#i know this analysis is the opposite of the premise of the show from ep 1 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

life-rewritten · 4 years

Text

The Eternal Burden of Dea*th and Sisyphus; Sisyphus The Myth Ep 5-8

Well, Hello there, this is a surprise. I didn't actually think I was going to be able to come up with another analysis for the Korean drama Sisyphus The Myth. Mostly because, like in the last four new episodes, it's just been jampacked with too many stories, and plots, and villains and just too many things. So it's been hard, getting an understanding of things. When I analyse shows, I tend to have a map in my head; for Sisyphus, the myth, The Greek Myth was my map. I started to think that there was just a lot of deviation from it, and so it was time to throw in the towel and just leave my first theory and analysis of the show as the end-all, be-all. Nothing, in my opinion, has changed with the overall theme and outline used to predict the show. Still, at the same time, the characters start to muddle up with their selfish tasks, and their childish mindsets and the villains all seem to clump together with no real difference to them at first. I could just like group them into three categories based on the first analysis, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that because that's not how writers and directors typically use literature bases to tell a story. And that's why it's been very confusing to place where the story is going, and what is the point of watching these idiotic characters make these mistakes over and over and over again. The reason I was into Sisyphus is because it's a love story; it's a very angsty, forbidden, dramatic, crazy love story between Seohae and Taesul. It is their love that is essentially akin to the metaphor of Sisyphus, the reason for why we are stuck in this infinite loop of misery and suffering. And with these kind of love stories, my heart is affected because all they're trying to do is run away from fate and choose each other, and be with each other no matter what. It's powerful; it's romantic, it's selfish. But it's an exciting premise for a love story.

So I like Sisyphus when I think about the love story; that's all I can really focus on instead of all the time travelling logic, confusion with some plot holes and others. The love story is still interesting, but I also wanted to focus this analysis on showing how much Seohae and Taesul have to suffer for their selfish actions repeatedly. In one perspective, I am appalled by their actions Taesul is such a child, and he's so dumb and selfish, which is very similar to Sisyphus in his own myth, but at least Sisyphus had some benefits when he did something, like he saved his kingdom, I don't know I just hate that Taesul knows what his actions will lead to and yet he's still willing to throw the whole world, his wife's wishes, and his brother's warning to defeat Sigma because of pride. That's essentially what his actions are leading to. It's so annoying. Meanwhile, Seohae gets to unveil her own secrets and storyline, and all I can say is poor her; she's in love with someone who is the constant source of her strife and pain, but what can she do? He's also probably her continuous source of life and purpose, she's just a victim of Taesul's idiocy, but I also think she's just as annoying and dumb as him because she too is repeating the same mistakes over and over again. She's not strong no matter how much she believes in stopping Taesul or getting out of this cursed loop they're in. Now it sounds like because of my annoyance, I dislike this show because the characters are very annoying, but no, I'm just having to state that as much as I do think there's a weakness in directing, writing and character dimensionality, I still like the show. I still want to keep watching it to see how these twos love story ends. It's still powerful to see the effects of an unconditional and desperate love. And that's all that matters, the ability to be entertained and hooked into a story about flawed humans who fall in love and are punished for their flaws. All in all, I still believe there must be some kind of punishment for these two's actions, and so character development is key to later on being added to the story and resolution; character revelations, awareness, and forgiveness. And speaking of some of the kind of punishments that these two do have to go through, this essay is going to be breaking down the goals of each of the villains of Sisyphus and how they can also help us understand what's going on and what's going to happen to this love story unfolding. So let's back to Greek Mythology.

The Hidden Victims of Sisyphus

The first thing we have to focus on when reading the myth of Sisyphus and his adventures with the gods, is the characters. The last analysis focused on how both Seohae and Taesul play the role of Sisyphus in this show and how they both are connected to different parts of the same myth. But in the tale, there are more characters that need to be fleshed out, that need to be brought to light essentially just like the show (these past four episodes), brought to light all these new villains and aims, and character plot twists to show you the severity of the results of these twos Sisyphean actions. Just like with the show, although it may just seem that it's only Zeus and a personification of Dea*th playing the roles as the villains in the myth for Sisyphus, there's actually more characters that all add to the burden of this and have it out for him. So that's important to notice. Let's summarise the storyline of the myth whilst putting these other characters in the spotlight.

Before we even go into the actual myth of the Sisyphus and the boulder storyline. We also need to account for his character storyline and involvement in other tales before we start to see him act up. In fact, before he starts to want to chain and evade dea*th, he angers so many others before him, he already has enemies waiting to get rid of him. And these people are significant because some of the characters in the show mirror them. So before the act of Sisyphus and the boulder, there was so much more to know. Sisyphus angers Zeus by betraying him and making him lose someone he wanted; he does this by telling the god who's the father of the girl that Zeus is trying to steal her. He tricks/manipulates the god to give him wealth and success and this river of prosperity, so in the end, he ends up aggravating both gods, one because he betrayed Zeus, who now has it out for him, but also two because he just like took the most memorable thing from the other god to give him the information.

The Broken Bond of Sisyphus

Here, Sis is seen as problematic by Zeus and others because he's too clever for his own good, he's too cunning, and he's a problem to their power. But this is not just it; also in the story, when Sisyphus is meant to be the king of his kingdom by birth, he has a brother. Surprise? Probably not because surely this has to mirror Tae-san because Taesul has a brother. And yeah, there's a character who represents a familial bond, but in the myth, Sisyphus wants to get rid of his brother; their relationship is a maim in his life, utterly opposite to Taesan and Taesul, which is why I didn't trust Taesan for so long. The brother is Salmoneus.

But the details to know with the brother is that Sisyphus is usurped of his kingdom by the brother, who's connected to greed, naivety, hubris and ego. Something he was rightfully given to by birth (his reign and legacy) was stolen from him by his brother unfairly and just cruelly. And this is the reason for why he hates his brother in the myth and wants to get rid of him. So this is all feeling very different from what's been portrayed in the show; Taesan is apparently risking his life to save Taesul; Taesan has always sacrificed everything for Taesul's happiness and for him to own the company he has, which is the symbol of Taesul's kingdom. It is because Taesul wants to save Taesan that he is causing a Sisyphean effect to the world; he's ruining the world to save and find and bring his brother back to him. That's really confusing.

It doesn't end there, though, because Sisyphus proceeds also to steal his brother's wife by force and have her give birth to fulfil a messed up prophecy about her kids being the ones to get rid of the brother. She doesn't do this; she ends up instead of losing the kids to protect the brother. There's a bit of weird addition to this storyline because Seohae is the only girl who Taesul will have in his heart; he doesn't have any destructive aims as Sisyphus to find someone else, or has he not realised he's already played this role? I'll explain more as we break down this essay even further, but this is important to notice before we start to see Sisyphus enter his futile loop of trying to avoid dea*th, he's already had two big enemies, one is Zeus, who is his final enemy at the end of his story, the one who will later get his way and punish Sisyphus eternally, but two is Salmoneus this character who Sisyphus is meant to love but is betrayed by and wants to steal his possession. You can start to try to place in the show who this sounds like but let's continue.

The Severe Consequences of Sisyphus

So after this part of the myth, Sis goes and has a remarkable reign after his brother's demise; he uses his cunningness and craftiness to get whatever he wants. This angers Zeus so much who then sends Thanatos (a personification for Dea*th) to him undercover, but Sis knows, and so he tricks Thanatos and chains him causing everyone to become immortal in his kingdom. What happens next is Ares, god of war, is very upset with this action because it's making him lose his purpose in the world and his power, he enjoys seeing war lead to people's demise. It benefits the systems for the gods who punish and want to control the mortals as they fit. Sis doing this is making fun of the gods' power and finding a way to lessen their impacts. Ares forces Sis to let go of Thanatos which he does (stupidly), but both Zeus and Thanatos want to get rid of Sis because of revenge, especially Thanatos; his first victim once unchained is as you guessed, Sis. Let's pause because now two more people try to stop or get rid of Sis. Ares is affected by Sis's actions of evading dea*th for all mortals, and that is Thanatos, the actual personification of the person he's hurting and chaining and taking away freedom from. Thanatos is the one who finally at first gets to punish Sisyphus at the end. As of this moment, Zeus, although he's angry at Sis, although he's making threats and watching Sis; he doesn't still feel the need to intervene. He's not yet out properly for Sisyphus until the second part.

