#(from a watsonian analysis pov) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

escarlatafox · 1 month

Text

Okay now from the POV of STANNING CHARACTERS… (kfp4 spoilers)

So first off. My condolences to Tigress fans + people who are big fans of the Furious Five. And I mean – the Furious Five are were (?! 😭) core cast members, they’re great and fun characters, so I can absolutely understand the outrage of them just not being there AT ALL. In fact… idk their absence is weird in that it does feel less like kung fu panda without them. I take the view that what Matters is the movie being good, so if you have a movie that’s good, you can get away with certain characters* not being there if they wouldn’t serve an otherwise good plot. You can’t really say that’s the case with this movie though, because its pacing etc had much to be desired. So… yeah. You kicked them out but then the movie still wasn’t even good?? 😭And they didn’t even get a little scene they got nothing!! 😭No speaking scene I mean!

*Certain characters when I’m not completely obsessed with them (LOL). Because I, like anyone, am BIASED, my point here is that’s the “objective” take, but subjectively it absolutely sucks when your personal fave isn’t there so I really do sympathise. If shifu wasn’t in the fourth movie at all, I, too, would be extremely upset and furious. So fans of the Five have every right to be personally unhappy with their absence. For example if Shifu was absent from a Good kfp movie because he wouldn’t contribute to the Good plot, “objectively” that makes sense from a writing pov. Subjectively, I would still be personally unhappy with it.

ANYWAY. So now for analysis/discussion from a more character-focused pov/being biased in terms of my focus!

I mean, Shifu’s my fave, put him onscreen and don’t completely mess it up and there’s a good chance I’m just happy to see him again. And I was pleased to see him again. Ahah… What can I say? I’m a shifu fan… XD

Anyway. He’s SO not having a fun time dhsdjhsdsd I’m. god. Still getting my thoughts together about this. I have sorrrrt of mixed feelings/am of two worlds.

I did really enjoy his scenes. He’s actually kind of a mess honestly omggg. It kinda took me by surprise and I was actually very amused. I can’t help it he’s why I’m here LOL.

So like yes on the one hand I absolutely did accept and enjoy his scenes. On the other hand I was a bit surprised because… Well. Movies 1-3 did seem to have him on a clear trajectory of getting better and becoming more chill. He’s very Not Chill in this. You could make an argument that the whole “Oogway choosing Po as his spiritual successor” is a/the major issue that’s set back his progress in this movie, is why he’s clearly Not Fine (however much he might claim otherwise ckjdjkdsjk), etc. Because he only gets hit with that knowledge/information at the end of movie 3. The whole fact that he’s been kind of “overlooked” by Oogway (or at least, kind of skipped over technically…) and is now technically “surpassed” by Po, etc etc.

However, the above is all Watsonian analysis. From a Doylist point of view, I doooo think he has been Flanderised a bit. Feels like he’s just kind of been stuck/shoved into the box/role of grumpy “least-zen zen master” without much room to move about. It does feel like he had a lot more room/leeway before with his character/characterisation than he seems to have now…? And idk how to feel about it. Because like… I still really enjoyed his scenes in this movie, I loved it. So I don’t actually have any personal issues/complaints with it, I guess I do just feel like it can be “overdone”, if he really is thoroughly boxed-in like this. If his character has been simplified down/exaggerated… There are potential concerns with that but like, again. I loved him in this movie.

I mean I guess it just comes down to some mixed feelings on my end. Because I was getting this sense of “okay this kind of seems like… a bit overdone on the characterisation. But at the same time… I still love this characterisation” dhsdhjas? Hmmm. Still mulling over it. But I had fun! On an analytical level, I recognised that this movie had flaws, and that Shifu’s characterisation can be symptomatic of an overall downgrading of writing quality/handling of the characters in general. On the level of Being A Fan, I am a little baby being mesmerised by car keys being jangled in front of me.

It's also just kind of Funny to learn just how badly he’s doing. I thought he was Fine I really overestimated how well-adjusted he was at this point sdhsajksdakjsad god I. Mixed thoughts but I truly did love his scenes for the most part. Oughhh.

The fact that he’s now officially confirmed/clarified In Canon that he’s a red panda is hilarious. It took them four movies to do it. It’s been MANY years. But people having no clue what kind of animal he is over and over again, piggybacking off that… Man I loved it.

Hhhhhh yeah. Gonna keep mulling it over.

& I did feel catered to as a Shifu fan, by virtue of the fact that He Was There (I am the baby looking at the jangling car keys). So like, that would have affected my overall experience of the movie As A Whole in ways too! Because you can’t completely separate subjective from "objective". The movie itself could be lackluster but I could still be like “yesss Shifu” if I enjoy his individual scenes, etc. So tbh I had a great time, if only for that. I wanted to see him again and I did, LOL.

And like idk, if I fine-tooth-comb comparison his characterisation in previous installments vs this one, maybe I will come up with discrepancies or whatnot, and I guess one of my concerns is like, even if I was totally fine with how he was written in this movie, it raises concerns about how he might be portrayed in any future media, etc, so I’m just kinda wary? Idk. But tbh I had fun. That’s what matters.

#decided to write it as a separate post lol #kfp4 spoilers #kung fu panda 4 spoilers #I feel like I kinda gotta issue an Obligatory Statement #because I do kind of have something of a reputation preceding me as The Shifu Fan (LOLLL)#so it's like 'say the line Bart' dshsdhjsdhjsd

5 notes · View notes

zenon-karr · 2 years

Text

So I notice a lot of reactors basically sympathize with Will. I think the duffers worked this so well that required byler flys under the radar but subtly get people to feel bad for Will while kinda dismantling Milevensies ri the point where a lot of people won’t even care if they break up or byler ends up tho they. They’ve done it for the audience to be a surprised but I do have faith the GA (aside from the homophobes) will go back and see it’s been built up the whole time. I do find a lot of them just accept whatever is linearly happening like if they revealed byler to be endgame and then people would just accept it coz it happened. But usually queer stories don’t get requited so this why people assume it won’t be. It’s just an assumption just like the chars assume they don’t love each other. There’s hardly ever representation where the characters find out with the audience they’re queer.

So I honestly can’t blame the GA for not seeing it also since most of the proof is from a Doylist POV (meaning from the writers pov rather than in character proof) we see that the hand touch for example was used to hint at byler in the future - not necessarily that is intended at that time from Mike to romantic. It’s there so you can potentially think about them in this way and same with the ‘it’s not my fault you don’t like girls’ it’s fantastic line to convey to the audience Will is gay even though Mike is NOT thinking this. (This is what Finn actually said on that he said Mike isn’t saying Will is gay (Watsonian POV) but he as in Finn doesn’t know if Will is gay or if that’s what they intended for this line) The line is fantastic to hint to the audience Will is gay and in love with Mike. Then they followed through! (FYI if you don’t know Doylist POV = writer’s POV coz Arthur Conan Doyle and Watsonian POV = character POV since Sherlock books are written by ACD in Watson’s POV) so sometimes people the audience see though the lens of the character (ex: Mike isn’t gay coz he loves El) but a lot of byler analysis comes from the pov of the writers and how we show they hint like for example I think they chose to hint Mike is bi when they had him think El is pretty when she look like a boy and when she looks like a girl because from Mike’s POV he def doesn’t think he’s queer at this point: I think there is an intention they said she looks like a boy and Mike likes her either way is their way of telling us when Mike doesn’t know yet and that’s why they would hint this way and not just show him being interested in a guy (altho you can argue he is focused on Will coz he loves him the whole time whilst being unawares.) Now I think after s3 finale it’s clear we can see he looks as tho he has had a realization so now I think he’s aware in s4. But idk I just had some thinky thoughts.

