#I just think that in this particular case the cultural context influences the worldbuilding | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thunderboltfire · 2 months

Text

I have a lot of complicated feelings when it comes to what Neflix has done with the Witcher, but my probably least favourite is the line of argumentation that originated during shitstorms related to the first and second season that I was unlucky to witness.

It boils down to "Netflix's reinterpretation and vision is valid, because the Witcher books are not written to be slavic. The overwhelming Slavic aestetic is CDPR's interpretation, and the setting in the original books is universally European, as there are references to Arthurian mythos and celtic languages" And I'm not sure where this argument originated and whether it's parroting Sapkowski's own words or a common stance of people who haven't considered the underlying themes of the books series. Because while it's true that there are a lot of western european influences in the Witcher, it's still Central/Eastern European to the bone, and at its core, the lack of understanding of this topic is what makes the Netflix series inauthentic in my eyes.

The slavicness of the Witcher goes deeper than the aestetics, mannerisms, vodka and sour cucumbers. Deeper than Zoltan wrapping his sword with leopard pelt, like he was a hussar. Deeper than the Redanian queen Hedvig and her white eagle on the red field.

What Witcher is actually about? It's a story about destiny, sure. It's a sword-and-sorcery style, antiheroic deconstruction of a fairy tale, too, and it's a weird mix of many culture's influences.

But it's also a story about mundane evil and mundane good. If You think about most dark, gritty problems the world of Witcher faces, it's xenophobia and discrimination, insularism and superstition. Deep-seated fear of the unknown, the powerlessness of common people in the face of danger, war, poverty and hunger. It's what makes people spit over their left shoulder when they see a witcher, it's what makes them distrust their neighbor, clinging to anything they deem safe and known. It's their misfortune and pent-up anger that make them seek scapegoats and be mindlessly, mundanely cruel to the ones weaker than themselves.

There are of course evil wizards, complicated conspiracies and crowned heads, yes. But much of the destruction and depravity is rooted in everyday mundane cycle of violence and misery. The worst monsters in the series are not those killed with a silver sword, but with steel. it's hard to explain but it's the same sort of motiveless, mundane evil that still persist in our poorer regions, born out of generations-long poverty and misery. The behaviour of peasants in Witcher, and the distrust towards authority including kings and monarchs didn't come from nowhere.

On the other hand, among those same, desperately poor people, there is always someone who will share their meal with a traveller, who will risk their safety pulling a wounded stranger off the road into safety. Inconditional kindness among inconditional hate. Most of Geralt's friends try to be decent people in the horrible world. This sort of contrasting mentalities in the recently war-ridden world is intimately familiar to Eastern and Cetral Europe.

But it doesn't end here. Nilfgaard is also a uniquely Central/Eastern European threat. It's a combination of the Third Reich in its aestetics and its sense of superiority and the Stalinist USSR with its personality cult, vast territory and huge army, and as such it's instantly recognisable by anybody whose country was unlucky enough to be caught in-between those two forces. Nilfgaard implements total war and looks upon the northerners with contempt, conscripts the conquered people forcibly, denying them the right of their own identity. It may seem familiar and relevant to many opressed people, but it's in its essence the processing of the trauma of the WW2 and subsequent occupation.

My favourite case are the nonhumans, because their treatment is in a sense a reminder of our worst traits and the worst sins in our history - the regional antisemitism and/or xenophobia, violence, local pogroms. But at the very same time, the dilemma of Scoia'Tael, their impossible choice between maintaining their identity, a small semblance of freedom and their survival, them hiding in the forests, even the fact that they are generally deemed bandits, it all touches the very traumatic parts of specifically Polish history, such as January Uprising, Warsaw Uprising, Ghetto Uprising, the underground resistance in WW2 and the subsequent complicated problem of the Cursed Soldiers all at once. They are the 'other' to the general population, but their underlying struggle is also intimately known to us.

The slavic monsters are an aestetic choice, yes, but I think they are also a reflection of our local, private sins. These are our own, insular boogeymen, fears made flesh. They reproduce due to horrors of the war or they are an unprovoked misfortune that descends from nowhere and whose appearance amplifies the local injustices.

I'm not talking about many, many tiny references that exist in the books, these are just the most blatant examples that come to mind. Anyway, the thing is, whether Sapkowski has intended it or not, Witcher is slavic and it's Polish because it contains social commentary. Many aspects of its worldbuilding reflect our traumas and our national sins. It's not exclusively Polish in its influences and philosophical motifs of course, but it's obvious it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And it seems to me that the inherently Eastern European aspects of Witcher are what was immediately rewritten in the series. It seems to me that the subtler underlying conflicts were reshaped to be centered around servitude, class and gender disparity, and Nilfgaard is more of a fanatic terrorist state than an imposing, totalitarian empire. A lot of complexity seems to be abandoned in lieu of usual high-fantasy wordbuilding. It's especially weird to me because it was completely unnecessary. The Witcher books didn't need to be adjusted to speak about relevant problems - they already did it! The problem of acceptance and discrimination is a very prevalent theme throughout the story! They are many strong female characters too, and they are well written. Honestly I don't know if I should find it insulting towards their viewers that they thought it won't be understood as it was and has to be somehow reshaped to fit the american perpective, because the current problems are very much discussed in there and Sapkowski is not subtle in showing that genocide and discrimination is evil. Heck, anyone who has read the ending knows how tragic it makes the whole story.

