This Is Ruining Your Conversations | Media Literacy 202
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Have you ever had a conversation about art that just felt like you were talking past each other? This video might help you diagnose the issue. In Media Literacy 202, we examine diegetic and exegetic analysis, or more modernly, watsonian vs doylist.
Twitter: / asarathahs
Discord: / discord
Thumbnail:
Business Inquiries: asarathahsmail@gmail.com
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @asarathahsyt
Merch: asarathahs-sho...
Everything I've ever been wrong about:
bit.ly/asarath...
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 28 วันนี้!! "พระจันทร์ฉาย vs เอลลิส"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LfImEQqfARc/mqdefault.jpg)
Watsonian or Doylist depending on convenience and agenda
“It’s called aura, bro.” -average Doylist arguer.
I have a lot of problems with doylist interpretations. They often come across as caring more about their perception of authorial intent than the actual content of the story
@ both ways of thinking are completely valid. The real key to any school of thought is to not be extreme about it.
@I5g58another gripe I have with a lot of people critiquing a work of literature from a doylist perspective is 99% of the time it just boils down to "I don't like the creative choices the author has decided to make and I don't like the direction the story is going" which just sounds entitiled lol, if the author has a very deliberate idea of the kind of story they want to tell and you don't like that kind of story, well why are you even reading and complaining about this specific work of art then if it's simply not for you?
Not to say that all creatives everywhere are infallible, but oftentimes when people complain about artistic choices or stuff like specific characters dying it really just comes off as the reader/viewer trying to impose their own subjective opinions and ideas for what the story should be over the authors own through whining about their favourite character biting the bullet instead of becoming the epic saviour of the world.
@I5g58 I guess as someone who almost exclusively views things from a doylist perspective, its because I have to acknowledge on some level that the story wouldn't exist without the author. If a character does something stupid I don't ask "Why did the character do that?" I ask "Why did the author write that?". Because the second question has an answer, where the first question doesn't because the story isn't real. Real life is real tho, so when I ask myself "Why did this person do this?" in real life, even if I don't get an answer I at least know the answer exists and in some way matters, even just a little bit.
Though I suppose me believing in God has to do with it, which gets me thinking...
If you write a story well enough, you don't get those "why did x character do this" moments, the story then starts to speak what the author intended (subconsciously or otherwise) allowing you to get more invested. Here's the thing tho...everyone agrees that the best stories are the ones where the author maticulously planned everything out, where every story beat and theme seemlessly merges with each other to say something deep about the human experience and life itself, its these stories that people find the most fufilling on a personal level and that they keep coming back to...
If that's the case for great stories...stories written so well that their fanbase inevitably start to worship them...then why wouldn't that also be the case for real life? Doesn't it make sense that real life were made by God then? If real life were meaningless, then life changing soul fulfilling stories would be impossible to tell...
Idk...that logic makes a lot of sense to me I think...what do you think about it?! :O
3:25
I think, more important than anything, is the CONTEXT where this happen: Was the part were a character had to sacrifice themself in favor or other character out of nowhere, or was this a type of work where it was established from the beginning that "any character could die at any time"?
A watsonian could argue that character A's sacrifice conflicts with the pre-established rules of his personality, therefore his action configuring a plot-hole, while a doylist could argue that this was a necessary action because Character A being alive would make it harder for the author to write the next arcs (Or any other personal reason), so things aren't so black and white.
To me either way it points to bad writing. From a Doylist perspective the author should have had a different character sacrifice themselves, or character A could have just caught a stray despite trying to live on, at least for the "any character could die at any time" thing to still work. The main problems is the author writing a character to be one way and then flipflopping when written into a corner(Usually thing happen when written into a corner, that is).
Me trying my hardest to relate this video to Aldebaran (it worked)
the goat
i will use this information to be annoying in online arguments
A day spent not harassing others on the internet or spreading misinformation is a day wasted
Based 🔥🔥
Based
Based af
I mean, it would be extremely Jojo for the characters to reach out from the paper and write their own story
Honestly, I think it depends on the series and the circumstances, but both perspectives are equally valid in a lot of cases. I might prioritize one perspective over the other based on the circumstances, though. Like, if the author was clearly trying to write something tight-knit, any holes in that, whether a flaw in the story itself or an exec decision behind the scenes, is still a flaw that can break immersion. It can be really frustrating, too, when fans all invest a lot of time into speculation for a deliberately written story, only for important clues to just get forgotten (as opposed to purposeful red herrings).
