#but this is a watsonian post not a doylistic post

[qprstobin]

The fact people act like Steve wouldn't notice if a guy/Eddie was flirting with him at all, when part of the hilarity behind the big boy flirtation scene is that Steve CLEARLY knows something about the comment is off lol. That's why he looks so baffled. Steve can be oblivious about other things but come on Casanova over there is going to notice when someone is flirting with him even if it is a guy

#now whether he knows the flirtation is serious or not is another discussion #but personally i think steve knows when someone is into him #hes picking up with whatever the other person is putting dowb #idk just thought of this when complaining about oblivious steve like wait #everyones fave scene literally has him noticing hes being flirted with #steddie #steve harrington #eddie munson #steve #eddie #fandom wank #also yes im aure some of his confusion was joe keery being confused bc the line was ad libbed #but this is a watsonian post not a doylistic post

[therealsquiddo]

can we get like a thing of how you see lifesteal!squiddo ?

( as in stuff about what happened with the nuke, how they thought ash was gonna kill them and was okay with it, yk^_^ )

Sure :)

When it comes to Lifesteal Squiddo- or any character on any SMP- you have to consider the doylist perspective (out of universe) versus the watsonian perspective. (In-universe)

Lifesteal Squiddo is just a very dramatized version of my real life self... Like, how in real life when something mundanely bad happens, you might exaggerate and mime fainting for a laugh; that's what Lifesteal Squiddo is. I do that because it's entertaining and it's my job to entertain you. When something bad happens, I don't care, it's just our jobs- but to Lifesteal Squiddo it's the end of the world. When something good happens, I'm probably pretty happy, but to Lifesteal Squiddo it's the greatest thing ever.

With the nuke, the entire time I was thinking "How can I work this into a video? This will be a dramatic plot twist, people will like this..." and that sort of thing. But to Lifesteal Squiddo there is no Youtube, so she was just angry.

In real life, on my first day on Lifesteal, I didn't really understand that it was sort of a roleplay thing because I'd never properly played on an SMP before. So, I was nice to Ashswag because he'd added me to the server and I felt like I was in his debt, plus I wanted him to be on my team or whatever. But then I ended up with a character who had been nice to Ashswag for no reason, and I'm like, "okay, maybe he's their hero or something. Maybe they look up to him. Maybe she sees something in him that nobody else does". Squiddo was okay with Ashswag killing her because she was so ashamed that she'd disappointed somebody who she so badly wanted to befriend. In real life, I was okay with it because it meant I finally had an excuse to log off lifesteal to go to sleep ahaha

Although, I actually was happy when Ashswag gave me hearts, I really did think he was going to kill me. I'm glad I get to keep playing. I couldn't sleep that night because I kept smiling... That's probably the only time Lifesteal Squiddo and myself have felt the exact same thing

Anyway, with the election stuff, I thought the entire thing was brilliant!! I'm so so happy that 4CVIT and Red won, especially after I dropped that horrible video about him (which, please don't actually believe it's real!!) I just kept thinking, he's going to get such an insanely good video from this. For Squiddo though, from a doylist perspective, Ashswag voting Mapic and then banning me/her is him drumming up suspense. It's our job, he's good at his job, it makes sense. But from a watsonian perspective, Ashswag has suddenly switched up on Squiddo for absolutely no reason, which is going to make her very sad. Hopefully that explains it well enough!

#ask #long post #If I've misused doylist vs watsonian Im gonna feel like a proper idiot... Its been many years since I left highschool...

[sneez]

more of my oc tervis (any pronouns), the creepiest most miserable little weirdo in town. which is saying something [id under cut]

/ ID: four digital drawings.

The first image is a series of drawings of Tervis on a paper-textured background. A heading at the top reads 'Tervis (Humble)'. One is a coloured headshot of Tervis looking to the left; they have a gaunt face, short receding hair, a scar bisecting their lip and right eyebrow, greyish skin, and are wearing a red shawl around their neck. An arrow pointing at their right eye reads 'one blue eye (mostly blind)'; another arrow pointing at their left eye reads 'one brown eye'. They have a serious, hostile expression. The second drawing is an uncoloured full-body sketch of Tervis. Next to this is the same drawing but coloured and with more polished lineart. Tervis is a thin, hunched figure wearing a long, dark brown robe, a greyish bag on their back, and a red shawl around their head and neck. They are barefoot, and are leaning on a walking staff with both hands. An arrow pointing to the walking staff reads 'needed for walking, useful for hitting'. Tied to the belt around their waist are several long scrolls of paper with writing on them. An arrow pointing to the scrolls reads ''blessings' they paste on infected houses'. Tervis is looking warily out at the viewer from beneath their eyebrows. An arrow pointing to their head reads 'scar from getting hit in the face with a brick (also knocked out a tooth)'. Alongside these drawings are a series of bullet points giving information about Tervis. These read:

   indeterminate age, indeterminate gender

   religious fanatic (unclear which religion)

   lives alone somewhere in the steppe

   dislikes everyone but is nicer to children than anyone else

   has every disease

The second image is a fake screenshot from the video game Pathologic. Tervis is looking out at the viewer; the background shows scenery from the steppe. The text on screen reads:

CHANGELING: I still don’t see what you could have done that would make you personally responsible for this plague. TERVIS: Responsible… no, not merely responsible! This is my plague, cast upon my head alone. I am the originator; my sin is at the root of all. I have ventured into the town. I have seen the canker there. No matter how many houses I bless, my sickness sinks deeper. The rotted limb is the death of the body… Surely you understand me. You are a healer, are you not? CHANGELING: What is it that you are asking me to do? TERVIS: Let me be the lamb, worker of miracles! My blood shall wet the earth, and bright flowers shall grow… My putrefaction will provide the soil within which new life will burgeon, pure and free of sin and decay. Let it be done. I am ready. My failing flesh is but little sacrifice; in death my weakness will be my strength. Soon these torments will be at an end.

Below are two dialogue options:

You’re insane!

What makes you so sure your death would solve anything?

The third image is a fake screenshot from the video game Pathologic 2. Tervis is looking out at the viewer, and has been painted in semi-realistic style. The text on screen reads:

Tervis: Why do you force me to live? Damn you! Your cure is poison to me. Now I shall never be blessed. You should have left me to bleed.

Below are three dialogue options:

Don’t be absurd. I wasn’t going to watch you die.

What makes you think you deserve suffering?

I wish I had.

At the bottom of the image is a line of dialogue which Tervis has just spoken:

The air is foul. There is rot in this place. The stench of corruption shall be – what was it? What was it? The stench of corruption shall be… swept aside…

The fourth image is a coloured scene depicting Tervis and Clara. They are central in the composition; around them is the steppe, which has been rendered in a loose, painterly style. Tervis is kneeling, their walking staff cast aside, and are reaching out their hands to Clara in a desperate, pleading gesture. They are crying, their face contorted in an expression of agonised ecstasy. Clara stands beside them, one hand reaching out, the other held above Tervis’s head as though about to touch their brow. She has a solemn, pained expression. Behind her head, a break in the dark clouds gives the impression that she is haloed by sunlight; rays of the same light fall onto Tervis, illuminating their face and red robe. End ID. /

#artwork #pathologic #tervis!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D #sorry i know ive already posted that fake p2 screenshot i just wanted to keep all my tervis images in one place. please forgive me #i am having. So Much Fun. i would explode and die for tervis shes the worst i adore her #making fake screenshots is so enjoyable i love trying to match the fonts and copying all the little ui details it's so fun highly recommend #i have a lot of tervis lore which i am still developing but hopefully these drawings give you some idea of his character #hes just a mess really. hes got every imaginable problem #that last drawing is her getting sacrificed in the humble ending. she is SO happy about it #also if you didnt see my last post tervis was originally a warhammer 40k oc (which he still is ive just made a bonus pathologic tervis now) #but ive tried to keep a lot of 40k stuff in her design like the blessing scrolls and the uh. Posture #that's also my reasoning for why nobody knows what his religion is. the watsonian explanation is they are just spouting incomprehensible #disjointed passages from some obscure scripture which nobody can identify (and who would want to try really. tervis is not good company) #but the doylist explanation is that it's literally just the cult mechanicus. just ignore all the references to the weakness of the flesh and #the glory of the machine it will all be fine nothing weird here at all #anyway :-) i could talk about tervis forever but i will stop now #i hope you are all well my dear friends! i am on holiday now wahoo #i am also aware that i have several messages to answer which i will do very soon i am so sorry for being so slow as usual #i love you all i am giving you individual kisses on your individual heads. mwah