It also seems quite disrespectful, because they've basically taken a well-established piece of our domestic literature and popular culture and decided that the social commentary in it is not relevant. It is as if all it referenced was just not important enough and they decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about the problems they consider important. And don't get me wrong, I'm not forcing anyone to write about Central European problems and traumas, I'm just confused that they've taken the piece of art already containing such a perspective on the popular and relevant problem and they just... disregarded it, because it wasn't their exact perspective on said problem.

And I think this homogenisation, maybe even from a certain point of view you could say it's worldview sanitisation is a problem, because it's really ironic, isn't it? To talk about inclusivity in a story which among other problems is about being different, and in the same time to get rid of motifs, themes and references because they are foreign? Because if something presents a different perspective it suddenly is less desirable?

There was a lot of talking about the showrunners travelling to Poland to understand the Witcher's slavic spirit and how to convey it. I don't think they really meant it beyond the most superficial, paper-thin facade.

#The witcher #Sorry if its convoluted I just got reminded of something and it made me a little angry #and as I had this conversation a lot of times I've decided to put it into written text #sorry about being bitter #but these are some of my favourite books and I'm still upset when I get reminded how badly they were treated in the recent adaptation #I'm not saying you should never change anything #But it's good to have enough background to understand why some things are the way they are in the original #and to understand what the source material is about #we don't talk about particular character's looks or something (altough I feel they could care more about it too)#but central themes tropes and motifs #long post #it may seem like I'm talking from a high horse here #people are welcome to interpret literature however they want #Nobody has a monopol on themes #I just think that in this particular case the cultural context influences the worldbuilding #and if changed it doesn't have the same impact anymore #meta

154 notes · View notes

lany-d-flow · 3 years

Text

A Note on Cherry-Picking: Some Concerns

As someone who is new to engaging in discussion with fandoms, there are plenty of perspectives, views, and original authorities (typically the writers/developers) for me to both observe and learn from. Having a space for fans to discuss the intent, the story of an artist’s work is an important part of not only understanding the message the artist wanted to tell its readers as they draw their conclusions, but also for fans to tell interpretations of their own. Not every story has a concrete, objective outcome for events and dynamics that unfolded in the plot. Some stories have an outcome, yet authors choose to be subtle about what happened and could choose not to specify their message in interviews and commentary, allowing readers to comprehend the story on their own until they eventually see what conclusion makes the most sense in the text. In other words, the canon outcome/the outcome intended by the authority of the text, the author. The result of this practice may cause fans to spend a bit more time reading through the text before connecting the dots, and perhaps sharing their own interpretation even if it is not the writer’s outcome. Such a practice is pretty much fine, if not encouraged to help folks gain some inspiration and use their own creativity for what could have been written.

I have some concerns about one either over-extending their interpretation or forgetting to use the main source and only using a supporting source, though.

By this, I mean intentionally spreading their interpretations over one or multiple platforms as canon, even when the creator’s original work, continuity, and supporting texts would say otherwise. This is something potentially dangerous not just for new folks of the same audience, but even to the creator themself if the fan’s interpretations imply that the creator has a twisted mindset/agenda, which would very likely not be the case.

To make matters worse, some might choose to take singular moments, phrases in text and supporting texts, and creator comments out of context to support their narrative, even though taking a look at said scenes in proper context would help readers see otherwise. But this actually is not limited to the interpretation-spreaders alone, as one who understood the proper message/canon outcome of a work could also use the previously mentioned sources to support an incorrect interpretation of the creator’s work, even if this was not their intention in the first place.

I have especially seen instances of this in a fandom I actively participate in. While the actions of few do not represent the thoughts of many, I believe it is still important to make a distinction of this behavior, to not only help understand what could be a negative influence on the media you appreciate, but also to hold those who want to support the creators’ work to a higher standard, that we may stay true and respectful to the creator’s intent, the context of a text and its key moments, and instead of pulling quotes out of a paratext alone, using them to support an argument that’s using the text to make a more cohesive case.

So, I would like to focus on a specific logical fallacy that connects with what I am talking about, and use examples of this fallacy that could be seen in fandom.

Definitions

To start, I’d like to define some key terms related to what I have previously mentioned. These would be paratext, epitext, and of course cherry picking. @themelodicenigma has written comprehensive work on the subject of paratext and epitext, and cites a text named The Peritext Book Club to define these terms:

The concept of paratext was defined by Gérard Genette as common elements provided within a book (peritext) and elements outside of the book that refer to it (epitext); these elements can affect individual, as well as cultural, perceptions of a text (1997, 4–5). Peritext includes elements that surround the body of the text, such as the foreword, table of contents, index, and source notes. Epitext refers to communications outside the text that can also influence whether and how the text is read. Examples of epitext include book reviews, interviews, author websites and letters, and critical literary analysis. [source - pg. 2] (Gross - Peritext Book Club).