The Eternal Punishment of Sisyphus

So Sis goes and gets eliminated. He's sent to where everyone who's gone goes to. But Sis is smart; he finds another way, using his wife to evade the issue. To again mock the gods, this time he mocks Hades and Persephone. I mean, it's obvious why he'd already angered Hades, who could also be in the myth, a different version of Thanatos, but Hades is determined to keep Sis in the underworld. But he uses the disguise of being hurt by love, the mask of vulnerability, hurt and betrayal to make Persophone eager to let him escape the underworld. So he ends up tricking her; this causes Hades to lose it completely, he tries to get Sis back, but Sis is not coming back because he's back to being alive.

So Sis gets to get again what he wants, which is to live a long life as the king with the wife he loves, not the same wife as his brother's) So there's two more, or you can say; one other representation of the gods that Sisyphus has annoyed and angered who wants to get rid of him. We have Hades, his normal way of doing things is in chaos because Sisyphus is messing around and tricking people and making a mockery of him and his own kingdom. And we may also see Persophone as someone (though I don't know properly because she isn't the one who wants to get rid of him, she's the one tricked by the idea of love) who also may feel hurt and foolish for believing him. Either way, Zeus now is tired and frustrated by Sis; he decides to wait for Sis to come back after his old age and punishes him eternally, with the famous boulder. So as mentioned, Zeus is the one who truly ends up hurting Sisyphus with no end in sight. In order to avoid this eternal loop of pain and confusion, Sisyphus needs to defeat Zeus before he comes to this end.

So after this break down of the story, I'm sure you're all wondering, okay, what does this have to do with Sisyphus the myth, because, at first sight, these people all having a problem with Sis isn't very similar in how the show is showing the new issues and villains. And that's why I was confused at first; trying to place who's who and who represents what, was difficult, and I didn't understand what it would help with when trying to understand the show. But it's pronounced when you finally see episode 5-8 which is the new episodes. Remember from previous analysis there's two Sisyphus; Seohae and Taesul, they both take over a version of the myth of Sisyphus, Taesul is in charge of the first story he creates an action that chains Thanatos and causes chaos, he's the one who then is eliminated by Thanatos because of Ares; however, Seohae represents Sisyphus in the underworld, the task to go back to the past and convince a lover not to make a mistake, the act of using love to trick the gods so she can go back and stay with her lover avoiding the chaos that happens after her demise/his demise.

So the first thing to know to understand the villains is to place them with the right Sisyphus, which is represented in their story arc. This is so important because when you start to make a list of who is trying to get rid of Taesul for Taesul's actions vs who is trying to stop Seohae for her own actions, you start to understand which villain is which. You begin to see how the other characters in the show play a role and mirror a character in the myth, but you also start to predict and understand what happened to lead to the apocalypse and why Seohae and Taesul are constantly suffering and being victims dealing with the burden of Dea*th

Taesul: The Burden of Selfishness and Stubborness

So now that has started to be clear, let's first reverse and focus on Taesul. From Taesul's part of the storyline, we have a lot of people who want to hurt Sisyphus really badly and who lead to his first elimination. Because the end results for Taesul's actions as we know it is his demise, he gets removed and ended and his passing leads to the war, thats' the horrifying truth that Seohae has gone back to prevent. But she's also with him, and she also gets removed, so both of them actually end up being eliminated at the same time, it would seem, but it's by different circumstances. I'll explain. So with Taesul's version of Sis, his enemies are (the ones who are actively seeking his removal) is his brother Salmoneus, Thanatos, Zeus, and finally Ares. These are his main villains. At the end of the day, he is dealt with by Ares, who causes him to be Thanatos's victim. This makes so much sense when we finally see Sigma. Let's recap the first eight episodes with who is going to be excited at Taesul's demise.

Tyro: The Fight for Survival

We have Seojin and her father, all connected to his company and the politics of who should take over it. Seojin's father keeps an eye on Taesul on Sigma's orders to provide his wife a cure. (Ironically, they're also trying to cheat death and so become victims) but it's vital to notice that they're connected to one, his company and his possession, two Sigma and wanting to get rid of Taesul because he's the key to getting the woman alive. Before we focus on them and what they represent. Let's focus again on who is being chosen to replace Taesul by these two and others in the company. It's Eddie, his best friend, almost like his sworn brother, someone who is his most trusted connection. Eddie has constantly been defending and wanting to wait for Taesul to come back, but somehow he starts to switch, it's because of one his new relationship with Seojin if you don't remember Seojin is actually Taesul's ex who he played around with and couldn't commit to, two because he starts to have a hunger for the company that Taesul owns since he's been given a chance to be in the spotlight since Taesul was thought to be eliminated.

Who is that starting to seem like? Yes, it's Salmoneus. It's so heartbreaking because that's precisely the storyline of Sisyphus and Salmoneus well, the same similar basis. Salmoneus, because of greed and ego, steals Sisyphus's kingdom from him; he usurps him and betrays Sis, who was meant to be the ruler by birth. This is just like what Eddie is starting to become; he's beginning to want to take Taesul's fame, company and power because of selfishness, greed and also in case it's not as obvious insecurity and jealousy. He got a taste of power, and now he wants to be in charge, he wants Seojin's attention and love, and he wants what Taesul has always had that's been taking granted. And to just hone in on the similarity of Salmoneus and Eddie, Sisyphus has a hold in the myth on Salmoneus wife, and he tries to use that to hurt Salmoneus.

Now Taesul is not word for word like Sisyphus, we know there are differences as well in the story, for example, it shouldn't be Eddie taking this role; it should be Taesan he's the real brother in the story, but even though there are differences, and Taesan isn't purposely as cruel as Sisyphus, he does have a hold on Seohae, she has to put all her attention on him, she doesn't seem happy that he took her for granted especially when she says he hurts the people who actually care for him, she doesn't seem eager when she notices another woman in his life, because she's a vengeful ex. But it's not just because of love and being jilted; her family is also connected to the storyline.

Suppose you don't want to see Salmoneus as Eddie. In that case, there's also misconceptions in the myth that it's his daughter that Sisyphus had to marry to fulfil that prophecy he failed at, so it could be Seojin's father, still has a connection to Taesul, which he claimed was like blood-related, also wants to get rid of him in the company and put someone else there, so he's also connected to the usurping of Sisyphus. It doesn't matter who is Salmoneus the person to focus on is Tyro she's the one who is very hurt and upset with Sisyphus; she basically has to kill her kids to protect her dad/husband, and she has to end up losing people she loves because of Sisyphus's selfish actions. And this is what Seojin believes now; she considers Taesul is the reason for why her dad got eliminated by Sigma, why she lost everything (in the myth, Tyro loses two relatives (her kids) just as Seojin loses her two parents). Salmoneus wants to get rid of Sis, but he fails; in fact, he ends up being eliminated by the gods for his selfishness and hubris; he fails at pleasing the gods, so he gets taken down. Like Seojin's father but also Eddie, it's definitely his downfall in this situation; he's going to also be a victim by the end of the show by betraying Taesul. So there's already a mirror image to the villains. What Salmonaeus represents is wanting to get rid of Sisyphus for revenge, greed and power and for hatred. And that's the same aims building up for Seojin (revenge and hatred) and Eddie (greed and power).

Thanatos: The Fight for Freedom

So That's our first issue to deal with that Taesul needs to escape from. But we have the other two. Ares and Thanatos. And I've always predicted this from when I watched and did the previous analysis. I knew that Sigma was Ares, and would lead Taesul to his downfall, but Thanatos is not Sigma, and that was what was still confusing me. Let's recap that part, in episode 1-4, as the story unfolds; as much as Seohae wants to protect Taesul from Sigma though she does not know who he is, she also knows there are others. We misunderstand that Sigma is the one sending these weird, rushed downloads to find Taesul and get rid of Taesul. But that's not Sigma. Sigma wants Taesul to make the uploader, not get rid of him; he wants the war, wants the chaos, and wants the dea*th of millions, just like that's Ares aim as a god of war.