[batrachised]

inspired by the rubio quote on emily - I understand believing the LMM heroines leaving their ambitions behind is somewhat necessitated by the historical context, and I sympathize with those who would have preferred a different ending for Anne or Emily...but also (esp w Anne), I find it the line of thinking frustrating because (1) it's a false dichotomy that's (2) belied by the text imo and (3) somewhat dismissive of marriage as less than. Anne keeps writing after her marriage. She reads her poems aloud to her family and (iirc) inspires her children to do the same. Just because Emily is marrying Teddy doesn't mean she'll stop writing. The text gives us literally no reason to think that, and in fact explicitly states the opposite when Emily says that she has to write. No matter what, she has to write. If Anne, who doesn't demonstrate Emily's level of ambition, keeps writing, it's nearly laughable to think that Emily wouldn't.

What's especially frustrating is that repeatedly, LM Montgomery's stories focus on the importance of community and family in shaping, sourcing, and strengthening creativity. In Emily, it's explicitly stated that she couldn't have written her breakthrough novel if she had moved to New York and followed her ambitions as such. That's doesn't necessarily translate to romantic support, but romantic support is one form of that! Certainly, these heroines all have domestic endings; it's almost as if LM Montgomery's defining characteristic is finding beauty and power in domesticity, all while acknowledging domesticity doesn't exclude talent and ambition. Her thesis is that women can, and do, contain both. Anne can dream of handsome princes one day and publication the next because you know what--quite a lot of girls do! Emily can fiercely chase publication and long for companionship because you know what - that's the most human thing imaginable!

Acting as if marriage is an imprisonment or hindrance of some sort while LM Montgomery's heroes are marked by being supportive of their wives' talents and ambition (Gilbert is unthreatened by Anne's intelligence; Teddy understands Emily's ambition) ignores the major themes of the novels. It also fails to grapple with the historical barriers faced in a substantive or satisfying manner; it simply poo-poos the semi-requirement of marriage as the happy ending all while ignoring how radical the statements that first, women have ambitions and, second, their ideal partner would support those ambitions, were for the time.

The position also assumes that publication is the only legitimate form of success for writers, and similarly, "real" success requires recognition. It ignores the inherent value of creativity, inserts its own standards for success, all while ignoring what the heroines themselves state they want. Anne wanted marriage and babies; Emily is deeply lonely at the end of Emily's Quest and desires a companion who understands her. LM Montgomery actually directly addresses the idea that Gilbert stole Anne from her ambitions in TBAQ, and Anne laughs at the idea. For Emily, it's more understandable because she does value publication and is very ambitious, but that's where point number one comes in. Would the critics of her (admittedly rushed and slapdash) ending prefer that she stay alone surrounded by people who don't fully understand her? If anything, it's implied that Teddy will enhance Emily's creativity by providing the support she needs, and has in the past when he literally gives her the idea for her first novel, A Seller of Dreams.

I understand the cut and paste ending of "love husband marriage babies" can get to be tiring, especially when presented as the "right" path for women. I admit that the historical context - and pressure - here is impossible to ignore. After all, the examples I gave above are only legitimate to the extent LM Montgomery legitimized them; there could have easily have been a version of the story where Emily only succeeded because she moved to New York. Even LM Montgomery, as mentioned above, writes Gilbert explicitly saying that he regrets that he stole Anne's talent from the world. Sexism is definitely present in these novels. Still, the condescending tone when talking about these ending irks me. In the end, I guess I find the sainting of ambition as ridiculous as I find the sainting of marriage and babies as paths for women. One's as gross a simplification as the other.

At the end of the day as well, LM Montgomery writes slice of life novels based on the charm of rural PEI and local community. She focuses on the everyday purposefully. Complaining that she doesn't have heroines who move beyond domesticity (although really, she does with Sara Stanley) is like going to a pizza parlor and complaining when you get served pizza. Again, this only works to the extent that you agree with LM Montgomery's presentation - but there's something silly in complaining that her slice of life semi-romance novels from the late 1800s-early 1900s all end in marriage for the heroine.