#byler #bi Mike truther

20 notes · View notes

time-variance-archive · 2 years

Text

Welcome to the Time Variance Archive blog

This archive is dedicated to analysing the Disney+ Loki series and its various narrative themes.

Most of the posts here will be mine, but I'll also reblog and share posts and articles from other websites that I find interesting.

If you want to join me on this adventure, I'll be more than happy to publish your asks and submissions as long as you follow the guidelines.

Master list of my posts :

What makes a Loki a Loki ? a metaphysical response to the nature of variants

Hard worldbuilding vs soft worldbuilding

“There are no Time-Keepers” : why does it matter ?

What Sylvie (and Sylki) means to me.

Character appreciation post : He Who Remains

He Who Remains is the embodiment of the statu quo

Ramblings and predictions for season 2 regarding the multiversal war

Doylist analysis of the time loop scene : what narrative purpose does it serve ?

A short analysis of Loki and Mobius

Me infodumping about Ravonna Renslayer's story in the comics

My stance on the Loki vs Sylvie battle of opinions

Loki's fear of uncertainty and chaos

Sylvie and the devil symbolisms

Theory : all the Lokis in the Void are redeemed Lokis

Another analysis of Sylvie’s arc : understanding the complexity of systemic issues

Trying to explain some "plot holes" with evidence and complete bs of my own invention ^^

A heartfelt tribute to Victor Timely

Tags :

general writing : posts about creative writing and litterary analysis. Not directly related to the Loki series.

watsonian analysis : analysis from an in-universe pov

doylist analysis : analysis from a writing pov

headcanon : theories and personal interpretations not directly confirmed by the show

metaphysics : meta posts using metaphysical concepts (hey, my philosophy degree didn't get me a job, but at least I can flex on Tumblr)

loki series criticism : negative aspects of the show and potentially triggering materials

character analysis

tags by characters

Rules :

This blog is a drama-free zone. We're here to share our love for the Loki series, not our bitterness towards the fandom.

Sometimes, analysis includes criticism, and that's okay. However, all criticism must be in good faith : bad writing isn't the same as not liking something, and not every unexplained thing is a plot hole.

No ad-hominem attacks, either against other fans, cast and crew member or characters. All characters matter and they're all beautiful pieces in this narrative machine.

While it is important to acknowledge social issues in fandom, this blog won't include any controversial topic. The reason is simple : minorities aren't monolithic blocks. I've met all sort of poeple with all sort of opinions on the Internet, and while trying to validate someone's grievances, you might end up hurting another person. Also, I don't have the authority to talk about those issues, and might accidentally say something offensive. If you are curious about those issues, I would invite you to visit other blogs curated by poeple personally affected.

Finally, this is a nerdy blog. Media analysis doesn't always have to be factual and serious. Go wild and put on your tinfoil hat !

About me :

My main is queen-of-meows. I created this side blog because the tagging system on Tumblr is bad and I often lose my own posts. Also, I wanted to have a clean blog where I can curate a masterlist.

A few infos about me, so you know where I come from.

Other fandoms : Doctor Who, Final Fantasy VII, Puella Magi Madoka Magica. I also like Steven Universe. I am not really a MCU fan. I watched some of it in a casual way, enjoyed part of it, got bored with other parts. This is not a MCU negative statement, I just don't really vibe with everything. I am more into some specific comics (generally linked to the Loki series).

Music : I really love Nightwish. It's not really relevant, except when I will randomly post Nightwish songs that remind me of the Loki series, or quote Nightwish. That's how my brain works. I also really love Akira Yamaoka, many independant artists I know from Youtube and some old Lana Del Rey songs, as well as game and movies OST.

Books : I love Neil Gaiman and my new year resolution was to read all of his books, including the least famous ones. As a teen I was obsessed with His Dark Materials. Parallel dimensions ? Multiversal love story ? Mission to kill the supreme creator . Hmmm, maybe there is a pattern somewhere ^^.

My ships : Sylki is my main ship. My other main ship is Ravonna/Mobius. It's a very rare pair but have my reasons to ship them. But I also enjoy reading Lokius fanfictions, and looking at cute Lokius fanarts. I'm a multishipper and I don't mind the ship as long as I enjoy the story.

@ladylowkeyed

@bushs-world

@mareebird

@spoonietimelordy

@asgardian-viking

@storyplease

@honeyx666x

I might add poeple if I see you liking my posts !

#loki show #loki 2021 #loki meta

27 notes · View notes

queen-of-meows · 2 years

Note

Hey!

Can u pls explain the difference between doylist and watsonian explanation. I have seen the terms a few time but couldn't completely get the difference.

Hi ! Sure !

This opposition comes from the Sherlock Holmes fandom and refers to both Doyle (the author) and Watson (the character, who's also an ureliable narrator). A Doylist explaination is an explaination from a narrative perspective. A Watsonian explaination is an explaination from an in-universe PoV. It's important to distinguish both when you analyse any fictional media.

Exemple : Why Odin didn't tell Loki he is adopted.

From a doylist perspective, Loki learning his true origins in a violent and traumatic way influences his character development in a way that changes his relationship with Thor and creates a new dynamic useful for the narrative.

From a watsonian perspective, there are several reasons. Maybe Odin didn't want the whole kingdom to know one of the two princes wasn't his biological son, and worse, a Frost Giant. Maybe he wanted to protect Loki so he wouldn't feel different from his brother. Maybe a bit of both.

A lot of annoying media analysis we read online comes from poeple accidentally confusing the two.

A good exemple I have for this is poeple complaining about the TVA Judges being useless as there doesn't seem to be any other sentence than death. Calling it "bad writing" is missing the whole point of the TVA. Yes, from a watsonian perspective, Judges are useless and a waste of time and working force. But from a doylist perspective, they fill an important narrative role : symbolizing the terrifying absurdity of a tyranical system that wears the appearance of justice. It's completely okay to dislike this storytelling for whatever reason, but it's a bad faith argument to use a watsonian reasoning (TVA Judges are stupid) and apply it to a doylist conclusion (the writing is stupid).

On a more positive note, it can be interesting to analyse both perspectives and asking yourself "why did the character made this choice" and "why did the author made this choice".