Another way to define paratext, as also mentioned in Enigma’s work, is that of which supports and communicates something about the text. In other words, what the paratext states is an analysis of what one can understand from the original text. Although there is a chance that paratext can have some extra information about a story for worldbuilding purposes, what it generally states about scenarios is what we should be able to discern from the text itself. Therefore, if one wants to strengthen their case for why something is as the author intended, it’s usually best if you analyze key moments from the text, followed by usage of a paratext. However, this is not always done, and we will look at it later.

The other key term is cherry-picking. If we want a good definition, we can refer to the Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary:

Cherry-pick(ing): Choose and take only (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available.

This is a common logical fallacy, often used intentionally or unintentionally in practice. Typically, when one wants to prove their point, they will find a source of relevance or semi-relevance that says what they want to hear. Then, they will cite that source as the ultimate Word on what is true, whether or not that is the case. Also, this fallacy can also invite confirmation bias to the user, making their case more fallacious than intended. The problem with this fallacy is that it most often does not address the full context of what the statement is about in the first place. There is also a chance that the source and quote cited are either not officially proven, taken from an outside source that may not be relevant to the topic, as well as taken out of context and warped to the user’s meaning so that their narrative may be supported. If one wants to determine the strength of the source used, they need only check the source cited in the first place and read the material themselves. From there the reader can determine how valid the source actually is to the topic, and continue to point out to other readers why that source is not entirely valid and does not cover the full context of the topic. We can actually see this fallacy in practice with any form of text, whether it’s a paratext, epitext, or the text itself. This is why it’s important for us to fact check what we are telling people and cover the original text when we are making our case.

Unfortunately, some folks in fandom circles end up cherry-picking sources when discussing media--video games, movies, TV shows, books, music, artwork, and so on. Engaging in one particular fandom recently, there is an ongoing debate that fans themselves choose to keep ongoing. Even with texts, paratexts, and epitext(s) supporting one side of the argument, there are plenty of attempts to ignore what the plot of the story ultimately gave us, leading some to attempt to refute what the text gave us and what the creators intended by taking any conceivable scene, line, and written text from the text, paratexts, and epitexts out of context to support their narrative. If one wants to tell whether or not an argument is cherry-picking, they can:

1) find the original source

2) get the rest of the information from the original source, then…

3) discern the context of what’s actually going on in the first place, and see if what the original user was talking about actually lines up with the intent of the creator/original source.

However, this practice is not restricted in this type of scenario alone. If a group has found the answer themself, they could make a case using the original text to discuss what’s going on. However, I have found that there are many instances where only quotes from a paratext and epitext are addressed. So while paratexts and epitexts may support what the user is trying to claim, the user overlooked the main text in the first place. This could raise the question of, “Did you actually look at the scenes in the text?” or “did you NEED to use those supporting texts in the first place?”

And really, I am addressing two sides of this to set a better standard and show that we are not always free from fallacy. It is not necessarily our intention to use a logical fallacy like cherry-picking, but besides twisting original intent it can end up weakening our arguments for questions about the text because we did not actually bother to address the original scene. The text is supposed to provide the full context and cover what grounds it needs to. Using a paratext and epitext alone often don’t cover the full context of a text since they simply provide some support. It’s important to correspond supporting texts to the original media also, not just because of what’s mentioned before, but simply because that’s another important part of preventing misconceptions.

So, I want to provide some examples of how I’ve seen this fallacy being used that’s caused me to raise concerns. Hopefully by the end of this, you’ll understand where cherry-picking ends up being used and how we can do better to stray away from it. For reference, I will try to refer to epitext as “paratext” to avoid having to use both nouns in every sentence. But if the only paratext in question is something like an interview, I’ll use “epitext”.

And yes, I will be specific about the game and characters. I thought about being vague by making the subjects indirectly about the characters, but I do not think my point would be as effective that way. Ultimately, the intent still remains the same, so here goes.

Media to Observe

Game: Final Fantasy VII/Final Fantasy VII Remake

Book: Final Fantasy VII: On The Way To a Smile

Movie: Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete

Paratext(s): Ultimania Guidebook, Interview(s)

Topic: The Nonsensical LTD between three characters (Cloud, Tifa, Aerith)

Examples

Claim: Cloud is obviously in love and prefers Aerith over Tifa because he is miserable and pining for Aerith in Final Fantasy VII Advent Children and avoiding Tifa and their family. We saw him away from his family in the beginning of the movie, and we saw Aerith appear in his head and ask for forgiveness from her. He must be asking her to forgive him for having a relationship with Tifa!

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Movie, Game, Book.