So who are these people who are scary and out for Taesul's blood. Whatever they are, they follow Thanatos's gain. Now I'm not saying that this organisation or people can't be connected with Sigma; they just don't have the same goals yet, because Ares and Thanatos work together to bring Sis to his downfall in the first part. And that's important to notice. So the aims of these weird people are going to mirror Thanatos's aims for Sis. One, Thanatos was sent by Zeus (really important because it might be the Control Borough from the future sending this, it might be an organisation focused on law and balance trying to stop Taesul from causing Korea to go into the war), to trick Sis but he fails, he ends up being the victim of Sis instead. Sometimes in the story, it's just Sis is selfish and just goes and bothers Thanatos as he's chilling and simply chains him to prevent dea*th for all. The reason for why Thanatos is trying to hurt Sis is because of vengeance and being hurt by the cruelty of Sisyphus's actions.

Because of it, he couldn't be free, he was affected and hurt, and he lost his power. Now we don't know the full results of Taesul's actions in making this time machine. Still, we know that a lot of people who survive suffer;

Because they're in an apocalypse with no control, money and have to fight to survive.

They lose their loved ones and are victims to the war,

They lose their power and self because they no longer have hope or happiness.

The reason for why these people are in this situation is Taesul; he's the reason for why there's a war in the first place. So we see that whoever has sent people to come to gun down Taesul is doing it for vengeance and to stop his selfish actions hurting them and chaining their freedom. So it won't be a surprise if it's a band of rebels/resistance who aren't downloading correctly because they either have a faulty uploader, or they are rushing because it's a sui*cide mission for them, it's all or nothing; the goal is to get rid of Taesul to save themselves. So that's still who we're waiting for, who is in charge of these people. Now Sigma could be connected to these people. Let's first break him down;

Ares: The Fight for Purpose

So Ares is someone who is annoyed and upset; he's also become a victim and mocked because of Sisyphus's actions to chain Thanatos. He's someone who has no care about mortals but wants to see chaos and see people eliminated, so he's not bored. That's like Sigma, the only person who gets to gain something from the war (we don't know what, all we know is he wants the chaos, he wants the war, he wants Taesul to make a mistake and lead to everything), who is nonchalant and unfeeling, who is playing games with everyone and is having fun on others demise.

Right now, Sigma's goal is to get the key but also to ensure that Taesul ends up yielding to him and not get in his way. This is how Ares felt with Sis; he wanted to get rid of Sis to ensure he had fun and had war. Ares is the person who actually causes Sis to fail in the first part; he is the one who tells Zeus everything and leads to Sisyphus unchaining Thanatos, who is the one who comes for Sisyphus. So if you're not seeing what's happening, Sigma leads Taesul to make the uploader and cause the world to end (he's the reason why Taesul won't stop searching, he's now Taesul's goal which is him staying and repeating the same mistakes), Sigma leads Taesul to his downfall, his downfall leads to the other people who are victims becoming full of vengeance to come to use his uploader in the past to rewrite the history and get rid of him, unchaining Thanatos and this is what causes Sisyphus to be eliminated, just like Taesul ends up being stopped at his version of the story. Sigma is not our final villain; he's not the one who gets rid of Taesul; it's the others, and if the others are connected to Control Borough, it's them because they're also at the fault of Seohae's demise.

Seohae: The burden of selflessness and sacrifice

Let's look at Seohae because this essay is becoming incredibly long. With Seohae, her challengers are Hades, Persephone, Zeus. And it's that simple. Knowing the patterns of understanding who's who, it's pretty apparent who Seohae has aggravated with her choice to go back and change the past. By choosing to save Taesul, Seohae has made enemies who want her; some are being puppets and lied to, others because of her being Sisyphus and tricking and mocking them.

Hades: A Fight For Control

So we have Hades he has a way of doing things, of controlling his kingdom, which is seen as the opposite of positive ideas, it's connected to the other side of the purity of the gods, it's hell, but it's funny because just as the Control Borough who represents Zeus stand for law and balance and order and look out for the illegal immigrants, there's another opposite version of them who is seen as the opposite of purity and goodness and that's the guy who wants the key at first. The broker. He has his own way of doing things; he makes money from illegal immigrants and controls them in his lair. But Seohae, not Taesul, Seohae is the one who betrays and tricks him, the one who he promises to get rid of because of her actions. Her actions lead to him getting arrested and caught, and he swears revenge if he ever finds her like Hades. Hades is not the one who's tricked, but he's the one mocked, and his system is failed because of Sisyphus tricking Persophone. And that's important to notice. It's not Hades who gets Sisyphus at the end of the myth, he agrees with Zeus later on Sisyphus's punishment, but he doesn't win. Sisyphus actually escapes and lives a long life at first with his wife. So whatever our broker is up to, he's not going to get rid of Taesul and Seohae, but he's still important in their demise.

Persophone: A fight for pride

So who's Persophone? Well, that's why I was confused because Seohae doesn't trick anyone with the idea of love that's connected to others, and so I was confused. When I first heard of Persephone, I saw her as Seojin because again, she's hurt and acts on the idea of getting Sisyphus to go back to his wife and rekindle their love but actually scold his wife for treating him wrongly and not showing respect to him when he left or something. That sounded like Seojin relating to being hurt and mistreated by a lover. But Seohae isn't tricking Seojin yet; however, I do think that she may end up being Persophone, only because Persophone is not a character out for Sisyphus's blood, she's just mocked and reduced by Sisyphus's actions like how Seohae if Seojin had feelings or resentment towards Taesul for actually finding a woman who he cared for more than her someone who he truly respected and loved, it would feel like an insult to her seeing Seohae, it would feel like she's being reduced and mocked because she still cares for him. That's the only mirror I saw with her, but again also Tyro is a better representative for her in this story. Perhaps in Seohae's version, she really ends up also becoming an obstacle that needs to be talked to or convinced as Sisyphus did with Persophone. Although getting rid of Taesul is her goal, i can see Seohae being the one who ends it and removes her from the story.

The reason why Sun is also mentioned is because his role isn’t yet understood about what he does at the end. He could even be Sigma I won’t be shocked if he’s a broken shell or hurt vengeful version of Sigma who has been turned to being unfeeling by the love of Seohae and Taesul. However he also could be Persophone, like he’s also connected to that hurt and pain of love as the second lead and he could be the one who helps her find a way out of the loop to be with Taesul. His role is not understood so this is just some ideas of what they may be but not connected to the map. For now I’ll lean on no one representing Persephone in Seohae’s version.

Zeus: A fight for Power

Finally, we get to the big issue. It's obviously our first-ever challenger in both stories. Zeus is just a funny character; the way he uses others and hides behind the scenes letting others try and get rid of Sisyphus, is so interesting to me. Because the ICB isn't yet out for Taesul, even though Sisyphus already had Zeus keeping an eye on him, including sending Thanatos to get him. So we do know and have seen that ICB did kidnap Taesul in episode 1-4., they give him a warning about not following the rules and still searching for what he shouldn't. This is foreshadowing, just like Zeus, they have started to keep an eye on him, they see him as an obstacle, but they're not the most significant threat in his version. So as Zeus shows up in that version, they also show up, but they're not the ones unless connected to the people in the future; the current ICB isn't the opposition to Taesul; it's Sigma

But unfortunately for Seohae, who plays the Sisyphus who gets cursed with the boulder; ICB is Zeus, ICB is the one who gets her. This is the thing that is sad about it is that they already have a reason to try and get her she's illegal, she's breaking the rules, she's mocking their power just like Sisyphus and Zeus however, the way they do this is just like how Zeus does it he uses others to get Sisyphus as he tried with Thanatos. The only thing that happens is Sisyphus ends up having nowhere else to run to after his goals have been achieved, he was going to always d*e in the end, and Zeus just waited for that chance. And this is how Sis is caught and punished. And we've already started to see how the ICB led to Seohae's downfall; they lied to Jung that she's the one who took his mother's life. And Jung from the future apologises to Seohae for being tricked, but unfortunately, he's in a loop destined to repeat and repeat and right now, he's out for her blood. It's obvious he's the one who ends her life the first time; he's the one who puts the eternal loop in motion. He gets rid of her, her future self finds the diary (this paradox really annoys me because it makes no sense, the 'chicken or egg plothole'), and she goes back to save Taesul, So like Zeus causes this futile infinite curse on Sisyphus to carry this boulder, this weight of confusion and loss of freedom, Jung used by ICB puts this on Seohae each time he shoots her and Taesul. It is the act of hurting her that causes the Sisyphean effect in the show; in fact, I think Taesul is eliminated before her by his own issues, but the final catalyst is Jung. So like I said, it's Zeus Sisyphus needs to stop before he gets to the end. It's Jung who Seohae needs to communicate with or stop before they enter the wedding scene. That is why he says to her, it's only if she forgives him for what he'll become, and it's only if they work together can the ending be alternated.