#like sure some women love to stay single and chase their dreams and you know what that's awesome #i am literally one of them #not these women #there ya go #this has been my pounded out rant post i made on too little sleep so forgive any ridiculous logical holes #also women *can* have both #tho that of course opens a deeper can of worms about failure of support networks and unfair societal expectations #there's a whole watsonian and doylist discussion to be had here i know #as in on the watsonian level it's fine on the doylist you can question it more #but the implication is that a woman's character arc ending in marriage is inherently sexist with which i do not agree #emily of new moon #aogg #lm montgomery

[sneezypeasy]

Watsonian vs Doylist Analyses - A Couple Points of Clarification

I just want to clear up a couple of misunderstandings I may have unintentionally contributed to in my previous references on the subject:

1. There can be multiple explanations (multiple Watsonian explanations, multiple Doylist explanations, multiple of each etc) of a given scene or character portrayal or plot point, and people can accept more than one explanation at the same time. It's just uncommon for people to accept or present multiple explanations at once because that's kind of how people people.

2. Doylist takes aren't inherently "better" than Watsonian takes, and vice versa. People use both to engage with the text in different ways and for different purposes. Watsonian logic is fun for roleplay or immersing yourself into the story, and I imagine a lot of fanfic writers often start from a prompt like "I wonder what would happen next if I took x character and then put them in y scenario". Doylist logic is fun if you like examining the text from a more "meta" standpoint, trying to see what purpose various narrative choices serve (or undermine). Neither angle is intrinsically a more valid way to engage with fiction, and you might enjoy doing one thing one day and another thing the next - with different texts or even with the same text.

In litcrit, because I like to pick my brain on the subject of "what would have made for the best story here", I tend to be more interested in analyzing theme, character arcs, setup and payoff etc, which are Doylist interpretations. Some people focus a lot on authorial intent, which is also a Doylist perspective (just a different one). Some people like to try to get into the heads of the characters they're analyzing and discuss ideas like "what choice would make the most sense for x character given who they are as a person". That's a Watsonian take. There are contextual and individual reasons why some explanations may resonate with you more than others some of the time or even most of the time, but they're really apples and oranges. Which one you prefer will likely vary depending on the type of question being posed and what scope seems to be the most appropriate for it - and people are always going to have different opinions about that too... because that's how people people.

Of course, the opinions I personally care enough about to splash all over the internet are going to be opinions I hold with very strong convictions, which is why I can come off quite aggressive about them, but they're still just opinions and there's no such thing as "one true explanation", whether that's Watsonian or Doylist. If I make a Doylist argument and I dismiss someone else's rebuttal on the basis of it being Watsonian, that's not because Watsonian takes are intrinsically weaker, it's just because you generally can't use a Watsonian take to rebut a Doylist one or vice versa. You need to engage with someone's point in order to counter it, and you can't generally do that when you completely change the scope of the question, which is what tends to happen when a Watsonian perspective and a Doylist perspective comes into conflict.

(Of course, you can argue that a Doylist scope is situationally stronger than a Watsonian one or vice versa, but that's a different argument and usually context-dependent lol - point is just because a Doylist answer might fit one particular prompt much better this time, doesn't mean all Doylist answers will always trump all Watsonian answers in every single context all of the time, and that's not even accounting for the fact that you're never going to reach unanimous agreement about these sorts of things anyway.)

I hope that clears things up 😊

#litcrit #watsonian vs doylist #apples and oranges #long post #text post #side note but this is why I tend to only engage in Watsonian logic myself when I'm the one doing the rebutting #I don't usually care to come out with my own Watsonian takes #but occasionally I'll come across someone else's that seems totally bonkers #and unsubstantiated by anything #at which point I'll put the Watsonian hat on so I can engage 😂 #otherwise I prefer my trusty Doylist hats 😁 ✌

[lord-squiggletits]

Okay another instance of "fuck canon" that's not just Pharma-related, but Ambulon related. I keep thinking of Luna-1 where Ambulon called Pharma "Doctor DJD" and I feel like that's such a total "he would not fucking say that" moment. Obv JRO controls the characterization so what's in the comics is canon/right, I just think that it doesn't make sense for someone in Ambulon's position with his backstory to be that petty towards Pharma?

Ambulon's a Decepticon traitor, he's on the DJD's List. Moreover, he's stationed on Messatine which is the DJD's home planet and is (was?) still an active battle front until very recently.

Proof that Messatine being the DJD's territory is common knowledge: not only First Aid, who's stationed at Delphi, but also at least three Autobots on the Lost Light, know that the DJD make Messatine their home. And this is long before Pharma does his monologue to Ratchet about his t-cog blackmail with Tarn.

