The Buzz - a 30-episode visual novel podcast

[trooper6]

Thoughts on Episode 4: The Difference Between Critique & Criticism, and Why We Do Either

I think the episode (and many discussions on the topic) falter by conceiving of critique/criticism as being fundamentally about the artist (either trying to making them better or wanting to hurt their feelings). This results in a debate that revolves around the artist's feelings.
-Harsh critiques aren't useful because it will hurt the artists feelings.
-Harsh critiques are useful because they help make the artist better.
-But what if the artist doesn't want to get better? Then you shouldn't make any critique in that case.
-What's wrong with saying nice/less nice things about the game?
-etc.

But this makes critique always a conversation between the critic and the artist.

I don't think of critique as being always a conversation between the critic and the artist. There are many critiques that are not at all engaged with the artist.
The obvious example of a critique that is not about the artist is the review. The review is a critique aimed at a consumer base, to let them know if they should play this game or not, what to expect. A reviewer that only gives 10/10 reviews (because the artist doesn't have a Honest Critique button, or because the artist doesn't want to hear it) regardless of the quality of the game...that reviewer is not serving the audience...the consumers.

The example that I personally engage in in my real life...is the cultural critique, the academic critique. Wagner is long dead, but people still write criticism of critique. And it is not to hurt Wagner's feelings, or to make Wagner feel great, or to help Wagner get better as a composer. This sort of critique is also not aimed at the consumer market. It isn't about--you should buy this, you shouldn't buy this. It is usually about trying to understand something larger about society, art, culture, etc. I really appreciate Anita Sarkeesian's critique of sexism in video games. That critique is not a letter to a creator, nor is it strictly about recommending what you should or shouldn't buy. It is about a larger understanding. I love really good video game critique. I'm sad that New Games Journalism fell a bit by the wayside, because some of that was really profound and amazing.

Brandon Keogh did a great book, "Killing is Harmless: A Critical Reading of Spec Ops: The Line."
Kiri Miller has a wonderful academic article, "Jacking the Dial: Radio, Race, and Place in 'Grand Theft Auto.'"
There has been some great stuff on sound, horror, and Silent Hill.

I am so happy that there are people who are producing critical work about video games. I wish there were more spaces where this could happen. And recognizing that not all critique is about the author is one of the keys to opening up the space for that to happen.

Another topic. Mikey was saying that he feels as if he failed if he puts out a work of art and the audience doesn't receive what his intensions were.
I have to say: The Death of the Author.
Intensions are not interesting to me. Well, it is vaguely interesting what an artist says their intension is...but...eh. That isn't how the process of creating and receive art works. Just because an artist says that "X" is their intention doesn't mean it is true. Artists lie. Sometimes they lie to themselves. Artists may also fail to realize their intentions and realize something else instead. An artist may mean to do so X, but the art does Y instead. Art is a conversation between the creator and the receiver rooted in the cultural and social context.

Two examples off the top of my head, Leni Reifenstahl created the documentary Triumph of the Will about the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nürnberg. She always maintained that the film was not Nazi propaganda. She always maintained that propaganda was not her intent, and so it wasn't propaganda. She also points out that she was never a member of the Nazi party, so it couldn't have been propaganda. But...it was used a propaganda. And it was really effective as propaganda. So it really doesn't matter what she says (especially what she was saying after 1945).

Another example, Bruce Springsteen wrote "Born in the USA" as a critique of the US. And Reagan and many others used the song as pro-US propaganda. People would say--those people are wrong to think it was a pro-US song...they are dumb! But there is a reason why so many people took is as a pro-US song. I'd argue the main reason is because Springsteen failed to craft the music in a way to highlight the critique in the lyrics. The lyrics might have been critical...but the music's composition undermined that critical intent. So those who took it as a fist pumping pro-US song weren't wrong.

