as scathing takedowns that do click with me, to the extent of obsessive rewatching. Out of them, The Nostalgia Critic and The Wall is probably the most vicious.
Dan Olson discloses, at a certain point of the video (which I can't fucking find the timestamp for!!!) that he has personal beef with Doug Walker. I can't be sure of it (because I can't find the fucking timestamp!!!!!!!!!), but from what I recall, I belieeeeeeve Walker both acted in a cruel and misogynistic (if not outright violent) manner to friends and peers of Olson's, and also that Walker... I think stiffed Olson himself financially? I don't quite remember the strict details. It's in the video.
Regardless of the specifics, Olson clearly has a bone to pick with Walker. I don't have a lot of information on the matter of Doug Walker outside this video (he sounds like a dick), but Olson is a very skilled rhetoricist; part of the crème de la crème of anglophone Youtube, sophism-wise, in my humble opinion... Most of Olson's videos are incredibly convincing, to the extent that many people who watch them and agree with them can't really comprehend how thoroughly biased he can be.
Mind you, I absolutely agree with a lot of the things the guy says! And uh, Walker does sound like an unpleasant and shitty person, yeah. But, like. "Fundamentally incurious" is brutal. That shit is malevolent. It goes beyond criticism, though it certainly is also that. These are words intended to publicly disparage —if not outright hurt— Walker. Curiosity is, after all, considered a cardinal virtue by the society we (me, you, Olson, and Walker) live in...
...In fact to be honest I would daresay intellectual curiosity is more highly prized than kindness or moral fiber, because we understand curiosity as a safe expression of two of our most valued virtues, those being intellect and honesty. And you know, don't get me wrong, don't worry about sermons, I'm also someone who instinctively places intellect and honesty above kindness or moral fiber. Intellectual capacity is what the society I live in uses to differentiate people from animals, and verbal honesty makes communication and connection between human beings a lot simpler as well as bringing great relief to people, so while we all probably feel really bad about the fact, we have what I think are pretty understandable reasons to find cruelty more forgivable than stupidity or cowardice.
I also, specifically, as a person and because of my life circumstances, value intellect and honesty more than the average person, and I wouldn't be surprised if Olson does the same. And I believe that Olson considers curiosity a requirement for the creation of art. And many people who make art for a living consider their "being someone who makes art" to be a major part of their identity, and they're aware that other creators do this, too; I wouldn't be surprised if this describes both of our subjects.
So for Olson, calling Walker "fundamentally incurious" is to basically accuse Walker of failing at life: that is, failing at enacting the identity Walker has for himself, which is "someone who makes art". And furthermore, this isn't just an accusation of failing at being what Walker identifies as, but failing because of an inherent flaw of Walker's character. This is to say, calling Walker "fundamentally incurious" simultaneously articulates that Walker is a failure in the field that he has dedicated his life to, and therefore that a great part of his life is a failure, and also that Walker cannot accurately identify himself. If Walker identifies as an artist despite his art failing at being art, then this means Walker can't be trusted to identify himself, or better said, that Walker can't be trusted to define himself. It means that "defining who Doug Walker is and what he's like" is a task better left to people who aren't Walker, such as Olson.
This is maybe an exaggerated criticism of a throwaway line from a video that's close to seven years old. I'll try to soften the blow by pointing out that most insults are also defined by imposing how you define other people over their own self-definition. Also many compliments. Human beings love to carve each other verbally.
Also, like. I've seen a few people wield the words "fundamentally incurious" as a weapon online towards others and I feel kind of a certain way about that... it's a negative way. I don't know if people understand what a striking thing this is to say about another human being... It's heavy stuff!
In general, accusing someone of being "fundamentally" anything negative is scary and you probably shouldn't do it recklessly. I know I just described myself as "ontologically annoying". You have to understand that this isn't true. Not just because I'm not annoying (because like, I am) but because you probably shouldn't be saying anyone is ontologically anything. I have strong feelings about the fact that people can grow and change and decide their own fate and so on, because it's a belief that helps me stay happy and sane as a person... I'd lose a lot of that vital, foundational hope that keeps me alive and out of despair if it weren't true. And I doubt I'm alone in that.
