#Close Reading

[theweeklydiscourse]

What Makes Feyre’s Pregnancy Plotline in A Court of Silver Flames so Upsetting?

The answer is that the events and outcome concerning Feyre’s pregnancy speak to a fear of one’s loss of autonomy, specifically one’s reproductive autonomy. Furthermore, this plotline demonstrates Maas' consistent prioritization of her male characters at the expense of her female characters. Multiple factors make this subplot feel particularly uncomfortable and upsetting, but I can condense them into three main points that converge to create one frustrating scenario.

1. Rhysand and the Question of Choice

From ACOMAF onwards, the reader is made aware of Rhysand’s unusually progressive politics and his attention to the autonomous choices of women. This is demonstrated through his selection of counsel, appointing Mor and Amren in roles of authority, and eventually crowing Feyre as High Lady of the Night Court. In addition to this, we are shown his emphasis on choice through his interactions with Feyre. Rhysand repeatedly reminds Feyre that she can choose, that she can make an autonomous decision that he will respect. So, it is these positive features of Rhysand that make the pregnancy subplot of ACOSF so disturbing.

He, and the Inner Circle by extension, purposefully omit the information that Feyre’s pregnancy will turn deadly and never volunteer the information to her. During Cassian’s meeting with Rhysand and Amren, we are shown their thought process behind withholding information from Nesta (and Feyre by extension) According to Amren, it is not lying because they are technically not telling lies in the traditional sense, only withholding information.

While this is about Nesta, the reader can see the parallels between both cases. The choice to lie by omission reveals that both Amren and Rhysand are aware of the dishonesty of their actions, choosing to mitigate it slightly on a technicality. It feels distinctly like a loophole in Rhysand’s previous promises to Feyre, making this act feel more deceitful while demonstrating Rhysand’s willingness to undermine Feyre’s authority as High Lady. If Rhysand had a condition or illness that would eventually kill him, informing him of it would be certain, you wouldn’t even consider the possibility of not telling him. However, because Feyre is pregnant, she is not afforded the same autonomy.

Wanting to keep Feyre in blissful ignorance is not a sufficient reason, especially when Feyre is still of sound mind and can advocate for herself. Rhysand’s reasoning sounds noble, but in reality, it is just benevolent sexism. It doesn’t matter if he thinks it will cause Feyre stress, she NEEDS to be aware of what’s going on and the fact that the news will ruin her peaceful pregnancy is of little consequence when her life is on the line. Rhysand prioritizes his feelings and implicitly gives himself executive authority over Feyre’s pregnancy, demonstrating his disregard for her autonomy and choices. This action directly contradicts the progressive beliefs Rhysand stated in previous books and is a betrayal for the reader as well as Feyre.

2. The Infantilization of Feyre

The omission of this critical information, good intentions or not, is based on a belief that Feyre would not be competent enough to handle such a pressing situation in her pregnant state. Amren claims that the stress and fear could have physically harmed Feyre, but such a claim assumes that Feyre would not have the fortitude or ability to handle the situation.

Amren's explanation demonstrates a belief that Feyre's input on the matter would be irrelevant and pointless because it prevents Feyre from offering any. It is a plan that assumes Feyre will not be able to add anything meaningful to the solution and that it would be less harmful to her if she was kept out of it. This is infantilizing and paternalistic because Feyre has proven herself to be capable of coping under pressure and happens to be an unprecedented magical anomaly. Feyre’s access to pertinent medical information should not be revoked and it is insane that Madja her physician, actively misleads her with Rhysand’s consent.

This infantilization of a pregnant character echoes how pregnant women have been infantilized throughout history. It is a terrifying thought to imagine that your bodily autonomy could be stripped from you in the name of serving your supposed best interest. Rosemary’s Baby is one of the most famous horror movies of all time and it explores this exact topic, the same is true for the short story The Yellow Wallpaper, both stories capture the horror of reproductive/medical abuse that still happens to women today.

3. The Aftermath & Prioritizing Male Rage

Lastly, one of the most disturbing elements of this subplot is the way the text consistently prioritizes and coddles the violent rage of male characters at the expense of female characters. This is on full display when Rhysand flies into an intense rage after Nesta reveals the truth to Feyre. Although Nesta can be faulted for her harsh phrasing, let it be known that even Feyre felt that she did the right thing and was expressing her anger at the paternalistic and unjust practices of the Inner Circle. However, Nesta is still subjected to severe physical and emotional punishment in the form of a grueling hike where she is left to stew in her guilt and suicidal ideation despite Feyre ultimately not faulting her.

Feyre admits that Rhysand “majorly overreacted” and that she wanted Nesta back in Velaris. And yet, Nesta is still punished. But why? Will Rhysand or any of the Inner Circle be punished for betraying Feyre? Why, if Feyre agreed that Nesta was right to tell her, would she ever need to be subjected to a severe punishment when she was justified in what she did?

This is a particularly telling detail that compels me to ask: is this punishment about Feyre’s feelings or Rhysand’s? Why is it that Rhysand’s “overreaction” needs to be assuaged by punishing Nesta? What I observe from this passage is the characters prioritizing the feelings of a male character and placating him with the suffering of a female character, even when he wasn’t the one who was hurt in that situation. Feyre asks Cassian to tell Rhysand that the hike will be Nesta's punishment as though it isn't truly a punishment, but it undoubtedly is.

Throughout the hike, Nesta is in a silent spiral of guilt and self-hatred, Cassian never tells her that Feyre is alright and that Rhysand overreacted, letting her dwell in it alone. He hardly speaks to her, he pushes her to the point of exhaustion and is somehow surprised that Nesta shows signs of suicidal ideation.

This isn't constructive at all, it is not evidence that Cassian cares about Nesta's well-being, and the scenes of Nesta internally repeating that she deserves to die and that everyone hates her are nothing but gratuitous and disgustingly self-indulgent. The text basks in Nesta's suffering, even when she was in the right and this hike only happened to placate Rhysand who wronged Feyre in the first place.

Hindsight am I right? Fuck off. A more productive resolution to this matter would be for Feyre and Nesta to talk it out ALONE. Feyre could express her feelings to Nesta directly and they could find a solution together, that way Feyre’s situation could be centered on the two sisters working together. Cassian can see that Feyre is alright, she’s obviously upset, but she didn’t crumble like he expected and that makes it completely baffling that he would punish Nesta anyway. It’s a solution that prioritizes his and Rhysand’s feelings as opposed to Feyre’s, making it not about a perceived transgression against Feyre, but against Rhysand.

In Conclusion

This topic has already been discussed at length by many people in the fandom, but it is a topic that still stays on my mind with how upsetting it is. It is a stunning example of the misogynistic undertones in Sarah J Maas’s writing and makes reading a very straining experience due to her obvious bias towards certain male characters. Not even her main character matters when Rhysand is factored into the situation, his emotions are always centred by other characters and is permitted to betray his wife and get off scot free.

Feyre’s reproductive autonomy is violated, and Maas doesn’t bat an eye. But when Nesta rightfully reveals the truth to Feyre, everyone loses their mind. Both Nesta and Feyre have their autonomy stripped away from the, by way of the Inner Circle’s paternalism, and when Nesta advocates for herself and Feyre, she is punished severely. Being put in her place as the hierarchy is strengthened.