Here's a link to an article I found about doylist vs watsonian :

17 notes · View notes

tossawary · 3 years

Note

I've also been having a hard time writing Liu Mingyan POV, but in trying to work it out, I got distracted thinking about an AU where LMY is also a transmigrator, who pre-death was a BNF in the PIDW fandom for writing BL fanfiction. I think it would be hilarious if SQQ, SQH, and LMY all discover their fellow transmigrators at the same time, and spend at least some of the abyss period getting drunk and arguing about PIDW (1/2)

(2/2) Most of the arguments stem from the fact that LMY wrote Luo Binghe/Mobei-Jun, surprisingly romantic, AU fanfic and SQQ and SQH feel the need to loudly explain why and to what degree she is incorrect about this (common arguments being "but they're straight!" and "they're too manly for that kind of soppy embarrassing romance trope!"). humiliatingly, LMY's fanfic turns out to be a better predictor of the SVSSS plot than PIDW was, and she never lets them forget it

Anon, Liu Mingyan as a transmigrator that SQH and SY both utterly failed to clock is a galaxy-brained concept. She was just trying to mind her own business and stay in her own lane, except the RPF fic she was using to entertain herself in the meanwhile got a little out of hand!

Honestly, PIDW Luo Binghe/Mobei-Jun is an extremely valid in-universe ship; your Transmigrator!LMY is extremely correct.

I’m currently picturing her just... casually completely deconstructing Luo Binghe and Mobei-Jun’s characters using several literary lenses - Doylist, Watsonian, feminist, queer, etc. - like a fucking fandom veteran. Like, yeah, reading into Mobei-Jun’s family backstory, he’s clearly got trust issues and romance-related issues, and he values loyalty and stability. And THEN there’s Luo Binghe with his abandonment issues and control issues and making sure that no one can ever hurt him again by making himself unavailable to his partners on a real level. And they’re both clearly extremely bored with their lives - no one can really challenge either of them anymore, there are no more worlds to conquer, they’ve finally reached the “safety” they’ve been striving for and now what?

And Airplane is at first like, “Yes! Yes, you get it!” And Shen Yuan is like, “Yes, we know this. This is known. Are you going somewhere with this?” And then Liu Mingyan swerves the conversation into: “Here’s is my extensive list of proof as to why these characters are GAY (or otherwise queer) AS FUCK.”

And she’s got arguments! She’s got arguments like a woman who has written many thousands of words of meta and fanfiction! Mobei-Jun never shows interest in Luo Binghe’s harem. Mobei-Jun’s most significant relationships are with other men, many of whom violently betrayed his trust. Luo Binghe’s love scenes totally read like someone acting out a script - Airplane was inconsistent on whether or not PIDW was a deconstruction of stallion novels, but Luo Binghe totally comes off as someone giving in to “obligatory heterosexuality” as he goes through hundreds of ultimately meaningless relationships, right? Luo Binghe’s most lasting obsession was with Shen Qingqiu, his enemy!

(Airplane: “...You’re not... ah, totally wrong.” *

Shen Yuan: “WHAT?”)

She’s a character analysis fan! That’s what she does! Unfortunately, most of Transmigrator!LMY’s advice to Shen Qingqiu on how to deal with Luo Binghe’s return is to apologize profusely and cry.

*(Airplane has to know that he’s not straight because 1) everything about his designing Mobei-Jun, 2) Airplane is relatively insightful, 3) Shen Yuan is bad enough and I can’t take it if they’re both like that.)

#ask tossawary #tossawary svsss #svsss #liu mingyan #shang qinghua #shen yuan #transmigrator liu mingyan au #fic ideas

186 notes · View notes

conduitandconjurer · 3 years

Note

Greetings! Saw your recent response about RPs. I have broken etiquette with someone who is in the RP community, and now I’m all worried that my behavior is wrong. So please, can you explain what an RP is? How do I know one when I see one? Thank yoooo!

Yes, I’m basic. I’m ok with that. But obviously not ok with it enough to put it in normal size font.

Oh my gosh, well you’re quite welcome. I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert. I’ve been doing this for over 15 years now, but my only advantage is that I’m old, LOL.

I’m sorry you had a bad experience in the rpg (role playing game) community. Unfortunately many of the most dedicated hobbyists in this avocation kinda...forget that we haven’t all been doing this for years, and become unnecessarily impatient with people outside of their favored circles. I doubt that your slight was as serious as it was made out to be, so please don’t feel too badly.

General etiquette:

RP is usually written in third person present-tense, and on Tumblr, is situated on one of two types of blogs: Single-muse blogs (blogs dedicated to one character only) or, what has lately become quite fashionable, multi-muse blogs (blogs dedicated to between two and numerous characters at once).

Blogs may be private (the author or “mun” will only write with someone who is a mutual follower) or not private. They may be selective ( don’t need a mutual follow to interact with you, but will decide whether or not they will follow you based on whether they think your interpersonal chemistry meshes) or non-selective.

It is generally frowned upon for “personal” (non-rp) blogs to reblog in-character threads. I don’t mind it at all, but many rp blogs find it extremely off-putting because they have social anxiety, or are shy, or don’t like an unconnected account messing up their activity feed. Some rp blogs don’t even like you to send them PMs or replies. These are usually blogs which label themselves as “private” (a synonym of which is “mutuals-only” or “exclusive”). The best thing to do in this situation is to send them an Ask politely offering to interact, and respecting whatever answer they provide.

Asks should be answered privately if they are “OOC” or “out-of-character,” that is, written by the mun/author to you, rather than by their character “IC” ( “in-character”).

Some blogs are “indie” or independent, meaning the author/mun is free to interact with anyone willing. Others are “group verse” and only affiliated with a set group of other authors/muns. The vast majority of Tumblr rp blogs are indie.

How to recognize various types of posts on an RP blog:

--Always check the blog description first. Unless it’s one of those blogs that’s so clusterfucked with unaccessible “aesthetic”--which imho is very off-putting and inhospitable to the disabled community--it will have links to important pages, which include but are not limited to rules (CRUCIAL to read!), about the muse/stats, relationships (in fiction, with other muses/characters, including “ships” aka romantic pairings ),and verses (that is, the worlds/settings, which can exist in multiples). Often, lately, with the increase in mobile users, these links will take you to a Google Doc.

--A “thread” is a term to refer to the third-person singular POV posts made in-character, usually between only two characters. A mun posts a character action and dialogue, and their writing partner reblogs with the response. They go back and forth until both muns agree the thread has concluded. How this is agreed upon varies greatly from mun to mun.

--A “meme” is a predetermined set of Ask prompts sent by one mun to another, and the other responds in-character by answering the Ask. This is considered a great way to conduct an icebreaker.

--A “starter” is the beginning of a thread. It may be open, or available to all characters, or it may be closed, or written with only one other mun in mind.

--A “headcanon” is a post by the mun about their personal ideas, usually based on content canon but in some way embellished or elaborated upon, regarding the character that they write. For instance, I headcanon that Klaus’s body temperature runs hot because, in the show, he’s always going around half-naked, lol.

--A “meta” is a post by the mun that engages the source content in-depth, and often with an eye for media criticism, in both the Doylist and Watsonian sense. It is a form of literary analysis. For instance, I have written meta about how the writers of TUA utilize problematic tropes about addiction, making Klaus’s struggles with substance abuse too often the brunt of comic relief.