So I had more to say, but this ended up being so long; I'm not mad about it because this is precisely why I needed to break all this down, by knowing how the villains, their goals and their downfalls, knowing what is leading their actions, you can start to use that and predict their roles in the show, you can see how Taesul and Seohae end up in this godforsaken Sisyphean loop. You understand why Sigma is who he is and what he wants, but also, you get to know how these two end up getting caught the first time. However, there's still hope; there's a way to break the loop if the characters stop for a minute and just stop being selfish. But also like I said, Sisyphus gets his goals before he gets punished although it doesn't seem like a happy ending, he gets to be with his wife till old age, it is only after he has no other choice but to leave peacefully does Zeus show up and put him in a curse. So the ending is sad, but there's a way out, Taesul and Seohae may finally get to live that happily ever after and be together longer in this loop if they get rid of Zeus, or we get an open ending where they're in this loop forever, but they're aware. For me, I don't see a sad ending with this show because of the myth. I think Seohae and Taesul have a lot to deal with and I'm still confused by Taesan's role but for now, knowing this new outline about where the villains play a part, makes it so much more easier for me to continue following the story. As mentioned in the previous analysis I don't add up the science and logic and time travel dynamics to these theories; they might be more that I'm missing but I'm 80% sure this show isn't really focused on all of that and is using the myth as a map. Let me know your ideas about Sisyphus the myth, however I look foward to seeing if this theory is right or if I missed out a lot of things because of the lack of the scientific focus. Thank you.

#sisyphus the myth #sisyphus #sisyphus the myth kdrama #kdrama #cwg #march #korean drama #park shin hye #cho seung woo

50 notes · View notes

framecaught · 4 years

Text

Transmedia Storytelling: A Perspective on the Homestuck Epilogues

First of all, thank you for reading my first post! I created this blog to document some of my research for a directed study project. I’ll be looking at Homestuck from an interdisciplinary lens but focusing especially on its formal artistic qualities and place in art history. The blog will contain various points of analysis which I develop over the course of the project. For my first piece of writing, I wanted to tackle (from a new perspective) what I view as a complicating factor in the controversy surrounding the Homestuck Epilogues.

Rather than critiquing the Epilogues’ content or making a judgement about their overall quality, I want to explore a specific criticism which has been echoed time and time again by fans. In an article for the online journal WWAC, Homestuck fan-writer Masha Zhdanova sums up this criticism:

“No matter how much members of the creative team insist that their extension to the Homestuck line of work is no more official than fanwork, if it’s hosted on Homestuck.com, promoted by Homestuck’s official social media accounts, and endorsed by the original creator, I think it’s a little more official than a fanfic with thirty hits on AO3.”

Between attacks on the Epilogues’ themes, treatment of characters, and even prose-quality, fans have frequently referenced the issue of endorsement and canonicity as summarized above. Although the Epilogues and Homestuck’s other successors (including Homestuck^2 and the Friendsims) attempt to tackle themes of canonicity within their narratives, critics of the Epilogues contend that this philosophical provocation falls flat. While the creators argue that the works should form a venue for productively questioning canonicity, fans point to issues of capital and call the works disingenuous. In Episode 52 of the Perfectly Generic Podcast Andrew Hussie explains that, to him, the Epilogues are “heavily implied to be a piece of bridge-media, which is clearly detached from the previous narrative, and conceptually ‘optional’ by its presentation, which allows it to also function as an off-ramp for those inclined to believe the first seven acts of Homestuck were perfectly sufficient.” As Zhdanova paraphrases, a critical view posits that this “optional” reading is impossible. The company ethos and production of capital inherent to the Epilogue’s release—their promotion, their monetization—renders their “fanfic” backdrop completely moot, if not insulting.

Why does appropriating the “aesthetic trappings” [1] of AO3 strike such a chord with critics, though? What’s wrong with the Epilogue creators profiting from their work? Other officially endorsed “post-canon” materials, including the Paradox Space comics, Hiveswap and Friendsim games, have not inspired such virulent opposition. The issue comes down to the association between the AO3 layout and the separation from canon. The Epilogues ask us to read them as “tales of dubious authenticity,” but critics assert that this reading makes no sense in the context of their distribution. It’s not exactly the endorsement or monetization that prevents a “dubious” reading, though. After all, Hiveswap is also endorsed and monetized, yet fans have no problem labeling it as “dubiously canon.” So what is it about the Epilogues’ presentation that seems so incongruous with their premise as “dubious” texts?

I’ve come to understand this issue through the lens of transmedia storytelling. First conceptualized by Henry Jenkins, “transmedia storytelling” involves the production of distinct stories, contained within the same universe, across different media platforms. [2] This allows consumers to pick and choose stories across their favorite media outlets, since each story is self-contained, but superfans can still consume All The Content for a greater experience. The Marvel franchise with its comics, movies, TV shows, and other ephemera, is a great example of the transmedia phenomenon.

How does Homestuck fit into this theory? In an excellent article [3] for the Convergence journal, Kevin Veale lays out a taxonomy for Homestuck’s role in new media frameworks. Rather than dispersing different stories across multiple media platforms, Homestuck combines the “aesthetic trappings” of many media forms into one massive outlet: the Homestuck website [4]. It’s almost like the inverse of transmedia storytelling. Veale describes this type of storytelling as “transmodal.” He further defines Homestuck’s storytelling as “metamedia,” meaning that it manipulates the reader’s expectations of certain media forms to change the reading experience. So, despite its multimedia aspects, Homestuck structures itself around one monolith distribution channel (the website), the importance of which directly feeds into what we know as “upd8 culture.” The Homestuck website itself, as a “frame” which encapsulates Homestuck and the other MS Paint Adventures, takes on a nostalgic quality; the familiar grey background and adblocks become inextricably linked with the production of the main, “canon” narrative.

Homestuck itself—the main narrative—is a transmodal venture. However, as of writing this post, the Homestuck franchise has taken a leap into transmedia waters, starting with the Paradox Space comics and continuing with Hiveswap, the Friendsims, and Homestuck^2. All four of these examples fit the definition of transmedia ventures: they contain distinct stories still set in the Homestuck universe and are distributed through fundamentally separate media channels from the main comic. Which is to say, crucially, none of them are hosted on the Homestuck website.

This is where I think the issue arises for the Epilogues. The Epilogues, from what I can tell, aimed to present themselves as a transmedia venture rather than a transmodal one. Firstly, they try to act as a “bridge-media,” or self-contained story. They can be read as a continuation of Homestuck, but can also be separated or ignored. Secondly, they take on a distinct format (prose). Hussie notes in PGP Ep. 52 that the Epilogues were originally only meant to be published in print, functioning as a “cursed tome.” In short, they were intended as a transmedia venture: a self contained story, distributed through a separate medium (prose) and separate media channel (print), to be embraced or discarded by consumers at their whim.

Instead, when the Epilogues were released through the main Homestuck website, readers couldn’t help but interpret them as part of Homestuck’s long transmodal history. Rather than interacting with a new distribution channel, readers returned to the same nostalgic old grey website. The AO3 formatting gag makes no real difference to readers, as Homestuck patently appropriates the aesthetics of other platforms all throughout its main narrative. This issue of distribution (print versus website), which in turn produces either a transmedia or transmodal reading, is the crux of the criticism I mentioned before. Despite the creators’ protests, readers failed to see any “question” of canonicity because the Epilogues fit perfectly into the comic’s preexisting transmodal framework, supported even further by the nostalgia of the website’s very layout. The Epilogues read as a transmodal contribution to Homestuck’s main channel rather than a post-canon, transmedia narrative (like Paradox Space or the Friendsims) as they were intended. This created a profound dissonance between the fans’ experiences and the creators’ intentions.