#a court of silver flames #acotar #nesta archeron #acotar meta #feyre archeron #amren #rhysand critical #rhysand #cassian #sarah j maas #acosf meta #anti nessian #close reading #acotar analysis #anti sarah j maas #anti sjm #anti inner circle

[melestasflight]

In the Silmarillion fandom, we enjoy grabbing the trope of “Nolofinwëan recklessness” and running wild with it. 

The most common victims of this are Fingon the Rash Prince and Fingolfin the Impulsive King, who rushes into suicidal combat. Both father and son daring death within Morgoth’s domain. 

It’s fun to write and exciting to imagine, no doubt, but I’d like to offer a different take. In fact, what makes Fingon and Fingolfin (and the rest of that family) compelling to me is their patience and endurance.

Yes, I’m aware Fingon rushes to battle at Alqualondë, but that’s a world-altering event. The light of the world has literally gone out, murder has happened in Valinor, Finwë is dead. Most of the Noldor are up on their feet and ready to depart. Everyone is rushing.

But this is not always the case with Fingon. Most significantly, the rescue of Maedhros is NOT an impulsive decision. The published Silmarillion offers no timeline on this, but in The Grey Annals, five entire years pass between the arrival of Fingolfin’s host to Beleriand and Fingon’s decision to look for Maedhros. 

Five years in which the two hosts are quite literally on the verge of civil war because, let’s not forget:

No love was there in the hearts of those that followed Fingolfin for the House of Fëanor, for the agony of those that endured the crossing of the Ice had been great, and Fingolfin held the sons the accomplices of their father. 

Diplomacy is a painfully slow (and absolutely frustrating!) ordeal. Fingon’s decision is born from this strife, from thirty years on the Helcaraxë, and five years of civil restlessness, not to mention the clear signs that Morgoth is ready to attack them at any moment:

Then Fingon the valiant, son of Fingolfin, resolved to heal the feud that divided the Noldor, before their Enemy should be ready for war; for the earth trembled in the Northlands with the thunder of the forges of Morgoth underground. 

This is not rashness. This is the sacrifice of a captain who is willing to make the best of what time is left before full-out destruction begins. It would be rashness if Fingon got his company and crossed Mithrim to wage battle on the Fëanorians. Instead, he chooses differently for the sake of peace, stability, and renewed friendship.

The trek from Lake Mithrim to Thangorodrim could be estimated at around 150 miles, depending on the map we follow, and there are grasslands and two sets of mountains to cross, not to mention the horror of Thangorodrim. Fingon travels on foot. It would take him weeks, maybe even months, to find Maedhros. Plenty of time for the fire of rashness to cool down if that was the case. But he persists because he has no other choice.

Similarly, I often see takes on Fingolfin that he rushes to pointless combat with Morgoth in the same manner as Fëanor had done. Yet again, the timeline is crucial here. The published Silmarillion has the battle lasting at least several months. Bragollach starts in F.A. 455 during winter time: 

There came a time of winter, when night was dark and without moon

The battle slows down presumably a few months later:

but the Battle of Sudden Flame is held to have ended with the coming of spring, when the onslaught of Morgoth grew less.

The onslaught grows less, but it doesn’t fully cease. Morgoth and Sauron reissue their attacks early into Fingon’s kingship.

In the Grey Annals, the timeline  is stretched further out:

Year 455:

The Fell Year. Here came an end of peace and mirth. In the winter, at the year's beginning, Morgoth unloosed at last his long-gathered strength

Year 456:

Now Fingolfin, King of the Noldor, beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of his people, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses, and he was filled with wrath and despair.

The fighting goes on actively anywhere from a season to a full year! Fingolfin tries to hold his kingdom together for a full year despite an absolute, unquestionable disaster. I mean, look at this description of the battle:

In the front of that fire came Glaurung the golden, father of dragons, in his full might; and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Noldor had never before seen or imagined. And they assaulted the fortresses of the Noldor, and broke the leaguer about Angband, and slew wherever they found them the Noldor and their allies, Grey elves and Men. Many of the stoutest of the foes of Morgoth were destroyed in the first days of that war, bewildered and dispersed and unable to muster their strength. War ceased not wholly ever again in Beleriand

Fingolfin’s decision to ride out, again, is not out of recklessness or a spur-of-the-moment decision. It’s everything but that. He has given everything and truly believes it’s all lost: “the utter ruin of his people, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses.” (!!!) 

This is a final stand, the King’s duty to stand by his people, even in death.

#fingon #fingolfin #maedhros #rescue of maedhros #dagor bragollach #close reading #silm #silmarillion #tolkien #long post #cw: war #cw: death

[innocentlymacabre]

god i'm such a whore for juxtapositional dichotomy. top ten literary tools honestly.

what do you mean someone is their own foil? what do you mean they contain multitudes, all sitting at odds with one another? why haven't they burst forth at the seems? how are they holding it all together? it's so intricate. it's so beautiful. it's so interesting.

#writing #writeblr #writblr #dichotomy #writers effects #close reading #literary analysis #academia #academia aesthetic #poetry #poetryblr #poetblr #writers of tumblr #writers on tumblr #writing community

[guys-in-distress-database]

So I was rewatching the GID scene from Idolish7 and I realized something quite clever about the writing.

Two of the three kidnapped idols are held in abandoned, isolated buildings and are not gagged. Makes sense. No need to gag them if no one can hear them.

But the third?

He's held in an apartment building. And guess what?

He's gagged!

I love clever writing details like that in bondage scenes!

#English major go brrrrrr #close reading #idolish7 #GID #whump #anime #episodes 14-15 of season 3 if anyone was curious

[johannestevans]

Also on my Patreon.

A close reading is what we call an in-depth analysis of a piece of text, which might be in the case of fiction a short story, or for novels and novellas might be a portion or an extract from the text.

A “text” can refer to virtually anything — this piece is going to focus on reading and interpreting written fiction, particularly short stories and extracts from novels, but a “text” can be anything: a photograph or a painting, an essay or an article, a television show or a film, a videogame, a news bulletin, a play, etc.

Your skills in interpreting meaning of a text will be transferable, but different forms of media might require learning different forms of language and communication — text is text in different languages, of course, but paintings and still images employ visual language; film and television will employ similar visual language, but might also rely on the movement of cameras, music, actors’ subtle choices, etc; videogames will use forms of environmental storytelling to build a larger meaning in the text, such as codices or in-game books, etc.

As a writer, these skills can be vital to building on your own skills in the craft — we often talk about how writers should read to build up their skills, but reading passively only brings you part of the way there. Reading actively and analysing the techniques used by your favourite authors and used in your favourite texts will better allow you to learn from them, and to incorporate those techniques and effects into your own work.

This guide is not about how to write an essay or how to write up and present your close reading of a given text — essays and any other form of meta-writing are a response to a text, and occur in conversation with them: the text has communicated something to you, you’ve read and considered that communication, and then you’re presenting that interpretation to be read and responded to by others. This guide is merely on how to perform your close or in-depth reading of the text, mining it for evidence to use in one of those essays or conversations later on, or simply to allow you to recognise details you wouldn’t with a more cursory reading of it.