This is why I like Madoka Magica so much as a series. It's short and was clearly honed to near perfection (animation studio mishaps aside) before it was dropped for the public. Just about every scene and line of dialog matters immensely to understanding the characters and plot. No screentime is wasted and secrets intended to be revealed later are given ample time from the start to build up clever foreshadowing and drop enough hints for the most clever audience members to figure them out before their reveal. Overall, it's a hard series to critique without simply talking about personal preferences instead of practical holes or contradictions in the story. And it ends on such a powerful note, which is hard to come by these days.
Not sure what your second paragraph has to do with your first one, but it only validates my comment more that I left on here saying that short stories tend to be better than long ones for this reason AND...by extension...avoid this whole annoying in universe vs out of universe arguments that people have...
On that note...I should really watch Madoka Magica sometime...
Since you recommended a tight show like that, I have to ask...have you watched Gurren Lagann? I think that's another good example of a SUPER tight show that ties up EVERYTHING by the end of it! :O
While I also prefer talking about stories from a Doylist perspective, I think the best way to handle most media conversations is to (like you said) meet them where they are at.
The young Sheldon sneak,lmao
In regards to the Araki stuff: Good characters and a good setting write themselves. Just put fleshed out characters(And all of Araki's characters are very fleshed out just look at his 30 something point character making thing.) in a situation and you know how they'll react. And most people will agree that a good story is internally consistent, when something not established or is inconsistent happens we call that an ass pull for a reason. A Doylist may have an easier time pointing out negative parts of a story(bad writing) where as someone who is overall happy with the quality of said story may have an easier time looking at things internally.
The main thing to me is how series are we talking about a story or character. Just some fun what if type stuff? A Watsonian approach will have no issues. Talking about characters less as people and more as theme/lesson delivery mechanisms? Doylist all the way. They aren't people but a well written character feels real. We are happy when Subaru wins, and sad when he falls to the depths of despair. And to me seeing Subaru as someone rather than a billboard saying "It's not too late to put your life back together, man." Makes for a more enjoyable experience.
Neither one is bad or anything, but maybe everyone should agree to be more chill about works of fiction.
This makes a lot of sense & reminds me of an argument I accidentally got into with my sister over a show we watch together. We were watching a new episode with a battle scene & she asked why a kid character was there on the battlefield with the series BBEG instead of fighting on 1 of the other battlefields against a lesser bad guy. My initial response pissed her off & I really didn't intend for it to. I thought she'd just debate me over my excuse for the author choosing to do that, maybe come up with alternatives. My response was a solidly *doyelist* response. The only answers to her question I can think of are *doyelist* type, not on purpose either.
"Well he couldn't been placed against any of the other villains, he's too strong. The fight would be over too quickly." Her response was a really missed off "Really?!?".
I didn't point out to her that it occurred to me later that his mentor was also on that battlefield, so that character ended up going to the same battlefield as his mentor & we got to see him go all out (seeing all those cool fight moves) against the BBEG.
This also explains why people have complained about my using the term "beautiful tragedy" when referring to a characters death that made me feel something(s). When a character dies well, I can appreciate that part of the story even while acknowledging that character could've lived on & done a lot more with their life in-universe. Especially when referring to the death of a character I've grown attached to in a story (includes anime / TV) the term "beautiful tragedy" is sorta both, a mixture of watson-ian & *doyelist* even as it leans more towards the *doyelist* side. I learned the term "beautiful tragedy" from Shnee. Automatically loved it.
Media literacy? I hardly know her
I think the intent (from other sources with similar statements) was that after creating a character, the actions follow set patterns that the author has no control over IF THE CHARACTER WILL STAY TRUE TO FORM. not a mythic lack of control, but a requirement for the character to stay true. For the author this can be an automatic function.
