#itms rambles

[isthemachinesinging]

Hi...

[isthemachinesinging]

some rambling thoughts on authorial intent and spn meta.

there has been increased focus on authorial intent as result of focus on predicting where the show is going or should go. (past meta or meta on long past seasons “irrelevant” because show has moved on; meta not worthy in and of itself but only as a means of prediction, which requires element of authorial intent.)

primarily (and unfortunately), it is authorial intent not as actual attempt to discern show’s intentions, but appeal to highest authority. (“it’s god’s will...because it’s what i want.”) decide interpretation or position, then defend it with “this is what the show is doing” as way of saying “my interpretation is the only truly correct one and all others are lesser if not outright blasphemy.”

this appeal to highest authority is not always positive (that is, “this is the great stuff the show is secretly Really Doing”); sometimes insist on particular intent in order to foster negative persecuted attitude towards show. example: sunset colors in Naomi’s office. they are clearly sunset colors, which fits metaphorically with the situation (it’s the final hours, the end of the day), and were described as representing the passage of time by those responsible (which matches the obvious “sunset colors” reading exactly.) but because if you take a screenshot and supersaturate it and turn the contrast way up it kind of looks like bi pride flag colors, people decided that’s what it was and still insist against all reason that that was the authorial intent. not only that, but because they claim that bi pride was authorial intent, they claim queerbaiting not only in the use of the colors but the fact that the show “lied” to them in revealing the actual intent behind it. which is one of the many--but probably the clearest--examples of focus on “authorial intent” having nothing to do with actual intent but with the agenda of the critic.

[isthemachinesinging]

BENJI

[isthemachinesinging]

oh man i got all excited about the new hermione--aside from all else, i really like noma dumezweni--then i realized it was a play that i (and most people) will never get to see.

[isthemachinesinging]

there can be a fine difference, i think, between “this is antisemitic” and “this makes me uncomfortable as a Jew.” the former is, of course, always the latter, but it’s possible that the latter isn’t necessarily always the former. like...”i want to lock all the spn writers in a building and set it on fire.” (paraphrased from a post i read earlier today.) that definitely makes me uncomfortable as a Jew, because a significant number of spn’s writers are Jewish, and “then they locked the Jews in [building] and set it on fire” features all too frequently in the history of anti-Jewish violence. it’s not as strong an association as “showers”, but it’s definitely there. but is it antisemitic? i don’t know. it certainly wasn’t intended as such; nevertheless, those unfortunate associations are still there.

[isthemachinesinging]

blogs, charlie, spn, rambling.

why did i think i could keep up with three blogs. how do people do it.

technically four because i don’t mean for my edlund blog to be dead but like it would just mostly be reblogging from here so? also someone asked me something there a few months back and i forgot to answer that i didn’t know what they were looking for so now i’m embarrassed about that.

sometimes i feel bad that all the ben edlund fan blogs are defunct then i remember one of them is mine and i feel worse.

i still have not watched the last spn ep and i probably will not watch it any time soon. so there. i’m not feeling very much like reblogging spn at the moment either. i was gonna make some charlie edits but you know i don’t really feel like that either. like. i just have no feelings about it except resignation. it’s like yep. she was the sacrifice for this season. you said over and over you wouldn’t do it but you did. should have seen it coming.

i haven’t been very emotionally invested in spn since the end of s8 to be honest. well since edlund left. i tried with season 9 and it started out okay but i just can’t connect with humanish cass. (i didn’t watch either of teh eps since he got his grace back but.) i don’t have much feeling about him anymore. i don’t want anything bad to happen to him, but other than that i just don’t care anymore. i don’t know him. 

i’m not sure what i’m in it for now at all since cass was most of the reason i started watching (also ‘cause the first seasons sounded xfilesish.) and then when i watched there was edlund and now none of those things are there so i’m just kinda in it cause i’m in it. i’m not gonna ragequit on it either. to be honest i just don’t have enough emotion about current spn to do that. 

also the one thing about that episode is now we know why they named the family styne. (i know someone called styne for frankenstein before good on them.)

this post ended up being something very different than what it started out as.

[isthemachinesinging]

[isthemachinesinging]

thinking about my reaction to the meta-ness of 10x05 and how--even though i enjoyed it--rt's approach to meta just does not work for me. but on the other hand it obviously does work for most other fans. like. his meta episodes have been very much about the connection with the viewer, the reader, the fans, the interpreters. explicitly so. he seems to use meta-ing as a way to reach out to fans (so to speak, probably not the best phrase, but you probably get what i mean.) it's, if you think about it, a rather extrospective approach to metanarrative.

whereas edlund's meta-episodes (i include both hollywood babylon and ghostfacers as well as tfm here..the great escapist also had some really heavy meta elements) are much more about examining and playing with the mechanics and structure of story/television itself. it's a much more introspective approach. it's certainly aware of viewers/fans (particularly tfm) but it doesn't reach out or engage in the same way. and i think that's why edlund's approach appeals to me so much more than thompson's. it's the difference between someone putting the spotlight on you and someone inviting you to look over their shoulder while they take something apart.

and i think that's also why the meta of the other chuck eps never really spoke to me. because it's more spotlighting. though unlike rt's meta eps those earlier chuck meta eps focused on the creator and only incidentally the fan as (strange) consumer/outsider--it's ultimately another case of spotlighting fans except instead of 'you're so awesome' it was 'ew i know you're necessary but you're so weird'. 

i mean. i don't think one approach is better than the other? (i could do without the 'ew fans' of the s4/5 chuck eps, though.) it's more what works for you, what appeals to you in terms of metanarrative. i think eventually i might meta (ha!) on this...after nanowrimo though. and i'll need to look up anything rt has said about his approach to meta--if anything. i'm pretty sure he's talked a lot about engaging with fans though which might be the closest i can get. and recheck what edlund's said about his own approach to meta. i do know he's said he loves it as a way of playing with form and examining what television is. plus some other stuff. and i'm pretty sure there's a point on the tfm commentary where someone calls the ep a 'love letter to fans' and he clearly avoids that interpretation--don't remember whether he directly said 'no it's not' or not. like i said. fundamentally different approaches to meta.