Texts can be read and interpreted in a variety of ways, and every person’s reading and interpretation of a text will be unique to them, affected by their own background and perspective — they bring their own unique skills, their own skill sets or areas of knowledge and expertise, their own preferences, biases, even their own emotional state at the time they read the text for the first and subsequent times.

A lot of people are taught how to approach a close reading at school — this might be in Language and Literature classes, in History and Geography, in Classics or other Humanities; it might be as part of a debate module or class. With that said, because a lot of class sizes are pretty big and because a lot of classes are pretty focused on exam and test results these days, with little individual focus, I know a lot of people don’t feel they internalised skills like these as much as they wish they did, or don’t feel confident in them.

Or they feel comfortable in their skills despite what they were taught in their classes, and because they’ve learned to do this intuitively, they feel comfortable in one medium, but not applying their skills to others.

Performing a close reading, or multiple close readings, is foundational to beginning an essay or presentation on a text, sure, but your ability to explore and interpret meanings in a text is valuable in far more situations than that.

Your skills in reading a text might elevate your enjoyment of them, allowing you to see further details or implications; they might aid your ability to draw parallels between comparative texts, and see those connections.

When you see these details and become used to them, you can recognise foreshadowing when it’s first introduced, and sometimes that means you’ll see plot twists or certain beats in a character arc coming — other times, it means you’ll expect certain things to happen, but then be more surprised when those expectations or tropes are subverted.

You might also recognise certain biases or implications in the text that you weren’t cognizant of on your first or cursory readings — you might notice specific pieces of language, notice and keep track of broader patterns, see parallels, et cetera.

It’s important to note that like… Regardless of whether you follow a guide like this or some other guide, simply by existing and going through life, you will gain new skills, you will gain new experiences, you will read and be impacted by new pieces of media, and you will take those experiences with you.

A favourite bit of mine in Transylvania 6–5000 (1985) is when Jack (Jeff Goldblum) chokes out Gil (Ed Begley Jnr) in a very homoerotic fashion while they argue about whether Gil loves Jack or not —

Very gay. You don’t need a comparative to read a gay undertone in this clip, right? The physical intimacy between Goldblum and Begley Jnr, the pushing him away then pulling him close again, the (barely) plausible deniability of it, etc.

It had been years since I watched Fiddler on the Roof (1971), not since I was a kid, and I laughed my head off when I got to Tevye and Golde’s Do you love me? because I realised in retrospect that Jack was quoting it in this scene — and not just quoting the scene, but quoting and putting himself in Golde’s position, not Tevye’s!

And that’s just a silly example, but there are so many things that might wholly change your interpretation of and your perception of a text — a conversation you have in a bar, a Simpsons episode that parodies it, someone’s joke or TikTok, a personal relationship or experience you’ve had that’s similar to the text, etc.

When you read the same book at fifteen, at twenty, at thirty, it can feel like you’re reading a wholly different text, because you’ll be a very different person. You’ll see different details, notice different things, and you’ll be responding as you read not only to the text itself, but to your own recollections of and past relationships with that same text.

You might hold multiple, conflicting opinions about that text, for example — and to do that is honestly a good sign, because if you can have one dominant opinion but see the way(s) someone else might interpret that text while you read it, you’ll have a better ability to understand and respond to other people’s responses to the text in conversation, and get why their perspective is so different to yours.

A reading isn’t just something we do alone in the dark, and that’s then discussed in a lecture hall or a class room, or some other academic setting. These skills are vital for academia, yes, but apart from being useful to any author who wishes to work on and improve their own craft, they’re used in everyday situations too.

When people have arguments in pubs or on Twitter about whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie, they are arguing about their interpretations and readings of the text, and whether the text therefore meets the genre conventions of a Christmas movie.

---

Super excited about this guide! This is a 10k deep-dive into doing close readings of texts - I'm actually working on other pieces to go with this one, and the next one is going to be about doing close readings of television and film, which I know is even less covered in schools than close reading text!

Please comment and share and let me know what you think, especially if it's helpful! <3

#musings #essays #meta #close reading #Youtube

[rycbarmerlin]

SPOILERS FOR THE WITCHER S3 VOL. 1

Will be discussing Extraordinary Things, other Jaskier things and Vol. 2 predictions! It's a fairly long scroll!

----

I've been seeing lots of people giving their thoughts about Extraordinary Things so I thought I'd give my thoughts and interpretations.

Who is the song about?

People have been umm-ing and ahh-ing about whether it's about Geralt or Radovid (or other) but I definitely feel like it is about both of them. The premise of the situation is Jaskier is playing a few songs for Radovid and company, implying these are songs Jaskier has had in his repertoire for a while. This is where the song could definitely be interpreted to be solely about Geralt. However, from a kind of story perspective, I think the song works as a way to frame Jaskier and Radovid's romantic entanglement.

The immediate parallel I can think of for this technique is in episode 1 with Yennefer's narration of her letters to Geralt (which I LOVED🥹). The letters act as situational and emotional context for the viewer; they tell us where Geralt and Yennefer's relationship is at and an impression of the time passed since Kaen Mohren, all without bloating the episode with snapshots of these moments.

I think, therefore, Extraordinary Things acts as a look towards what Jaskier and Radovid could become, and what they could find in and through each other. Joey Batey said that he wrote Extraordinary Things to replace scenes of dialogue, because it could say just as much, if not more. Hence why I think the song reflects Jaskier's present/past/future.

"The greatest songs are made up of unspoken words of love / of them I have had enough"

These lines, I feel, are most definitely about Geralt. You only have to think of his set-up for Toss a Coin to Your Witcher and Jaskier's line "respect doesn't make history." His career became oriented by singing the praise of the White Wolf in epic ballad styles of quests and battles against foes. Of course, then comes the mountain™ moment and then Burn Butcher Burn. I think (depsite what the showrunners have said and that platonic line this volume) Jaskier has been in love with Geralt. Jaskier loves love, he loves people, why wouldn't he have loved Geralt? I still feel the pronoun usage in Her Sweet Kiss makes the song ambigious in its position regarding his feeling and whose perspective he is singing in. The "I forgive you" line in 3x04, alongside S1 Jaskier's "and yet, here we are" and "just trying to work out what pleases me" lines further contribute to this. Furthermore, as Jaskier confirms with Yennefer about Burn Butcher Burn, "Fine, yes, when I wrote it, it did come from the heart. Perhaps a broken one."

Now, returning to Extraordinary Things, Jaskier's role as a bard is different now - he isn't travelling the Continent trying to be a barker for Geralt. He is the Sandpiper, he has found his higher purpose, the thing he truly cares about and wants to make a difference with (*plays Song of the Seven.*) Those days of Jaskier following Geralt round on uneven terms are over. They have a different dynamic now so those Toss a Coin days, of them he's had enough.