Watch the movie and draw your interpretation. Then, check the prequel of the movie (In this case, On The Way to A Smile). Find any guidebooks and previous texts lining up to this continuity. In the case of this moment, there is a book and game that take place before the events of the movie. In the game, Aerith died and Cloud feels guilty about this. Later in the game, Cloud breaks down due to an identity crisis when he believes Tifa lost faith in him being real, and later in the story Tifa enters his subconscious. In this moment, as we help validate Cloud’s memories, we find out the reason Cloud did everything he did before the events of the game was for Tifa to notice him. After validating the truth of Cloud’s memories and the two of them revealing they indeed held feelings for each other, we eventually reach a scene where, before the final battle, the two of them confess their feelings for each other (will come back to this later). After the game, we have a text that covers the limited point-of-view of the game’s characters, one of them being Tifa. We learn from Tifa’s story that Cloud has tremendous guilt for not being able to protect Aerith. However, this actually is NOT THE ONLY REASON for Cloud’s guilt. In the book and movie, we get information that a new disease is spreading. Finding out there is no cure, while caring for a child with this disease, Cloud’s guilt starts to build up even more. The last straw for Cloud is when he himself contracts this disease. Ultimately, feeling guilty for not saving an important friend, feeling guilty for not being able to find a cure for the child he and Tifa care for, and receiving it himself makes him feel so worthless that he believes the best way to handle the situation is to stay away from his family, that they may not see him suffer and eventually die.

Feeling guilty for Aerith is definitely intentional by the creators and it does represent her importance to Cloud. However, when one chooses to take that one piece of writing and interpret it as the one and only reason for why Cloud is behaving the way he is, then try to interpret it as romantic, that completely neglects the full context for why he was straying away from the people he cherished. Cherry-picking one person and posting that narrative on platforms may make an audience feel inclined to take that as fact, that is why it is important that we look at the rest of the text for Cloud’s behavior, because his internal conflict revolves around failure, guilt, anxiety. Specifically, failure to protect the people he cherishes, and this does not have to be--and is not--romantic to be true. And as if this was not enough, eventually the movie received a more fleshed out version that added another very important person that Cloud feels guilty for: his close friend and comrade, who also ended up being the first love of Aerith.

Also, this is a case where you can use the paratext to support your argument against this cherry-picking. TheLifeStream contains a “3N” Interview, where the three main creators of FFVII Advent Children provide commentary about the movie. In one of the questions, Scenario Writer Kazushige Nojima has this to say about Cloud’s behavior:

At the end of FFVII, Cloud saved the world and was on the way to a happy ending but, in the two years towards AC, he returned to the way he was in the past. What happened to him?

Nojima: Cloud never had a boring personality in the first place so when he started living with Tifa and started out his job, the peaceful life that he had never experienced before made him anxious. During that time, he also contracted Geostigma so it’s to protect the ones precious to him or not, he had to face death and ran away.

Nojima: Even though it’s become peaceful, Cloud has lost many people precious to him. And from Cloud’s background, it was the first time he was in a “peaceful” environment. He’s a character that likes to think about what’s going on around him often.

Here, we are given some context on Cloud’s anxiety and guilt. Context that, in other words, is relevant to the narrative of On The Way to a Smile and FFVII Advent Children as it provides ground for another aspect of Cloud’s guilt. If what was mentioned was not enough to make Cloud feel guilty, he feels anxious for getting something he never had before: a peaceful, happy life with his family. It’s pretty easy to recognize that anxiety is not going to help with Cloud’s aforementioned problems, and all of these issues come together to tell a story about a life after conflict, and handling inevitable issues that will arise regardless. It is important to recognize all of these themes and not just cherry-pick one, because it not only misleads the audience, but also reduces the impact of the message the writers wanted us to tell us.

Claim: The Director of the game in an epitext (an interview) said, “When Cloud is around Tifa, a bit of his true self emerges. There is no other source that says this, and it shows that Cloud is only himself when he is around Tifa.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Games, Paratext.

Source for reference. Director Tetsuya Nomura’s comment:

In a similar fashion, we made it so that the way Cloud talks is dependent on who he's talking to. While talking to Aerith he stands taller and tries to act cool, with Tifa he acts more like himself, and with Jessie you can see his annoyance. Specifically with Aerith he overthinks things and ends up acting a little strange.

There are several different translations of this comment, with the sentence in question varying between “...a bit of his true-self emerges”, “...he loosens up a bit”, or “...he acts more like himself”. While there is some truth to this statement and is well-observed by one of the creators of the game, the interpretation of this epitext is generally taken too far, and doesn’t cover the full context as to what constitutes Cloud’s “true self” in the first place. This is where it’s necessary to look through the text. In this case, the text is a video game.

The truth in this statement stems that Cloud feels most comfortable around Tifa, and generally does not try to put up a facade around her. From here, one should observe traits that represent Cloud’s “true self.” When we see this side of Cloud’s character, we can observe that other characters also see through his facade, and while Cloud tries to keep distance from other characters, either fails to do so or starts to loosen up around the distanced folk. A better way to read this epitext is to take it symbolically, and see how Cloud’s loosened behavior is toward Tifa, then observe how he interacts with others. The bit of Cloud’s “true self” more or less refers to the traits of his true self’s behavior, as the game follows a plot where Cloud made up a false identity that prevents the truth of his memories from connecting with himself. Tifa is the only one who can help Cloud with this, Since this has not yet taken place in the game--which is a remake of the original game--it’s not exactly best to assume the epitext means that Cloud’s true self can consciously choose to come out around only Tifa or whenever he wants.