I think this covers the basics but let me know if I didn’t address something important :O

#ooc #firstpersonnarrator #rpg #roleplay #reference

7 notes · View notes

sometimesrosy · 4 years

Note

1: Do you think it’s odd that C fell in love with L after she was not only responsible for Finn’s death, causing C to have to mercy-kill him, but also the reason C was forced to kill all those people in Mt Weather? I’m trying to understand their relationship and how it all worked. Her people were so angry at C for falling for L, but she wasn’t trying to betray them; it was innocent. And she chose her people in the end, right before L was killed. L’s made to be this great love for C. Is she?

(I’m answering your 1 and 2 separately because I think they are separate questions about two separate characters’ experiences with the same narrative element.)

Okay. So I didn’t understand in season 3 what all was going on with that and did a lot of work to understand how Clarke could so easily forgive and love L for what she did and what I came up with is two different interpretations one authorial (the Doylist explanation) and one in narrative (the Watsonian explanation.)

Before I start, no. I don’t think L was made to be this great love for C. I think the fandom fell in love with L for many decent reasons, and picked up on some archetypes in the story as a whole, and the traditional romantic tale of the warrior king and the captive princess, and they just really wanted that story, even deserved that story, so the fandom interpretation made The 100 INTO that story.

I have rewatched the story looking for that great romance, and while there’s some hints of it, and it’s NOT subtextual (which is possibly why the LGBT community was so happy to get it since they are denied that in most of pop culture) the romance of C and L was for me far, FAR too political in nature for me to find it a great, passionate romance. It was all power games except for the episode with Pauna, if I must be honest. And their love scene, in which L had already sentenced her people to death and Clarke had already decided to go home and it was just two women outside of politics consummating their connection. That part didn’t bother me, it was lovely and a moment of peace. I didn’t love that they didn’t talk about anything important, that they COULDN’T, because for me, intimacy and a great love REQUIRES that kind of openness and honesty, at least for the moment. What I need to see in a romance wasn’t there for me. But I’m sure what other people need to see in a romance WAS. It is quite clear that a large portion of the shipping community LOVEloveLOVES the dynamic of powerful dominating warrior who kidnaps and falls for the warrior princess turned vulnerable maiden (witness the latest craze in Star Wars which is also something I *do not like.*) My distaste for that dynamic does not mean that others are wrong for loving that dynamic. I don’t have to get it. It’s not my preference to reconcile with my life and understanding. It’s theirs. Ship and let ship.

Okay, onto my understanding of what the heck was going on with CL in Polis after L betrayed and harmed her so terribly. The doylist interpretation, why they would write that story and what their intention is, is about themes and symbolism and the journey of the hero. No problem there. But my watsonian interpretation, about why Clarke, the character, would submit herself to that, is psychological, and has gotten me into major trouble. But I’m gonna say it anyway, so if you love Lxa and are offended by people looking at the dark side of the CL relationship please do not read. I’ll put it under the jump, but for some reason that doesn’t work all the time, so when I warn you to stop reading please stop. Be a responsible consumer of the media. And if you choose to read it anyway, recognize that it was your choice and I gave you plenty of opportunity to not be offended, so don’t send me nasty anons please, because you accepted the risk to your sensibilities.

Allright. Doylist:

Clarke is the hero, and Lxa is Clarke’s shadow, her dark side. Her animus.The masculine version of herself who is a ruthless mass murderer willing to sacrifice anyone and anything for her goals. She has always had this side. Maybe her first kill, Atom, was one of mercy, but her second kill, the grounder holding her hostage was NOT. It was to get free and save her people. But Atom and the grounder guard were killed in the same way. Get close, distract with gentleness, then insert blade into jugular. Clarke’s shadow side is the one that allowed the bomb to drop on TonDC (notice she was egged on, if not bullied into it, by L.) It was the same part of her that even contemplated killing all of MW to save her people. Her shadow betrays her allies for her own people. Clarke was unable to do it on her own until Bellamy helped her. Bellamy is a different kind of dark to her light, but with a similar symbolism, yin/yang, and kind of actually ends up being the light to her dark, which is a whole other symbolic journey that totally transforms the yin yang of CL into something healing seasons later and not what we’re talking about but if you can recognize that similarity to the archetypes there you can recognize what it is about that dynamic that people love so much.

Okay, so the whole point of having that shadow side for a hero is that the hero has to EMBRACE their shadow side in order to be a full identity. They need to stop resisting their darkness and encompass it in their selves, only then can they step into their full powers. I think this is considered Jungian analysis, if you want to read up on it. That’s where you get a lot of the archetypes and symbolism going. Also, you can see it in the Hero’s Journey by Joseph Campbell which builds on Jungian analysis to create a mythic journey we see in many archetypal tales.

Oh, also. Another doylist interpretation. Clarke in Polis is like Odysseus on Circe’s island. Odysseus stays with Circe and is enchanted with her, despite her turning his crew into pigs. He stays for years with her. All while Penelope is left behind to fend off suitors. So Clarke in Polis would be alluding to The Odyssey, a text that is OFTEN referenced on this show. Yes, that would make Bellamy Penelope. (does that mean the suitors are Pike and Kane as well as Gina and Echo? I think it might, actually.)

So why does Clarke fall for L after all that damage? My Doylist interpretation says because Clarke needed to embrace the shadow and because they were reinterpreting The Odyssey. L was Clarke’s shadow the way Circe was Odysseus’ shadow. Anima/Animus. Also, this embracing and acceptance of the shadow story continued on all the way until s5, and I think you can see it in the “be the good guys/maybe there are no good guys/there are no good guys/be the good guys” journey, which was NOT embraced until Clarke talked with flame Lxa and she said she was wrong, betrayal was wrong and love was not a weakness. Shortly after that, Clarke identified the good guy, and it was Bellamy. Then Monty told them to be the good guys and Clarke has not wavered since.

OKAY. Watsonian incoming. All CL and L faithful, please turn away.

okay, so it turns out that when i write about something that once got me harassed or made friends/fandom turn against me, I have to emotionally prepare for it.

So here’s the thing. The 100 is about Clarke Griffin as the protagonist (and Bellamy Blake as the secondary protagonist,) and s3 is about TRAUMA. Trauma and recovery. Both Clarke and Bellamy are traumatized by MW and encounter a shadow self that represents who they COULD have been, if not for the presence of the other. Clarke could have been the tyrannical leader who thinks she is always right and Bellamy could have been the vengeful leader out to exterminate his enemies. Here you connect the symbolic shadow symbology to the psychological wounding of the trauma and recovery.

If you read Polis as Clarke’s mental journey, it starts to make sense. She lost it and became feral, L kidnapped her and dragged her to Polis. She imprisoned her and, through a series of positive and negative reinforcements (the carrot and the stick), gaslighting, and power games, she turned Clarke to her side and made her empathize with her captor and betrayer. She gave her a way to survive the trauma of what she’d done by telling her everyone does it, it’s okay.