I recently had this conversation with my coworker while trying to convince him to give Mushoku Tensei a try (I know, it's a hard sell), but it wasn't Rudeus' pervy personality that made it difficult. I was explaining that mages have a hard time going against swordsmen in this franchise as a highlight to the complexity of this world's mechanics. While mages are great on large scale battles where they can hide in the rear lines, their traditionally long incantations make fighting against swordsmen a poor matchup. He scoffed while saying that the idea of a mage, who's able to change the weather, could be easily put down by a "guy with a stick."
I tried to back up my words by showcasing how powerful Ghislaine is when she rescued Rudeus and Eris, but he kept scoffing at one thing in particular. He thought it was silly that Rudeus lifted off by casting fire at his feet while catching Eris, but couldn't change his trajectory in air with the same fire spell when noticing the sword thrown at him.
I just couldn't wrap my head around this because I've had conversations like this with him before. I could think of a Watsonian reasoning where, "in the heat of the moment, he froze up," but I knew he wouldn't buy that. I could provide a Doylist perspective where, "it's not needed because Ghislaine was gonna be there and it's a lesson for Rudeus to learn how dangerous people can be despite being a powerful mage," but I knew that wouldn't work either! It's hard to engage in constructive criticism when someone points out and nitpicks at "what ifs" when it doesn't actually matter in the grand scheme of the story...
I think that more often than not a doylist aproach is the right one, but i didnt know about these distinctions until this video, for me my framework was always like, there is the story the author is telling, and the messages he is conveying with his story, whether the author realizes it or not, and then there is the in universe logic of a story, which i feel is also important and should be consistent.
To me the issue isn't that complicated.
If you enjoy the work or are immersed in said story.....one tends to use the Watsonian angle. It's when you're a bit miffed on certain parts of said story that one looks for a Doylist perspective.
So it's not that Watsonians are immature , they just have fun with said work as it is.
Never said they were immature
@AsarathaHSYT I didn't say you did. I'm saying it lol. Anyhow I just think that most folks who engage in Doylist analysis are people who had some dissatisfaction with a piece of media and looked behind the curtain for why.
Eh not really. I really enjoy TTGL and view it almost entirely from a doylist perspective, because that perspective is so so so much more interesting than what actually happens in the show...granted I like what happens in the show...but that's mainly because it highlights what the author was thinking when he wrote it. A good show should blend both perspectives, not cause you to pick one or the other.
When I was a teenager I also adored the story of Sonic 06 (still do but...my perspective has changed on it), that was entirely a watsonian perspective tho, as I'd often try to handwave issues with the story as a means of self justification. It was dumb...now I can be honest with why I like it and point out what's good about it while acknowledging the flaws.
Your comment isn't the first to point this idea out, but omg! I think there's this big misconception that a doylist perspective is only used to point out flaws with a story when that's just not true at all! Being able to understand an author's perspective does nothing but enhance my enjoyment of a story! Even if the story isn't that good, I like being able to go "oh, that's what he was trying to do there!", its just nice to know in general! I don't understand why people prefer to be ignorant about this stuff, if you REALLY like a story, wouldn't you want to understand the intent behind it?!
Like all my favorite stories tend to involve the author really knowing what they are doing, whether that be by accident or on purpose!
If its on purpose, then its your traditional doylist perspective, its satisfying to see all the pieces click, I shouldn't need to explain this too much...
If its accidental, I still try to see what aspects of reality were taken to make the story work. I guess cause I believe in God, I ask "why did God make this part of reality this way for a story to use this idea and still effect me emotionally?".
If I have to piece what an author did for them, then its not their story anymore...its now mine!
That's why when people try to argue that their overhyped 7/10 story is a masterpiece because "reasons" I roll my eyes a bit. These stories have merit, I should make that clear, but when someone exclusively uses watsonian logic to explain why a story is good, I have to wonder if said person has ever experienced what a REAL masterpiece is like before! :O
@Alienrun I get your reasoning. It is great to look under the hood and seeing the stuff that makes good stories work.
But to a lot of folks especially younger teen me, enjoying the show as presented is good enough.
Very.....very few people in the real world care much about how the sausage of their stories are made, only that they're enjoyable.
