Steven Universe 2013

Despite holding numerous animated shows close to my heart, Steven Universe is my favorite, and I hope to discuss the show and delve into some of the reasons why.

I saw some of the early show as it was first airing but dismissed it as a run-of-the-mill adventure fantasy. Fortunately, I eventually gave it a fair shot because it transforms into an inspired and life-affirming character drama that beautifully blends heartfelt pathos, embellishment of the mundane, and a gradual deconstruction of an initial childlike zeal. Due to their length, I avoid revisiting shows, but despite some jarring pacing, I found a lot personally meaningful to pull out of this and have returned to it numerous times.

Conversely, many have been quite critical of it (some of which I find to be a combination of prejudiced, tangential, pedantic, or baseless, and not worth a nuanced discussion here), and while I recognize room for improvement, these negative responses have mainly been alienating. However, giving the show the love I feel it deserves by delving into individual characters, their relationships, and the significance they have for me is daunting.

People are complicated and not easily categorized. However, fictional characters are limited to the imagination of those who wrote them and are often designed to serve specific purposes in a narrative. Often, character analysis can be easy when they have straightforward motivations like pursuing wealth, saving others, seeking freedom, or satisfying their egos.

In contrast, characters in Steven Universe grapple with morally conflicting and indecisive motivations. While some are confident in things they believe or know they don't want, they remain uncertain of their desires, and the show places meticulous focus on their dilemmas and introspection, such as Garnet. Fusion is important to Ruby and Sapphire; they despise how Homeworld treats it and take pride in being a fusion. However, their initial contentedness is undermined as they realize their relationship is codependent, and the show delves into the nuances of how fatalism played a role in forming their relationship, the conflicts their codependency causes, and how Ruby and Sapphire eventually confront this codependency.

Moreover, the show is provocative, investigating the struggles and cultivating factors behind various walks of life, and it offers a distinct approach to conflict resolution. Instead of violence, most interpersonal dilemmas are solved through emotional openness and revelation.

It also helped me to articulate some of my emotions and made me feel understood and respected. Steven Universe revolves around characters who are told their existence is wrong in their relationships, physical abilities, or identity. Yet those characters work to discover and accept who they are and demand respect from others. Through this, I was offered emotional validation and positive reinforcement, which has been helpful for me.

But it's still an engaging piece of storytelling. When I first watched the show, my passion for storytelling was waning, and it played a pivotal role in rekindling it. Additionally, my enjoyment hasn't been brief; I've frequently used it as an example of the type of storytelling I enjoy, and if I watched it for the first time today, I'm confident I would have a similar appreciation for it. Yet, part of me worries that someday this show will lose its magic, that my hypothetical rose-tinted glasses will shatter, but that has yet to happen.

However, despite this complexity of discussion, I believe the show's story is firmly grounded in authenticity. It delves into individual characters' truths and the joys/hardships of their relationships, and like anything honest, it can be uncomfortable and messy.

The show delves into rarely explored emotional territories or familiar ones with a unique approach. Most character arcs revolve around individuals grappling with their identities, and it comes across as an earnest, self-reflective effort to dissect emotional experiences people may often prefer not to explore, let alone discuss with children, in pursuit of personal growth.

The show also rejects traditional moral dichotomies, which is undoubtedly a point of contention. Stories sometimes avoid letting their characters commit indefensible actions, relying on villains as scapegoats for the heroes, or having conflicts that arise from accidents/miscommunications rather than deliberate actions. There's nothing wrong with this type of storytelling, but it's noteworthy that Steven Universe rarely does.

Many critiques of the show revolve around certain characters being unlikeable, coupled with the notion that one can't hold an affinity for a character if their actions cannot be exonerated. (In particular, many complaints about Steven Universe: Future revolve around the fact that it made Steven unlikable.) But often, I believe the show's events are mischaracterized; there's a tangential rabbit hole that I won't go down into of the plethora of examples and how some interpretations are misguided, taking nuanced situations and sometimes devolving into victim blaming and overdramatization.

But to be fair, like anything provocative, balance is vital. In the case of morally grey characters, it is best to refrain from having their actions be purely selfless or selfish (and in cases they are, you will often see them be self-destructive). However, people vary in ethical beliefs, so finding a perfect balance is impossible. Yet Steven Universe, where characters are motivated by love, devotion, or a desire for agency/self-actualization, and its avoidance of clear-cut judgments, having many conflicts where neither character is in the right, strikes a solid balance for me. It rationalizes its villains; the heroes aren't perfect, but neither are outright condemned.