Why does she believe her? Because she is traumatized and she’s been isolated from her people in a dangerous place where only L keeps her safe.

Why does she begin to empathize with L? Because this is a psychological phenomenon that is actually common when a person has been kidnapped, removed from their world, and forced to join the other side. We call it Stockholm Syndrome, and the most basic definition is when a kidnap victim begins to have feelings for and empathize with their kidnap victim.

It’s how you survive. And it’s not a thing that is just about Clarke. It turns out that it happened to a LOT of women in tribal times when one tribe would raid another and kidnap women to bring back as wives or slaves or what have you.

The women who were kidnapped JOINED the kidnappers tribe, because what else could they do?

Anyway. Clarke is dealing with her dark traumatic experiences, L kidnaps her and draws her to her side, she empathizes with L, falls in love, psychologically accepts that her dark side is the right side to handle all this horror, and then returns to her people, not quite whole, but partly healed and limping along in her journey.

Polis itself was part of the seduction. It was beautiful and comfortable and passionate and romantic and candlelit. A lot of the fandom saw the romance of the seduction and decided that meant the creators were saying that CL was beautiful and L was the new hero of the story, without noticing that it was Clarke’s unreliable narrator, traumatized POV that was clinging to that beauty so she didn’t have to face the pain of what she did, and her people. Shoot. No matter if some people, when getting confirmation from the writers that Polis was a dark psychological story for Clarke, then blamed the FANDOM for never noticing and saying that the only people who did were screaming “ABUSE!” and so were then clearly unreliable. Yes. They were talking about me. Because I TOLD them, personally, in a huge meta discussion, that it was a dark psychological journey and I laid it out for them, and they well. Turned on me, blocked me, ignored me, and then blamed me for them not understanding the damn story. I am still salty to this day. But then, they are no longer in the fandom.

Other people, CL fans, didn’t like that I said Clarke was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, but if you look it up, you’ll see she fits the definition. L literally kidnapped and imprisoned her and this is evident in narrative, dialogue and word of god.

Why do we think that’s a romantic story? Because it is an old school, traditional romance tale of literal raiding warriors kidnapping women and bringing them back as wives. So romantic. It had to be, because otherwise the women suffering from trauma would not be able to survive.

There are no more raiders in modern western society, but the story is imbedded in our collective unconscious and our archetypal stories.

I hate them.

Some people love them.

And the people who love them are immensely offended that the people who hate them recognize an abusive, oppressive and traumatic story within them. And then they send us hate anons and mock us for being abuse survivors and “irrational” and telling us “it’s just fiction, Janice.” and on and on and on.

#the 100 #clarke griffin #character development #cl fans turn away please #dark psychological journey #shadow

47 notes · View notes

trippyl0ngstocking · 5 years

Text

How Shipping SanSan Changed the Way I Engaged With ASOIAF

Different people engage with ASOIAF in different ways. I have always tended to engage with the series in a very rational, analytical, unemotional way. This isn’t a brag. When I say “rational” and “unemotional”, I’m not saying that I am right in my ideas about the series where other people are wrong. I’m not saying that other people are letting emotions cloud their judgement, and that I am a superior being. No, I have my biases like everyone else does, and my judgement is no better than anyone else’s(and in some cases, demonstrably worse). What I mean is that I tend to put all the emphasis on Doylist and Watsonian readings of the text, and little to none on reader response(that is, my own response). I think in terms of “what will happen to Sansa” rather than “what do I want to happen to Sansa”. Or “why did Tyrion do X” rather than “how do I feel about Tyrion doing X”. Or “what is GRRM trying to say with Y plot point?” instead of “what do I feel like Y plot point says?”. I read tons of meta, but never any fan fiction. It’s unlikely that I would ever write fanfiction, because I have very little imagination when it comes to stories(fiction, literature). I have a keen imagination when it comes to other things(especially visual arts), but no literary imagination. I think in terms of arguments, not in terms of stories. If I want to make a point, I formulate an argument for that point, rather than invent a story to illustrate my point. Essay-writing is my natural form of written self-expression. Even though the whole “right brain dominant/left brain dominant” concept is pop-psychology BS, I think it helps to convey my point to say that, when it comes to how I engaged with ASOIAF, I was all “left brain”, and no “right brain”. My enjoyment of the series was to a large extent, the enjoyment of mental excercise; of taking apart the series mentally.

Needless to say I never “shipped” anyone in ASOIAF. The whole notion was utterly alien to how I engaged with ASOIAF(and literature generally). I don’t know why exactly that changed, but it did. Sansa has long been my favorite POV, so it was only a matter of time before I read read Pawn to Player. There was one essay in particular about Harry the Heir, “Male Influences: Harrold Hardyng” that particularly impressed me. I quickly found the blog of its author, @thebluelemontree; her blog was filled with SanSan content, and reading it really caused SanSan to get under my skin. The negative stuff I’d heard about SanSan shippers made me unwilling to admit that I liked the ship at first. But when I did embrace it, the floodgates opened for me. Reading SanSan meta and looking at SanSan art evoked incredibly powerful emotions. It was absolutely cathartic. I would tear up just reading meta. It was a whole different level of engagement with ASOIAF. And that is my point. Emotions are a *good* thing. Unemotional analysis and “objectivity” aren’t necessarily good. I was concerned my description of myself earlier in this post would sound like bragging because in our culture, emotions are often seen as a weakness, as something that clouds our judgement, with the goal being perfect “unemotional” objectivity. Saying that a perspective is driven by emotion is usually meant pejoratively to denigrate that perspective. Subjectivity is often viewed as synonymous with bias and bad judgement. But to ship something necessarily involves an emotional resonance on the part of the shipper. And that isn’t a bad thing.

In fact, shipping SanSan has increased my enjoyment of ASOIAF tenfold. I feel like I was really missing out before. I still do take pleasure in the mental excercise of peeling apart ASOIAF. It is stimulating. I will always be a person who takes pleasure in excercising my intellect(such as it is). But the emotional engagement I have with SanSan is a transcendent, joy-inducing thing for me. It gives me a deep satisfaction. And I believe it has made me overall more in touch with my own feelings, in my real life.

And as an end note, the icing on the lemoncake is that I’ve found the SanSan fandom to be a really wonderful place. From my experience so far, people are really welcoming, nice, talented, insightful, supportive, and just a pleasure to read and interact with. I’ve also found that SanSan shippers tend to value the same things about ASOIAF generally that I do. For example, the Tywin apologism that seems so rampant in the broader ASOIAF fandom isn’t something I have *ever* come across amongst SanSan shippers. The cynical, amoral lense through which so many people on Westeros.org and ASOIAF Reddit seem to view the series through simply doesn’t seem to have any appeal for the people who love Sansa/Sandor. Which, when you think about it, is probably no coincidence.

#sansan #about me

54 notes · View notes

gotgifsandmusings · 7 years

Text

My idiocy, reading lenses, and GRRM

So, I was away all weekend with family things. But as I said, I wasn’t able to stop thinking about my most recent podcast and the feedback I’ve received in reblogs, @’s, my inbox, direct messages, and replies. Which like, an absolutely sincere thank you for anyone who took the time, in whatever capacity.

