Talk:Hopepunk

Nobledark

Pretty sure this already has a name. It's called "Nobledark". Hawkatana (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that says that, the information can be added to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

How about these sources, then? --Hawkatana (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkatana, blogs and forums are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, sorry. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Only two of the five come under that definition. Three of them still meet the criteria. Hawkatana (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• "8chan Explanation of the Grim/Noble and Dark/Bright Spectrum (by anons)" - not RS
• "Spacebattles" forum - not RS
• "Cosmic Draft" blog - not RS
• "TV Tropes" - not RS
• "Reddit" - not RS

Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a genre

The description sounds more like activists discovering the concept of classical heroism for the first time and thinking they reinvented the wheel. I'm 100% in agreement with the sentiments and the activism behind it, but this framing sounds more like snark bait for culture war manbababies to make fun of. Also, including J.R.R. Tolkien in the same category as Margaret Atwood or Angie Thomas is incredibly misguided for several reasons. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You might be correct, but the article reflects how the sources describe it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd:Okay, so it seems I misinterpreted the definition. It's not classical heroism, but a contemporary reinterpretation of the concept of heroism, from the perspective of modern socially progressive movements. In which case Lord of the Rings DEFINITELY does not fit the the list of examples. I don't know by what logic the source decides to categorize it as such. I know there has been a serious effort in the LOTR fandom to seize it from reactionary elements who have tried to put their hands on it, and the Tolkien Society deserves praise for that, but to whitewash Tolkien and ignore the glaring problematic elements of his works is a mistake.

To get to the point, I don't think LOTR should be included just because it's mentioned in one source that isn't even accessible to most people. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the ref. I typo'd and the ProQuest ID wasn't showing up properly, so that's been fixed. To your point, I don't think examples that a source gives should be excluded just because I (or another editor, such as you) don't agree with the source. Personally, I don't agree with including The Handmaid's Tale, but Rowland did so in it goes. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nor should every example a source gives be included purely on basis of them being in the source, especially when the example contradicts the definition, and confuses people like it confused me. The article writes: Scholar Elin Kelsey describes it as "a narrative of positive resistance" and contrasts it with noblebright, which takes as its premise that not only are there good fights worth fighting, but that they are also winnable and result in a happy ending. Where noblebright is the narrative of the hero, hopepunk instead celebrates the collective response. ... Hopepunk is a reaction to decades of dystopian, nihilistic fiction, explores how goodness and optimism can be acts of rebellion. A hopepunk narrative is driven by fierce caring and the will to fight for something. The worlds described in hopepunk works are not utopian or even necessarily hopeful; the genre is expressed in the ways characters approach issues. (bolded text is what I missed on first reading. Without that, and with LOTR given as an example, it's impossible to tell this apart from classical heroic fiction, which is what LOTR is. A textbook example of what some people describe as "noblebright" which hopepunk is contrasted with. Not only is LOTR not an example of hopepunk, but based on the definitions given by the article, it's an example of what hopepunk is NOT. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See the Vox article, which specifically discusses LOTR in the framework of hopepunk. Schazjmd (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Uhm... no it doesn't. There are three mentions of Lord of the Rings, only one paragraph specifically talking about it and the writer appears to be completely ignorant of the fact that there is more to LotR than just the movies. The article uses the films as an example of "post 9/11 fiction", and Tolkien's name doesn't even appear in the article at all, so claiming that "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien" is an example of hopepunk is a misrepresentation of the source.

Furthermore, the Vox article specifically defines hopepunk as a response to war, climate change, anti-globalization and right wing extremism, that came about in the 21st century and became especially prevalent in the Trump era. Using the hobbits specifically to illustrate any point about hopepunk's optimism, you know, the hobbits who are an idealization of white rural britain and little more than reactionary nostalgia for pre-industrialization era, further confirms my suspicion that the writer of the article is not familiar with Lord of the Rings, beyond the films.

I know the Tolkien Society and other prominent groups in the Lord of the Rings fandom have been trying to read progressive ideas and queer narratives into Tolkien's works while simultaneously minimizing the importance of Tolkien's catholicism in the context of his works, but that's the Death of the Author at work, not something that's part of the original IP. It's a fun experiment in trolling the Gamergate crowd and breaking their toys, but the truth is, the christian right claims LotR as their own, and just this once, I'm afraid they are correct. If nothing else, at least change "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien" to "The Lord of the Rings film series". It would still be incorrect, but at last it would accurately reflect what the Vox article is actually saying. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

social disruption

the article says that the various punk genres are connected by the concept of social disruption. I am not sure that that applies to the original genre, steampunk. while steampunk shows an alternate reality, it is in fact rooted in Victorian social structures and plays off of that fact. I believe the concept that this set of genres is related to social disruption is actually a contemporary reinterpretation based on current political trends. I'm curious what others feel about this definition. 50.73.228.162 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@50.73.228.162 I would add, I would buy the inclusion of the concept of it was specifically sourced and cited. p.s.sorry for anon posting, struggling to log in with old account. account had been moyn2000. 50.73.228.162 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@50.73.228.162 now editing under moyn2030 Moyn2030 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevance

Does this article exist for an actual genre or for the vague descriptions of "hopepunk" that a handful of journalists who have since moved on from the term published years ago? I understand that Wikipedians are free to make articles about anything if journalists have written about them enough, but hopepunk is an umbrella term inseparable from the sociopolitical tension it was conceptualized for, not a commercially categorized genre of media TreeLethargy (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)