Above all, the show focuses on its characters' emotions; it refrains from simply labeling its villains as evil; it demonstrates it by exploring an array of perspectives that illustrate the harm their society has had on others.

Similarly, the focus on its heroes revolves around their struggles with self-identity, self-acceptance, sense of purposelessness, regrets, etc. However, they are prone to making mistakes and being self-centered. They're also not motivated to change to enhance their heroism; instead, they embark on misadventures of self-discovery and confront their struggles to attain personal growth, even if these efforts sometimes harm those around them. A core aspect of the show is outlining a cycle of oppression and exploring characters who fail to recognize their influence on others, and it's compelling to see many characters' struggles addressed but remain relevant, transformative experiences.

Steven Universe is a profoundly pensive and sad story. Yet, it feels productive, with characters overcoming their trauma and reshaping their beliefs and identities. In essence, the show encourages self-improvement and empathy, which I believe are the primary takeaways intended for the story. But in discussing the show's broader ideas, we must consider the potential banality that various children's media encourage tolerance and individuality. These ideas aren't novel, and some will deem the overly empathetic perspective optimistically naive (something I'll delve into later.)

Yet, I rarely found the show's efforts cloying and believe it can be characterized by a broader skepticism. While the show encourages empathy, its story is far more about how situations are often more complex than we assume.

Its entire narrative centers on deconstructing the idealization of Rose, dwelling on the aftermath of her disappearance, the reignited conflict she believed was over, and the anguished friends she left in her wake. The final confrontation with White Diamond proposes a tangible and cynical ulterior interpretation of Rose. White Diamond claims that all of Rose's efforts were a ploy to cope with her feelings of inferiority.

Ultimately, the show raises the question: Did Rose sacrifice her life to bring Steven into existence? Even if you disagree with White Diamond's broader beliefs, this reading of Rose remains conflicting in its plausibility. However, the reality remains: Rose relinquished her life for Steven. Rose was taught by the systems she was born into to act as an oppressive force; however, she found value in life on Earth, and her voice not being respected by the other Diamonds led her to be empathetic. So, Rose decided to be the voice for Earth and ended up being influential in the lives of many. Then, she made a consequential choice that demonstrated how much she valued humanity but also a potential failure in understanding or caring about how influential she was to others. Rose may have frequently been selfless and well-intentioned, but she was imperfect, often insensitive and selfish.

Ultimately, we never get closure on Rose's character; she's dead, and while we get brief glimpses into how she feels, we'll never truly understand her inner world. In my view, this fosters a lack of cynicism—avoiding assumptions of selfishness and deception—and instead celebrating individualism, both the good and the bad. It's an eloquent and unique final confrontation that invites a reexamination of Rose's character upon revisiting the show.

Overall, it's a show where hardly anyone is deliberately malicious, yet people can be selfish and cause harm anyway. Taking parents in the show as an example, they are typically well-intentioned but frequently exhibit callous behaviors. Some are overprotective; some don't understand their child and silently disapprove of them; some make strong efforts to support their children, but not enough to understand them. Episodes like "The Test" explore the gem's conflicted efforts to nurture Steven and outline why adults may, in a sincere effort to assist and protect, lie or hide information from children. All of these lead to disconnection, but the show doesn't condemn the parents. Consistently, their efforts are earnest, even if some of their rationale is left up to interpretation.

Generally, the show seems to want to show that parents had their own lives before having children; they're human, and even if they care, they cannot raise them perfectly.

Pivoting, I'd like to discuss escapism.

I don't believe every story must challenge your perspective; it can be enjoyable to immerse yourself into a fantasy world with adventure, well-plotted melodrama, and elaborate worldbuilding. My issue is when they become tedious, as it doesn't take much of the same tropes, plotlines, and dungeon crawl/string of MacGuffins plotting to desire something different and be annoyed when stories fail to deviate, subvert, or elaborate on common characteristics. The early episodes of Steven Universe attempt this escapism, and I have mixed feelings.

