#doylist

[dandelionjack]

some final thoughts on the matter from me, my twitter mutual Frosty, and their mutual Bonnie.

never been so disappointed in my fav show.

[theweeklydiscourse]

Why do you think Rhysand feels so intensely about Nesta saying some mean things to Feyre as a child and letting her hunt when he spent his own childhood in death camps where is Amren's words they break children's bones over and over for days sometimes, where he met his brothers through violence, Cassian best him and then they beat Azriel, shouldn't they be more casual about child bullying or whatever?

I’m of two minds when it comes to this topic.

Watsonian Answer

Rhysand’s hypocrisy is an expression of his dominance over the interpersonal relationships of the Inner Circle. In a “Rules for thee, not for me” fashion, Rhysand has the power to dole out judgment while never being judged himself and is relatively free from the consequences of his actions. I believe that his persistent grudge and vendetta against Nesta could be either projection, or a pretext to justify his control over her. I’m more inclined towards the latter, as his sustained hostility and abuse of power over Nesta cannot be justified as being done for Feyre’s sake. His pattern of acting against Feyre’s wishes to pursue petty revenge against Nesta is an example of this.

Doylist Answer

Rhysand’s intensity serves the overall wish-fulfillment fantasy of the series. Feyre is the Y/N figure that the reader can use to vicariously enjoy certain pleasures they’d never pursue in real life. Feyre disavows revenge against Nesta, but never seriously attempts to thwart Rhysand’s mean-spirited treatment of her. This way, she can have her cake and eat it too. Rhysand is bad and vindictive so Feyre can be the good girl who gets revenge anyway. For some readers, it’s pleasurable to imagine a person who wronged them in a situation where that person is utterly powerless and at their mercy. The fact that the revenge is enacted by Feyre’s friends (rather than Feyre herself) is doubly pleasurable because it’s a testament to how much they love her, while also acting as extensions of her power. The fantasy is being free to indulge in the pleasure of crushing the person who wronged you underneath your heel.

All this to say, the contradictions are definitely there. Did Nesta exploit Feyre’s labour? Yes, but the punishment she receives for that wrongdoing is completely disproportionate. The Inner Circle is disturbingly casual about many other things that were objectively way worse than Nesta being a bad sister (under dire circumstances I might add) yet they act like she’s some kind of villainess. Bullying Azriel is something they can chuckle about, but Rhysand would never ever forgive Nesta for letting her hunt. I could say more about this, but I’m worried I would ramble on for too long.

[anerdynerd]

I just learned that people use the word doylist to describe an out-of-universe perspective for fiction and watsonian for an in-universe perspective and this is my favorite thing I’ve learned today, how great is that, I may just start using this as a fun-fact from now on, apologies to anyone who is going to have a conversation with me within the next few days because I WILL mention it🧍

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

I'm not a fan of those "who would win in a fight?" style posts. I find it hard to engage with the question in a Watsonian way; I always resort to the Doylist answer of "it depends on who's writing it." Depends on which universe it takes place in, depends on whether or not it's a joke. Could Lazytown Sportacus defeat The Boys Homelander? In Lazytown, yes. In The Boys, no; Homelander would punch through his chest, rip his heart out, and feed it to him like an apple, because it's an M-rated show. Can Batman defeat Bugs Bunny? Why is Batman fighting Bugs Bunny? If he engages seriously and actually wants to defeat him, then no, but if he recognizes the ridiculousness of the situation and plays along, yes-anding all of Bugs' shenanigans, then maybe. Jason cut Freddy's head off, but Freddy winked at the end, so he didn't really lose. Some xenomorphs killed some predators, and vice versa. There are no definitive answers.

The broader point is that, canonically, no two protagonists would ever fight one another. Superman and Goku and One Punch Man would not be villains in either of the others' universes, so they would have no reason to fight. In every "canon" crossover there's always some BS justification like a misunderstanding or one of the villains has captured the heroes and is forcing them to be gladiators, something like that, in which case they would eventually team up to try and stop the real bad guy rather than kill one another. Sometimes Godzilla beats King Kong, sometimes King Kong beats Godzilla, but the both beat Ghidorrah because the bad guy always loses.

[yap-city]

One thing you gotta know about this blog is that I’m OBSESSED with Watsonian vs. Doylist reasoning. Like yes, I know that TECHNICALLY, the reason this thing happened in the story is because the editors thought it would sell more books, or the writer wanted to force a conflict, or whatever. I know these characters are not real people.

