#i got some anons that were a bit annoying/rude regarding analysis and I just want to sort of address them in a post and just a general vibe

[aemiron-main]

“you’re looking too far into things, the characters aren’t that complex!!” lmao ok so the show where the whole point of it is to “look behind the curtain,” and where “you’ve been seeing this story unfold the whole time,” and where even the most minuscule details end up foreshadowing things is meant to NOT be analyzed and people are imagining the complexity?

like I’m not expecting season 5 to have a flashback montage of every moment that mike’s struggled with his sexuality and blatantly scream the words “INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA” or a montage of every moment of mike’s depression and for them to tell it to us point blank “Mike Wheeler is struggling with his mental health”.

I don’t expect this because in typical ST fashion, they’ve SHOWN us these things, they know we’re not stupid and that we don’t need every detail handed to us on a silver platter because when you have ✨media literacy✨ you can connect the dots! and sure people may have different conclusions about those dots, that’s part of analysis! They don’t need to tell us because they have already shown us. Do you think that the set designers just do things for shits and giggles?? Because they were in a silly goofy mood??? Or do you think it’s because set design is an intricate art form and is used to convey things about characters that aren’t always said out loud? Do you think that cinematographers just set up shots completely randomly?

I don’t expect them to tell us all of this point blank, but I think the idea that the duffers and the production creating complex, multi-layered characters is less likely than them creating simple ones and just taking the ‘simplest route’ and that people are looking too far into it is absolutely ridiculous.

Even if Mike never said the word gay or depression in season 5, I feel strongly that analysis regarding his sexuality and mental health still stands because it’s based in what we’ve seen in the show so far, people aren’t just pulling this out of a hat, and it does bother me when people treat genuine analysis as if it’s just headcanoning for fun with no basis in the show. (I LOVE headcanoning for fun, don’t get me wrong, it’s great and valid but it’s different than analysis). Even if people come to different conclusions with their analysis, it’s still analysis.

Will has never said the word “gay”, but we knew he was gay before the duffers or noah confirmed it. because of analysis and media literacy. the same tactics that we use to determine other things about the show.

Even if you disagree with an analysis I think it’s absurd to invalidate it based on what might happen in season 5- because our current analysis is rooted in what we HAVE seen, even if we NEVER got another season of st, the beauty of media literacy is being able the analyze and draw conclusions based on what we DO see. Like the idea that people are simply imagining the complexity of characters or the narrative and that an absolutely massive, detailed show like ST is always taking the simplest route is ridiculous imo, even if you disagree with an analysis, to act as if people are just imagining things and not acknowledging the work that goes into analysis AND the work that goes into the SHOW is frustrating.

This isn’t an indirect or a response to any sort of criticism of any of my analysis because I’m always more than happy to go over that and have back and forth with people about it in a peaceful way and there’s not even any of that criticism of my own stuff happening that I’ve noticed rn. What this IS about is something I’ve noticed over the past few month in regards to my own analysis + others’ analysis where it’s dismissed because “it’s not that deep, you’re projecting and imagining things” instead of countering it with any other analysis or even trying to debunk the analysis. Like do you think that the show just does things like set design choices and cinematography choices and writing choices and spending money for funsies? That they just close their eyes and throw the items onto the set, put the actors into a blindfold, spin them around like they’re playing pin the tail on the donkey and then just let them say whatever they want into the camera? Like sure that’s hyperbole, but still, that’s what it feels like people believe sometimes when they’re so quick to dismiss things with “it’s not that deep, you’re imagining things.” And to be clear this also isn’t about people saying “well maybe it was a production error” because that’s also analysis! That’s a completely valid criticism and part of analysis is figuring out the likelihood of something being intentional or being an accident + then demonstrating whether or not you can prove it was intentional or if your theory was wrong! And I have no problem with people disagreeing with my analysis or even with people thinking that I’m looking too far into it, really: I have a problem with dismissing peoples’ analysis as having no basis and being projection/just a headcanon and ignoring and not even addressing the elements of the show that made someone come to that conclusion + why you disagree with the conclusion based on what we see in the show.

Even if you disagree about what those details mean, I find it frustrating and dismissive to act as if they’re not there + that they don’t mean anything and that people are imagining things. Like that’s the same rhetoric that the GA says about byler. Again, you are under NO obligation to agree with every analysis, god knows I don’t, and conflicting analysis will always exist and that’s fine, but I also don’t just dismiss peoples’ analysis as them “looking too deep into it and projecting or imagining complexity that has no basis,” I try my best tos we where they’re coming from and figure out what parts of the show have led them to that conclusion and why I either agree or disagree about what those parts of the show indicate.