Further, there is a music scholar Richard Middleton who argued that the most enduring art is the art the is what he calls "undercoded"--he says if a work of art is not completely set, if it has space for audiences to interpret their own meaning into art, if it is open enough to be able to shift its meaning over time and place...that work of art will have more longevity than art that is "overcoded"--in other words, a work of art that is very explicit in its meaning and had little space for the audience to interpret their own meaning into art.

I found as a composer, it is important for me to have an artistic intent, but to let go of my ideas of singular authority over the work's meaning. I embrace that art is a conversation. I understand that what I put out there might not be what people receive. I also understand that I might not understand myself completely and that I might be broadcasting themes that I myself might not recognize.

[trooper6]

Oh, it just occurred to me while listening to your podcasts on critique and hearing you both say that you don't like getting critique and would prefer to have only positive comments and pats on the back...that the posts I've written so far might not be appropriate. You may not actually want people to engage with you about The Buzz and share their thoughts--rather you might just prefer kudos. If you don't want interaction other then "good job"--let me know. And I'll just say, "Good Job on your Podcast!" and leave it at that.

[mikey]

trooper6 >>

This is for ep.4 comments, specifically, but may also work for your ep2 feedback:

You have mentioned the "academic view" in a previous conversation, and I actually have had it in my follow up notes ever since - to talk about it whenever we revisit the subject, because it's something others have pointed out as well, including a way of looking at some of the critique as the critic / reviewer talking to the audience rather than the creator, and serving them as someone who recommends the most fitting works for them.

As this podcast is aimed primarily at creators, we nevertheless do talk primarily about the creator-centric things - the irrational feelings, illogical frustrations, disproportionate reactions and tendencies to feel bad that affect many artists whenever they come across what they perceive to be negative. Talking about and sharing these feelings is very helpful, even just to say they are not alone in (irrationally) feeling them. But a more systematic discussion like the one you suggest is welcome, too - especially as it is one of the ways that may help artists cope with those things. In any case, this is a persistent topic that we have touched on in later espisodes and one that we will probably keep returning to in future episodes as well - and again, I have already noted your input before, and will add some of the points to my notes from this comment, too.

As for "death of the author" that you addressed to me, I've always felt it to be non-destructive, in that it can co-exist (at least in my mind) with my desire to be understood - so I have the knowledge that interpretation can't be controlled, while at the same time wanting to be understood in a specific way. However, it doesn't necessarily create a dissonance. It's like me wanting my kid to explore, but at the same time be safe - I let him go on his own for a bit, the feelings of happiness and fear enter my mind, not really balancing out, but staying beside each other, and that's okay, because the conflicting things are kind of I suppose instrumental to the experience of being a parent. Likewise I feel about my VNs - I send them off to the world and want something for them, at the same time who am I to tell others what they should be feeling. Your point (and all examples) is well taken though.

Edit: To your ep.3 comments (missed that post somehow) - you can probably tell this is one of my favorite topics, not just because I am currently setting my VNs up for getting archived, so thanks for those thoughts. My fear is that as I saw with myself, I thought I had an archivist calling, but ultimately have stopped because of overwhelm vs. completionism. I just don't know if archiving can even keep up at this point. Then archivists would also need to be editors... probably? Anyway, glad you enjoyed it.

[KuroOneHalf]

Another topic. Mikey was saying that he feels as if he failed if he puts out a work of art and the audience doesn't receive what his intensions were.
I have to say: The Death of the Author.
Intensions are not interesting to me. Well, it is vaguely interesting what an artist says their intension is...but...eh. That isn't how the process of creating and receive art works. Just because an artist says that "X" is their intention doesn't mean it is true. Artists lie. Sometimes they lie to themselves. Artists may also fail to realize their intentions and realize something else instead. An artist may mean to do so X, but the art does Y instead. Art is a conversation between the creator and the receiver rooted in the cultural and social context.