Joey lingers on the line "of them i've had enough" which I think emphasises the feelings I mentioned above. He also beautifully expresses this kind of cocktail of bittersweet regret, longing, acceptance, self-awareness and defiance before singing the following lines:

With you I have enough / with you I am enough / I am enough

Radovid sees Jaskier as Jaskier sees Radovid. They both seem to be able to look beyond the carefully constructed masks they both put up. And yes, it certainly feels they both know that they can "take" each other's hearts, and "break" each other's heart as they're both playing a dangerous game. And yes, the way and time Jaskier sings the song, him and Radovid have only had a few scenes together, but I think this circles back to the fact of this song acting as a framing device for what Jaskier and Radovid could be.

Radovid's admission in episode 4 that Jaskier sees the best in people, while the truth, Radovid is implicating that where Jaskier is seeing the best in Radovid, there are the darker/more nefarious secrets and conspiracies which Radovid is embroiled in. But when you find that person that sees you as you are, especially when many people perceive you as this one-dimensional thing, that can throw logic and rationale out the window.

Regarding Radovid's/Jaskier's position this season, Radovid, I don't think, ever intended to catch feelings for Jaskier, and nor did Jaskier. Jaskier, I think is trying to use his position to protect the people he loves and protect the elves, trying to play both sides. Ultimately, I don't think this is going to work. I feel the season (and Time of Contempt which is the Sapkowski novel the season is predominantly based upon) is all about the reality that you have to pick a side, neutrality is no longer an option, and from what Joey has said, Jaskier is not as good at all this political manouevering than he thinks.

My personal prediction for Vol 2 and what could happen is that Jaskier may find himself in trouble with Dijkstra and Radovid will use his position to get Jaskier out of it. It may be a case where Radovid betrays Jaskier (as one feels is bound to happen) but, as I said, Radovid would ultimately save Jaskier as his kind of 'redemption' moment. Their romantic entanglement feels doomed, but the fact that these feelings can blossom and bloom in such a time of war and struggle and violence is hopeful in a way.

It's not a want / it's a need / it's paying no heed to what others say / to sing

This line almost adds to that feeling of doomed romance - they're playing "no heed" to what would be expected of them (a standard or uncomplicated romance). I also love this line in the context of Jaskier's conversation with Yennefer in Oxenfurt when he is discussing the persecution of the elves. Being queer makes him an 'Other'. Just being in a nonstraight relationship, he is "paying no heed" to the kind of relationship ("song") he is expected to have.

My final thing, slightly unrelated, is that I reallllly hope Jaskier and Rience have a scene together in vol. 2. I am so pleased that Jaskier's trauma from Rience has been discussed so I would just love to see Jaskier in a situation where he is confronted with it - and hopefully sticks it to Rience!

And thus indeeds my far too long ramble about all things Jaskier. Time of Contempt is one my favourite books ever but I didn't want to cross-reference my thoughts with it too much as that is even more spoilers. If you've made it this far, I would love to have a chat about what you all think! Obviously this is just my interpretation and i'm an english graduate so will find any excuse to write an essay lol. Now the wait for vol 2...

END OF POST!!! YOU ARE SAFE

#the witcher #the witcher spoilers #the witcher season 3 #the witcher season 3 spoilers #jaskier #jaskier spoilers #joey batey #radovid #jaskovid #extraordinary things #geraskier #close reading #i love when everyone has their theories so i thought i would be bold and impart mine!

[tozettastone]

Close reading is such an underrated skill.

I know it hasn't been really taught as a general skill in primary or secondary schools in many decades, and of course it shouldn't be the only tool in your toolbox. But the closest most kids (here, at least) ever come to close reading in high school is still a few weeks of looking at newspaper clippings for persuasive techniques and desultory attempts to ape them in essays.

But in real life I am frequently presented with art or media without much further context. It's on a book shelf. It's an ad. It's streaming on a service. It's in my YouTube recommendations. I don't know when I see these things who the creator is personally, or about the context in which they produced this thing. No idea!

So I see a lot of people saying online now, "How was I supposed to know [this creator] was a Bad Person when nobody told me?"

And my answer is: you do not have to know anything about a creator to engage with their work and recognise whether or not you think their ideas are quality ones. You can learn skills and put them in your critical thinking toolbox to do this for you. And close reading skills are one way to meaningfully engage with texts on that basis.

Unfortunately, you can get about a year into an actual literature degree before a gobsmacked professor will sit a whole class down, lean wearily on his desk and say, "Does any one of you know how to do a close reading? Do they not teach that in primary?"

No. No they don't! And unless they've started doing it again pretty recently, they haven't for decades.

#they're too busy filling english classes up with shit that should have been in social sciences and civics. #and acting shocked about national reading comprehension failures #unsolicited opinions #close reading #just a personal complaint i guess #old man yells at cloud #when close reading is the ONLY tool that can end up with some fucked up readings but. it's still gotta be there. #if you only have a hammer you also fuck things up but most people would still want one in a tool kit #lit tag

[lyledebeast]

Heroes, Villains, and Lies

In most cases, a story’s hero is more honest than its villain, and most people would probably agree that this is true of The Patriot.  However, Benjamin Martin, and William Tavington tell two lies each over the course of the film. Tavington’s lies, like everything else he does, are straightforwardly terrible and meant to shock the audience.  Martin’s, on the other hand, are presented as completely justifiable.  A close examination of these lies, all of which occur in conversations between representatives of the opposing sides, reveal an anti-intellectual bent in the film’s presentation of conflict, argument, and communication

Martin lies to General Cornwallis twice when he goes to negotiate for the release of his men captured by Tavington.  Even though he has requested this meeting, Martin offers Cornwallis an opportunity to air his grievances first.  Cornwallis’s grievance: the militia is killing all his officers.  Martin responds, “As long as your soldiers attack civilians, I will order the shooting of officers at the start of every engagement.” The lie  is the implication that the militia shooting officers is both a response to and concurrent with British soldiers attacking civilians; we’ll return to why this is a lie later.

Cornwallis immediately moves on to the next order of business: Martin's request that his men be released.  When Cornwallis refuses, Martin claims to have nineteen British officers in his custody who will be shot if the militiamen hang.  This is revealed to be a lie at the end of this scene when the camera pans back from the freed militiamen riding out of the fort to the men in the field Cornwallis had looked at through his spyglass who are surrounding scarecrows dressed in British uniforms. Martin’s lies are effective because their primary audience believes them.  He offers Cornwallis “proof” of the second one by encouraging him to see for himself, trusting that he will not look long enough to realize that these men are all standing at attention more perfectly than any human soldiers ever have. Cornwallis also reposes a great deal of trust in Martin considering that he knows nothing about him and that Martin has provided no specific information about either of the groups of British soldiers he describes.

Tavington’s lies are received very differently. The first one is an interpretation of a rule of war Martin cites in defense of his son Gabriel: “A dispatch rider carrying a marked case cannot be held as a spy.” In Martin’s interpretation, most likely the correct one, to prevent a dispatch rider with a marked case from reaching his destination is forbidden. Tavington interprets it differently, or at least pretends to. “Well, we’re not going to hold him. We’re going to hang him!” His specious reasoning is that because he is not “hold[ing]” Gabriel, he is in compliance with the rule even though what he is doing instead is much worse.