Proof that Delphi/the nucleon mines were in an active warzone at least until Pharma started his plague: Pharma wouldn't have had any t-cogs to harvest if there wasn't a continuous stream of soldiers/war-dead coming in to use as his supply.

So then, Ambulon knew fully well that he and all of the rest of them were right next to the DJD's home base, and as an ex-Decepticon he knows he would be on the list. Probably not very high on the list, since Ambulon was a mere MTO who got turned into a failed combiner experiment, but he IS on the list; just because the DJD only proceed through the list in order of importance, doesn't mean that Ambulon wouldn't know that they'd come for him eventually.

And this is a really fucking neat idea to play around with! We don't ever get a canon/explicit explanation for why Prowl decided to station those three medics on Delphi, especially one who's an ex-Con on an execution list. Did Ambulon have a choice? Or was he told to go there with no argument? Either way, I think Ambulon deserves some major kudos, because he must have ball (bearings) of steel to be an ex-Con in DJD territory without constantly being on the verge of a mental breakdown or panic attack. I could honestly write a whole post on the question of "why were these three stationed on Messatine" in itself, but that's for another time.

The point I'm trying to make here is basically that Ambulon of all people should've been sympathetic to the circumstances that drove Pharma to do what he did: they were ALL stationed in the DJD's territory and they knew it, they ALL knew that the DJD's playbook is horrific torturous murder, they ALL knew that Ambulon was a former Decepticon. It wouldn't take a genius for everyone at Delphi to piece together the fact that the DJD would come for Ambulon eventually if either he wasn't evacuated or Delphi as a whole wasn't evacuated. But I mean, this is wartime, right? Every soldier is risking their life, everyone could die at any moment. They can't close down Delphi or evacuate all of the personnel in an active war front battling over a mine just because a medic or three might feel unsafe. Nowhere in war is safe. If High Command let everyone abandon their posts who was afraid of being killed, nothing would ever get done because war comes with inherent risk of death that all soldiers accept by participating, as well as accepting the obligation to follow orders on threat of punishment. (Almost as if Pharma couldn't have just evacuated or run away like Ratchet suggested, but JRO clearly isn't a military expert so I'll digress/chalk it up to "wasn't plot relevant to bring up".)

We got all of like, two pages that showed Pharma and Ambulon's working relationship, and the best we have besides that is JRO's word of god that Pharma and Ambulon had 'mutual reluctant respect' for each other. It's highly unlikely that the two were best buddies regardless, but I don't think you need to be friends with someone like Pharma, while sharing the same situation as him, to be a little more sympathetic to him? Like I get that Ambulon would be offended by the idea of his boss trying to frame him for murder to cover up his own murders, but the "Doctor DJD" line always seemed weirdly callous and petty to me. "Doctor DJD" implies that Pharma was some sort of willing collaborator or servant to the DJD which clearly wasn't the case. And I find it hard to believe that Ambulon, who knows exactly what kind of people the DJD are, would have an opinion of Pharma that was just "oh he should've tried harder/been less of a coward and resisted." Hell, Ambulon's reaction to Sonic and Boom showing up at Delphi asking for refuge was to instantly take pity on them and offer them shelter immediately; if he feels protective/sympathetic towards literal random nobody Decepticon soldiers, shouldn't he have at least as much feeling (if not more) for another Autobot who he worked with and supposedly had respect for?

Assuming that Ambulon got the full details of Pharma's blackmail deal. I mean, there's no reason to assume that Ratchet would've lied to First Aid and Ambulon about what Pharma told him (unless??? conspiracy theory!!!!) , so Ambulon should've heard about the t-cog deal and how it was the only reason the DJD didn't raze Delphi to the ground so long ago. Then again, maybe Pharma's story got explained to him and First Aid via Ratchet's extremely judgemental take on events, so who knows how much of Pharma's side of the story Ambulon would've actually known.

But wouldn't it be so much more interesting if, instead of sneering at Pharma as "Doctor DJD", Ambulon had a more conflicted perspective of Pharma's face-heel turn? Would he wonder how it is that someone who he had such respect for could've been so despicable? Or, more sympathetically, would Ambulon ever wonder if Tarn threatening Delphi was his fault for being there? Would Ambulon wonder what he would've done in Pharma's position, being forced to bargain to postpone his own horrific execution? Would he be angry at Prowl or the higher-ups for stationing them all in such a dangerous post to begin with?