Similarly, there is a quote from a paratext that says Aerith “melts Cloud’s icy exterior.” This has been cherry-picked by some to tell readers that only Aerith is capable of making Cloud lose his hard-edge. Once again, if we look at scenes within the text itself, it’s pretty easy to see that Cloud’s “rude” and “icy” remarks are not constantly shown throughout the text. What this quote means is that Aerith does a remarkable job at making Cloud be a better individual to those he interacts with in communities along with his friends. It’s best to care more about what impact these characters have on Cloud than trying to perpetuate a narrative that every single one of Cloud’s moments with Tifa and Aerith are romantically motivated, whether or not they are (More often, they are not).

Claim: The Writer stated in an epitext (interview) that things would have gone better with Aerith. This is proof that Aerith was the intended couple and the one that Cloud deserved, but instead Cloud had to have Tifa as a secondary choice.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Book, Epitext, Movie.

Link to Source analysis and translated comment from FFVII Scenario Writer Kazushige Nojima:

‘Episode Tifa’… first off, there’s the premise that things won’t go well between Tifa and Cloud, and that even without Geostigma or Sephiroth this might be the same. I don’t really intend to go about my views on love or marriage or family (laughs). After ACC, I guess Denzel and Marlene could help them work it out. Maybe things would have gone well with Aerith, but I think there is a great burden from Aerith.

It is important that readers themselves read the epitext in question, as this statement is a cherry-picked sentence from a writer’s entire interview comment taken out of context. In this epitext, the writer is talking on the premise that the relationship between Cloud and Tifa has friction even without the events leading to the movie. He gives some thoughts, hoping that Cloud and Tifa’s foster children can help them work out the issue causing friction between their foster parents--in this case, Cloud’s guilt. After this, the writer gives a hypothetical possibility that, “Maybe with Aerith things would have gone well, but her responsibility is a burden, I think.” In other words, the writer is giving nothing more than a hypothetical outcome that was never in the written text, and thinks that maybe if he wrote out a relationship between Cloud and Aerith there could be a great outcome, but he also uses a keyword: “maybe.” Not only is he speaking on a hypothetical, he is also not stating objectively that Aerith and Cloud are best for each other. This is something a writer has to think about as they write their story, as what they would love to see may not necessarily be the best way to strengthen their story. Ultimately, this epitext should be treated as commentary that can leave some room for one’s own interpretation. But it does not change anything that has happened and will happen in the text.

Claim: Cloud loves Tifa because it’s stated in all of the paratexts relevant to the game, the Ultimanias. Every Ultimania that refers to Cloud and Tifa confirms that they are in love with each other. Therefore, Cloud and Tifa are the canon endgame couple.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Games, Book, Paratext, Movie.

While this statement does hold truth, it is still an example of cherry-picking; this is simply pulling quotes/referring to words in a supporting text without actually looking at what happens in the text and continuity. Specifically, any scenarios in the text that focus on Cloud and Tifa’s relationship. This is not the best way to tell your audience that the creator wrote the two folks as a canon couple because it’s not looking at the original text. As mentioned before, a better approach is to refer to scenes in the text, analyze them, and then use paratexts to support what you found in the text. As a matter of fact, take a look at the scenes in the text that make people question the canonicity, and if able, actually discuss how one of the scenes is not what some people try to deem it as (in this case, a rejection).

There is one scene that comes into mind that focuses specifically on Cloud and Tifa. Dubbed the “Highwind scene” by fans, the day before the final battle, all the other characters go to their homes to remember their main reason for fighting, leaving Cloud and Tifa with each other. They then talk about how they do not have any other place to go to or call “home.” After questioning if their mission is actually being noticed by outside forces (figurative language for, “is this fight really worth it?”) they recall their past experiences and, depending on Tifa’s affection level, give implications for what they did that night. All paratexts referring to this moment state it as a moment where Cloud and Tifa realize the depth of the feelings the two have held for each other. For the sake of transparency, I will list the quotes from several paratexts here:

When Cloud proposes that the group separates temporarily, she (Tifa) remains behind at the airship and communicates her feelings together with Cloud. The next morning, she departs for the Northern Crater along with her companions, who returned.

“Words aren’t the only thing that tell people what you’re thinking.......”

-Said to Cloud, when he is at a loss for words while they’re alone

Pg. 27 of FFVII Ultimania Omega, Tifa’s profile.

She communicates her feelings together with Cloud in the final stages of the story, and in AC and DC they live together.

Pg. 33 of Crisis Core Ultimania, Tifa’s profile.

Cloud and Tifa, who remain, reveal their feelings for each other and clarify them together.

Pg. 118 of FFVII 10th Anniversary Ultimania

Words aren’t the only thing that tell people what you’re thinking...

--Prarie: What she said to Cloud the night before the final battle when he said there were many things he wanted to talk about.