He offers a similar equivocation after his speech in the Patriot church he ends up burning with its congregation trapped inside. Initially, Tavington makes the offer that “anyone who comes forward [with information about Benjamin Martin’s whereabouts] may be forgiven their treason.” But after one man provides him with information, Tavington thanks him and orders the doors to be shut. When the man reminds him of what he’d said a moment before, Tavington replies, “And indeed you may [be forgiven], but that’s between you and God.” Obviously, “forgiven” has two different meanings here.  The man in the church correctly understands Tavington to mean worldly forgiveness, in this case, from the crown.  The forgiveness is for treason, after all. Once Tavington and his horse are outside the church, though, he changes his meaning to divine forgiveness, which his victims must ask for themselves in their final moments.

While Martin’s lies offer up facts without evidence, Tavington’s lies distort meaning.  Both render honest communication impossible, but Tavington’s are presented as being much worse.  When a story features a very violent hero, as The Patriot does, it has to convince the audience that the hero is the one to root for by some means other than making the villain violent.  It is almost a genre convention in American action movies to give the villain a certain loquacity, a pleasure in putting together elegant sentences and playing with meaning, often with cruel effect. Tavington’s equivocations are perfect examples of this, and Jason Isaacs delivers them with evident relish.  It is delightfully appropriate that Tavington favors equivocation, a logical fallacy stereotypically associated with lawyers, when the actor who plays him has a law degree. While “We’re not going to hold him; we’re going to hang him” is in Robert Rodat’s pre-filming screenplay, Tavington’s manipulation of “forgiveness,” and the entire exchange in which it appears, was added during filming.  Perhaps Isaacs argued for a second one because the first was so fun and so revealing about his character, or even wrote it himself.

While Tavington’s lies are accompanied by an almost ecstatically animated bitch-face, Mel Gibson delivers Martin’s lies like he is playing poker, with the same stony expression he has when telling the truth.  Unlike Tavington’s lies, Martin’s are meant to be believed, at least temporarily, by both their primary and secondary audiences. As unlikely as it is that Martin could capture so many officers, including a colonel, without Cornwallis’s knowledge, it is no more ridiculous than things we have seen him do onscreen by that point. And since this scene also comes after one where Martin tells his men what to do with British soldiers not killed outright by their attacks, the audience is primed to see some in the flesh.  

Even in the absence of actual wounded or surrendering soldiers, we are meant to believe Martin enforced his his rule about giving quarter.  After all, when Major Villeneuve makes his “joke” about killing wounded redcoats when Martin is not looking, Martin laughs nervously. Perhaps, then, we are also meant to believe the British soldiers attacking civilians exist even though we never seen any do so but the ones commanded by Tavington. I interpret this claim as a lie because not only is there no evidence of continuing attacks, when Tavington’s attacks on civilians resume with Cornwallis’s implicit permission, Martin is so shocked and rattled that he sends the militia home rather than attempting to mount any kind of strategic defense.  If these attacks had been ongoing, surely he would have a better contingency plan than that.

 I have concluded, though, that expecting The Patriot’s hero to provide evidence in support of his claims positions me well outside its intended audience.  What makes Martin the hero, after all, is not that he’s good with words but that he avenges his sons’ murders and  . . saves America from the British, apparently.  I suppose that’s one reason why I’ve always felt such an affinity for Tavington.  Like Jason Isaacs, I enjoy his cunty equivocations. He does not have to have these arguments with Martin and the man in the church; he holds all the power in both situations.  He does it because there is nothing more devilishly fun than a good bad argument.   

The best way to respond to a bad argument, though, is with a good one.  A good argument requires honest communication between participants, and sometimes that means finding someone more reasonable to engage with.  Martin has his pick of literally any other British officer we do meet to fill that role, but he gives up after one conversation with Tavington. After that, his only goal with respect to any British officer is domination, whether by killing or, in Cornwallis’s case, humiliating him. And yet we are meant to find this response reasonable and the man who chooses it implicitly trustworthy. How terrifying, and terrifyingly common even in our modern world, to use the words or actions of a few to justify rejecting honest communication with an entire group.

#the patriot #benjamin martin #william tavington #jason isaacs #anti-intellectualism #close reading

[howifeltabouthim]

. . . I started reading . . . then underlining, footnoting and annotating all the passages that could relate to me and you.

Chris Kraus, from I Love Dick

#relatable #close reading #quotations #how i felt about him #just like me for real #annotating #reading #reader #thinking of you #quotes #lit #words #excerpts #quote #literature #literary #chris kraus #i love dick

[caralara]

The Greatest - a close reading & interpretation

This is my very personal interpretation of The Greatest, content warning: break ups, babybgate. Overview to all close readings here. Let's dive right in!

Close reading of the lyrics:

Tell you I’m on my way, nothing could make me late

he is coming to them, and his determination (this time) is real - emphasis on “this is my priority #1” - it seems he was away, because he has to come to them, he had to find his way back to them

Said I had a plan for us 

he had a plan - (master) plan is a keyword in this album: here he switches to the past, so this is something that happened before he went to the away he is coming back from now. He had a plan for the two of them: what do you need a plan for that involves the two of them against - what? The world? The music industry?

time it came and changed it all

he is staying in the past, he is recounting how this plan unfolded, and that it didn’t go according to plan - it was all changed. Possible reading being, when it came to execute the plan, it changed their reality, made a shift happen that will never be able to be undone, or that with time the plan was changed from the original one - or maybe both?

We had to disappear

he is still recounting from the past: when this plan turned out to happen differently than they anticipated, they had to disappear - from what? Louis didn’t actually disappear, but maybe he means they as a unit had to disappear from view - because they are disappearing together, so they are still a unit that disappeared from - the world? The public eye? From the others?

cos nothing gets through here, through that circle round my heart, where the best of me should start

Now he is giving a reason for why they had to disappear, or maybe why the plan changed: he says that nothing gets through the circle around his heart, and note how he is back to the present: this is still an issue today. Has he built up such strong walls around his heart that even the person he sings through couldn’t get through anymore? Yet he says he knows that’s where he feels like he is the best version of himself: if he opens his heart, takes down the wall, let’s people into this circle, they see his true self. But he says “should” so maybe he doesn’t really know anymore himself - has the circle gotten so strong that he has trouble himself accessing that best of himself?

I said you know me

he slips back into the past: it’s something he’s said back then. Is it a plea? You know me, don’t be fooled by the circle (wall) around my heart? You know me, I just want the best for you and us? No one else knows me like you do? Don’t forget who I really am, because you know me?

alone we’re only, just as good as the rest

now he states a universal truth to him, he is in the present tense and he is speaking from experience: when they’re separated they are just as average as the rest of the world, but he words it wonderfully: he says the rest is good. But them separated they are just as good as the rest, which implies when they are together they are not average: they are extraordinary, or …

Together we’re the greatest

… in his words: the greatest. When he’s with them, he feels like on top of the world, when they’re together he feels like they can do anything, be legendary, move mountains, be The Greatest in all aspects.

we’ll never be that cold again, no falling all to pieces

for the first and only time, he goes into a future tense, and it implies a conviction: I am not doing this again, ever, I am not being separated from you ever again, we will forever have warmth, comfort, and safety between us, they will never ever again break down because they are not together, because he won’t allow for it to happen again. This will happen, he’s not merely planning on it.