I mean, the answer is that Ambulon was a tertiary cast member at best, to the point that half of his appearances on the Lost Light literally are shown in retrospect after he died, so there would've been no room to explore this in the plot, and Ambulon and Pharma were way lower priority compared to other, more important protagonists. I just think it would be interesting to explore these questions in other metas and fan works.

And yes, I do think Ambulon would not fucking say that ("Doctor DJD") regardless of what canon actually says lmao.

#squiggposting #pharma apologism #i mean it's not really pharma apologism. only a little. but this is mostly about ambulon #g1 idw #meta #long post #come on JRO you can't tell me that pharma and ambulon had mutual respect for each other #and then expect that to mesh with ambulon calling pharma doctor djd so callously later #SURE ambulon could just be that disgusted by pharma's actions but. given the context delphi was in? #it would be weird if ambulon's own fear of the DJD/sympathy for its victims didn't inform his perspective #i just think that like. the watsonian explanation of 'ambulon just hates pharma for what he did' is way less satisfying #than the obvious doylist explanation of 'JRO didn't plan for all of the implications and wasn't gonna flesh out these rando side characters #so in this case i feel like it's better to diverge from canon and explore the implications that it didn't address #than to just accept canon's overly simplified depiction of ambulon just unilaterally hating pharma #however i do think it's IC of first aid to hate pharma and not care about the circumstances. he seems like that kind of hotheaded person

[kazoosandfannypacks]

I think my new favorite hack to find a watsonian solution (explainable within the canon of the media) to a doylist urge (this happens because I, the author, want/need this to happen) is to just. assign your doylist desires to another character.

You need your characters to be sitting next to each other in the backseat, despite the fact that it's social norm to leave the middle seat empty? Oh, the driver of the car says, the seatbelt on that side's not working, you'll have to sit in the middle seat. Why's that seatbelt just happen to be broken? Oh, it's not. The driver just wants to see these characters together as much as you do.

#kazzy writes #kazzy's guide to life #writing #writeblr #author #watsonian vs doylist #also because this is the Bad Reading Comprehension Website imma clarify in advance: #there is NOTHING wrong with 'this happens because i need this to happen' #the characters aren't real. they are devices to drive your narrative. you can make them do whatever you want. #but some writers and readers (like me) love seeing that there IS a reason these things happen that makes sense within the narrative #and sometimes that can make it difficult as an author to move forward in your writing #because it's hard to convince your brain that you can move on if you haven't figured out why every detail happens #so this is a nice tip for those who find themselves in that camp #but if you don't care: great! #i support you and you're valid and sometimes a good doylist answer is all you need! #simply move on from this post #because doylist logic is not a bug that needs to be fixed! it is sometimes necessary #and if that's how you write feel free to continue as you were :D #kazzy rambles in the tags

[garashir]

“Do you know what every other version of you did? They did what they were told. But not you.”

#will never not go batshit insane that chucks document of supernatural glitches out RIGHT WHEN cas says were making it up as we go #KING of free will he has always been defying the narrative #AND THE FACT THEY DIDNT INTEND IT #like cas has been defying the narrative since he was created in both a watsonian and doylist way #he WASNT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE #but he fell for the human he raised from hell and neither the network or chuck could get rid of him!!! #I am going literally so insane about it #spn #supernatural #spn 4x22 #castiel #my posts

[nekropsii]

More DubCanon, more Unreal Heir. Mituna writes poetry, by the way.

Is it funny to post this right after the "Retris is kind of a shitty boyfriend" upd8?

#mituna writes poetry! i however. do not. #balled this out at like 8 AM. no beta no draft we die like men. charitably interpret all these things as mituna sucking a little bit #shhhhh. watsonian approach only. homestuck fans LOVE to ignore doylist analysis right? #maybe one day ill find a way to post sovstuck dubcanon that is not ao3. until then! #sovereignstuck #sov!mituna captor #unreal_heir.ship #nekro.art

[incomingalbatross]

It's the Beowulf Dragon, isn't it?

Tolkien writes (something to the effect of): for a man who began his career with Grendel, what less than a dragon is worthy to end it.

So Moriarty is Holmes' Dragon. Conan Doyle took care to give Holmes an enemy worthy of being defeated by. And he still gives Holmes the win. Holmes sets out his win conditions right at the beginning and then achieves them. The conclusion is forgone, but the details matter. This victory matters to him, even if it's news to us.

Yes!!