How things might have turned out differently if the Epilogues really had been released solely as “cursed tomes,” the world will never know. In PGP, Hussie cites the importance of making content freely accessible on the website as a reason for the online release, which is certainly a valid consideration. Even though the print format offers a much clearer conceptual standpoint as a transmedia “bridge-story” [5], issues of capital and accessibility may still have come to the forefront of discussion. As it stands, though, I think the mix-up between transmedia and transmodal distribution was a key factor in the harsh criticism the Epilogues sparked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you liked this post, you can follow the blog on tumblr for updates or, if you don’t frequent tumblr, sign up for the mailing list to receive an email whenever I publish a new mini-essay!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] I love this term, “aesthetic trappings”, which Masha Zhdanova uses, so I’ve overused it to some degree in my post.

[2] Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, 2007: pg. 98. You can also find a description of transmedia storytelling on his blog.

[3] Veale, Kevin. “‘Friendship Isn’t an Emotion Fucknuts’: Manipulating Affective Materiality to Shape the Experience of Homestuck’s Story.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 25, no. 5–6 (December 2019): 1027–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517714954.

[4] Although the Homestuck website shifted branding from mspaintadventures.com to homestuck.com before the Epilogues’ release and has shifted its aesthetic somewhat (re: banners and ads), I treat the core “website” as the same location in my post

[5] Hussie points to numerous fascinating experiences which might have arisen from the print distribution. He describes a tome as “something which maddeningly beckons, due to whatever insanity it surely contains, but also something which causes feelings of trepidation” and references the sheer size of the book and “stark presentation of the black and white covers” as elements which produce this trepidation. The ability to physically experience (through touch) the length of the Epilogues and the impact of the book cover were lost in the online format. Although the Epilogues have been released in their intended book format now, the printed novel still won’t be a “first reading experience” for most fans.

#essay post #homestuck analysis #homestuck epilogues #transmedia storytelling #media studies

28 notes · View notes

twdmusicboxmystery · 4 years

Text

10x18: Find Me - Bethyl Template, Part 1

All right! Analysis time! *rubs hands together* Now, I’m gonna warn you that this is long. And I know there are plenty of people who don’t like to read the long metas. So let me just ask you a quick question before I start. How bad do you want to understand what’s REALLY happening in this episode? If you want to understand why those of us in the know have more hope than ever for Beth’s return, you have to understand what I’m about to lay out for you. And yes, it’s a little wordy, but there’s just no getting around that if you want to really internalize it.

If you don’t understand this stuff, you’re going to think that everything we say moving forward is wishful thinking and that we’re grasping at straws. So, how badly do you want to understand? Which group do you want to be in? If it’s the first, keep reading, my friend.

***As always, spoilers abound below for 10x18. Don’t read until you’ve watched! You’ve been warned!***

As I mentioned in an Ask, there are two major premises you have to get your head around to understand this template. The first is that Dog = Beth. And yes, we already knew that. But especially in this episode, Dog = Beth. Dog totally, completely, 100% = Beth.

I noticed especially at the beginning when Daryl and Carol were talking, it keeps focusing on dog. So, it's literally like Daryl says something, focus on dog. Carol says something, focus on dog. Hop on the motorcycle together, focus on dog. Just before opening credits roll, focus on dog.

And I think it’s the writer's way of telling us what this is really about: Beth. I mean Dog. Yeah, they’re one and the same.

The second overarching principle you need to understand is that this episode is a template—yes, a template; I’ll give you 0.68 seconds to recover from the shock—of Daryl’s entire journey. I think it could be from beginning to end, but you could also see it from S4 up until he finds Beth. It’s a template for his journey, for the idea of him always looking for people, and it will lead to Beth eventually.

I will say that symbolism gets complicated at times. For the most part, what we see with Daryl and Leah is a replay of Daryl and Beth. I'll illustrate that for you. But for the most part, Leah = Daryl in the scenario and Daryl = Beth.

I’ll talk about this more later on, but on TTD, Denise Huth says that because Daryl is more lighthearted with Leah, we get to see the lighter side of him that we generally don't see when he's around the other characters. And that's true. There are times when he smiles and looks happier with her.

And I know that's going to make people think that he's in love with Leah. It really represents him finding some companionship and happiness. And because this is all replay of a template for Beth, I'm telling you it's really all about Beth. About Daryl being happy with Beth. Leah is just a stand-in.

Okay, so it starts by showing Dog. Then we see Daryl getting on his bike. Carol comes up to stand beside him. We start out almost immediately with tons of symbolism. He explains that there is a fallen tree 100 yards out that he thinks they could use to shore up the hole in Alexandria's wall. So, we have the fallen tree in the number 100.

But he also has a really hard time getting his bike started. He tries it many times and it won’t work. I'm reasonably sure that that is the same symbolism as when he was driving the truck with Denise and couldn't figure out the clutch. Both times it’s a vehicle he's having a hard time operating. And in that case, we had a fallen tree as well, which forced Daryl, Rosita and Denise to get out of the car and walk. So obviously because of Denise, we relate this to Beth. But also, in both case cases, Daryl had a friend (referring to Leah that way because that's what they said in the trailer) that he really cared about and lost. And both times, there's major Beth symbolism involved.

In the scene, we also get the first instance of the "strong right foot” symbolism. They say this a lot during the episode. It's obvious that Carol wants to help him start the bike but she also knows if she just offers, he’ll say no. She tells him a story about how her grandmother (as I'm writing this just now realizing that second mention of someone’s grandmother in the past two episodes) used to have a sewing machine with a peddle. She used to make all of Carol's clothes. Carol says that when her grandmother's foot got tired, she had Carol run the peddle for her because Carol has a "strong right foot."

Daryl just glares at her and says he can do it. After a few more tries, he does. Then she gets on the bike and they have more playful banter where he says he didn't say she could come. Eventually they take off together, and we see lots more emphasis on Dog.

Another important piece of symbolism is the map. The same one Daryl used to track where he had already searched for Rick. It falls out of his bag and Carol picks it up. He doesn't realize he dropped it, or that she picked it up. And when she gets in the back of his bike, she just stuffs it back into his backpack. This may just be a foreshadow of this episode. Carol sort of leads him back to his remembrance of Leah, but I think it’s more than that, too. I’ll come back to it when I talk about the storm scene.

I’m gonna skip a lot of the Carol/Daryl details for now. I think they’re important, but I want to focus on the Bethyl stuff. In short, I think this opening scene is exactly the same symbolism that we saw in 10x01 when they got on the bike together and had very similar banter. So, it points to the spinoff. I think it points to what will happen only actually take off on the bike together. It could be that they’re still fighting. Daryl doesn't really want her to come. Even though he says that playfully here, it might be real the next time. But she insists on coming. Carol says she wants to hunt whatever is left out there to hunt, which is a lot like her saying they should get on the bike to see what else or who else is left out there.

They do eventually see a dead deer. So, deer symbolism. But it’s more than that. This took me a few days and the help of my talented fellow theorists, combined with what we already know of ep 21, to put together. And this is going a big beyond this episode, but they’re basically reverse-engineering the episode Them for us. That’s where Daryl first saw the dead deer. And Carol wasn’t with him, but they were both out in the woods together, looking for water. In 5x10, they didn’t find any. Here, they’re out together, looking for food, and they go down to the river. So they find water. Carol even spears fish. So it’s more opposites going on. In 5x10, they didn’t find water. Here, they did. They found the river. And went fishing. Before, Daryl saw the deer alone. Here, Carol was with him. In Them, she gave him Beth’s knife. When their story continues, he’ll give her Leah’s knife.

I think what they’re doing is reverse-engineering events leading back to Beth. So, if we were working backward toward Coda, we would see Daryl give Carol a knife back, and the episode before that, Beth was in. Well, he’s going to give her Leah’s knife in ep 21. So, ep 22 anyone?