So when a person presents a Watsonian viewpoint, just accept that they're simple fans and play on their level.
One sleeps better that way
@@rotimigbadebo9609 Most people online will flat out ignore authorial intent if I point it out (unless they're a power scaler ironically enough, then they'll be the ones pointing to the author).
Idk, maybe I don't go outside enough, but basic story analysis (cause that's what it is) gets boring very very fast for me!
But yeah I've gotten used to it, and its not like I don't ever participate in it myself, but I try to remind myself to expand my horizons a bit sometimes you know?
TL;DR I'm probably just really sick of the Sonic/DBZ/Undertale fanbases... :/ (I would also say Star Wars but I don't actually bump into them much these days, as most of them just say "disney bad" and then move on with their lives! lol :P)
I think the best way to view media is through the mindset of both a watsonian and a doylist
The problem with Doylist analysis is that it's inherently more susceptible to bias.
For example, in Sherlock Holmes the Watsonian reason his brother Mycroft doesn't work as a detective (despite possessing even greater powers of deduction than Sherlock) is that he finds most cases mundane and prefers to spend his time with like-minded peers. The story that introduces him basically opens with him saddling his little brother with all the legwork for a case he finds interesting enough to bother with. You could think this is lazy or contrived, but you can't really argue against that this isn't the Watsonian reason.
Doylist reasons are almost never as clean cut. With Mycroft, we could argue that the Doylist reason he rarely involves himself is that he would overshadow the MC. This isn't wrong, but it's a very surface level analysis.
My reading would be analysis would be that Doyle included Mycroft to develop Sherlocks character. Having a character that outclasses Sherlock in the room allows for a lot of interesting interactions, but it also gives some of Sherlocks less appreciated skills time to shine. Contrasting Holmes against a deductive genius even greater, directly highlights his the way he gathers information and evidence, actual detective work Mycroft finds beneath him. Putting talent over hard work and fundamentals is a timeless error (incidentally it's something that pops up in anime all the time).
But in a way, I'm biased because I've already accepted the Watsonian reasons. You could argue the story or even the whole series would be better if Sherlock became a deductive wizard and solved all of his cases from the comfort of Bakers Street.
How much you like a work or even the artist will always color a Doylist reading. Someone that likes Sherlock Holmes even more than I might argue that Mycrofts character is based off of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's family life.
I agree that conversations should define their terms but Watsonian readings are inherently more objective. Doylist reasons can often completely derail the thread with tangentially relevant details, and then people get on their high-horse when you try to stick to the subject. At worst people read into the text and dismiss actual details. At that point it isn't even the authors logic anymore, it's just your logic.
I'm going to reply to your points as I go, since I am a doylist perspective holder myself...
"Doylist reasons are almost never as clean cut."
I mean, idk man. Maybe that's because the reason anything happens in a story isn't always necessarily clean cut, it can be sometimes, but not all the times. When you decide something happens in a story, you come up with something thematically fitting and emotionally satisfying first and then try and figure out the logistics afterwards. Anyone who says otherwise has either never written anything emotionally compelling before or doesn't understand their own emotional motivations to do things, or possibly both...
"but Watsonian readings are inherently more objective."
Its in universe objective but in terms of what the author intended its less objective cause its less real overall. Like yeah, we don't know exactly how the world works, so what? Can we stop pretending like we do somehow? Good faith subjective discussion is objectively more useful/fulfilling than subjective "objective" discussion about fictional media...
Wait FOUR channel members mentioned?? Holy Infinity War
This is why I tend to stay away from long running series's in general, they tend to produce this problem inevitiably because either the author changes or the author changes his mind on stuff and clearly couldn't anticipate what would happen later when they wrote the begining of the "story". Like arcs are just seperate stories most of the time that just so happen to use the same characters and world, the fact they are "in universe" continuations usually has no bearing on anything aside from getting the audience more invested because "I've been with these characters for so long!".
It's like how Stan Lee said "The best way to keep a long series running is to give the illusion of change without actually changing anything" and like...he's right...and when you spell it out like that it sounds really stupid doesn't it?!