He knew that Holmes required a dragon, you're right. And he GAVE him one. It would have been so much easier to just be like "sometimes criminals get lucky, and everyone's number has to come up sometime :/" and have it Just Happen somehow, rather than to give him a fitting monster to slay. But Doyle saw he ought to have a dragon and he delivered on that.

And ALSO yes, the way Holmes keeps saying "If I could defeat him that would be enough to end my career on" both underscores the seriousness of Moriarty's evil and establishes that Reichenbach is a win for Holmes regardless of his own death.

OH. In a way, it's about agency. Holmes doesn't die because someone decided to kill him and succeeded, on a narrative level—he dies because he saw a fight worth dying to win, and he stepped up and won it. That's nice.

#asks #sherlock holmes #someone said in the notes of one of my other posts that this is where the doylist-watsonian distinction shines #and i really like that #because often it's used for things like 'yeah we know doyle didn't actually CARE about these dates but here's an elaborate explanation' #but in this case it's about writing SKILL in that even though we know why HE sent holmes to his death #that has absolutely no bearing on the narrative reasons HOLMES chose to face his death #the separation that makes sure to do justice to the character within the character's own frame of reference is very cool i think

[acewizardinspace]

The truth is, sometimes there is no watsonian answer.

Lets say for a moment a character is established to hate the color green. Then in one scene we see them wearing a green scarf. This is never mentioned or explained. It can be fun to come up with watsonian (in universe) explanations for this behavior. Maybe he got it from this other character who loves green, or maybe he changed his mind. But when those explanations actually directly contradict what happens on screen, then there is a problem. Lets say it is impossible for him to have met this other character and gotten a gift, or he mentions his hatred for green again two episodes later meaning it is impossible for him to have changed his mind.

Now your fun watsonian headcanon instead of adding meaning actively detracts meaning. Now it makes the story worse not better. Now the story stops making any amount of sense because you insist on calling attention to something the creators never wanted you to. This can be fun for AUs and headcanons, please keep with it! But it is a shit basis for shit literary analysis.

The truth is, sometimes his scarf is green because that is what the costumer designers had on hand. The truth is, sometimes there is no watsonian answer.

#Watsonian analysis that refuses to engage with doylist analysis will ALWAYS be a shit form of literary analysis. #Yeah you heard me right. ALWAYS. #Because the truth is they are FICTIONAL and the place we are doing our analysis is the REAL world and that fact is always going to matter. #The actual value of watsonian analysis is pretty fucking low in my opinion. #Don't get me wrong they are fun and I love them! I have enough of them I myself use as headcanons. #But the people who concentrate on them so much they forget that this is a show written by real people... #When you keep concentrating stuff the author doesn't care about you miss the big picture. #The thing the author is actually trying to say. #And that is a damn shame because often authors have important shit to say. #And even when they don't works can still have meaning without moral. #I wonder if anyone can guess what this post is about. #I am not that subtle but also I just blocked the person rather than engage with their shit bad faith discussion. #Which while always the correct response is also an annoying one. #shakes fist #your bad faith bullshit makes fandom not fun!!! #my thoughts #my posts

[kerosene-in-a-blender]

I've been thinking since I brought Vespin up in another post, what made Ludinus decide to go after Vax specifically to use as the final lens in the Malleus Key, since there do exist other former mortals who now serve as semi-divine hands of gods?

Is it because Vespin (and Zerxus as well, though it's also possible Ludinus doesn't know what became of him) were explicitly transformed into fiends, and that makes them useless for whatever Ludinus needed that sliver of divinity for?

Was Ludinus originally going to go after one of the hands of Asmodeus but then he learned about the Champion of Ravens and decided he would be easier to draw out? Did Ludinus think it would be easier to force the hand of the Matron than the Lord of the Hells?

Someone needs get up to that moon and ask Ludinus about the thought process behind his plan, because I am very curious

#this entire post is from a watsonian perspective #because from a doylist perspective #i know matt chose vax because that allowed him to weave orym's backstory into the main plot of the campaign #and because seeing vax get orbed would have more emotional impact on the players #critical role #cr3 #critical role spoilers #cr spoilers #ludinus da'leth

[umarthiels]

Before sunrise and sunset, however, she is very wakeful and alert; and it has become a habit for Van Helsing to hypnotise her at such times. At first, some effort was needed, and he had to make many passes; but now, she seems to yield at once, as if by habit, and scarcely any action is needed. He seems to have power at these particular moments to simply will, and her thoughts obey him. He always asks her what she can see and hear.

there's something in this, though I can't quite assemble my thoughts just yet. the way mina has learned to yield to van helsing's hypnosis, the way jonathan describes it as van helsing willing, and mina's thoughts obeying... it really hammers in that dracula and van helsing are foils, and van helsing seems to have a great deal of power over hypnotized!mina's thoughts and willing her to speak, vs dracula using the psychic bond to restrain/suppress mina during the day.