For anyone who doesn’t know, Julia and I recorded a UBS episode called “is GRRM literal garbage,” which we were using as a platform to talk about the flaws of ASOIAF, while sort of being playful about the way that online dialogue puts things in such, you know, black and white terms. People are perfect or they’re toxic and garbage, right? And because of that, there are a lot of times where we feel—or really where I feel, cause it’s just my own thoughts I’m vomiting here—like content creators who at least like, *try*, really do receive unfair criticism.

But yeah, most of the feedback we got was very negative. Particularly, Julia and I—we’re two white women, and we recorded a segment on racial portrayals and racism in ASOIAF, since there are so many problems on this front that we felt disingenuous not doing it. We made sure to call out how we are white before entering into this discussion, and also said something like, ‘hey, if we miss something or if you disagree with us, please tell us so we can engage, because we are limited by our own lack of experiencing racism.’ (And anti-semitism is...not at all of the same vein; nothing pisses me off more than when white jews try to distance ourselves from our racial privilege, to be honest).

Well, not surprisingly at all, we missed stuff! Because of course we fucking did. And it wasn’t just that, but we also put ourselves in a position of saying, “oh we’re apologetic of Martin” and then trying to like...come up with reasons for what are obvious problems through the lens of intent or some shit, which is just...so not what should do ever. Hell, it’s not what we should do with any topic, let alone one where we’re entering into the conversation from such a place of privilege. So yeah, we missed stuff and we sounded like we were apologizing for racism which is not only not our place, but not even what we set out to do.

This wasn’t unique to the problems of racism in ASOIAF either; I received a lot of asks saying that it really felt like I was trying not to let my lens of Martin be challenged. And really ruminating on all this the past few days...there’s a ton of truth to that. Which is a bit silly, because I never exactly thought myself as holding Martin up in the first place—just what I got out of these book series. So what was it I was resisting?

It was Gretchen ( @gnelliswriter ) who ended up framing everything to me in a way where these things that were concatenating—all this criticism that I trying to absorb and understand, finally clicked. Because she talked about the balance of the 3 lenses: Doylist, Watsonian, and Reader Response. Which is also like, viewer response and gamer response, of course.

When she said this, it was just like...“Oh.” Because, Julia and I focus a ton on Doylist vs. Watsonian, you know? Watsonian being a character-level analysis, like “Cersei did this because she was feeling X.” Doylism then looks at what the author is trying to say. “Martin had Cersei do this because he was making a point about Y.” Julia’s the one who explained this to me in the first place—my background is engineering and I hadn’t done any type of literary analysis until the Arianne reread.

However, in terms of dialogue surrounding media, there is quite clearly a third lens. Reader Response is the *reader’s* takeaway. “Cersei did X and regardless of what Martin wanted that to mean, here’s what the message was that I saw, here’s how I reacted, and here’s the implications of it” (or just some aspect of this).

Which...this is the most obvious thing, because it’s the ONLY THING I talk about with Game of Thrones, right? Like, I say GOT isn’t worthy of Watsonian analysis, because it’s not, but then the series of retrospectives Julia and I do where we’re desperately hunting for a Doylist rationalization also reveals that...D&D don’t really have much to say anyway, and they don’t seem to particularly care. Then in these essays, we always go on and say, “Well okay, regardless of that, HERE’S the implications, and they suck donkey dick.” And fuck, I wrote an entire piece on the difference between intent and result, and why results really really matter.

So this whole thing, like... I don’t know, I realize I’m not an English major or anything, but in some ways I kind of feel like Reader Response is actually the only lens that matters? (I can hear the gasps from my academic friends right now.) Or at least, it matters the most heavily, because that’s where engagement is, and that’s where the dialogue occurs that fosters empathy and understanding. I suppose most stories I consume do also foster empathy in some ways (unless they’re nihilistic piss slop), but they’re not ever going to replace the experience of hearing a diversity of voices and viewpoints on something.

For example, with Legend of Korra, which I love, I had zero problems the first time I heard the line in the end about how Korra “needed to know what true suffering was so she could become more empathetic.” I thought the intent was clear, and it was a powerful way of showing someone recontextualizing their trauma and finding a healthy state of mind. However, after reading what many women of color in the fandom wrote on the matter, I understood why that had felt offensive to others, and why it was so uncomfortable to have had two white men put those words into the mouth of a brown, bisexual female protagonist.

So now I’ve like, written fix-it fic of that moment. Because the Reader Response to Korra’s words created that dialogue where otherwise my own lens wouldn't have been challenged, even as a bisexual woman myself. White women simply don’t have a history with the trope of being beaten to “learn respect” that women of color have in media. That’s a privilege, so learning about it was really important. All I want in life is to somehow work towards a world where people don’t feel like shit. The more we learn about the shittyness that exists and try to understand it, the better equipped we will be to fix it. Why *wouldn’t* we prioritize a lens of analysis that can bring that about?

Honestly, as soon as Gretchen labeled “Reader Response” a third lens, it’s like the clouds parted, and the sun shined onto my own striking idiocy with how I’ve been talking about everything and framing everything (I think we’re going to do a joint piece on this soon). Cause like, it *is* deeply hypocritical—my approach to GRRM compared against my approach to D&D. I say it’s because of “benefit of the doubt”, and that’s a thing, but that doesn’t really explain what was actually happening, it’s more of “I don’t really want to think about this cognitive dissonance”, and it certainly doesn’t help me grow from what went so wrong on the podcast. I was using it as a rhetorical crutch.

Like, before Gretchen parsed this out with me, I kind of thought a laser-focus on the flaws of a story was just someone being “too Doylist.” But that’s not actually a thing. How would that be one? You can’t try and figure out what an author is saying ~too~ much, though I guess if you only care about what the author’s saying you may, idk, not feel as into the characters or something.

No, what it is, is Reader Response and how you felt interacting with media, which...media is not created or consumed in a cultural vacuum. If I believe media analysis matters, which I do, it’s because of Reader Response. I’m not trying to take “death of the author” to the extreme, but there is a point where whatever authorial intent exists just doesn’t matter. There are impacts reading stories have on people, and on conversations.

So all of this makes how Julia and I approached a podcast about ASOIAF’s flaws all the more stupid. Because basically what we did was read out a laundry list of problems, which are all Reader Response by nature; if we happened to think it wasn’t much of a problem we’d say so (like when I said that I didn’t think Arya and Sansa’s scripting as sisters was sexist, which like...I’m sorry, but I’m sticking to that one), but otherwise the conversation was kind of us going, “oh this is an issue, but here’s maybe a Doylist or Watsonian reason for it.” And that’s...not constructive? I mean, what does that even do?

What should have been a tip-off, too, is that the only time we didn’t do this was when Julia tried to come up with an explanation for Dany’s scene with Irri, and I got really pissed because I just didn’t see any value or justification in it. As a queer woman, my reader response to that was super, super negative, and I had no patience for anything else. Well, Julia and I are limited by our own lenses and backgrounds, so apply that to other issues, and we don’t have experiences where we would get pissed about stuff about which other people are probably seething. But that doesn’t mean the people who are seething should have to listen to the bullshit of “well here’s a point you can consider that makes this gross ass thing valuable!” What the hell do we know about it?