I disagree. Say you set out to write a compelling drama, but the plot points and conversations are so haphazardly written that it comes off as a comedy, then you've failed at accomplishing the goal you set out to do. Doesn't mean you can't still be proud of your work and how it turned out, but it is not what you were trying to do. Shooting for 1st place in a running competition and getting 2nd is not bad at all, but your goal wasn't to get silver.

And in most works you can tell what the artist/developer is trying to achieve. There's often many obvious and non-obvious tells in how the work is structured and presented that allows you see this. And I find that a developer who manages to nail what he set out to do enhances the quality of the work.

People are free to interpret things their way, but I do think there is such a thing as a cannon interpretation of most works.

ps: Obviously excluding works in which the point is not to present an experience to the player, but to give them tools to craft their own (eg. minecraft, D&D, etc).

[trooper6]

Another topic. Mikey was saying that he feels as if he failed if he puts out a work of art and the audience doesn't receive what his intensions were.
I have to say: The Death of the Author.
Intensions are not interesting to me. Well, it is vaguely interesting what an artist says their intension is...but...eh. That isn't how the process of creating and receive art works. Just because an artist says that "X" is their intention doesn't mean it is true. Artists lie. Sometimes they lie to themselves. Artists may also fail to realize their intentions and realize something else instead. An artist may mean to do so X, but the art does Y instead. Art is a conversation between the creator and the receiver rooted in the cultural and social context.

I disagree. Say you set out to write a compelling drama, but the plot points and conversations are so haphazardly written that it comes off as a comedy, then you've failed at accomplishing the goal you set out to do. Doesn't mean you can't still be proud of your work and how it turned out, but it is not what you were trying to do. Shooting for 1st place in a running competition and getting 2nd is not bad at all, but your goal wasn't to get silver.

I'm not quite sure where the disagreement is right there, I also say that an artist can fail to achieve their intentions. That is an important point of my post. Just because an author *intends* to do something (or says they intend to do something), doesn't mean they actually do that thing.

And in most works you can tell what the artist/developer is trying to achieve. There's often many obvious and non-obvious tells in how the work is structured and presented that allows you see this. And I find that a developer who manages to nail what he set out to do enhances the quality of the work.

Here is probably the first part of where we disagree. What you call "you can tell what the artist/developer is trying to achieve," I'd call an act of audience interpretation. You, as an audience, are projecting what you think that author is trying to achieve. You may have evidence for why you think that, but you are making an argument of meaning that comes from your perspective and analysis. And that analysis is ultimately more about you (which includes your time, culture, society, subject position, etc) than it is about the author. And it isn't always clear what the artist/developer is trying to achieve. What exactly was Homer's authorial intent when he wrote the Illiad? What exactly was Shakespeare's intent when he wrote Titus Andronicus? There are many intents we can never reconstruct.

But more importantly...

People are free to interpret things their way, but I do think there is such a thing as a cannon interpretation of most works.

This is probably where we have the fundamental disagreement.

Yes, I agree that there is a such a thing as a canon interpretation of a work (not all, but many)...however, I don't agree that the canon interpretation necessarily comes from the author or from authorial intent...nor do I think canon interpretation is fixed, "true," or unchanging.

Let's go back to Triumph of the Will. The current canon interpretation of that film is that it is Nazi propaganda. The author, Leni Riefenstahl, insisted until the say she died that it was not Nazi propaganda. She was the director. Her intent was to make a neutral documentary and that is what she did. She, as author, decides what it means. But the author doesn't decide what it means. The author is one voice among many. And the entire rest of the universe says that film is propaganda. So at this moment in time? Regardless of what Leni Riefenstahl said, the canon interpretation of that film is that it is Nazi propaganda. No one believes her stated intent, and no one cares what her stated intent was. The canon interpretation is that is is Nazi propaganda. On the other hand, before 1939, the canon meaning was still under debate...it wasn't yet fixed. Some thought is was propaganda, some didn't. It received numerous film prizes; people thought of her as one of the greatest filmmakers. After the war she was imprisoned as a Nazi sympathizer and blacklisted from the film industry.