One of the strongest aspects of the show's plotting is how its moral ambiguity evolves. The show is very malleable when shifting how you perceive its characters, and Steven Universe is a subjective narrative; you see the world through Steven's eyes as it's deconstructed. While characters grow and change, much of the show focuses on unraveling its initial status quo. The problem with early Steven Universe is that this unraveling has hardly commenced, and Steven's initial emotional immaturity can be grating. It maintains a consistent mystique, with the gems refusing to inform Steven; however, Steven taking the initiative to free Lapis opens the floodgates, and the early show still sets the stage for later parts.

I would still make changes, streamlining it by removing around five episodes. Nonetheless, the story simmering in an unpleasant and dysfunctional status quo makes the characters' effort to overcome this dysfunction more effective. For example, Amethyst and Pearl fight a lot early in the show. Often, their fighting devolves into hysterics, arriving from trivial things like Pearl being unreasonably mad at Amethyst for minor irritations. It's dull, but when we learn why Pearl and Amethyst behave the way they do and attempt to resolve their differences, it wouldn't be as compelling if the show hadn't spent time on the unpleasant melodrama between them.

As the series nears its end, Rose's escape from her issues becomes prominent. Yet, virtually every character grapples with emotional repression in some form, and a distinct approach is depicted to address it, emphasizing the importance of directly confronting personal struggles to resolve internal conflicts. Consistently, the challenges characters face are not physical, but in regressive ways they cope with their emotions, like compartmentalization and unbeknownst self-destruction.

Steven Universe begins as an escapist adventure fantasy, becomes more nuanced as it exposes the broader contexts of its initial melodrama, and then attempts to resolve these conflicts, celebrating the altered status quo as it improves. Generally, I believe it's essential to be a dreamer and try to imagine a better version of our current world. Here, characters face struggles common in the real world and ultimately thrive, allowing escapism into a better version of our world and ourselves.

This is another point of contention because it matters how these characters' struggles are resolved, as they can be unclear or contradictory. Criticism has been directed towards the show for only abruptly abandoning characters' issues, and while there are aspects of the show primed for continuation, I hardly agree with this notion, but it would be very time-consuming to justify that disagreement.

However, some find the ways characters achieve solace unrealistic or unhealthy. Take Spinel, for example, who struggles with abandonment issues. Some who've faced similar struggles raise concerns about Spinel finding solace in the Diamonds. Spinel states that the Diamonds remind her of Pink, and looking for companions that remind one of the people who abandoned them can be an unhealthy path. While I think there are positive qualities to appreciate about Spinel's character, these are the criticisms I want to hear, and I strive to have nothing but empathy toward them.

However, in this regard, the final confrontation is a crucial point of contention where I will attempt to offer a thorough discussion.

The main criticism to focus on is the show's supposed optimism, its resolution hinging on a non-violent overcoming of tyranny. While I understand this criticism, it has been overblown, and the show still has an eloquent ending that functions well within the narrative's context. Similar to previous conflicts, it's resolved through revelation. White Diamond, driven to affirm her beliefs at Steven's expense, is contradicted in her assumptions about Rose. Because White Diamond's ability is core to Homeworld's entire culture, rendering identity meaningless and the lives of gems worthless outside of utilitarian value, Rose's absence is disruptive, utterly recontextualizes how they perceive organic life, and leaves White Diamond in shock.

If you're against having a non-violent solution in general, that's another discussion. As someone who adores RPGs and finds it irritating when a conflict cannot be resolved with words, I'm accepting of the idea you can write a non-violent solution no matter how awful a character's actions are; generally, I think it's important not to oversimplify or mythologize the source of violence so we can prevent it. The problem is if it is problematic/sensitive in a political context, and with this, I believe the conversation has been muddied by the equating of Homeworld with fascism, as the prospect of seeking non-violent solutions with fascists is a complex and sensitive one. However, Homeworld, as a dichotomization of the show's ideas, would inevitably reflect fascism, and more than specifically fascism, I think it reflects a broader mindset.

Steven Universe is about the beauty of individuality and change. Homeworld reflects those against change who don't value individuality, wish to be uncritical of the world's current state, and only desire intellectual reaffirmation. It's a desire to find objective answers in life and rigidly uphold them. This defines Homeworld; White Diamond is a zombification, a removal of personhood, its pleasures and pains, to achieve intellectual contentedness in a supposed lack of bias.