Which, it wasn’t really what we were trying to do, but it absolutely is what the podcast ended up being. And frankly, it’s not like I’ve ever gotten positive or worthwhile takeaways from the way Martin portrays race, with maybe a small exception being the in-verse prejudice against Dorne getting deconstructed within Dornish POVs. That’s just because it even further hammers on POV-bias and shines a lens on Westerosi perspectives in a rather stark light, though I still question its effectiveness. And sure, you can apply that deconstruction elsewhere in the story and assume everyone is an unreliable and biased narrator (they are), but what value is there in Dorne being the only place that actually gets a closer inspection?

And even if Martin is doing something to a point, that doesn’t make it a helpful point or a necessary point. Like, oh we now know Dany’s in way over her head, and doesn’t understand the political or cultural complexity of where she’s trying to rule or what she’s trying to accomplish. Okay, but I’m about 99% sure that same point could have been made with Essosi POVs?? And almost certainly a lot better and clearer???

For fuck’s sake, if we hadn’t had any female POVs for the first three books and people were telling me, “oh it’s to make a point on women’s place in this society,” or idk to prove how unknowable women are to our male protagonists or some shit, there’s no way I’d even be reading this series. And it’s not as though I have any patience for super stereotypical jewish portrayal; it’s just that that’s not exactly possible in ASOIAF. If it were, you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn’t appreciate two goys telling me it’s all for the greater good of writing a...really gross world, or showing how much a character appreciates jewish culture. That doesn’t make any goddamn sense!

Look. Julia and I have gotten a lot out of Martin’s critique of the patriarchy. You can bet your ass a large reason for that is because there’s so many female POVs, not to mention male POVs who are also victims of this horrible setting, such as Theon and Aeron being victims of sexual assault (Theon’s chapters being a much more intimate look), Jaime struggling to define himself in a martial world now that he’s lost his hand, Sam’s trauma from his abusive upbringing, and so on. Julia and I also give Martin leeway because looking at his work chronologically, things do seem to be improving. Which...yay? Snaps?

But really, it’s something @witabif said to me that stuck in my craw as I was talking this out with pretty much anyone in my proximity the past few days: I have a huge tendency to take *my* positive reactions and takeaways to ASOIAF and apply them to Martin’s intent. I think the conflation of Reader Reaction and Doylism is the largest part of that, but what’s funny is I work overtime to not do that, especially with GoT. How many times have I said “we can’t know what’s in D&D’s head,” or steel-manned some dumbass plotpoint of theirs?

At the end of the day, all we really have to judge content creators on are their bodies of work. It’s why I say “it’s the pattern.” And Martin’s pattern? It’s one of a dude who is a pretty skilled storyteller, but also very much out of his depth in a lot of departments. Does he do better than most other 69-year-old white cishet men living in New Mexico? Probably. Is he making an effort to be more thoughtful as times go on? I mean...it feels that way in some places, but that doesn’t erase what’s hurtful in the books now, or what’s ugly, or most importantly, what’s shaping a large part of our cultural conversation because let’s be honest here: these books are hugely successful and have that power. This is why I’ve talked over and over again about fiction mattering. Fuck, this is why I engage with GoT at all and think it’s worthwhile looking at its flaws.

Really, ASOIAF isn’t any different. I mean, it tells a coherent story, so it’s different on that front. And I do find some of the takeaways of the books valuable. I also stand adamant that what Martin does with close PoV is impressive, and he is a gifted writer who can tease out nuance quite well. The battle between good and evil truly is within the human heart, and the experience of reading the books, and then rereading them where you find these other depths, has been one of an engagement I haven’t quite matched elsewhere yet.

But, part of liking something and caring about something means a willingness to engage with its flaws, no matter how deep or uncomfortable they are. Engaging shouldn’t be excusing, and even if I’ve found ways to tease out meaning (for instance, Cersei and Taena’s scene lands one way for me, but not at all the same way for many other wlw readers), my personal reaction and truth is...just that? And I do suspect that a lot of times, I’m seeing something there he didn’t see at all. Which is a tension I should have been digging into this whole time.

Looking back at the podcast, it was a horrible fucking structure for it. I don’t even know if it should have been an episode, to be honest. Because like, aside from just explaining what these problems were, and maybe sampling meta of people who had written on specific issues, there’s not much to add. We can’t proclaim someone to be literal garbage (which was part of the joke of the title), nor can we we proclaim them to be good enough, because...who the fuck are we anyway? I think what we could have done is had discussion about how to engage with deeply flawed media, as kind of a “Here’s all that’s wrong...so, what now?” thing, but we didn’t even discuss our approach beforehand.

I’m thinking about pulling it out of the feed entirely, and please let me know your thoughts on that. On one hand, I think it’s important to not hide from our mistakes and to allow a pathway to grow from them. For that reason, and because I just really want to after taking in this feedback, I’m working on a direct follow-up episode to it for the near future. On the other, I don’t want subscribers still hearing a conversation that’s out-of-balance and problematic, and I can see no reason why the follow-up discussion episode would require the former episode in the feed. I’m leaning towards the latter, but definitely value everyone’s input in the matter.

After typing all this out...it’s not complicated: it comes back to me not wanting to challenge my views on Martin. I didn’t. But now they have been, and it has been because of how amazingly thoughtful this fandom is, as well as the responses and suggestions I’ve received. And you know what? Yeah. I’m disenchanted with the guy. It’s not like a lightswitch, but seeing the misalignment between *my* reader reaction and *his* pattern/messaging has been eye-opening, embarrassing, and frustrating. He’s just some dude with a fairly unique approach to genre fiction and a few good ideas; there’s areas where he excels, and areas where he needs a lot of improvement. A lot.

I’m still going to say stop bothering him about writing speed and stop consulting actuary tables, because that shit is creepy. But otherwise, he’s welcome to fight his own battles. God knows he has the resources. I still think I will land in a different place with how effective his scripting of women is, among other things, and I look forward to continuing to have spirited discussions about all of that. However, it’s now with full cognizance that it’s our reactions and experience to the media that we’re discussing, and my own has diddly squat to do with Martin’s intent.

Which I should have realized from day fucking 1.

#the 'put it in writing'' won by a healthy margin #but I'm going to do a video follow-up too I think #should be tonight #asoiaf #grrm

52 notes · View notes

gotgifsandmusings · 7 years

Note

the way you guys handled the racism part of the podcast was just. awful i couldnt even finish the rest of the podcast bc i was so offput. expected better from you :/

I’m so sorry to hear that, seriously.

I don’t want to hide behind excuses; if our tone or words were hurtful, that’s the way of it, and all I can do is apologize for it and learn why. It was not our intent, and as we said at the start of it, we’re more than open to a dialogue.