This is what is meant by the author is dead. That the author, while being one of the people who has interpretations about their work, is only one of the people who has interpretations about their work, and they do not dictate what the "canon interpretation" of the work is. What it "means." And what a thing "means" changes over time and from different subject positions.

Shakespeare's works have gone through multiple different canon interpretations over the centuries based on the historical time period and the cultural context of those receiving the plays. Some works have no canon interpretation and are still up for debate. Should you read Hamlet as having an Oedipal complex? Was Hamlet playing mad or was he really mad? Is the tragedy of Hamlet that he didn't act or that he did? These are all debates of interpretation that are alive and well in our times. But I guarantee you no one was talking about Oedipal complexes in the 18th Century...they might have had other interpretive debates about relationship to the state that we wouldn't have now.

And finding a diary entry where Shakespeare wrote "My intent in writing Hamlet: I based the character off of a fellow I knew in school that I didn't like. The whole point of the play was to embarrass this fellow in public by making him seem unstable. That is the entire canon meaning of the show." No one is going to care about that. Because Shakespeare, while influential in how we read a piece, is not the final authority on a piece.

A work doesn't have a fixed meaning.

To return to Hamlet, here is an excerpt from Act II, Scene 2:

Hamlet: What have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of fortune that she sends you to prison hither?
Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?
Hamlet: Denmark's a prison.
Rosencranzt: Then is the world one.
Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst.
Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.
Hamlet: Why then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.


Thinking makes it so. And the author is not the only thinker relating to a text.

Oh! I have another example! Han Solo shooting first. The "author" (George Lucas) decided that Han Solo would not have shot first and so edited his text to reflect his artistic vision and his authorial intent. The audience has summarily rejected his interpretation of his work. They have insisted Han Shot First and claim authority of creating the canon interpretation over that of the author.

[trooper6]

trooper6 >>

This is for ep.4 comments, specifically, but may also work for your ep2 feedback:

You have mentioned the "academic view" in a previous conversation, and I actually have had it in my follow up notes ever since - to talk about it whenever we revisit the subject, because it's something others have pointed out as well, including a way of looking at some of the critique as the critic / reviewer talking to the audience rather than the creator, and serving them as someone who recommends the most fitting works for them.

As this podcast is aimed primarily at creators, we nevertheless do talk primarily about the creator-centric things - the irrational feelings, illogical frustrations, disproportionate reactions and tendencies to feel bad that affect many artists whenever they come across what they perceive to be negative. Talking about and sharing these feelings is very helpful, even just to say they are not alone in (irrationally) feeling them. But a more systematic discussion like the one you suggest is welcome, too - especially as it is one of the ways that may help artists cope with those things. In any case, this is a persistent topic that we have touched on in later espisodes and one that we will probably keep returning to in future episodes as well - and again, I have already noted your input before, and will add some of the points to my notes from this comment, too.

You touch on one of the reasons why I think recognizing the "review critique" and the "academic critique" is important...especially when crafting something aimed at creators. Because recognizing that something isn't actually about the creator can be really helpful for the creator's coping mechanism when reading critique. It has certainly helped me!

As for "death of the author" that you addressed to me, I've always felt it to be non-destructive, in that it can co-exist (at least in my mind) with my desire to be understood - so I have the knowledge that interpretation can't be controlled, while at the same time wanting to be understood in a specific way. However, it doesn't necessarily create a dissonance. It's like me wanting my kid to explore, but at the same time be safe - I let him go on his own for a bit, the feelings of happiness and fear enter my mind, not really balancing out, but staying beside each other, and that's okay, because the conflicting things are kind of I suppose instrumental to the experience of being a parent. Likewise I feel about my VNs - I send them off to the world and want something for them, at the same time who am I to tell others what they should be feeling. Your point (and all examples) is well taken though.

