#doylist

[dandelionjack]

some final thoughts on the matter from me, my twitter mutual Frosty, and their mutual Bonnie.

never been so disappointed in my fav show.

[makiruz]

Also people who talk about Chloé "choosing¨ to double down, while Félix "chose" to be better when both are fictional characters whose choices are determined by the creators

[ageofgeek]

I think the divide in the reaction of the GO fandom to the finale, specifically with regards to Aziracrow’s decisions at the end of the finale, comes down to some people viewing it through a Doylist lens and some people viewing it through a Watsonian lens

(A reminder of the definitions of those terms)

I think people who liked the finale and/or think that Aziracrow’s decisions made sense because they did what they did to save humanity are looking at this through a Watsonian lens. And I don’t even necessarily disagree: given the choices they had by God, backed into a corner of keeping the status quo and having the opportunity for “real” free will, I don’t disagree that they might have made the same decision.

But the people who didn’t like the finale and think Aziracrow’s decisions were out of character are looking at this from a Doylist perspective. Aziracrow should never have been given that black and white decision to begin with, by the writers. The plot point itself is fundamentally flawed and contradicts the themes of the story. The characters may have been forced to make that choice within the story, but no one forced the writer(s) to write the ending that way. That’s why people are upset.

So, tl;dr - fuck neil gaiman.

[theweeklydiscourse]

Why do you think Rhysand feels so intensely about Nesta saying some mean things to Feyre as a child and letting her hunt when he spent his own childhood in death camps where is Amren's words they break children's bones over and over for days sometimes, where he met his brothers through violence, Cassian best him and then they beat Azriel, shouldn't they be more casual about child bullying or whatever?

I’m of two minds when it comes to this topic.

Watsonian Answer

Rhysand’s hypocrisy is an expression of his dominance over the interpersonal relationships of the Inner Circle. In a “Rules for thee, not for me” fashion, Rhysand has the power to dole out judgment while never being judged himself and is relatively free from the consequences of his actions. I believe that his persistent grudge and vendetta against Nesta could be either projection, or a pretext to justify his control over her. I’m more inclined towards the latter, as his sustained hostility and abuse of power over Nesta cannot be justified as being done for Feyre’s sake. His pattern of acting against Feyre’s wishes to pursue petty revenge against Nesta is an example of this.

Doylist Answer

Rhysand’s intensity serves the overall wish-fulfillment fantasy of the series. Feyre is the Y/N figure that the reader can use to vicariously enjoy certain pleasures they’d never pursue in real life. Feyre disavows revenge against Nesta, but never seriously attempts to thwart Rhysand’s mean-spirited treatment of her. This way, she can have her cake and eat it too. Rhysand is bad and vindictive so Feyre can be the good girl who gets revenge anyway. For some readers, it’s pleasurable to imagine a person who wronged them in a situation where that person is utterly powerless and at their mercy. The fact that the revenge is enacted by Feyre’s friends (rather than Feyre herself) is doubly pleasurable because it’s a testament to how much they love her, while also acting as extensions of her power. The fantasy is being free to indulge in the pleasure of crushing the person who wronged you underneath your heel.

All this to say, the contradictions are definitely there. Did Nesta exploit Feyre’s labour? Yes, but the punishment she receives for that wrongdoing is completely disproportionate. The Inner Circle is disturbingly casual about many other things that were objectively way worse than Nesta being a bad sister (under dire circumstances I might add) yet they act like she’s some kind of villainess. Bullying Azriel is something they can chuckle about, but Rhysand would never ever forgive Nesta for letting her hunt. I could say more about this, but I’m worried I would ramble on for too long.

[anerdynerd]

I just learned that people use the word doylist to describe an out-of-universe perspective for fiction and watsonian for an in-universe perspective and this is my favorite thing I’ve learned today, how great is that, I may just start using this as a fun-fact from now on, apologies to anyone who is going to have a conversation with me within the next few days because I WILL mention it🧍

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

I'm not a fan of those "who would win in a fight?" style posts. I find it hard to engage with the question in a Watsonian way; I always resort to the Doylist answer of "it depends on who's writing it." Depends on which universe it takes place in, depends on whether or not it's a joke. Could Lazytown Sportacus defeat The Boys Homelander? In Lazytown, yes. In The Boys, no; Homelander would punch through his chest, rip his heart out, and feed it to him like an apple, because it's an M-rated show. Can Batman defeat Bugs Bunny? Why is Batman fighting Bugs Bunny? If he engages seriously and actually wants to defeat him, then no, but if he recognizes the ridiculousness of the situation and plays along, yes-anding all of Bugs' shenanigans, then maybe. Jason cut Freddy's head off, but Freddy winked at the end, so he didn't really lose. Some xenomorphs killed some predators, and vice versa. There are no definitive answers.

The broader point is that, canonically, no two protagonists would ever fight one another. Superman and Goku and One Punch Man would not be villains in either of the others' universes, so they would have no reason to fight. In every "canon" crossover there's always some BS justification like a misunderstanding or one of the villains has captured the heroes and is forcing them to be gladiators, something like that, in which case they would eventually team up to try and stop the real bad guy rather than kill one another. Sometimes Godzilla beats King Kong, sometimes King Kong beats Godzilla, but the both beat Ghidorrah because the bad guy always loses.

[the-breath-in-air]

Maybe because I did a lot of theater as a kid, or maybe because I'm autistic and tend to take things more literally?..........but whenever there's been a question of "why did X happen in the show/movie/etc." I'm almost always satisfied with a Doylist/out-of-universe explanation. A Watsonian/in-universe explanation can be fun to play around with, for sure. But rarely do I need one to maintain a suspension of disbelief.

Like...why is Lestat's hair shorter in season 1? Oh because Sam Reid was still growing it out. Okay, that's a good enough explanation for me. It's fun to play around with the ideas that maybe Louis remembered Lestat's hair wrong or maybe Lestat was cutting his hair every morning or whatever...but, like...the out-of-universe explanation is enough.

Or, like, when there are contradictions or inconsistencies in a story I tend to assume more out-of-universe explanations rather than hunt for an in-universe explanation. Which has made watching Interview with the Vampire interesting because Rolin Jones has tended to take things from season 1 that I assumed were explained by out-of-universe mistakes (gloves for the diaries, Lestat telepathically speaking to Louis after turning him, etc.) and created in-universe explanations for them in season 2.

And it's so twisted because the subjectivity of the whole series means that it's equally possible that those 'mistakes' were deliberate the whole time.....or that he only caught them after season 1 aired and decided to explain them away in season 2.

[yap-city]

One thing you gotta know about this blog is that I’m OBSESSED with Watsonian vs. Doylist reasoning. Like yes, I know that TECHNICALLY, the reason this thing happened in the story is because the editors thought it would sell more books, or the writer wanted to force a conflict, or whatever. I know these characters are not real people.

But hypothetically, if they WERE—

No, shut up, if they WERE real people— then w h y did they do the thing?? What was their reasoning??? The second a writer shares a story, the characters become concepts independent of the original authorial intention. “The character did this because the author wanted them to,” I know, I know, but FORGET the author for a second. The author is gone, they’re dead, I killed them and pissed on their corpse. Forget the author, IMMERSE YOURSELF IN THE FICTION.

Are you immersed? ARE YOU IMMERSED?

Good. Now I ask you: W h y did the character do the thing?