Pg. 195 of FF 20th Anniversary Ultimania File 1: Character Guide

I will cut the quotes here, but if you’d like to see a much deeper analysis on this nonsensical debate, along with these quotes and the original JP text from the paratexts, check out Squall_of_SeeD’s essay here on TheLifeStream.

Now, these all reference a very intimate moment within the game...

However, in the game there are two outcomes depending on how you treated Tifa in Disc 1 of Final Fantasy VII : One where Tifa says that words are not the only way to express your feelings, and another that does not give the same implications, instead follows Cloud saying they should get some sleep. It is the latter scene that is labelled by some as “a rejection scene,” leaving some to interpret the outcome of Cloud and Tifa’s relationship as “up to the player” whether or not Cloud ends up with Tifa. Disregarding continuity that says otherwise about the previous statement, it is important that we look at what happens in both scenes. Both Cloud and Tifa sleep together no matter what, and Tifa asks Cloud to let her embrace this moment. After this, both scenes have the two wake up and confirm that they have each other, even if no one decides to come back. Not only do the duo’s friends return, they also catch a glimpse of the duo sharing the night. Depending on what scene you get, the reaction from the crew is different, with the “good” one having Tifa collapse in embarrassment and Cloud and crew rub the back of their necks in embarrassment. With the “bad” one, Tifa walks away in frustration, while Cloud rubs the back of his neck in embarrassment. After analyzing these scenes, then you can use the paratext to support your case that regardless of the scene the player got, this was a special night for Cloud and Tifa. The depth of which they take these feelings is what changes, not their feelings for each other, as we know based on previous scenes in the game (Lifestream sequence, Cloud’s “very personal memory I have” as his reason for fighting, etc.) that the two have not only held feelings for one another, but also they made their feelings aware in some form during the Lifestream sequence, with Cloud’s sealed up secret wish revealed to us that he wanted to protect Tifa and wanted her to notice him while Tifa reveals to Cloud that she spent the last 2 years after Cloud’s departure from their hometown thinking about him, hoping to see some mention of him in the press. The big issue with claiming the Low Affection Highwind scene as a rejection scene/canon scene is that it does not provide any evidence in the game’s narrative that everything Cloud thought of Tifa and did for her is suddenly thrown out the window, especially when, despite the difference in what happens between the two scenes, a special moment between them is still shown on-screen. If this was not enough, continuity of the game has this pair, as previously mentioned, deciding to live their lives together and eventually care for foster children, forming a family of their own. If one is going to talk about the canon outcome, it is important to bring things full circle and use the text and paratext together instead of referring to paratext as the Word of God, as being a material that supports what you can already discern from the text, it is the reverse. What this claim all comes down to is the potential to become oblivious to what the text offers. Some folks may be new to the fandom, and seeing people throw around quotes from a guidebook could leave the new fans confused if one does not address what the paratext is supposed to do and how much authority it holds over the text, as if the paratext holds more authority than the text, which we know is not the case.

Conclusion

Without going through every single argument involved in this debate, I believe the examples above give an idea of what this fallacy is, how it can be identified, and how it is not doing justice to the creator’s work. The same concepts apply to any other media, and are likely practiced, intentionally or unintentionally, by fans of said media. What is important is for us to understand how to set an importance of the relationship between the paratext and text, then act accordingly for understanding the context. By doing this, we can minimize the chances that sources are being cherry-picked for the sake of spreading a warped message. OR, in some cases, corresponding sources to a main source being cherry-picked without actually referring to the main source. From here on out, let’s try to take the rest of the cherries off the branch instead of going for the prettiest pairs alone.

Special Thanks

@themelodicenigma

For reviewing my rough-draft and providing constructive feedback on the ideal approach for a topic like this. If you haven’t, I recommend checking out his essays and analyses. He has written exhaustive work on the concept of Canon and subjects of canonicity. Along with that, he also wrote about the subject of paratext, epitext, and Japanese epitext so quite a bit of inspiration from this post came from his work. Seriously, go check out this guy’s blog!

#context #cherry picking #fallacy #concerns #nonsense

15 notes · View notes

scriptstructure · 6 years

Text

My setting is historical and there is going to be a lot of “wrong” that is going to be considered by most characters and society as a whole as normal. How exactly should I portray “wrong” things as right in my character’s minds, but make it clear that as the author, that it is absolutely wrong. I know there is so much historical fiction, but I’m still confused about the approach to such situations.

I’ve been thinking on this question for a long time, because it’s a pretty complex element of worldbuilding that you’re grappling with.

I say worldbuilding, because the moral structures that your characters adhere to, and the conceptualisation of right and wrong and morality itself is a big part of developing the cultural context that your characters emerge from. Figuring out the generalities of how your characters understand right and wrong, good and evil, etc, is figuring out how they believe the world works.