Oh, as a creator, I always have an intention...and I try to realize it as best I can, and I certainly want to do things with my art...to be understood, to influence, to make the world a better place...whatever. But, I know that I don't control what happens when it leaves my pen, computer, microphone, etc. Like you, there is no dissonance. But I was responding to some negative talk you were making about yourself in that podcast. You described yourself as a failure if people don't get your intent. I just wanted you to let go of feelings of failure and self-blame and negativity. You can influence interpretation but you can't control it...and if the audience doesn't understand you...it might not be because you failed...it might just be how it is. Work to better yourself...but know audiences are unpredictable and some of it is on them, not all of it is on you.

Nowadays, I'm more interested not in "saying what I want to say and hoping they understand"--but embracing the interactive medium to try and craft an interpretive conversation with my audience...where I take into account their role as co-author of meaning. But...I need to get the art commissioned so I can put this game out.

Edit: To your ep.3 comments (missed that post somehow) - you can probably tell this is one of my favorite topics, not just because I am currently setting my VNs up for getting archived, so thanks for those thoughts. My fear is that as I saw with myself, I thought I had an archivist calling, but ultimately have stopped because of overwhelm vs. completionism. I just don't know if archiving can even keep up at this point. Then archivists would also need to be editors... probably? Anyway, glad you enjoyed it.

Not everyone is an archivist...and I think archives are always going to be incomplete...it is the nature of the world. But I think we all do our best. And when there is an "official" archive like the Library of Congress...there will be unofficial archives. Someone will have collected all the games made from 2010 to 2020 by Ludumdare. Someone will have collected every early console...someone else will be obsessed with making emulators for everything. I don't think one person has to (or even can) do everything. People with the temperament do what they can do and they each provide a piece of a larger whole.

Some things will be lost. But hopefully we can same as much as we can.

[KuroOneHalf]

A work doesn't have a fixed meaning.

That's not what I said. I said a work has an intended meaning, intended by the person who created it. And I must put an emphasis here on the person who created it, because I don't agree with the author's vision being just one of many. The author doesn't spectate his work the same way the reader/consumer does. He's the one that shapes the work from nothing into what it ends up being in order to create a specific experience, the intended vision (or the closest to it that he is able to accomplish given his skills).

And again, people are fine to interpret a work any way they see fit (and even prefer their own interpretation), but I don't agree with claiming a different canon than the one from the author.

I did some reading on the concept of the "death of the author", and I find that I just fundamentally disagree with it. I believe a work is by nature embedded with the intent of the author. I don't see the author as merely a vessel for words to come to life, but I see words (or paint, stone, etc) as a tool for the author to express himself and reach other people, while also preserving those ideas in history.

[trooper6]

So if the author's intention has ultimate authority, that means that Triumph of the Will is not Nazi Propaganda because Leni Riefenstahl said it wasn't her intention for it to be propaganda.
But no one believes that. And regardless of what she said her intention was, the film was used as Nazi propaganda. So regardless of what she said her intent was, that isn't the reality in the world. If you haven't see Triumph of the Will, go watch it. And then you tell me that the film *isn't* propaganda.

Also remember there are artists who never tell the audience what their intention is.
There are artists who deny they have any intentions at all.
There are artists whose intentions are lost in time.
There are artists whose stated intentions are probably a bunch of lies said to make them look good.

If I don't intend to hit you with my car, but I hit you with my car...then you are still hit with my car...my intentions don't magically not make you hit with my car.

You can say that whatever the author says is the true meaning, but the flies in the face of the way works are actually received and interpreted and used in the world.