So it's pretty hurtful to say these things! And if you mean to be hurtful, then you can go ahead and say them, of course... But I feel like the number of people who don't mean something this heavy when they quote a funny dunk they heard online is probably not zero. So you know. Pointing it out...
To summarize, and to return to the topic I've strayed from... I think it's fair to say that Olson paints a very negative picture of who Doug Walker is, throughout The Nostalgia Critic and The Wall.
In comparison, the AVGN video was actually very mild. Dan Olson criticized many aspects of the AVGN series' production, and expressed frustration over James Rolfe's lack of artistic ambition or interest in more "elevated" art. However, Olson's final conclusion was that what he disliked about Rolfe was, in fact, insecurities Olson held about himself, which he saw reflected in Rolfe. Olson actually spoke fairly positively of Rolfe as a person, rather than as an artist. He even defended Rolfe's perceived lower-quality output in later years, pointing out that Rolfe had simply grown uninterested with Youtube and that it's no crime to have a job you just kinda clock in and out of, doubly so considering Rolfe had become a father and was invested primarily in raising his children and spending time with his family.
Nonetheless, when the Rolfe video came out, I saw people online talk about the criticism Olson did levy towards Rolfe. Specifically, I saw some people say that they felt guilty and offended over Olson's criticisms of Rolfe, because they identified with Rolfe's failings and therefore felt that, to some extent, Olson was criticizing them as well.
And I saw that and I was baffled at first. And then I laughed.
Because I had already gone through that experience while watching Olson's video on Doug Walker.
Everything Olson had accused Walker of being, I could see myself doing. I struggle with humility, not just in spite but because of my low self-esteem. I have dogshit moral fiber, and I'm really bad at being self aware, too. I'm not above a quick cash-in for attention, nor am I above making something "all about me". It's not that Olson was wrong, so much as I felt guilty that Walker was being criticized and not me, because I felt as if we had the capacity to commit the same sins, and his were simply publicized in a far greater arena. "There but for the grace of God go I", etcetera.
I think basically anyone who likes me will say this is a ridiculous feeling. In particular, I think they'd take issue with how I resonate with the accusation of being "fundamentally incurious" — this is also why I have not great feelings regarding that sentence? Most people who know me would characterize me as "fundamentally curious", I think. I love learning little new things about the world around me. I like hearing people infodump, I like reading stuff, I enjoy passively absorbing new information. I have less practice absorbing more complex things, the sort of stuff you have to pay a higher level of attention to, but even that I've found out I enjoy if it's in a field I feel positively about. I got into a videogame recently partially 'cause the combat is complicated and I don't fully understand it and I want to, it's a little challenge... (the videogame is a gacha game by the name of Limbus Company, before you think too highly of me).
My thing is that I feel like oftentimes I'm an artificial, constructed, shallow kind of curious. I like being told things, but I don't actually like making an effort to shape new knowledge, instead highly preferring that it be delivered to me in a pre-digested format. It takes active effort for me to remember that most people (allegedly) don't even clear this bar. That's if I can even believe it — oftentimes I can't! It feels impossible and alien, to me, that someone may exist who isn't even a little curious in some subject about the world around them. Even if such people exist, I can't ever comprehend the idea that this incuriosity is "fundamental", that is, inherent to them from birth; I'm under the impression that we're all born curious, and if we lose this quality, it's because it is (to be blunt) beaten out of us.
Therefore, I think that everyone is curious, because I'm very curious. And because I think everyone is curious, I fail to consider myself curious, because to me, I'm the average. And then because of impostor syndrome and those other lovely vicissitudes of self-evaluation, I end up thinking that the average I represent is an insufficient type of average —a middling, failing grade— because I've seen and can imagine people who are far more curious than me, or curious in a far deeper and better way, and if I'm the average, then those people represent a significant portion of the populace who are superior to me, in this respect.
Hell, to return to a previously-mentioned thing, the reason I can't stomach those media-critical videos hbomberguy publishes is because I feel like I'm also guilty of the same things pointed out in those videos, even if that's an irrational thing to feel!
This actually even extends to the big plagiarism video he did... I have a tendency to read something and love it and immediately accidentally rewrite it the next time I sit down to write, and I often fail to recognize that until later. I'm very much an ideas thief as a writer. I remix them, so I think I'm in the clear; I've been assured that everyone steals ideas, and that the path forward is to remix them...