Now, you’ve not specified any particular ‘wrong’ things in your ask, and to be honest, I struggle to think of anything that has happened historically, that isn’t happening in some form, in the present day. Slavery doesn’t exist in the way it used to, but it still exists, sexual violence still occurs, interpersonal violence, war, murder, religious persecution, persecution for sexual orientation, for gender identity, misogynist violence, keeping people from education or opportunity due to their gender or class or disability, eugenics, genocide ... name a bad thing that has been done historically, and I guarantee that you’ll be able to find that same thing happening in the modern day.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That said, let’s think about what it is that allows us to recognise that something is wrong or immoral. In a very broad generalisation, we recognise very nearly instinctually, that things that hurt us, or that we see hurt other people, are bad. If we see someone get hit, we will cringe with sympathetic pain, we can empathise with others and understand how what they experience would feel bad or painful, even if we haven’t necessarily experienced that exact same thing ourselves.

There are a lot of philosophies which reflect this, from many different cultures, and it’s often referred to as ‘the golden rule’, that is a series of maxims which illustrate the logic of basic morality-as-empathy.

The golden rule can be summed up in three maxims, the positive, negative, and responsive forms.

[Positive] Treat other people the way that you would like to be treated.

[Negative] Do not do to other people things that you would not like done to you.

[Responsive/ empathetic] What you wish upon others you wish upon yourself.

The positive maxim is probably the most well known, there are versions of it passed around pop philosophy everywhere, and the negative one also seems pretty straightforward, but the responsive/ empathetic one may be a little more difficult to conceptualise: Essentially, wishing for something to happen to another person, acknowledges that that something is possible within the framework of society or the world as it exists, and simultaneously, if it is possible to happen to someone else, it is possible to happen to us, the thinker, the wisher.

If I were to think “I hope my neighbours yard floods and their garden is ruined,” then I must also recognise that inherent in that wish is the possibility that that could happen to me. Wishing ill on others is, in a way, setting up the threshhold at which it would be right for that bad thing to happen to me. ‘my neighbour was rude to me, i hope their garden is ruined’ turns into ‘i was rude to my neighbour, i deserve to have my garden ruined’

The inverse of this, is to wish well for others, to think ‘i hope things are going well for my neighbour,’ even in the case that the neighbour has perhaps been rude, etc, we recognise that ill-wishing on top of a situation that is already negative, only produces more bad in the world. By well-wishing, we attempt to produce goodness, not only for the neighbour, but for ourselves.

Lao Tzu put it this way:

Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained.

The way that we treat others is reflected as the way that we believe we ourselves ought to be treated. The way that we are treated, is reflected into the way that we treat others. In this way, cycles form, of increasing in the treatment that we accept from others, or do unto others.

The cyclical nature of this is easily illustrated by the concept of the ‘cycle of violence’ where as a person experiences violent treatment, which is not questioned or challenged by those around them, they go on to internalise that violence as ‘deserved’ and in future interactions, perpetuate that violence.

Eg: a child tries to take an extra sweet from the platter, and has their hand slapped away, later, when another child tries to take that child’s toy at school, the child slaps the second child.

Violence is learned as the ‘proper’ response to interactions that could be handled in more peaceful ways. Imagine, if instead of being slapped when reaching for the sweet, that child was gently told that it’s impolite to take things that aren’t yours. In the playground, the child then tells the second child that it’s rude to take things that aren’t yours.

This is a very simplistic example, and in real life these things are much more complex and nuanced, but you see the concept, right?

‘Mason,’ I hear you saying, ‘that’s all well and good, but what the hell does it have to do with the question at hand???’

there is going to be a lot of “wrong” that is going to be considered by most characters and society as a whole as normal. How exactly should I portray “wrong” things as right in my character’s minds

I think that part of the difficulty of this question stems from conflation of concepts. “Bad things happen that many people in this society see as normal,” vs “People see bad things as good things.” Things that happen don’t have to be thought of as ‘good’ to be thought of as ‘normal’--consider how often we hear bad things dismissed with ‘well that’s just how things are’ or ‘life isn’t fair.’

Thinking about this in light of the responsive maxim we’ve discussed above, this is essentially people internalising the inevitability of bad things happening, perhaps on some level believing that if a bad thing has happened to someone else, then they have done something to deserve it, and that if the wisher/ thinker did the same thing, then they would also deserve the something bad.

So, relating back to the top, where I said this is a question of worldbuilding, think about what has happened, and what is happening, historically and currently, within the society where your characters exist, which informs their views on what kinds of bad things are acceptable to happen to whom, at what point.

Is there some kind of central authority that will tell them when it is alright that bad things happen to people? Say, a religious organisation, or a social hierarchy (King, Emperor, etc)?

Has the society been embroiled in war or other widespread violence which means that people are more likely to use violence as a first response to a given problem?

Is there an economic system in place where certain groups have a vested interest in the exploitation and violence against other people? (Slavery! Capitalism!)

And so on ...

Now, on a broad, societal level, it’s simple enough to see how this large-scale influencing factor (factors, of course, as every society has many many layers of influence stretching through their history) will generate certain trends within the society of how they delineate certain ‘acceptable’ or ‘normal’ levels of Bad Things Happening.

But how do we understand it on a personal level? How do we justify standing by and doing nothing when Bad Things Happen to other people? Or even doing Bad Things ourselves?