We’re the greatest, it’s you and me until the end, life for us is never over

he repeats that they are extraordinary and the very best thing in the world when they’re together, and now he is vowing that until the end (of his life), they will stay together. Then he goes on and says life is never over for them, which could be read as when they’re together, he feels alive, and when they are not he feels dead inside, and it could also be read as in them being together is so legendary, the lore of it will never be forgotten. Lovely also how he includes “the end” in this - they will go through The End together, because after the end, life still isn’t over for them.

The way you know something

He is not only talking about the fact they know something, but about the way they know something. He is in awe of how they know something - maybe it is their intuition? He said that they know him, and now he’s saying it’s the way they know this. Is it that he recognises how natural it comes to them what they know? 

Your face reminded me, of a love you cannot hide 

now he is back in the past: their face reminded him. It could stop right there, just looking at their face, it reminded him - of what? of what is in the circle around his heart? What he needs to remember, what he’s doing this, the plan, for? Then he tacks on, that what it reminded him of is that they cannot hide their love (for him). Why would he need to be reminded of it? It is important to distinguish here, that the reminder was in the past, but the fact they cannot hide their life is a fact across times, it is always the case. Why did he forget and had to be reminded of the love on their face? Were their relationship in a bad place, were they not saying out loud how they really felt about Louis, meaning loving him, therefore outwardly making it seem they didn’t? 

but don’t need to tell me why

here he is saying that they never have to justify themself to him - it is in present tense and universally valid. Is it because he knows now, and because he was reminded of it, that their love for him never fades, so he doesn’t worry that they didn’t show it - so his devotion is unconditional. 

Back dancing in the dark, back to the very start

is this where he goes to when he needs to remember? Going back to the start, the beginning of their relationship,  where they were dancing in the dark, meaning they were joyful together, in a space that was dark, which describes how they didn’t see their surroundings - where they were carefree, dancing together, not aware how their environment would impact their relationship?

Finding pieces that can fit, making up for what we missed

this is happening in the present: “finding,” “making” - this is where they are now. Making up for lost time when they weren’t together, or where they were in a bad place. They are making the best of being together, they are The Greatest now, because they are together, they are building their life around the obstacles, making it fit, and doing all the joyful things together as a couple they missed out on.

Personal interpretation

This is an incredibly epic opener to the album (sonically too), and it sets the tone: I was lost, but now I know where I am going, and what I am doing all this for. It very much aligns with what Louis has been saying, and how this album feels to him. It’s the soundtrack to the opening of an epos. It sounds big, grand, legendary. It’s a story of a battle, of going through hard times, for a once in a lifetime love, and coming out on top all the wiser and stronger together for it (can you tell I am a little in love with this song?). 

To me, this is a very honest song, and to me, it definitely is about his love and relationship with Harry. How many times has it been said that this is the grandest love story of our time? And yes, it isn’t just a story for them, but they themselves like to romanticize their relationship - which is far from being a bad thing, because they are simultaneously being brutally honest with themselves and us through their music.

I interpret this as a recounting of what they went through to end up where they are now. The mentioning of a “plan gone wrong/changed” makes my ears peak up, because it aligns very much with how I see what happened with the whole babygate stunt, of which you can find an extensive post I’ve written here. Louis says he had a plan for them, both of them, to make their relationship and life better: I believe he did the babygate stunt in exchange for Harry’s bi* coming out (regardless of his real sexuality), and it screwed him and them over really badly. To me it reads that he put up walls around his heart in order to go through with it, in his mind it was for the greater good, a sacrifice he was happy to give in exchange for Harry’s happiness and an improvement of the tensions in their relationship for having to hide their relationship and stay in the closet to the public - but he didn’t realise he shut out Harry, too, in the process of putting up these walls and became someone he doesn’t really like, hiding his true, kind, vulnerable self away behind this circle. And because of that, they lost each other for a while - and Louis had to go and find himself again, find clarity on the direction he wants to go in and what he’s actually fighting for. And he found it, and now he’s more convicted than he ever was. He is also mentioning that the tough times they have to go through, aren’t over yet, and he promises they will stay together through The End as well, he won’t ever let himself get in between them ever again. He concludes that they are in a good place now, they are making up for lost time and finding compromises to make their lives fit together well. And he knows that this is his forever. 

Conclusion

I adore this song, musically as well as lyrically: he is already proving he’s got an impressive way with words, and his storytelling is on point. 10/10. Can’t wait to hear this live and scream it back at him.

Overview to all close readings here.

#faith in the future intepretation #the greatest #faith in the future #the greatest interpretation #close reading #interpretation #close reading and interpretation #louis tomlinson #song analysis #so fucking in love with this song

[greatwyrmgold]

Why is the Muscle Devil?

Remember the Muscle Devil? That thing Denji fought in chapter 2? Anime-onlies won't, because it was cut from the anime.

In the manga (after Makima, Denji, and company reached the udon stand, but before Denji half-fainted and explained that he loses blood when he turns on the chainsaws), some guy runs up and says his daughter was kidnapped by a devil. Makima threatens Denji, Denji goes off to hunt the devil, and he sees a little girl playing with a devil. The girl cries and says the devil protected her from her abusive dad; Denji asks if she and the devil want to run away with him. But psyche! The devil can control muscles, he made the girl lie! The Muscle Devil is present in 16 panels, and three of those are while Denji's cutting him to pieces.

Sometimes, when a scene is cut from an adaptation, you wonder what the adapters were thinking. Sometimes, it makes you wonder what the original author was thinking. This is in the second category.

Almost everything the Muscle Devil scene does, was accomplished in the Zombie Devil scene. Both show Denji in action, show that he's stronger than ordinary devils, show that not all devils are nice like Pochita, etc.

I remember that point being particularly grating when I first read the series. (I just really dislike anything that feels "All X are inherently Y," especially when it's framed as a twist.) It's especially odd in retrospect, with how many devils are written with depth and complexity. Maybe Fujimoto thought that we'd be expecting Power, Beam, and the rest to be decent people if the only devils we saw them were Pochita, the Zombie Devil, and a tomato mook? It's weird.

The Muscle Devil scene also does two non-Zombie-Devil-overlapping things that I noticed. First, it shows us a devil lying, so we know 100% for sure that Power's full of shit when she says devils never lie...but the reader knows that the thing Power said right before that is also a lie, so maybe that's not a thing.

Second, it gives Makima a chance to threaten Denji, which is a red flag! But this isn't really necessary, because Makima's red flags are obvious to anyone who isn't both into pet play and an authoritarian fanboy. Maybe it seems a lot more obvious now that I've seen the anime, which uses character animation, cinematic language, and so forth to fly those red flags more subtly than "Our useless dogs get euthanized."

It also does some basic stuff to set up the conversation and scene after it, but the anime barely had to do anything to stitch over that gap. Have Denji faint at the udon shop from the blood he lost fighting the Zombie Devil, and that's about it really. It's really not a necessary scene.