But I'm not actually super sure of what the line is — to the extent that I don't think I'd be very offended if someone republished my writing and passed it off as their own, even if they got a lot more attention than me. Sure, I'd probably talk about it, and it'd feel very demotivating... and I'd be upset if they gained mainstream success about it, while I languished in obscurity. But like, if I wrote and it got 30 views, and then someone copied me and it got 300 views... I don't think I'd care very much? It'd actually be really funny.
...but, uh, I know for a fact that most people don't feel the way I do. And there's things that hurt me that don't hurt other people, so I'm cognizant of the fact that everyone has different things that hurt them. And I dislike hurting people. So you know. I'm not looking to become a plagiarist, or anything...
Other videos, too, feel painful to watch because of this... I don't find a lot of entertainment value in a scathing takedown of the BBC's Sherlock TV show when I used to be a fan and failed to recognize its flaws. Of course, I was 12 when I watched the show, but I generally remember it positively... and this is because I don't remember it, I have terrible memory. But the fact that I can't think back on it and go "yeah, in retrospect, this sucked" feels like I'm not aware that its flaws are "bad things" at all, and might write them into something.
Which isn't necessarily a true thing, and is also not necessarily a false thing. I do sometimes fail to recognize something as "generally understood as bad" because I'm personally fine with it, and it's a shock to the system to hear I have the democratically-elected Wrong Opinion. But I'm not completely alienated from the feelings and reactions of an "average" person, either, and so many times I agree that certain things are bad!
I'm not, uh, someone who believes in undergoing unnecessary punishment in the name of self-improvement. That is, I'm not gonna force myself to watch videos that make me feel bad. But I do try to cultivate a constructive attitude about these sorts of things. If I see a criticism and my response is "fuck, I also do that", I try to see it as a learning moment. If I feel bad about some aspect of myself, sometimes it's because I'm unsatisfied with it, and the magical thing about people is that they can improve if they try.
It doesn't mean I feel any better about it, mind you. This shit blows. It sucks to be accidentally insulted, even if you really shouldn't feel like that. I'm still trying to balance my opinion of myself, and that's pretty hard work and you feel bad the entire time. But, honestly, the more insecure I feel, the more hoity-toity I act, so it's not just good for myself to develop better self esteem and get second opinions on who I am as a person, it's also good for those around me. And again: I have the capacity to improve in areas where I'm lacking, and failure doesn't disqualify me from trying again. I'm not "ontologically" anything, and nobody is, either. And those lines of thinking help me a lot. They're very grounding.
Because like... I care about the people around me. I don't wanna act hoity toity and hurt them. I've done it before and it sucks. And I know I've improved as a person, or at least I have the potential to improve as a person. I know I have the capacity. I have to figure out how, but there's been real progress. These truths are easier to digest, so I rely on them to guide me: feeling secure is possible, and it makes the people I care about happier. Really, that's the most motivating thing to improve one's self esteem: the knowledge that it'll make your friends happy. In a sense, you're actually agreeing with them by saying nice things about yourself, right?
And... Ironically enough, the better my self esteem gets, the more compassion I feel for other people. The more I defend myself, the more I want to defend other people, too. I like to see the good in people, even shithead bastard fuckers. It's not a wholly good thing; I can be kind of a pushover. I struggle to think of people as bad even when they've hurt me. And I'm also someone who can be very casually mean! It's a bad habit I've developed, finding cruel words funny; I can act and think in really malicious and prejudiced and cynical ways. It sucks to say, but there's art in a good insult.
But I really, really want to care. I think a lot of the time, when someone is seen as a shithead, they're othered. I don't think this is surprising or unreasonable... but I don't like othering people, even when I admit that it happens for a reason. Even when I do it, I feel like shit afterwards. It feels gross. Not even in a selfless way, it literally just feels bad to myself...
So, I dunno. I don't have a point here. I like to play devil's advocate, I guess? That's one way you could put it. Actually play devil's advocate, not just be mean to people. Play devil's state-mandated defense attorney. Those exist for a reason, right?
Maybe I should read through the Phoenix Wright games again.
Well, anyway... that's the end of this post. I hope you enjoyed it. And, as usual:
thank you for reading!