#dracula daily #october 15 #mina harker #van helsing #havent made an original non memey post in a while #or at all #but ya boi RAN to tumblr when i read today’s entry #the parallels really hit me and i'm always a sucker for narrative foils #watsonian pov it's great that the process of hypnosis has gotten easier #at least for the other drac hunters who can now check in on drac much more easily #though im worried abt how thisll affect mina #and from a more doylist perspective it’s discomfiting to see vh have that kind of power over mina given his track record #like i love him but uh. the vibes of this are off. and i wish we could see some of mina's pov here #for her mind to not be her own #whether bc of dracula's restraint or vh's hypnosis... #emile speaks

[mydetheturk]

I tried holding one of my cosplay cigarettes the way Wolfwood does when he holds his cigs and his face at the same time and I just. Wolfwood, buddy. This feels super lesbian and I'm a lesbian who did ballroom dance. Like. Buddy. C'mon.

Side note: it's not uncomfortable just awkward, would definitely take some getting used to.

#myde talks #Trigun #trigun maximum #nicholas d. wolfwood #mind you im not a smoker ive just known smokers my whole life #i dont smoke but i can #yanno? #doylist explanation for why wolfwood Does That is 'Nightow thinks its cool' #watsonian explanation is 'wolfwood needs to keep his trigger finger clear' #there thats the short post about wolfwood smoking

[sudoscience]

Okay, I feel like this is kind of a long shot, but I'm apparently not good enough at Google to find the answer, so I'm hoping someone here will know what I'm talking about. What are the fancy academic terms that mean like "the in-story cause" and "the IRL cause" for something in fiction?

I remember seeing a post about it here on Tumblr, but it was a few months ago. The example it used was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, specifically the ending scene. The movie ends with the main characters being arrested, and the in-story explanation is that they killed a historian, but the IRL explanation was that the alternate ending (a battle between the Knights of Camelot, the French, and the Killer Rabbit) was too expensive and not as funny. Or, to give a more generic example, "the aliens are green because they evolved to have photosynthesis" vs "the aliens are green so the viewer immediately knows they're aliens".

If it helps, I'm pretty sure they were named after people. Like, the in-story explanation would be something like the Arthurian cause, and the IRL explanation would be something like the Cleeseian cause.

[This has been in my drafts since November 2020. The terms I was looking for were Watsonian (for in-universe) and Doylist (for meta), as in Sherlock Holmes.]

#my post #cleaning out my drafts #i could just delete this but what if someone else is wondering the same thing? #literary analysis #watsonian #doylist #watsonian and doylist #idk how else to tag this #i mean. if you're searching the tags for watsonian and doylist then you're obviously already familiar with the terms #tip of my tongue #?

[fiapple]

also if you hate kennedy get off my blog <3 you can acknowledge that she is underwritten without being gross about the only sapphic character of colour on btvs, and the only sapphic character to be played by an actual sapphic woman.

#too much crticism of kennedy on a watsonian level not enough doylist crticism of how fucking gross it was of the writers to not only make #one of few woc & the only canon sapphic woc on the show a military brat along with (likely somewhat consciously) putting her in a position #to get unwarranted fan-hate by not only underwriting her but developing her relationship with willow at such a quick pace & with much less #emotional development between the two in comparison to willow & tara. like they were all relatively intelligent adults & with how often #they framed kennedy as outright antagonistic when she had points that were deserving of actual nuance it’s hard to believe they didn’t know #what they were doing tbh #like the writers at least somewhat knowingly put kennedy & by extension iyari limon in a really bad position as far as i’m concerned #& the fans just disgustingly went along with it uncritically #also if people can endlessly discuss spikes potential in spite of seeing red you should be able to read into kennedy’s like for fucking real #same with reading into kendra & jenny & though she plays a much smaller role even olivia with more humanity though this post isn’t abt them #kennedy #btvs