Short stories that are intended to be written with a beginning middle and end solves all of the problems you brought up in the video. I usually see that people who engage in these stories are more likely to even consider what the author intended simply by nature of wanting to engage with the story more instead of endlessly obsessing with contradictory lore that doesn't actually have anything to do with the creative intent of each individual arc!
Of course...this isn't to say that every short story is good or every long story is bad, there's lots of room for nuance there. But I think because we tend to remember good stories that are longer, whether that be fictional stories or stories of our real lives, we think that good stories are long, when the reality is is that most good stories are actually really short, its just that long good stories tend to be more impressive on a surface level. But personally I think short stories that touch on some sort of personal or religious matter...packaged in a way that allows you to come back to it every now and again and still get something from it, as if you were engaging with it for the very first time...those stories are the best ones!
Anyways, that's my long ass rant! lol. This video was good, you got a sub good sir! :D
This was a good video.
Though, I'm more of a watsonian, and you seem to be more of a doylist, so there are some points I disagree in here:
Indeed, there is no spiritual entity revealing what should happen in JoJo's to Araki, but there is an abstract entity limiting what could happen in JoJo's (And make certain things more likely to happen than others), that entity is the rules and happenings that Araki himself put previously in his own story.
You can't, at the same time, complain about plot-holes, but also complain that an author didn't break his own rules.
"He could've just written a different story".
Sometimes he couldn't, because of the rules he laid beforehand.
"He could've just written different rules".
And soccer could be played with your hands, but then wouldn't be soccer anymore.
In the end, you have to choose: Either you treat a piece of art like the creation of a demiurge, therefore the author's words are absolute.
Or you treat a piece of art like "a living world", therefore all views about it are interpretations.
You can't both have a cake and eat it.
Thank you! All through this video, I'm thinking along these lines. There's nothing forcing an author to write a specific scenario. But I'm rather reminded of an interview with GRRM, where he's talking about foreshadowing, and an author sets up a mystery where he plans to reveal that the butler was the killer. Okay. So he releases a book, sets the scene, and finds on the internet that most of the fandom is already convinced that the butler was the killer. The author can change his story, retcon it, and say one of the maids did it, and it's completely valid to point out that an author has the freedom to do so...but, personally, I would say that an author who did that just lacks integrity. You can do it, where all the clues to implicate the butler are a complete red herring and the maid, who had absolutely nothing sus on her, secretly has all this backstory that makes her the real culprit. It's just no longer a satisfying mystery novel because it was solved off screen using information the reader had no access to.
Which is the real problem. An author can write anything. But not everything written is a good story.
As a doylist as well, I would say the phrase "You can't, at the same time, complain about plot-holes, but also complain that an author didn't break his own rules" is a bit of a misunderstanding on our point of view
Because we do not want to encourage an author to "break his rules", certainly not. However it is often a response we get that somehow in certain moments "the rules" meant only A could happen, not B. We simply don't believe in that, as the author had full freedom to do C, D, E, F etc etc instead, without breaking any rules. It is ultimately an author's decision to do A.
@@goetiawasright6793 I'm not sure I understand the difference here. I agree that sometimes what is written is poorly reasoned, or that there seem to be far more elegant solutions to the 'rules' and author comes up with. But I can do that with a purely Watsonian analysis of the universe and its rules, without bringing the author into it. Ultimately, sure, whatever is written on the page is there because the author/editor/test readers,etc. wanted it there. But if we're getting into an argument about internal consistency, Watsonian analysis can do everything a Doylist perspective can except tack on an addendum of "This doesn't make sense, and the author is the one responsible" to the Watsonian's "This just doesn't make sense within the world of the story." But the same set of conclusions can be reached without arguing the author's personal role in the process. Unless I'm missing something more of your analysis in these situations.
Your the only watsonian in this comment section that actually made a good point!
I'm a doyalist so...thank you! This is actually a good point! lol :P
I relate this topic to the "A song of ice and fire" series
We may disagree but i still fw you dragon Gus
Hi Skon
@ hi Seth
Didn’t even realize I was in this vid.