But hypothetically, if they WERE—

No, shut up, if they WERE real people— then w h y did they do the thing?? What was their reasoning??? The second a writer shares a story, the characters become concepts independent of the original authorial intention. “The character did this because the author wanted them to,” I know, I know, but FORGET the author for a second. The author is gone, they’re dead, I killed them and pissed on their corpse. Forget the author, IMMERSE YOURSELF IN THE FICTION.

Are you immersed? ARE YOU IMMERSED?

Good. Now I ask you: W h y did the character do the thing?

[achromaticabberation]

i fucking hate doylist-only bitches coming in to a post about watsonian theories. like "i wonder why character did this-"

"UH BC THE AUTHOR MADE THEM?"

yeah and ur author made you the biggest clown in the fucking circus, doesnt mean u gotta perform here dude

[tracklessreason]

Something something the demonization of children with quiet eyes and calm demeanors. The portrayal of orphans and children from bad situations as inherently dark and demonic.

Quiet as a sign of evil, wary as a show of devilry.

Not trusting adults innately being a cardinal sin. The abused being weak and cruel.

Something something children being told subliminally the consequences of being unable to belong.

[matt0044]

Incuriouser and incuriouser: Regarding fandom and interpretation.

There seems to be a fandom phenomenon in where a sort of CinemaSins mode of thinking limits the imagination. As in everything in a fantasy world must be detailed and explained to us with little ambiguity to it. Otherwise a fan’s inference within an attempted analysis of the text is just meaningless.

Yet many other viewers would call out a show for any such exposition so clunky and obvious in intention to infodump on the viewers.

See… one of the things I liked about The Legend of Korra fandom back when the show was airing (despite Nick’s best efforts) was that fans thrived with making analytical text posts out of the blanks the show left. The Fridge Brilliance page for the show could be overblown but it was clear that the staff wanted to invite viewers to take a closer look.

For every ATLA purist, there were those who read Korra’s Season 1 arc as opening her Chakras and culminating in achieving the Avatar State. Many who saw Mako as a person who did hurt others but without realizing and honestly being more of a dork at the end of the day.

Basically they used their imagination. Headcanons and theories are the backbone of fandom. Some are weird ideas while others take stock of what the show presents us and make reasonable deductions.

That’s the real problem with some fandoms. They’re too caught up in being “objective” that they forget the fun in being subjective. In having some aspects of the show being malleable in interpretation.

Don't even get me started about ships.

[911abc-confessions]

I see mentioned on both sides that Eddie's and Chris's falling out/reconciliation should have been solved differently, would have needed more time/talking-through/focus/screentime or needed different pacing/approach.

And I kinda have to "sit on my hands" every time to not reply because what I'd *reallllly* like to say is a doylian reply to a watsonian problem and that would be derailing. But the thing is, if they wanted to address the problem/tension between Chris and Eddie *properly*, then they would have to talk about Kim. And I don't think they'd like to talk about Kim. At all. The nicest reply to that whole storyline was clear bafflement/WTF from *any* part of the fandom and I really doubt they want the audience to remember her.

a lot of us, if not all, don't talk about a looooooot of things in our lives that need to be talked about. we honestly don't believe the directors/writers care about the kim storyline.

[edit] for anyone who doesn't what they mean:

these are two ways of looking at a story —especially when you're analyzing inconsistencies, character choices, or plot holes. aka eddie diaz and his... basically every storyline.

watsonian perspective (named after dr. john watson, from sherlock holmes lit.):

you interpret the story from inside the universe.

everything happens for a reason within the story’s world.

example: "why did eddie do this?" —you answer based on his personality, history, or motivations (repressed, grieving, etc.) as if he's a real person.

doylist perspective (named after sir arthur conan doyle, who created sherlock holmes):

you interpret the story from outside the universe.

everything happens because the author (or writers, producers, etc.) made a choice.

example: "why did a eddie do this?" —you say, "because the writers needed drama", or "because christopher was leaving the show for school."

so, "a doylist reply to a watsonian problem" means—

someone (us) asks a question that assumes the story world is real (watsonian), but the answer given explains it based on behind-the-scenes reasons (doylist).

in this context:

watsonian question: "why did eddie do it? it doesn’t seem like him." doylist answer: "because the writers needed to write something for eddie and let christopher go, so that the actor can leave the show."

