I Want To Play A Little Game.
Also known as:
2Edgy4Me
Let’s take a closer look at that snout! (For the express purpose of vivisection while the test subject is still alive because of course!)
It’s time to put abuse to task. (Yay!)
Contrary to the wishes of some, fluffy abuse is ingrained into the identity of this following. The reasons as to why are myriad and inconsequential, for everyone has a personal reason for why they want to see something subjected to the deepest depths of inhumanity. If I had to make the broadest conjecture possible, it’s simply an avenue to vent certain troublesome impulses that no other media can provide. What the desired result of this content actually is, is also a personal conviction.
This is why “bad” abuse is far more difficult to qualify as opposed to “bad” hugbox. Hugbox can be shallowly optimistic and annoying, which is clearly not the intent of the creator. Abuse can warrant a gamut of negative emotions, and it can be argued that this is the point. It’s a piss-poor argument that I will challenge further along in this entry.
In most cases, those who enjoy abuse are well-adjusted enough, and not a bunch of depraved, unhinged monsters with an internet connection. Yes, this had to be written. Yes, this community is full of children in physical age and mental maturity.
People have wanted to see fluffies cry, bleed, scream and die; and so they do. In droves. As individuals. As families. As friends. As enemies. As comrades of circumstances. Some are born into institutions that profit off of their misery. Some are just mentally and emotionally broken before succumbing to their fates.
Abuse takes many forms, with varying degrees of finesse, creativity and cruelty. Abuse is also the most versatile genre of fluffy content, as it can span across every other box with the obvious exception of hugbox.
With such prestige and freedom, abuse content can be some of the most engaging aspects of fluffies.
But what mistakes can make abuse lame?
Fluffies are a demon scourge.
In the previous entry, I mentioned how fluffies are most compelling when presented with the notion of contrast in mind. Fluffies, by the very nature of their default lore, represent idealism in their outlook and mannerisms, which is confronted by the cynicism of reality. The clash between what fluffies were meant to be, and the flawed market scheme products that they actually are, is the crux of many strong narratives. And yes, even in stories that present the mass extermination of fluffies, this balance is something that must be maintained, because the alternative is just obnoxious.
I am not going to describe irredeemably monstrous fluffies with the moniker that they were given previously. To do so would be to validate a way of thinking that is better left to the wayside. In the same measure, I am not trying to discredit headcanons in which fluffies are just the worst of mankind condensed into a little cotton ball rapist – that is, the cotton ball is doing the raping, not someone raping the cotton ball. I don’t think cotton can consent but I apologize if I am incorrect in this assertion.
What I am attempting to do is frame this type of abuse premise in a way that highlights its shortcomings. If a creator heeds this writing and is still set on telling this kind of story, then so be it, best of luck, and have fun.
That being said, I would argue that these stories are specialized to a certain niche, to a crippling fault. I can see the appeal in having a horde of screaming, babbling idiots that are thinly veiled metaphors for the overly entitled members of our society we call ‘Karens’, or what have you, with the rapid breeding and horrific behaviors of fluffies. Such a crisis would be akin to Xenomorph infestation, or the bugs from Starship Troopers… except with easy-to-stomp imbeciles. But, just as Ridley Scott struggles to justify the continuation of his sci-fi horror universe, how far can one push this concept before it runs out of steam?
Not very far, I’d reckon. Speaking from experience, with this one.
Violence for the sake of violence.
This kind of abuse story also has its place in the culture. Like the previous example, it is a limited kind of tale that can inadvertently get repetitive very quickly. There are only so many ways one can describe the viscera of a fluffy being senselessly demolished, across so many stories. At a certain saturation, they come off as similar as MCU films. And this is coming from someone who liked most of the Marvel movies.
Even if a story like this is written to poke fun at the absurdity of aggression towards fluffies, that coat of irony will wear thinner the longer the duration of the story is. Remember: deconstructing common tropes is not an automatic characteristic of an insightful and creative storytelling. Oftentimes, subverting tropes is as laughable as the genre norms being subverted.
I will make a special mention for stories that revolve around sexual misconduct, or just happen to include sexual abuse as a theme: I do not believe that awful sexual abuses should be weighed any differently from gratuitous and tasteless blood and gore, because abuse is defined by being deranged and uncomfortable. However, if the use of sexual abuse is just the garnish to elevate how severely any piece of fluffy media affects the viewer, then it is an example of a poorly executed piece of abuse.
Lack of depth.
Your abuse story doesn’t have to be a gritty introspection of the human condition. It would help, but it doesn’t need to be so heavy. It does, however, need to offer something a little more than surface level depictions of the sanctity of life being violated. The easiest way to go about fleshing out your macabre manuscript is to establish a motivation for the abuser, as doing so will help to maintain the internal logic of the character. An abuser is inherently mentally unstable, which means the possibilities for what drives them to spend their time on the torture and murder of fluffies, frequently dedicating entire portions of their home to this “hobby”, are functionally endless. In this circumstance, the rule of “show, don’t tell” can be interpreted as, “choose what you want to show, and let your audience piece the rest together”.
Maybe it’s because I enjoy fragmented storytelling – because FromSoft keeps hurting me – but I find it engaging as heck to be presented with a snippet of a setting and then have to extrapolate an inference about other details. There is an art to this method of storytelling though; a writer has to be deliberate in their execution of what they describe to the reader and what they choose to omit, otherwise the narrative will be seen as sloppy and half-baked.
The goal is to present something with a haunting effect that naturally causes the reader to linger and ask questions that they ultimately have to answer on their own, for lack of a definitive response from a creator. The answers someone comes up with usually reflect where their own headspace is, and that’s always fun; delving into one’s own psyche through what they consider to be art. That may be one of those mysterious reasons why abuse has such staying power.
It’s supposed to be bad!
Your abuse story is receiving backlash. Not the usual anti-abuser rhetoric, but actual concerns about the content. Maybe you fixated on certain details, and people are now suspecting you of actually enjoying your work a little too much. Maybe you included certain subject matters that are universally reviled, and now just about everyone is mad at you – with the exception of the one guy who really hones in on the specifics of that thing that no one else would or should.
You’re backed up against the wall.
Your internet reputation is on the line.
You take a deep breath, and put on your mask of smugness.
“Haha you losers, getting mad at this thing that I obviously put genuine effort into because there is no basis of sarcasm or satire to be found in any of the subtext, it’s supposed to make you mad! Losers! Dummy losers with poopy baby pants!”
Everyone makes shitty stories every now and again. Sometimes, in pushing the envelope, you go down a disturbing rabbit hole. Regardless of why it happens, it happens. If your audience is telling you that you fucked up, listen and adjust course for next time. Be happy that you have an audience willing to call you out in the first place.
Of course creative intent must be weighed against the circumstances of the revolt. Keep in mind that statistically, you aren’t bound to have dedicated haters who only want to put down your work, so you may want to listen to the feedback you get. Maybe when you get more established, you’ll have to deal with Oculus putting you down whenever you contemplate branching out to other genres, like how he would to Grim. Allegedly.
¯\ (ツ)_/¯
CONCLUSION.
I don’t want to explain the joke here, but the use of Jigsaw’s catchphrase in the heading is a reference to how SAW shifted from a somewhat interesting morality wank to a series of films focused solely on the odd and convoluted ways that characters die. If that isn’t the most apt metaphor between well executed abuse stories and poor abuse stories, I don’t know what is.
Those traps in the middle of the series straight up had no solution – they were going to kill regardless of what the person did.
Jigsaw, more like…
Poophead, haha.
Fucking got him.