@@dragongus9574 we fw u dragon gus
Elementary my dear watsonian
Me when I got dogpilled by JJK twitter because I called out how narratively useless the soldier plot is
10:03 if only thought this way during part 5
Very good video. I would just like to say that I believe both of these frameworks have their merits and I think whether one or the other is more useful in specific cases depends on context. Personally I prefer the watsonian viewpoint in most cases becuase it can be a lot of fun to theorycraft and use mental gymnastics to justify in universe lore; however, there are many cases where it is clear that the doylist perspective is objectively superior becuase the author is clearly unskilled. What I am trying to get at is that I think we need to add an additional layer of analysis on top of the doylist vs watsonian ones, and that layer is the question of whether or not the author knows what they are doing. Can a particular author be trusted to know their story better than their audience and do they have a strong grasp of what they want to do with their story in the future. If the answers to these questions are no, then the doylist perspective should automatically win out unless you really like the story for some reason besides quality and you'd rather headcannon your way out of bad writing. If; however, the author is known to be competent and the reader can reasonably believe that they have a handle on what they want to do, then I think the watsonian perspective should be taken more seriously, although the doylist perspective could still be valid depending on the context and the point of contention.
Name a great story that was written by an incompetant author.
You can't. The only reason this can happen is if the story itself relies on outside information to sell you its idea. In other words, it has to be religious/political propaganda of some sort. I say this as someone who is religious mind you. A story ought to reach those heights on its own merit, not point to a higher meaning by means of cheating.
TL;DR If the story is well executed, you can usually tell, you can especially tell if you get used to viewing stories exclusively using the doylist perspective and will be blown away whenever you find that juicy 10/10 story where you can tell the author thought through everything (consciously or otherwise).
Overly relying on headcanons is fanboy bias anyways, your doing the writing for them in that case, granted some people do this in reverse, where they say a story has no merit cause there's too many plot holes or something, but you get the idea. I've just never seen a case where someone exclusively uses a watsonian perspective to analyse a story and I don't end up thinking "Dude, your missing, like, the entire fricken point of the story!".
I just have to ask, what are you trying to get out of a story when you view it entirely through in universe means? You need a point of reference to perceive anything right? If your not viewing the story as a story...then...what are you viewing it as? Like, I notice watsonian viewers tend to get fixated on their favorite characters often, and its no wonder if this video is anything to go by!
I explain this stuff more on another comment I left on another comment here! (In the comment chain that starts with "“It’s called aura, bro.” -average Doylist arguer.") Check it out, its a good read I think! :O
@@Alienrun J.K. Rowling isn't a particularly great author, but Harry Potter is a great story despite all the plotholes.
More generally, the watsonian perspective is great for stories with excellent worldbuilding, but middling overall writing quality.
One such example that comes to mind is the Elder Scrolls franchise. None of the plotlines or sidequests are particularly well written, but people love it anyway becuase the world of the Elder Scrolls is compelling and the lore is interesting. You sort of have to take a watsonian stance with the Elder Scrolls lore in order to get the most out of it becuase of all the contradictions, retcons, and inconsistancies that come with a project with so many different writers.
What I'm getting at, is there are plenty of ways and reasons to enjoy a story that are not directly related to the writing quality, and you can increase the fun factor by taking a watsonian stance. Sure, if you're a critic, the doylist perspective is entirely superior, but people find critics to be stiff, grating, and full of themselves for a reason.
@@ElfangorQ7N 1. Harry Potter has been criticized for a lot more than plot holes and rightfully so. Still, the movies are competently put together (with some fairly good child acting in the first few movies) and chaining together a whole bunch of movies like that was pretty impressive for the time.
2. If you don't advocate for art to be better then your accepting mediocrity. Not thinking about art and "turning your brain off" indirectly hurts it. There's a slippery slope effect that people don't realize. They'll accept mediocrity because its not garbage, and thus never come across something actually amazing and worthy of genuine praise because they aren't looking for it.
I do agree with what you said about being able to like things for differing reasons, but that shouldn't come at the expense of having higher standards I think.
Also...
3. Most critics I come across don't really come off as full of themselves (some are, don't get me wrong, but you don't have to look that hard to find someone doing it in good faith). Whereas I'm a lot more likely to find someone who dismisses a critic entirely just because they are being a little too negative/contrarian...