[Caveat Lector]

Re: trooper6's points about criticism and how critics are painted in episodes two and four (which, honestly, I did have a HUGE problem with, which I'll expand on below):

I actually have a friend who was scared away from reviewing because the last time she gave something a negative review—and this particular criticism wasn’t even THAT harsh, it was just “I’m sorry, I don’t like it because of [x]”—she was bombarded with condescending, rude comments telling her how she was soooo MEAN, how she just missed the point and “didn’t understand [genre x]” (when all she was doing was just criticizing the individual work itself), how dare she criticize something people put a lot of effort into, and also “you just missed the point of it, it’s not MEANT to win Oscars, why can’t you just ENJOY it, you just WANT everything to win awards!”. And this was just in response to negative criticism phrased nicely—but that’s just who she is. She’s a very sweet and positive person. She’d probably feel uneasy by more biting criticism herself. She just simply expressed an honest opinion that wasn’t “you’re so amazing and so good!”. But this was enough for people to dub her as a mean bully who’s out to smear artists for making something she doesn’t like because she “just doesn’t get it”, as a straw figure to attack. All because she dared to have an unpopular opinion about a well-liked work. And I see far more examples of people attacking the critic's personal character for not liking something, than I do of critics attacking an artist's personal character for liking something (well, examples of the latter DO exist, but I see the former way, WAY too often).

For the record, I’ve been on the other side of the fence of this, too. I wrote/write fanfiction. I’ve seen people criticize stories I worked really hard on, and been harshly (but privately) called out when I messed up canon details. I understand that it hurts to have something you worked really hard on and poured your soul into get torn to shreds. I understand that. I’m not saying I don’t, or that we don’t have a right to our feelings. What’s important is how you respond to those feelings, and to the criticism itself. If you’re upset about criticism, go take your mind off it for a while. Play a game. Watch a movie. Sing karaoke. Play silly webgames. Then, when the sting is a bit duller, think “is this criticism valid, and if so, how do I approach this?”. I know it’s easier said than done, and that our minds do tend to focus on the criticism more than the praises, but it takes practice. And even if this particular critic is just an asshat, just shrug it off--again, easier said than done, I know, but it takes time and practice.

The question should not be “how can you be a nicer person instead of criticizing artists?”, but rather, “how can you respond to criticism of your work with dignity and grace?”. If you’d rather not respond, or if the sting is too fresh for you to respond, then you don’t have to. If you want to, work on it before speaking. I probably could not talk about my experiences with criticism without ranting a few years ago because the pain would still be fresh, but it’s easier to talk about now because it’s far duller to the point of being almost non-existent. Time heals.

And if the theoretical critic isn’t an asshat, but is just blunt and doesn’t sugarcoat their opinions? Ultimately, regardless of who is right about what plot point, remember that the art is not you. You are not the art. You create the art. You imprint a part of yourself onto the art. Your interpretation may be, to you, the only legit and final interpretation. But a criticism of your art is not an attack on you. The art and the relationship are kept separate, they are not one and the same. I’m sure Miley Cyrus and I probably could be good friends if we met, and hey, maybe she loves anime and horror games, too, but I’d still despise Hannah Montana. I adore Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries, but if he were alive today, I’d probably keep my distance from him (of course, it’s possible he MIGHT have changed his…views…but it wouldn’t hurt to exercise caution at least). Would I be friends with William Shakespeare if he were still alive today? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, I'd still adore Othello.

[trooper6]

I want to add some further support to Caveat Lector's point.

Many people say that, "But I worked really hard on that" should be protection against criticism. Basically, that we all get A's for effort.
I'm a professor in my real life. You know what? If you worked really hard on something...and it is C work? You still get a C. You don't magically get an A just because you worked hard on something.

[Caveat Lector]

Funny you should say that--I was going to say something similar to that point but decided not to add it because I wondered if it was just rambling, but now that it's relevant: Behind every movie, good and bad and somewhere in between, is a hard-working cast and crew. These people get up at ungodly hours, endure extreme heat/cold when shooting on-location, come to the set even when they're having a major (and sometimes public) emotional crisis in their personal lives, spend hours memorizing every single line/cue, repeat the same lines/actions over and over again for hours until they get it "just right" and then have to go through the same process AGAIN when the director wants to shoot it from a different angle (in the case of actors specifically), skip meals just to finish a scene, and (again with actors in mind) spend months and hours in rehearsal learning how to sing/dance/sword-fight/etc.