Frankly, for a resolution with this much contention, I would have expected something more jarring; if Steven had merely asked White Diamond and received swift compliance, I believe it could be as dangerously idealistic as some make it out to be. But White actively tries to harm Steven and is defeated through Steven's individuality, proving Steven is a living being distinct from Rose, a unique and compelling solution for a protagonist who has long lived in his mother's shadow.

But after the conflict, how Steven handles the Diamonds is also a matter of debate. While some may argue that the show should have ended with the Diamonds' deaths, as the villain's death is common in fantasy stories, Steven's decision doesn't significantly affect my enjoyment of the show. The show has always been about characters discovering humanity's individuality and redefining themselves outside the strict and oppressive system of Homeworld. The show's resolution, while not thematically comprehensive, doesn't undermine that, and the Diamonds don't need to face retribution for the ending to be satisfying.

If the Diamonds refused to give reparations, I'd consider forcing them to. However, with their unique abilities, they continually offer amends despite an initial lack of enthusiasm. So, there's limited practical justification for why the Diamonds must be killed. And it's important to consider that it's framed as a conflict between a broken family. So, to frame the conflict like this and resolve it with violence risks teaching children to resolve their own familial conflicts similarly.

But when delving into a thematic exploration of whether to kill the Diamonds, considering Bismuth's perspective is crucial, as some see Steven's dismissive justification as murder being unjustified under all contexts. Where Bismuth's proposal to shatter the Diamonds removes between gems and their freedom, Steven's opposition to this idea would mean he believes that ending the Diamonds' lives, even if it alleviates the suffering of all other gems, is too great a sacrifice to justify. I would disagree with Steven if that were Bismuth's proposal.

However, I find this interpretation puzzling; I don't understand how one arrives at this conclusion in good faith. Bismuth harbors a deep resentment towards the Homeworld elites, but she's unequivocal about the scale of her plans. Bismuth seeks to reduce Homeworld's forces on Earth to shards and then launch a direct assault on Homeworld, culminating in the shattering of the Diamonds. Contrary to the interpretation of only shattering the Diamonds, this plan offers a conflicting and disturbing dilemma about killing a million to save a few, a desperate scheme aimed at preserving the ideas that profoundly transformed the lives of the Crystal Gems. It's conflicting: are the lives of gems under Homeworld's oppressive system awful enough to justify killing them so a few can secure freedom?

Steven Universe does not assert that violence is always unjustifiable or that preserving life must always take precedence, and it doesn't shy away from why one would pursue violence through Bismuth. Instead, it highlights the importance of seeking a non-violent solution, trying your best to understand a situation, and only using violence as a last resort, which I think is a good concept for children to internalize. Yet, I understand why some criticize the show's conflicts consistently being resolved without violence. This isn't always attainable in the real world, and it would be reasonable to argue that the show could have presented situations where Steven had to resort to violence after peaceful discussions failed.

However, much of this perception is because we're cynical adults. It's idealistic to believe everything can be resolved without violence because some people don't have to listen. But, in this regard, the show's optimism is afforded by its context; again, it's framed as a familial conflict. The only reason Steven can get an audience with White Diamond is because he's Pink Diamond. If he were an inconsequential gem, White wouldn't care; instead, she takes time to halt his charade; after all, there's no risk; White's confident that she's right about everything.

It's still arguably optimistic for Pink Diamond to have this utilitarian importance and, with Steven's experience able to function as a trans allegory, as the Diamonds rigorously misgender him, it can also be seen as optimistic for Steven to be capable of acquiring this gotcha moment out of reach for many real people. However, Steven getting an audience wasn't trivial. Pink initially failed to get one; it was only through her selfless and selfish decision that Steven could prove White wrong; there's something poetic about that I love, and even then, it's still a struggle for Steven to get a proper audience with White, requiring a consistent defiance.

The show may not delve into all of the intricate real-world nuances that can make non-violent solutions difficult, but that's kind of an adult topic and an easily forgivable missed potential because the show's central ideas, that people can commit horrible actions without malicious intent and that an open-minded, compassionate approach can change a person's mind remain potent. It's also a show where emotional openness is met with compassion rather than shame, and acceptance of differing identities ceases to be conditional. These alterations may not be similarly attainable in the real world, but isn't it nice to dream how they could be and have an engaging mystery show about acceptance and the diversity of people's experiences that introduces children to empathy and emphasizes resolving issues through listening or verbalizing your emotions, and tries to offer emotional validation and guidance to struggles many adults still deal with? Because I think it is.