There are a few different mechanisms by which people are able to distance themselves from the moral culpability of being responsible for the harm to or suffering of another. As the society is formed by history, the individual is shaped by society, but of course, individuals vary wildly, and may do anything from adhering to their society’s mores rigidly, to rejecting their entire received worldview and endeavouring to create their own moral framework, or choosing outside influences to abide by.

By compartmentalising experiences, people can justify to themselves, and each other, why doing a bad thing was, perhaps, actually, okay, in this case, for these reasons:

I did a bad thing to someone, but that person was not really a person like we are people, and therefore it is fine (the essence of colonialism, believing that your society is so superior to every other society that it is your moral right to take whatever they have and they ought to thank you for it 🤮 [puke emoji])

I did a bad thing to someone, but that person did something bad to deserve it, and therefore it is fine (he stole my thing, so I cut off his hand, this is justice, apparently)

I did a bad thing to someone, but bad thing happens to everyone eventually, so it is fine (an appeal to inevitability)

I did a bad thing to someone, but if I hadn’t, then worse thing would have happened eventually (As with the above example of slapping the child for taking an extra sweet, the intent was to teach manners, the result is to teach violence as the proper response do any difficulty)

And many more ...

Essentially, people can find ways to tell themselves that while what they are doing is a Bad Thing, it is either not as bad as other things, and therefore acceptable, or some form of Bad Thing is inevitable or even necessary, and therefore while doing Bad Things isn’t nice, it’s something that Must Be Done.

(This, by the way, is kinda unhealthy, and makes for a lot of fantastic internal conflict in characters, ie: good for story!!)

Now, we can clarify the second part of the question.

How exactly should I portray “wrong” things as right in my character’s minds, but make it clear that as the author, that it is absolutely wrong.

Bad Things may be thought of as ‘normal’ by the characters, even while being recognised as harmful, bad, rude, mean, cruel, etc. By compartmentalising and justifying their own actions, characters can minimise the badness of their own actions, and attempt to ignore the moral dilemma in what they are doing. The conflict that this generates makes for interesting story, as it involves a great deal of consideration for how this mental gymnastics can be performed, and to what degree the character feels the need to excuse their actions, or can accept the wrongness of what they’ve done.

As the author, no one knows or cares what your moral position on all of this is. For the sake of this blog, the author is dead (not in a Bad Things kind of dead, in the Barthes Things kind of dead! Which means alive, just not relevant to this question!!) The author’s morality is irrelevant because it does not exist inside the text. The author’s morality may be expressed through the text, but ... that’s not the kind of thing that this blog deals with!

So, how do you write Bad Things happening, in a situation where a character may think of bad things as normal, or where they may be justifying their own bad actions?

By showing that Bad Things have Consequences.

Now, I want to be explicitly clear that I don’t mean that every evil deed must be punished. I mean that Evil Deeds can often be a punishment in themselves, and even if the character doesn’t realise that, it can be shown through the events of the story.

I think that a really excellent resource to look at here is @scripttorture, who has many posts detailing the ways in which not only being a victim to violence, but perpetrating violence, can have serious effects on the health and wellbeing of the people involved.

Remember above where we talked about the empathetic element of morality? When we hurt someone, even if we justify hurting them, we also hurt ourselves in the part of ourselves where we recognise the likeness between ourselves and others.

In committing violence against another, we commit it against ourselves, against our own shared humanity. How people react to this kind of trauma is so varied I can’t get into it here, but I think that Scripttorture is a great place to start.

Importantly, a lot of the time, while someone wants to continue to justify their own wrongdoing, they will deny any harm it is doing them, or else they will minimise their own suffering as being a willing sacrifice for their vision of the ‘greater good.’

This is a big big post, so here’s a bit of a summary:

To portray a system of social mores, it is necessary to understand the historical pressures which have formed the society.

To portray an individual operating within the assumptions of a system of social mores, it is necessary to understand the way in which individuals relate to society.

To portray immoral acts within the framework of a society, it is necessary to understand how human psychology and society interact, and the mechanisms which allow people to operate at less-than-ideal levels of moral observance.

To portray immoral acts as wrong, even while characters justify the act in question, it is necessary to portray the accompanying consequences of performing the immoral action, the ‘moral splash-back.’

I feel the need to clarify: there are a lot of schools of thought on what constitutes moral and immoral behaviour (if you’ve not heard of them, there are these things called philosophy and religion that you could check out if you’ve got an hour or two spare), but for the purposes of this post, I’m talking about a basic rubric dealing with actions that result in people being harmed.

Hurting someone=immoral

Not hurting someone=neutral

Helping someone=moral

This is about as basic as I can make this concept for the purpose of explanation, and I hope that it is clear, understandable, and helpful

I know this is a big post, but honestly, it’s a big question, and I feel like it is more helpful to understand the way that these things function in a story, than to just give a prescriptive approach to writing difficult topics.

If you wish to ask something further, or if I have been unclear, please ask again and I’ll do my best to help!

#writing #morality #worldbuilding #world building #long post #submission

64 notes · View notes