Along the way, Carol all of a sudden starts limping on her right foot. She says, “ow,” and when he asks what's wrong, she said she just has a foot cramp and needs a minute to stretch it out. He razzes her saying, "it's not your strong right foot, is it?" And she glares at him. So the “strong right foot” symbolism is repeated several times.

And how about the river and the fish? Well, we know Beth = water, right? So it’s a symbol for her, but more specifically, I think the river represents Daryl’s path. In between every scene and every flashback, we see a sweeping shot of the river, and we often see Daryl trudging along it, searching for Rick. So it represents his entire character path, and the people he’s searched for. Sophia, Beth, Rick, Connie, and perhaps even Leah. We’re not entirely sure how of if the fish symbol is different. But since fish are in the river, the two symbols may be one and the same.

Want more visual proof that the river = Daryl’s path to Beth? Lookee here:

Between them is a painting of a river. And Beth says, “But Daryl, you said there was a dog.”

Then Dog starts barking and running and they follow him. He leads them to Leah's cabin. There are two different sets of 3 metal spikes on the cabin.

Daryl notices a single one sticking out of a tree. My first thought was rule of threes. But the one on the tree could be a crucifixion symbol. Spike pounded into a tree.

But here’s the first big clue we get that this is a callback and retelling of Beth’s story. One of the first things Daryl looks at when he gets to the cabin is the cross marker Leah’s son’s grave, right? Guess what?

The cross is white. It’s a Grady symbol. So, Daryl is looking at this cross, and thinking about his past and what he lost at this place, It’s completely a replay of Beth and Grady. It would be the same as him going back to the hospital and feeling sad about losing her there.

Side note: I also feel like this is probably a death omen for Leah. I truly didn’t think about it until they discussed it on TTD, but when I saw the cross, I automatically knew it was for Leah’s son, because I’d read spoilers. But Chris Hardwick said that, for anyone who didn’t, it kind of seemed like the cross was for Leah’s death. So without spoilers, it might be surprising to learn at the end that she disappeared, rather than dying. It just reminds me of how they kind of tried to trick people into thinking Tyreese’s funeral in 5x09 was Beth’s. And I think it shows that Leah will die eventually. There’s just no way to know when.

This is where we get the first flashback. It says five years ago, and we see the river and Daryl sitting at by the river in his camp. He's obviously very sad.

Okay, here we go. Each of the flashbacks represent some part of what happened in his past, mostly revolving around Beth. Some of them also do indicate Rick. In this case, I think this represents his sadness after the prison went down. It might represent his sadness in general. Like, from S1 to S4. But given that Gimple took over in S4, I think that's really what the flashing back to.

You'll notice in the scene that he has a fire going. He's not facing the fire. It's burning away in a little pit behind him. He's actually facing the river. I think that’s to draw attention to the river as a symbol and show that this is his journey.

In this scene, he has his knees drawn up into his chest. So, his stance is almost identical to when he was sitting by the fire with Beth in Inmates. Which is right after the prison went down.

The next day, he meets Dog as a puppy.

Now this was the revelation that made me realize what this entire thing was. This makes me so happy. Literally, it's the next day and he is still in his camp. Again, the one that represents either Bethyl’s little camp in Inmates, or it could also represent their little camp in Still when they were eating snake.

Dog just comes running up to him out of nowhere. This scene is super cute. He picks Dog up and Dog starts licking his face and Daryl actually smiles. Almost laughs. And he says, "where'd you come from?" Then Dog jumps down and runs away.

But think about this. This is Daryl meeting Dog, as a baby. Dog = Beth. So, this is him meeting her, or noticing her when she was younger iteration of herself in 4B.

Remember what Emily posted on her instastories the other day? The pic of herself in the yellow polo that AMC posted for the Stilliversary and said, "I'm a baby?" That was not an observation. It was a hint.

We've always said that she would come back as an older, stronger character. So, what we saw of her before represents her being young. Almost a baby.

Dog leaps on Daryl and licks his face and makes him smile. A lot like Daryl did in Still when they walk away from the fire. And even His line, saying, "where'd you come from?" I feel like he could have thought about Beth. Like, “where did you come from all the sudden, into my life, making me all happy and shit?"

Looking slightly happier, he goes back to his little hut and his map.

Then comes the scene where Daryl and Carol meet and talk from across the river. Carol is really quite upset in this scene. She tells him that Maggie left, that Michonne is not really talking to anybody, and she's upset that he is staying out there and not coming back.

Daryl, however, is pretty unapologetic about it. He says she knows why he has to do this and he's not going to stop. He also says that there's a spot up the river he hasn't checked yet and he wants to check on that. She throws him some supplies and they go their separate ways.

Now, the next part is super important. The first time I saw it, I was sure it was about Rick. Now, I'm certain it's about Beth. Daryl goes to that spot on the river he hasn't checked yet. He finds an overturned boat with a walker stuck underneath. Most of the walker’s top half is under the overturned boat and we can't see it. But we see hips and legs sticking out. Reminds me of the “bottom half” Bob sees before entering the Big Spot.

Now, because Daryl hasn't checked this area before, and the walker is hidden under there, you can see the Daryl is preparing himself for the idea that this might be Rick. He really thinks it could be him. He kills a bunch of walkers that are around the boat and then flips the boat over to look down at the walker. And obviously, it isn't Rick.

Before I go on, a couple of things to notice. Obviously, there's the boat symbolism. It actually looks a whole lot like the boat that Aaron and Rick take to get to the houseboat in 7x08. That's what I originally thought it was a Rick thing. And of course Daryl is literally looking for Rick. So, in the show, it is.

We see Daryl kill several walkers, and then we get a wide shot of him standing next to the boat and there's a blonde female walker laying on the ground next to it. I'm assuming this is one of walkers he killed, but again, I rewatched it, and we don’t actually see him kill this walker. But it's lying there, and we can’t miss it. I think maybe this walker is a symbol that this is actually about Beth, not Rick.

Daryl simply sees that it's not Rick, looks a little disappointed, and then the walker animates and reaches for him. He kills it, but he gets REALLY angry. He uses his heel to stomp on it like 5x, much like Beth did to the walker in the parking lot of the hospital. But the anger is important.

Then we see him sitting in his hut in the middle of the storm. The one that destroys the map. And here's the thing. He's very obviously in shock. He sits there with this rain pouring down around him and it's like he doesn't even notice it. He’s completely despondent. Kind of like he was in S5 after losing Beth.

Not to sound judgy, but it’s kind of his fault that the map gets lost. Again, rain pouring down, and he's left the map sitting where it's going to get wet and it's made of paper. You could argue that of course he's going to lose it in that situation. But I think what they're going for is that he’s so numb that he just doesn't think about it. He looks up and realizes the maps about to wash away and jumps up to save it, but by then it's too late.

So when the map gets torn and part of it washes away, he screams as we saw the trailer. It just a lot of anger and pent-up grief coming out.

And then there’s a loud crash that literally knocks him onto his butt. (I think it’s supposed to be that the hut it hit by lightning or something.) And we hear a high-pitched ringing, as though his ears are ringing from the sound. After that, he grabs his bow and goes out into the storm. He points his face skyward and let’s the water wash over him.

Remind you of anything:

So, obviously this storm can equate to the one in Them, 5x10. It’s a replay of Daryl losing Beth, becoming depressed over it, and the storm soon afterward. But details! The emotion is in the details.

My fellow theorists pointed out that the loud crash could easily equate to the sound of the gun when Beth is shot. That’s what knocks Daryl on his butt and causes his shock. I was even thinking maybe we heard the ringing tone after the gun went off in Coda. We actually didn’t. I was wrong about that. But we DID hear it in Slabtown when she and Noah almost escape. Remember, there’s no sound but the weird ringing? So coupled with the storm and the representation of him losing Beth, we also have the sound of escape represented.

Finally, Map = Beth. That map is covered in red Xs, and he loses it here. But if you watch his behavior (yes, go watch this scene 20 times) he’s not paying attention to it. He doesn’t realize he’s in danger of losing it. Then he looks up, realizes it’s about to wash away, and jumps to grab it. But it’s too late. It’s already gone. Sound like what happened at Grady to you? So, Map = Beth. This is him losing Beth.