Best I can figure, Fujimoto included the Muscle Devil scene because he hadn't read the next ninety-some chapters of Chainsaw Man yet and didn't realize how useless the scene would end up being. But I'd like to hear from people who have other thoughts on what the Muscle Devil does for the story.

#chainsaw man #muscle devil #media analysis #close reading #manga #anime #meta #chainsaw man meta

[theweeklydiscourse]

The Darkling decided early on how much he would disclose to Alina about his plans for the coup based on a conversation they had on the way to the palace.

I like to look back at this scene from Shadow and Bone that takes place after Alina was seconds away from being killed by a Fjerdan assassin. She denies that she is Grisha, pointing to her plain and scrawny appearance for proof of her certainty and Aleksander responds with a remark about how Alina doesn’t understand what being Grisha even means.

It’s a telling scene because it shows just how surface-level Alina’s view of Grisha is. To her, Grisha are shiny, beautiful and strong and they are prioritized over the common folk soldiers she once belonged with. Of course, Aleksander knows that there is so much more to being Grisha than just beauty, but realizes that there’s so much to unpack with Alina’s statement he doesn’t even know where to start.

This exchange explains one of the reasons why he didn’t disclose his true plans to Alina, much less his ultimate secret. If Alina has such a shallow understanding of Grisha identity, she will also have a shallow understanding of just how much is at stake in this conflict. Alina is no ordinary Grisha, so it hasn’t quite sunk in that she has skin in the game and is more significant than she realizes. Her denial of her Grisha identity (despite obvious evidence proving otherwise) Alina is staunch in her assertion that she is just a normal girl. It is that same denial that tells Aleksander that Alina cannot be viewed as reliable just yet, time needs to be taken to teach her a better understanding of the Grisha first.

This next exchange is the second reason why Aleksander doesn’t tell her. Though Alina herself may not have said that superstition out loud, it still demonstrates how Alina was exposed to those views during her formative years. It raises his suspicion that Alina may hold some remnants of the Serf’s ideas and perhaps compels him to think ahead to assess if this could grow into a potential threat. He ABSOLUTELY cannot tell her the truth anytime soon if there is even the slightest possibility that she believes that he’s soulless and “truly evil”. If Alina snitched on him, his entire operation could be shut down for good and set the Grisha back decades. Not to mention the fact that it could get a lot of Grisha killed.

“You didn’t hurt his feelings.” Dear Reader, this was only the beginning of Alina denying Aleksander’s humanity in order to avoid taking responsibility for her prejudice and to avoid the complex reality of the situation. You can almost hear the incorrect answer buzzer go off in Aleksander’s mind as Alina tells him her answer, I can almost feel his pure disappointment through the page.

Because Aleksander poses an important question that reveals one of Alina’s central conflicts that will continue throughout the trilogy. Alina is still deeply uncomfortable with the idea of Grisha powers after spending her life among people who call them unnatural and strange. To the point that it wasn’t just the fact that the assassin was sliced in two that bothered her, but because of the magic that sliced him. Why on earth would he trust her with his greatest secret when she reacts with such hesitation? He was testing her to gauge how long it would be before Alina could be trusted as an ally to Grisha and received an answer that told him it might take a while. If Alina can’t handle her the idea of her own powers, she cannot be trusted with a secret that could determine the future of Ravka.

I don’t know about you, but I fully believe that Aleksander had every intention of telling Alina the truth, it’s just that prioritizing his personal relationship with her over the safety of his people was a risk he couldn’t take. This gets a bit muddled later on because Alina’s narration seems to care more about her personal feelings of betrayal than the consequences this plan could have on the country. She never takes a moment to look at the bigger picture and consider the consequences of her reckless actions.

I know that I’m just breaking the scene down and explaining what’s happening in it, but it truly is such an informative scene that hints at a potentially fascinating storyline.

#shadow and bone #lb critical #s&b critical #alina starkov #s&b netflix #s&b salt #the darkling #darklina #aleksander morovoza #pro darkling #grishaverse meta #ruin and rising #shadow and bone season 2 #aleksander morozova #anti leigh bardugo #anti shadow and bone #close reading

[ferusaurelius]

I've been reading your ofmd meta. It's amazing! How did you learn to figure all that stuff out?

Thank you for the ask!

There are two distinct questions here:

What makes OFMD a compelling ground for media and critical (meta) analysis?

What’s the critical basis I’m using in writing meta analysis and how did I learn to use it the way I do?

Why Write Meta Analysis of “Our Flag Means Death”?

The first question is easy: THERE IS SO MUCH TO UNPACK HERE. It’s all right out in the open, too, and it’s a real credit to David Jenkins that he created a supportive environment for the cast, the creative directors, the writers, and his entire CREW to bring all of their creative selves. 

OFMD is so full of love for its characters and story that it always takes my breath away whenever I think about it. So much creative energy and love was wrapped into this show in so many ways that I’ll never shut up about it ever.

The second question has a longer answer.

Analytical Training, Experience, and Practice (Not Necessarily In That Order)

While I am formally trained and have a BA in English, I would still credit my experience as a writer-practitioner as equally or more important in my analytical background as the formal training.

I am first and foremost a writer, and I “read” texts like a writer who wants to figure out what makes a narrative function. Learning how something is working is fundamental to being able to replicate it in your own artwork.

The simplest term for what I use as a framework for all my meta is a technique historically called close reading, but I’d openly admit that I am more flexible and informal with it than you’d find taught in a typical college class! 

Think of a “reading” in literature or film/media analysis as a bit like what a study or practice sketch does for visual artists.

When I was writing my meta post on The Tragedy of Israel Hands, I very explicitly decided to tackle OFMD and what was happening with Izzy by breaking down the show into episode-by-episode readings from Izzy’s point of view. 

I also chose to add some extra spice based on direct scene transcriptions, mentions of Izzy by-name even when he wasn’t on-screen, and what was happening for him as a character (what was his story?) vs. the obvious romance that was happening for Edward and Stede in the foreground.

David Jenkins had helpfully stated in an interview that OFMD was broken up into acts, so I just followed his lead on doing the same in my analysis. ;) He’d also suggested doing a rewatch with a focus on Con O’Neill and I was intrigued by the possibility of what I might find.

Turned out? Con managed to fit an actual three-act tragedy into the same visual and narrative space (albeit in the background) as Rhys and Taika acting the main romance in the foreground! This is fucking incredible in my opinion. Con’s narrative counterpoint with Izzy adds so much depth and richness to the romance and the comedy. I could chew glass over it (and I did! hence the post).

I firmly believe that ANYONE can do a good and detailed textual reading (with or without formal training), so here’s my quick(?) breakdown of how that works for me in the hope that it will inspire you and others to try your hand!

The best way to get good at analysis is to practice. Analyze, analyze, analyze! Write, write, write! Create in whatever way makes sense to your brain and energizes you to explore how you think about what you love. You don’t even have to publish/share the results. It can just be for you if you want.

As usual, only do what works for you. 