Does that make any criticism we may have of a poorly made movie invalid? Nope, not at all. I'm sure Tommy Wiseau poured the same amount of hard work into The Room that Orson Welles did with Citizen Kane. Despite all that and the difficulties that come with it, many actors would gladly go through all of the above-mentioned again in a heartbeat simply because they're that passionate for their craft and all that hard-work is worth it, criticism or no--like how many VN devs still go back to making VN's despite all the difficulties that go with it.

[trooper6]

On Episode 9: Pigeons, Klingons, Dinosaurs.

There was a question about if fantasy creatures are alien.
My thoughts on the matter are no. But why?

I think it is because there are different psychological functions/implications. In my mind human/non-human and alien/terrestrial are different continuum and what choices are made have different effects.

So for my definitions. Humans are...humans, Non-humans are not. (obvious definitions are obvious).
Aliens are not from this planet, Terrestrials are from this planet.

So this gives us four basic options:
Human/Terrestrial
Non-Human/Terrestrial
Human/Alien
Non-Human/Alien

So if your game is full of Human/Terrestrials then you are probably dealing with Man vs. Man thematics. (Lots of modern genres)
If you have a world with Non-Human Terrestrials...this is about making your home strange. It makes your home unsafe/wonderous/mysterious. Having Elves or Vampires says, "You don't know your own world as well as you think you do." (Lots of Fantasy)

Having Human/Aliens says, you go out into the universe...and it turns out you aren't special...there are other humans out there already. Or you go out into the universe and it turns out you are part of a galactic master race. Go you! The universe becomes a place that you belong to. The universe becomes your home--a place you have a right to be. (Extra-Terrestrial Humans can be found in Traveller or any of the sorts of stories that are based on the idea that we were seeded on this planet by extra-terrestrial forbearers).

Having Non-Human/Aliens can make the world outside our home mysterious/strange/wonderous.

And all of these are continuum, even though I when with the binaries for ease of examples.
I think non-humans make things strange (which could be positive or negative) and humans make things familiar.
So do you want your home (Earth) familiar or strange? Do you want to the new place (Space) familiar or strange?

[trooper6]

So all of that said, I want to add in the subversions.
You see a non-human and it turns out it is the same as you underneath everything (maybe like Garrus of Mass Effect or any of those Vampires who basically are just like humans...but a bit pale)...what might seem strange and defamiliarizing ends up being familiar.
You see an alien and it turns out it is terrestrial all along (...um...the examples I have would be spoilers...

The original Planet of the Apes does this

You see someone you think is terrestrial but it turns out they are alien (Invasion of the Body Snatchers).
You see something human and it turns it is non-human. This happens with undercover vampires who aren't so cuddly. But one of my favorite examples is Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness. What is great about that book is that is is about a human man who goes to an alien planet that is populated by people who look just like humans. He is there on a diplomatic mission. His original mental position is one of comfort and familiarity in some ways because these aliens are basically human. But they aren't human. These aliens have no sex most of the time until they go into heat, and then they grow sex organs. One time they could be male sex organs, another time female sex organs. And the main character comes to understand that they don't see sex, gender, or sexuality the same as we do at all. It then makes that race of people alien to him...but also makes him see his own sex/gender/sexuality system as alienating. It is an excellent book that deals with the topic of "romancing aliens" -- but also the function of alien vs. familiar really expertly.

[mikey]

trooper6 >> Thanks for more feedback, I've already noted some of the points down for a followup segment, and thanks for listening to more episodes!

We have two new podcast episodes (see first post), one about miscellaneous aspects of writing (ep.15), and the other about protagonists and realism (ep.16) that we took from this topic.

[trooper6]

mikey,

You all say such interesting things that I enjoy giving feedback as long as it is welcome! I'm trying to get myself caught up as best I can!