I’ve received positive and negative feedback for pretty much every portion of the podcast, however (it’s not like “oh yay, person X agrees so we’re fine!” or anything, of course), and I do think there’s some value in digging into that.

Julia and I tend to be more forgiving of Martin, not that we’re asking anyone else to be. And given the virulence with which we go after D&D, I understand how hypocritical this can come across as, and how frustrating this can be too. But the reason we are is basically two-fold:

One is that we believe there’s a value to his books. Now, there’s also a value to the political discussion on Bill Maher’s show, for example, but yet amazingly, decent political commentary shouldn’t come with a side-serving of Islamophobia. I don’t watch his show, so why should I accept and praise books that don’t handle race well? That don’t handle female sexuality that amazingly, particularly in the cause of wlw scenes? That oftentimes do feel like the sexual violence could be easily toned down, or it’s unnecessarily gendered, or it does fall into unfortunate patterns with things like dead mothers?

The answer to that ties into the second reason, which is that his pattern is getting better. FeastDance felt more thoughtful, felt like there was more of an emphasis on female and other marginalized voices, and it felt like there was great intentionality on Martin’s part to do so. I haven’t read all his interviews; I can’t guess at what’s in his head beyond what his body of work shows us. But you can bet that if he was coming across as someone who was unwilling to reflect and engage with his own shortcomings, I wouldn’t be as invested.

I could be wrong about him. I’ve said this a lot before, but I could be really, really wrong. For now, he has my benefit of the doubt. I’m not asking you to bestow yours.

Back to the problems at hand though, and the value of his books. No, they’re not perfect at all. There’s a lot of issues, and these are issues that a more intersectional author likely wouldn’t have. To be perfectly honest, I think we’re starting to have a tendency of expecting perfection in every area from our media now. While I love that we’re finally in a place where our cultural dialogue is pushing for the change we want, and that storytellers are actually listening (look at like, Clexacon’s mere existence, for instance), I think this can easily become a double edged sword, where you’ve got the fandom raising pitchforks about Steven Universe not doing well with butch representation.

ASOIAF is no SU. It’s a book series written by a white dude in his 60s that spans twenty years. Which is why Julia and I put so much stock into the pattern and direction the books seem to be headed, because our social dialogue shifts so much. Well, depressingly not as much as it should, but I think it’s hard to deny that there is far less tolerance for bullshit in our media, and far more expectations of representational media that are not just once again glorifying the white male lens.

I don’t believe the book series simplistically does that at all. I find there to be feminist takeaways in Martin’s critique of the patriarchy, and in the way Martin holds up a lens to the bullshit assumptions by this society, which is one uncomfortably reflective of our own history (though certainly not highly accurately so). I wouldn’t say my willingness is to forgive the issues in the books, but more like say, “these are here, these are problems, but I still find this text valuable. I still find the close-POV different and worthwhile.”

I can’t speak for Julia, but I can at least say this is what we had hoped to convey in the podcast. I believe we failed spectacularly. I think our tendency not to plan or overly structure our episodes went heavily against us here. Everything we were saying was in a larger context of “and this is a problem,” but wow we really didn’t make that clear.

What we did was basically raise the problems in turn, talk about what we think his intent was and what its function in the story has been, and then conclude on “this could have been better,” which after you know…like ten minutes of what probably sounds like rationalizations was not exactly going to come across as particularly meaningful. Had we structured more, I think we could have been clearer about “and it did not land.”

Showing Dany as completely unable to comprehend the political situation she was in, and being over her head with the complexity, did *not* require a lack of Essosi POVs, even if we suspect that’s partially why Martin made that choice, for instance.

But of course that didn’t come across, especially when there were some downright flippant things said that we also didn’t clarify. Like Julia mentioning she didn’t want a Dothraki POV, probably because it’d be very close to one as distressingly violent and patriarchal as Vic, which is simply unpleasant to read (and I’m also not sure I agree; I would have loved Dany eating the heart from a POV of someone in the Dosh Khaleen, for instance).

We know each other well, and we know the intent and place we’re coming from when we’re saying something, so I think that led to us not explicating stuff that absolutely needed to be explicated. Again, there’s no excuse. I wish we had planned and presented everything differently, and it seems pretty obvious now how badly we needed to do that. I’ve learned a lot just in the past day, and all I can do is try to be better.

However, I will say…I suspect there’s also going to be content disagreements in the conclusions Julia and I land on. I’ve seen this with the fandom dialogue about the issues of sexism in the books before, and we’ve often received criticism for defending how he writes the patriarchy and women. Or for how women in the past basically are these pure, idealized victims, or they’re forgotten. We believe that’s to a point most of the time, that being one that provides a fuller picture of Westeros’s bullshit patriarchy (unnammed Mama Martell as an exception because there’s no reason for that at all), but we know it’s a point that doesn’t land.

Then there’s stuff like Arianne’s ‘hypersexuality’, which I simply don’t agree with. In my view, and something Gretchen and I were just discussing, Cersei is far more sexualized (she just tends to view sex from a manipulative standpoint always, instead of deriving pleasure from it, Jaime aside which is clearly unhealthy), and the degree to which this is a problem for a Dornish POV to have these traits (which I think is played up in the fandom) is one where I part ways with a lot of people. I can’t answer how I’d feel about it if I weren’t white, so I do my best to acknowledge that lens whenever I can. But in general, from what I can tell, my lens is also just a bit less Doylist than where some land.

And that’s fine, too. We’re all just engaging with the books how we like to do, and taking from it what’s there for us. There’s no objective takeaways, and not to belabor the point, but I could be so wrong about these books.

Why am I all Doylist with D&D? Because Watsonian analysis is useless in GoT, sure, but because they’ve violated my trust and my benefit of the doubt so thoroughly. I’m not there with Martin, and maybe that’s a problem. I suspect I might even be too Watsonian for my own good because of how engaged I find myself with certain aspects. Half of why we recorded that podcast was to kind of slap ourselves in the face with some Doylist realities, but I do now think the tone ended up being too dismissive, and I don’t feel good about it.

Anyway, this is just a super long-winded apology, as well as a meek explanation I suppose. Certainly not an excuse. This episode was requested a lot for us, probably because of how defensive of the books we get, and I feel like in our attempt to talk every angle of the issue, we ended up just coming across as doubling down on that defense. Moving forward you can bet your ass I’m going to be far more cognizant of this.

What’s funny is, feeling defensive actually wasn’t my experience at all recording it. Hell, even just pulling your asks for it, I was like, “wow this all really sucks,” and found myself getting a good deal more nervous for TWOW coming out. Because…god…I think I might be wrong. I’m back in that place I was in during season 5 where I was wondering if Sansa was going to get raped by LF (obviously a different context than the show), or if we’re not supposed to see Tyrion’s misogyny.

I’m not ready to give up on Martin yet, but I’m sure as hell not asking anyone else to forgive him. And if nothing else, I know now that at least a few takeaways we had were certainly not his intent, but the result of our own engagement and projections onto the media. I think I might be wrong (and where’s TWOW).

#I'm so sorry guys #asoiaf #got #anonymous #asks #rape mention tw

36 notes · View notes