If there’s a thought or a step that you want to skip? Skip it. Do what you want. Create and write meta! Enrich the OFMD fandom with your own readings. :D

Ferus-Style Close Reading Guide

Goal: Break things down to build a detailed, text-supported understanding of a creative product (story, episode, play, film, painting, etc.). You can do this whenever you’re interested in something and feel like spending more time with it as a method of learning more and deeply appreciating a work of art.

Pick a moment in the text (show, fanfic, story, etc.) that interests you.

Interest is crucial! Think about why you’re interested. Sit with the text a bit.

Take extensive notes on what’s happening. You can also use another method you prefer like outlining, grabbing screencaps, or some combination to record and organize your first impressions and thoughts.

This serves as a record of where you started.

Don’t necessarily try to interpret right away, but DO decide for yourself what you think is happening in a moment or a particular scene. This can be as short as a single line of text or a few seconds of interaction in a TV episode or film. Trust yourself! The best art, by and large, does what it does in plain sight and will repeat or reinforce the significant themes and symbols.

Hold off on interpretation to allow yourself time to develop a good understanding of what has actually taken place in the text. Plenty of professional critics are weak at this step and jump straight into reshaping events to fit their thesis and interpretation rather than reading “out of” a text. It’s not necessarily bad (and there are techniques that use this sort of interpretation), but it’s really not where I’m coming from.

Break down your favorite scenes into as many moments (or points of focus) as are likely to be relevant to your analysis. If you’re working with a specific character, focus on their actions or their scenes (or other ‘by name’ references when they’re not on-screen). If the focus is a motif (a visual element), try to figure out what its appearance or framing is accomplishing when it is present. How do other characters react to it or introduce it? How do these interactions “read” to you? Again, what is happening?

This is the focusing step that typically tells me where the rest of my analysis is going. At this point I usually have an idea of what I’m seeing when it’s either reinforced by one or more sequential scenes (reinforced) or dropped and sidelined in an interesting way.

Take a step back and think about how the moment you’re analyzing is ‘working.’ What does it do? What purpose does this story beat or moment serve? Why is it happening in this moment, at this specific time, and what important features of character, setting, or story are happening? What are the consequences that follow?

I can’t stress consequences enough! Actions having consequences is a fundamental element of a well-structured narrative. The narrative consequences for a character or a plotline are one of the things that is MOST controlled by authorial choice. Do these consequences fit in with the theme you’ve noticed? Why or why not? Whatever is happening here is usually some of the most interesting elements of the narrative (if they’re present). 

Write down your initial guesses about the answers the questions above. Or answer a few of your own questions in a first pass. Theorize!

Now that you’ve considered the individual moments, scenes, or elements and taken a stab at the larger emergent themes it’s time to mash them together into a coherent picture (what are YOU seeing?). How are you seeing this text?

Keep repeating the process above for other surrounding scenes (the context) or moments relevant to your analysis.

YMMV with repetition. A longer analysis takes more repetition. A shorter or more contained analysis may only go through this process once. Again -- no one person will see the same scene the same way as another! Everyone has a valuable perspective to contribute.

Theorize once again after stringing the analytical moments together and connecting them -- what new ideas occur to you once you’ve chewed over the “small” interesting bits separately? Does a pattern begin to emerge? Why or why not?

You can learn as much from figuring out your first impressions were wrong (and looking again to see what’s ACTUALLY happening) as you will from being “right” the first time. Enjoy the experience!

You can learn almost as much from absence as from presence. While that may sound cryptic at first, glaring absences when characters or significant elements are NOT present are just as important in their own way, and may help you discover other themes in the same text. Strategic absences are MUCH more difficult to identify without careful attention. They’ll be obvious when you begin to look for them (which is the fun bit).

“Establishing” shots (introductions, first/last shots, first/last words) are always important.

Repeated and reinforced themes are generally stronger indications that a particular symbol or motif is significant. Looking for repetition or apparently deliberate call-backs to previous episodes, comments, scenes, or character relationships are often where the most fruitful opportunities for analysis are located.

Write up your general conclusions based on what you’ve learned from your smaller (close) bite-size readings and why you believe they’re significant along with how they’re functioning. If you observe a theme or pattern, focus your writing on how that pattern is built up and the evidence you found to support that conclusion.

And you’re done! Or whatever process you prefer is finished. For now. ;)

-

The most important element in my analytical process is close attention to the different on-screen choices (in framing, acting, and dialogue) that I’m seeing in a particular episode. 

I take extensive notes on what’s happening, sometimes by recording transcripts of the dialogue and often through watching and re-watching a scene of particular interest.

To continue with my example meta, The Tragedy of Israel Hands was based on rewatching OFMD with a focus on what was happening to Izzy in both the foreground and the background, with these questions in mind: 

What would this story arc appear to be from Izzy’s perspective?

What extent was that interpretation supported by: each character’s arc, the framing of various shots, and the choices and tone throughout the context of Con O’Neill’s overall performance of this character?

Was there a narrative thread linking together Izzy Hands’s story as a contrast to Edward and Stede’s foreground romance?

And now you have the meta on the meta. METACEPTION. -is shot-

You probably didn’t want an answer this long, dear asker, but regrettably I Am Just Like This.

#our flag means death meta #ofmd meta #ferus ofmd meta #how ferus writes meta #answering asks #close reading #sorta close reading? #i do a very very detailed version of close reading that works for me #and it's considerably less formal than the historical or theoretical background #would suggest #metaception #the tragedy of israel hands #look the day has arrived when i write meta on meta #is shot #im laughing #ferus chats

[readingismyhustle]

#close reading #bibliophiles #read more #books books books #reading

[tsh-readthrough]

mission statement

the purpose of this blog is to collect my random and scattered thoughts as I read through The Secret History.

i will be making notes on character, setting, themes, metatext and links to other works, and basically whatever. everything here is a personal thought unless stated.

the major themes I am currently tracking (though this may change) are:

beauty, aestheticism, and obsession

fate and destiny

Gothic elements

funny bits

personally-liked passages

metatext and intertext (references to other works)

characterisation and character description

cult and cult thinking

#the secret history #tsh #dark academia #close reading #reading notes

[shizukurushiii]

Kinda blows that no academic critics of english lit have readable prose, let alone clear and confident argumentation. I'm yet to read a work of pure (eg not also a work of philosophy or social criticism) Literary Criticism that's felt a anywhere near as energetic and engaging as the texts it's tackling.

'Foundational' and highly regarded works of literary criticism have consistently been among the worst I've read. For example I.A. Richards's Practical Criticism -the book that brought the world close reading - consists almost entirely of the author mean-spiritedly mocking his undergrad students for misreading poetry in their essays, then drawing impressionistic, unconfident non-conclusions from this exercise.

I wanted to be an academic when I was a teenager but reading pages of academese nonsense makes me feel actually nauseous, and fills me with a sense of dread about my life: as if going ahead with this dream equals dooming myself to life as the world's most boring and pedantic spinster.

I might add that I don't really get this feeling at all when I've read shit from other fields (eg psychology, history or even literary criticism outside of the anglosphere): even if the prose can be sorta unwieldy it has like a discernable sense and argument.

#Literature #Literary Criticism #I.A. Richards #Close reading