And that means that when he screams here, it really is a representation of his inner self screaming over Beth’s loss.

So we had the anger over the boat walker (his anger over Beth and shooting Dawn), him stomping on the walkers face (as Beth did in the Grady parking lot, while the ringing-ears tone was playing, and then actual loss, the devastated emotional reaction, and finally the storm in Them.

Everyone still with me? Let’s keep going.

Then we get, "one year later." And we see Dog fully grown. Originally, I thought maybe Daryl had seen dog a lot by this point. I'm actually kind of rethinking that now. I think this is only the second time he's seen Dog. The important parallel here is that he saw Dog as a puppy (Beth from 4b), and then a period of time passed where we saw a representation of him losing Beth, and then he sees Dog again, fully grown. So, Dog has matured and comes to Daryl again while he's out on the road.

Now, originally I assumed that this represented Beth and Daryl’s reunion that we haven’t seen yet. When she comes back and they reunite. But after some thought, I realized that this part actually represents Grady. Beth’s growth really isn’t physical. It’s in her coming to understand the world and how to survive in it, such that she doesn’t need other peoples’ protection anymore. That happened at Grady. Hence the “I get it, now.”

Other reasons I’m sure this flashback represents Grady? Dog takes Daryl to Leah, where she holds him hostage (Grady). We see her knife. (Beth had her knife at Grady.) He sees a spike pounded into a tree, which I think is a crucifixion symbol. And when he leaves, he leaves without Dog (Beth).

This is where Daryl meets Leah, and she throws the arm at him and holds him at gunpoint. Leah’s knife comes into play because she ties Daryl up in her cabin, but when he's very nonthreatening, she seems to realize that he's not going to hurt her, and she lets him go. She takes out the knife and they did focus on it with the camera for like 30 seconds. So, they very much want us to notice it. She uses it to cut his bonds and tells him to get out of her cabin.

Let’s take an aside. The way Daryl acts during this scene when she has him as a prisoner reminded me a lot of how he acted in 6x06 when Dwight had him as a prisoner. He’s quiet, docile, and even exhibits some fear, as if he’s truly intimidated.

We don’t see much of his normal, Daryl defiance, and that’s a bit out of character for him. And I truly don’t mean to say that this points to Dwight or the Saviors in any way. It’s the opposite. Dwight and 6x06 foreshadowed something specific, and I think this foreshadows the exact same thing. It hasn’t come to pass yet.

I’ll just tell you what I think it is. I don’t know whether Leah will literally be involved in the spinoff, or if she just symbolically represents something in that storyline. But I think it’s possible that she represents the CRM. Because of the black-helmeted walker in 6x06, everything in that episode did, too. So, I think the CRM will take Daryl captive at some point and the way he acts in both these episodes points to what’s happening in that arc. But I don’t think this will happen until S11, if not the spinoff.

We see a shot of Leah’s knife, which will be important later because it equates with Beth’s knife. I’m not going to say much about it here. Just keep it in mind.

Then we get (another) shot of the river. Daryl’s journey continues. Quick aside. What this reminded me of is the shot of the train tracks in 5x09. There, the camera looked as though it were moving along the tracks. Here, the camera looks as though it's moving along the river. I’m thinking that the tracks represent the Beth’s path, and the river represents Daryl's.

Six months later. Okay, I did pay attention to Daryl’s eye scar. And all of a sudden, I realized that the missing wing on his vest is also represented here. So, the first flashback five years ago, which I think represents Inmates, he still had the wing on his vest and no eye scar.

CONTINUE TO PART 2

#beth greene #beth greene lives #beth is alive #beth is coming #td theory #td theories #team delusional #team defiance #beth is almost here #bethyl

14 notes · View notes

aspiestvmusings · 4 years

Text

ZEP ANALYSIS

POSSIBLE SPOILERS for “ZOEY’S EXTRAORDINARY PLAYLIST” (NBC)

This is my take on the shows storylines (episode 1-8), spoilers (for rest of s1), comments from the creators and cast...

This was originally inspired by many online comments from TeamMax vs Team Simon. I just wanted to analyze the show based on that.

My take on the storyline: “The Love Triangle”

Good news for one team, perhaps not so good for the other team.

Based on everything we’ve seen on the show (the storytelling, the promotional materials, the spoilers)... everything points to Max/Zoey being the endgame. I’ve seen many fans (both those who support Team M & those who support Team S), say that they get the same message from the storytelling. It does seem to be the clear message from the show...no matter how they get there..or when...

The “proof”:

First: The actor who portrayes Max is billed higher (probably mostly cause he’s done more well-known musical projects before than the other actor), and he’s featured in much more promotional materials (promo pics, posters, promo videos...) and in more central role, than the other actor. The promotion is vastly focused on M/Z. They use those characters & actors... a lot...for promotion. That suggests only one thing.

Second: They told us the premise of Zoey’s future relationships in the Pilot already via this Max/Zoey conversation:

Zoey: I have a long history of --- what do you call my past relationships again? --

Max: -- “Unnecessarily complicated, exhausting for everybody, the opposite of good”?

Zoey: Yeah. Those things. Which is why this time I'm just gonna take things slow, and wait for the right “in”

And with Zoey/Simon thing has been just a repeat of her past experiences which she claims she doesn’t want to re-live again, and this show is all about her growth as a character/person, this cannot be the endgame. Even if they’d reveal that S/J have broken up... all that’s already happened has followed this exact description (see Max’s quote)

Third: While Zoey sang her heart song to Max and they had a moment for themselves (though..let’s be honest...they get interrupted so much that others in the office must’ve overheard a lot by now...), the heartsong to Simon seemed to be more like a setup for having Max see it. And while both songs are about her deepest, secret feelings/desires... and there’s truth in both, then the way the scenes were set up makes it seem like she sang to her best friend to make him aware of how she really feels (what he said in the previous ep: he needs to know/get a respose from her...and this gave him that). But the other song was meant to be overheard by her best friend...and that was the goal of the song/scene (not the song itself, but that he saw). Again pointing to the show going for Max as the endgame.

Fourth: The triangle is as follows: Both Max & Simon like Zoey, but she only really likes one of them. Both men sang heart songs to her (Max = I think I love you, Sucker, If I can’t have you, 500 miles), and she sang to both...but different songs. Simon sang “If you say that you are mine, I'll be here 'til the end of time” in 1x05, so it’s coming from his side. Zoey in 1x08 sang "I'm Yours” to Max (that her heart is his), but she sang “I want you to want me” to Simon (not that she wants him, but she wants him to want her). As her best friend explained it - one is about love, the other physical attraction. But... if you listen to the lyrics more closely then based on them she’s singing about how she saw S. crying & all alone (1x01) and how that affected her, compared to singing to M. how she’s “caught feelings”. So she’s only actually interested in Max, as her feelings for Simon are not mutual (beyond the grief bond). One is one-sided and more “superficial”, the other is mutual and more “serious”.

Fifth: While we’ve seen that Zoey thinks she’s caught feelings for Simon (what she told her mom at the engagement party), and she hasn’t really admitted this to anyone besides her mom, she seems to not see it as a good thing. She also claims to both Max & Simon that she doesn’t really have feelings for Simon/wasn’t aware of her feelings and/or that she’s basically over it... so kinda “little white lies”. She seems to think they have a sort of connection and/or she seems to find him attractive...despite realizing that it cannot happen because he’s engaged. (and before Simon went and took the wrong step, he said the right thing - they leaned too much on each other about their grief, and they should just go back to co-workers, and that’s all. Sadly...that was changed because of the “glitch” that mislead...people). But... we also saw that she is fighting against having feelings for the morally questionable engaged man, cause she probably realizes it’s a bad idea.

Sixth: All this time, but especially in the last episode, the show has tried to show the two men in her life differently, and show the differences in their “relationships” with Zoey. It’s a very classic “fairytale story” that follows often-used “clichees”. They’ve shown how the two are different, and how the connection between both “ships” is different. And everything points to them starting to make the difference even more clear. By now they all are aware of each others feelings...to some point... and both men are aware that they’re both competing for her interest.

