i kinda wanted to take a second to talk about a general fandom problem⊠this is loosely inspired by stuff yesterday but isnât aimed at anyone; itâs more a thing to keep in mind
okay, there are two forms of, like, analysis of plot and characters (that we care about - obviously there are. lots of ways to analyze text). theyâre called watsonian and doylist analysis, and basically, watsonian analysis examines things at the in-world narrative level, while doylist analysis examines things at the authorial level.
so, for example, say that a character in something is unexpectedly 100 miles from where they were the last time we saw them, in an unreasonable timeframe. watsonian explanations for this would involve coming up with ways the character could have gotten there in time, maybe involving driving at twice the speed limit while cops trailed after them; doylist explanations would note that the character really kind of needed there for the next plot point to happen, and maybe the author just kind of forgot where the character had been before.
problems of bigotry, bad representation, oversexualization, etc in a fictional universe cannot be addressed thru watsonian analysis
for a very common example of writers trying to do this, look at the amount of female characters who are skimpily dressed, where the explanation is they breath through their skin/they need a lot of skin exposed to use their powers/they need to strip to turn invisible/etc. from a watsonian point of view, sure, that all makes perfect sense! but they didnât need to be written that way. they didnât need to have that trait. whether it makes sense from an in universe point of view, it is still, from an out of universe point of view, various levels of Gross.
(i could just as easily make, say, a character with ice powers who slowly chills herself, so she needs to wear a thick parka and mittens all the time - funny how thatâs a lot less commonâŠ)
but in addition to cases where the writers themselves try to justify things in-world, itâs⊠a pretty common thing for members of a fandom to do the same.
someone points out, like, an ableist trope in something, and gets âoh maybe theyâre not really hallucinations but instead caused by the characterâs exposure to psychic phenomenaâ, or whatever. (or, in the example yesterday, a characterâs skin is bright yellow and their eyes are slits, and the yellowness is explained through being because of their unique powers.) things that arenât in the text but are plausible theories are used to respond to pointing out Problems.
i fucking love theorizing and speculation and responding to âhow does this plot hole work?â with long rambling watsonian analysis! thatâs, like, half my blog. and i get that, when you see someone stating a Problem, the instinct is to apply that same logic to it. âhow did person a get to point bâ can be explained through a wacky car chase scene and some implausible engine modifications, and you can get a lot of fun and maybe some character depth out of it, and maybe even end up creating new stuff, so surely âwhy is character b dressed like thatâ is the same!
but itâs not. even if the author had your explanation in mind, even if it makes perfect in world sense, even if everything lines up - the problem isnât on that level. âthis character is oversexualized/made of bigoted tropes/etcâ is a problem on the level of our world, and a problem at the level of the writers/creators. it canât be solved through making the story justify it.
so if you see someone pointing out a problem that ties into IRL stuff like that, try to engage on the level of real life. save in-world theorizing for other stuff.
jbbartram-illu
vaporwave
stormborns
theartofmadeline
ellievsbear