[bleeding-star-heart]

The more I think about DA:2 's ending and read people's thoughts on it here, the more it changes. I've come to the conclusion that while the Watsonian explanation for what Anders does is okay, I cannot say the same of the Doylist explanation. For those who don't understand what that means, a couple definitions. Watsonian: the in-story justification for why something happens or is. Ex. Luke's aunt and uncle are murdered in A New Hope because the Empire was looking for Luke. Doylist: The author's purpose for having something happen or be in a story. Ex. Luke's aunt and uncle die to move the plot forward and help make sure he leaves Tattoine. In other words: the in-universe reason for the Chantry being blown up is clear, but the writers' reasons aren't. Therefore, we are not discussing Anders's motivation. There's plenty of meta for that if you're curious. Instead, we are discussing the writers' motivation for writing it the way they did. One could simply say, 'they needed a conflict for the finale', and have done with it. But that only explains the most bare-bone plot-related reasons. It says nothing about how that plot point relates to the overall message, or how the writers intended Anders to be viewed by the audience. Specifically, I doubt that the writers meant us to view Anders positively. If that was their intention, they would not have written Anders murdering Elthina in a way that involved massive collateral damage and the death of innocents. Those things don't tend to generate goodwill. It's possible they wanted Anders to be viewed as a villain, but in that case, why doesn't DA2 end with an Anders boss fight? No, I suspect that the writers' intention were in the same situation as Marvel movies with politically progressive villains. Namely, the ones the audience ends up agreeing with to the point they're in danger of losing their status as villains. Only, instead of it being a single character, the writers had this problem with the concept of mage rights as a whole. Namely, modern people are generally against depriving people of their freedoms/rights. They're especially against doing so because of something the person can't control or doing it to a whole group because only some members of that group are bad. Therefore, most players will probably agree with Anders that the Circles are indeed bad. Especially players from real-life marginalized groups. It's the same deal as X-Men, except that X-Men understands and ANTICIPATES that the audience is on the side of the X-Men. DA:2, on the other hand...not so much. So, I suspect Anders blowing up the Chantry was the writers doing what Marvel writers often do: make the left-wing villain inexplicably do something nasty in order to have them retain their villain status. Or, in this case, have the most prominent activist do something bad so that the mage rights cause looks equal to the Templar point of view. And, like in the case of Marvel, it doesn't really work. Anders blowing up the Chantry doesn't make the Templars look right. As a matter of fact, the in-universe explanation explicitly relies upon the fact that it doesn't! And that is why I cannot say the writers' reason to write Anders do what he does makes sense. Mainly because I don't believe the writers had a reason. In other words, I believe Anders was done dirty by the finale.

[rollerska8er]

when someone criticises a work of media along Doylist lines and some Redditor starts justifying the target of the critique with a Watsonian explanation

[kaishi101]

Electric mice are in fact the crabs of Pokémon

Electric rodents are found in every Pokemon region because of Nuzzle.

Electric types have only one weakness: Ground-types. Ground types do not typically live in an electric mouse's natural environment (typically forests or plains), and those that do not appear to predate them. All of an electric mouse's natural predators will not be able to attack it without risking paralysis. There's a reason all of them get Nuzzle and/or the ability Static.

Nuzzle, in particular, is shared by every single electric mouse except Morpeko. Morpeko, of course, probably isn't often in danger of getting eaten.

On top of that, the variation in each Electric Mouse Pokemon is aligned to its environment.

Analysis Time!

Pikachu:

Location: Viridian Forest Other possible predators: Beedrill, Butterfree, Bird Pokemon

Pikachu has advantageous typing against any potential carnivores naturally located in Viridian Forest. It's pretty simple logic compared to the initial post.

Plusle/Minun

Location: Route 110 Possible predators: Poochyena, Gulpin

Gulpin here seems to have actually evolved perfectly to eat these two; its Pokedex entry states that it will eat anything smaller than itself, its height is about the same as Plusle and Minun, and its weight is much more. But, Plusle and Minun both more than double it in speed, and on the route there are much easier catches--Gulpin outspeeds and outsizes Oddish, Zigzagoon, and Poocheyena.

Speaking of Poocheyena, while it is stated to be a pursuit predator, it is also stated to run away if its prey fights back, which Plusle and Minun most certainly do.

Pachirisu

Locations: Route 205 and Valley Windworks Possible predators: None, really, maybe Shinx?

In its location, the only other Pokemon are Water types, Bidoof, and Shinx. Water types obviously can't hunt it, Bidoof obviously isn't a predator, and Pokedex entries reveal that Shinx isn't one either, really. Pachirisu has driven out all potential predators. What a legend.