Hmm...maybe I'm biased in the other direction! :O
@@Alienrun I think you'll find that sometimes, when you're looking for something really specific out of a story, a well written version of that concept simply doesn't exist or you've already read the only one that does it well. I agree that we should strive to have stories with better and better writing quality, but ideals are just that, ideals. When the rubber hits the road, sometimes you enjoy a mediocre rendition of a concept you really like far more than ten expertly written masterpieces that you just don't vibe with.
There's also a hidden cost to completely dismissing everything that doesn't have above average writing quality. That cost is inspiration. It's no secret that authors "steal" ideas from other authors and incorporate them in a transformative way into their own works. If authors never read anything mediocre then they'd miss out on all the great ideas that talented, but unskilled author's have, and then we'd never get a well written story that brings out the full potential of those ideas.
I was looking for series of re zero ex-light novel summaries but it looks like no one has made it yet😭
God bless
So what you're saying is, toga should not have fucking died. 😂🤣😂
Enjoyed the video, although I think cropping the video to cut out the white slideshow UI around the border would add to the viewing experience
Fair
cute emilia on thumbail, views!!
Oh this feels familiar…
Hi jaerek
Hello fellow doylist Asaratha
❤
NERD! (I love ur videos)
gorithm
Would this be a good video to send EFAP?
Diegetic & Exegetic > Watsonian & Doylist tbh
havent watched the video yet but goated take as always
Video starts: 0:00
Video ends: 11:46
I think Doyalist lens should always be subservient to Watsonsian lens, regardless of extra authorial factors things must be consistent in story before we think about out if story,otherwise you can excuse bad writing and literally any bullshit interpretation with "themes. " Doyalism honestly sounds like pseudo intellectualism where you can side step objective criticism with "muh themes."
Stories don't have objective logic because they are made up. We have the real world for that. A story is supposed to be a simplification of reality by design. Ask yourself "why do I engage with stories?" and "what makes them meaningful on a personal level?". After you ask yourself these questions, I sincerely hope your answer is not "to be able to solve logic puzzles based on common sense understanding of what I perceive to be the "in universe" of the story".
There's lots of reasons stories connect with people and can be considered meaningful, and there's lots of ways you can measure how well a story accomplishes that without refering to "muh logic". One common way is the see how well the story masters the craft it was told in...hence the term "masterpiece" referring to how the best pieces of art master the craft they are told in.
So yeah, themes are important, but much more important is execution. Execution of the craft specifically. A focus on consistent narrative over plot. They might sound like the same thing but as far as storytelling is concerned they couldn't be further apart.
I actually have spent some time attempting to write stories on my own in the past year, and its only further validated this perspective more...
When I write a long ass first draft for multiple days with no plan, inevitably, plot holes arise. I notice these immediately, they are the first thing I notice, and by extension, they are usually the first thing an audience will notice too (not all the time, but for some people definitely). The thing is though, is that even if these plot holes get fixed, it doesn't make the story better, because they were never the core of the problem in the first place. How well everything fits together and how I communicate it and what it all says as a result, that's what matters, and that's a lot harder to get right than simply "making sure the logic is consistent", that crap is easy, telling a story with no plot holes doesn't mean your a good writer, not by any stretch of the imagination!
Idk where your getting this idea that plot holes = bad writing. Good writing means you got across what you intended to the best of your ability, that's literately it. Looking at a story through a watsonian lens is objectively limiting, ironically. Why would you limit your perspective like this honestly?
Like have you ever come across a story where the author knew exactly what he was doing and every theme and narrative beat flowed together so smoothly that you couldn't help but be taken away and moved by what your looking at? That perspective can only really be appreciated through a doylist perspective.
TL;DR If your going to critique a story, critique the story, not the in universe logics of the story, because they don't matter. They only matter in the moment to ground the audiences expectations of what can happen at that moment, but otherwise they are not the story itself!
@Alienrun Bullshit that is copium for not being a good writer, that's what allows hack writers to make excuses that you can't understand their genius.
Every bad story I've ever Come across has ALWAYS been when consistency is broken.
Go fuck yourself