Emolga

Locations: A lot of places Possible predators: scary

Emolga is where things start getting very interesting. Most previous Electric Mous Pokemon have been content to stay on the ground, but Emolga is a Flying type. Why trade a Ground-type weakness for Ice-type and Rock-type weaknesses, particularly in a region with seasons? For the most part, it's Unova's suite of Ground-types.

Excadrill is very mobile, a potential threat to any grounded Electric-type, and if we assume most of these Pokemon live in underground burrows, Excadrill is particularly suited to predate such creatures. on top of that, ponds are often dominated by the Seismitoad line, another Ground-type. By living higher up and getting around by gliding, Emolga avoids these issues.

On top of that, Gen 5's Rock and Ice types are not inclined to predate Emolga. Crustle is a slow, territorial crab, and while the Gigalith line is unspecified in its diet afaicr, I don't think Emolga will be spending much time around mountains anyway. The same goes for Vanilluxe and Cryogonal, and Beartic I think is too big to be a problem for Emolga.

Dedenne

Location: Route 11 Possible Predators: I'll explain

Dedenne's Pokedex entries reference it stealing electricity from people's homes, so while it isn't particularly adapted for Route 11's Pokemon aside from having nuzzle its main habitat seems to be places where people live like Lumiose City. In this context I think we start to see a trend of Electric Mouse Pokemon instead evolving closer to humans: basically, aligning with the Doylist explanation for all our Electric Mouse Pokemon: the Pokemon Company wants people to like them.

Inspiration from this post: https://www.tumblr.com/onemillionwordsofcrap/733615702023503872/doylist-explanation-they-keep-making-new-electric?source=share

[irradiate-space]

three hours of fierce but productive debase based on in-setting knowledge and design analysis and parallels to real life, derailed by one poster who switches from Watsonian to Doylist analysis because they're losing

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

One of my biggest pet peeves in fandom space is people that cannot get past the idea that everything POSSIBLE in any work of fiction is there due to authorial fiat and deliberate intention (Watsonian) and that extra-textual mistakes or constraints on the author's knowledge, time, or ability - that cause plot holes, errors, or things that don't add up in some way to the wider world (Doylist) simply couldn't possibly exist and that anyone who suggests even a mild critique or observation of that nature must secretly be someone who set out in the first place to bully the author & attack the fandom.

Seen increasingly in the fandom space of any controversial authors or creators as their core fans seem to start to shore up as defenders of the creator first and fans of the property second.

(Obligatory TVTropes rabbit hole)

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

It really bugs me when a fandom tries to come up with Watsonian answers to continuity errors when the Doylist answer is just that the writer made a mistake. That's it. There's no canonical solution, there's no in-universe justification, the writers just messed up. One line from season 10 contradicts a line from season 2 because season 2 aired 8 years earlier and had different writers and it wasn't considered an important enough line to codify as part of series continuity. Creators aren't fanboys of their own work. They don't obsess over minute details like that, it's just a job for them. Some showrunners might plant hints, but I assure you that the vast majority of plot holes/retcons are just mistakes because pobody's nerfect.

I understand that part of the fun of fandom is geeking out over content like this, but I think it's important to take a step back and acknowledge that sometimes things aren't going to be 100% internally consistent. You can have fun and speculate about the implications of a continuity error, but don't bend over backwards to try and make it make sense. I don't understand people who can only enjoy a show if every aspect perfectly slots into every other aspect with no room for human error.

[thecleverqueer]

The Ahsoka series feels dull and incomplete to you because they held back story for future projects… and while this may seem dumb on its face, the truth is that Disney knows that you’ll spend more money later to find out what happens.

Star Wars does this. In fairness, it always has… and people always react the same fucking way about it.

I grew up with the completed original trilogy, and I remember absolutely HATING the prequels, especially the first two films, my god. They set off a visceral reaction within me. I wanted to disassemble them, set them on fire, throw them at Lucasfilm ranch and watch it burn to the ground. Inevitably, I grew to love them (The Clone Wars series and a deeper hatred for the sequels helped). Still, I’ve consumed every piece of Star Wars media since their release. Every piece. To try to like it, and make sense of it. Sometimes, it works. Sometimes, it doesn’t. EVERY. PIECE. So much money. See where this is going?

So yeah, the Ahsoka series has planted seeds. I’d say if you want to keep going, do it… or get off the bus. The only way it stops is if you quit feeding the machine quarters… otherwise, it keeps going for all eternity. Jumping online and bitching about it will change nothing.