And she’s aware that she is interested in both... but in different ways, and for different reasons. And again they used Max to vocalize the choice before her - will she choose physical attraction without deeper connection or love and deeper emotional connection...AKA “new attractive co-worker who went through what shes going through VS her best friend, who is always there for her...no matter what. The options were made clear, now it’s her decision. And it’ll depend a lot on how each man will act from now on...at the most difficult time in her life (she’s now really going to lose her dad).

If Simon will try to make advances based on the heart song she sang, which gave outmixed signals AND at the same time Max will continue being a good friend (as we saw in 1x08...despite their dispute) then that’ll make Z/S grow furher apart and Z/M grow closer. And since it’s all become too complicated and messy for everyone... then it’s very possible all this will get to Jessica, and break those two apart. But... that’s IMO gonna be the opposite from making the path clear for S/Z. To have Simon as a character grow they need to have him deal with his grief, and all that. The Simon vs Max thing is a lot like Leif/Tobin thing... where the peer reviews made one become sketchy and start playing games, and the other start working on bettering themselves. I expect similar differences of paths taken for S & M. Especially because we’ve not only seen Tobin 2.0, but also Max 2.0 (and we’ll see more of that..in coming eps)

Seventh: We ve heard spoilers than in the S1 finale there will be a “heart song” for/from/with one of the two and Zoey. From how the scene is decribed it sound more like something fitting to Max (Max/Zoey). Which fits with how the season and story has been built so far. That seems to also confirm where they’re taking it. Cause...they’ve established that just like on most shows the main character HAS TO have a love interest, and so far they’ve only introduced two options.

Other reasons why Zoey will most likely choose “love” over “physical attraction”:

We saw Zoey’s reaction when she found out that S. had a SO/was engaged - she ran. And though she might find him attractive (physically)...as she found out via her heart song in 1x08, and she might feel a connection to him (because of the heart song she heard him sing in 1x01), she hasn’t shown interest in actually being with him... because she knows he’s taken. And also because she’s not really in the right place to start a relationship. She/They may not realize it, but they don’t have much more in common than grief - that’s the center of their bond (for now). Despite her interest/attraction to him & her thinking she “likes” him...

This is also why it’s easier for her to admit she has/had feelings for Simon, but she’s having trouble admitting...to herself (and Mo) & to Max that she may have feelings for her best friend. There’s nothing to lose with the first, but a lot to lose with the second. She’s afraid (and she varbalized it at the end of 1x07) that something could not go well... etc

While Max was not at all ready to meet his dates (Autumn) parents, because it’s a huge step and he just wan’t ready for it, he has met his best friends parents, and is welcome at their home. And there’s no feelings of meeting the parents being such “next level step”. We saw this when he brough her dad pudding to eat & when he helped carry the bed downstairs. It was also mentioned that he’s been part of the extended family for a while - welcome to family events (Christmas, barbeques..). Zoey’s father - the most important person in her life until now - is definitely on the man’s side, who brings him pudding (cause he’s paid attention that he can only eat soft food) and visits him & helps out. And her dad’s opinion is very important to Zoey, so...

She is completely at easy with Max seeing her with a facemask on, eating take-out, alone, at home, but she hides it (the true self) from Simon. She wears “a mask” with Simon, but doesn’t with Max. Same with how she didn’t tell Simon about her dad in 1x08 (brushing it off: hospital = lollipop), while telling Max that her dad had an apointment that morning. And though it did take her time to find the courage to tell him about it all in detail, she did..in the end. But from the start she shared the main info even if she didn’t tell what exactly happened and how she feels about it. She didn’t completely brush it off with him...even if the news made her unable to process and share it...right away.

We saw how she resisted her personal heart songs to Leif/Joan & to Simon, while being completely at ease with singing them to her best friend (Max) and her dad (Mitch). Cause if we leave out the big dance numbers (Crazy, Pressure), then she tried stopping herself from singing the others...the personal songs... and/or apologized for what’s to come...with Simon, too. But with Max (and her dad) the song just came to her...without the need to apologize or resist it. And afterwards she just tried to claim it didn’t mean as much, because she’s just in denial (and not really ready to start a relationship...because right now she is going through stages of grief). There’s a huge difference in both the heart songs she sang & HOW she sang them.

And we’ve seen that she really appreciates him as a friend, and as she told him - she can’t lose him as a friend...she needs him in her life. She cares about his feelings. She is afraid she gave him the wrong impression, she runs after him to explain things to him, because she knows that he got hurt. She actually cares about him...and is feelings (as a friend). And they’ve not shown the same reaction with Simon. And though the friends to one-sided to more-than-friends trope is “an overused clichee”, it isn’t necessarily bad. It can work well. Examples: Mondler on Friends, Peraltiago on B99...

Max may have the advantage of having known her longer, and knowing her better (because they’ve been friends for 5 years), and hence she’s more comfortable around him. And...that’s the reason why she let him in on her superpower secret, and why she tells him about...things. But... that’s precisely why she should and will choose Max over Simon. (He’s been there for her...always...and he continues to be there for her...through this hard time in her life.)

We saw how even though he was upset with her (for keeping secrets from him, from setting him up with someone else when she knew about his feelings for her...just because she didn’t dare to be honest with him & communicate...and hearing her sing to another person, too...) he was still there for her. A shoulder to lean on...literally and figuratively. He came to her rescue when she put her job at risk (singing Pressure), he gave her her mom’s message and supportive advice regarding her dad... And though there’s a hint of competitiveness that he seems to feel after the 1x07 elevator end scene (where we saw that both men seem to think they’ll be the end choice), and him wanting some kind of response from her, the 1x07 end scene and other moments have shown us that he’s willing to wait til she’s ready.

Especially...since in 1x07 he felt like it’s unfair that she can see into his heart and knows how he feels about her, he doesn’t. But in 1x08 he got to see into her heart (because even though she’d promised to always be honest with him from now on... she wasn’t fully... for a bit... and the “glitch” made her break her promise...til the evening), and it’s more “fair”. He now isn’t as in the dark, and less uncertain. I think the glitch was good for him, because he now knows how she really feels. All he wanted was an honest answer. And though it’s undertandable that he’s a bit hurt by what he’s heard & seen lately... but in the end it was beneficial. As Mo put it... he deserves an answer...no matter what it is...

I get the feeling that by now Zoey’s actually aware that she has feelings for her best friend. She might’ve not been aware of it all until he sang the first heart song to her, but after that we’ve clearly seen that she has either started to realize she actually has feelings for him or that she’s started to have feelings for him. She showed signs of jealousy when he was with Autumn (seeing them talking at the coffee shop, dancing at the club...). She couldn’t stop staring at him when she walked in during the Mo’ Makeover...indicating clearly that she finds him also physically attractive. Not to mention the emotional connection, and friendship. All the looks she gives him, her song & dance during “I’m Yours”... all for him...

And she cares about his feelings & not hurting him (running after him when he sees her heart song to Simon...) The look she has, when he brings her dad pudding & when she sees him with her dad or when she hears him sing “500 miles”, or the looks and giggles when she sings her heart song to him.... While she’s in no place in a relationship at this time, I think she’s realized that despite her grief and emotional state she’s developing feelings for her best friend. And that... just like what’s going on with her dad, seems to scare her.

MY PERSONAL TAKE/THOUGHTS:

As human as her feelings for Simon are (you can’t control who you find attractive...), and as much as this can happen IRL then Zoey/Simon is a no-no... simply because of his relationship status. Cheating storylines are not cool. Hence I cannot stand behind that “ship” or the possibility of accepting them as a viable possibility. IF he didnt have a fiancee, he’d be a candidate, but that’s not the case...he has a SO. Hence Team Simon cannot even be an option. No matter how much they try to promote it all as a love triangle & no matter how much they make Simon make bad decisions and wrong moves (going to her place & talking to her about his feelings, kissing her) seem “nothing serious”.... it’s wrong. It’s just as her best friend decribed it in 1x08. If things were different, yeah, but we’re not talking hypotheticals.

So IMO there’s one clearly wrong choice netween these two. I mean... I would not care if they would have her stay single, or develop new interest (Tobin)...as long as it’s not “morally questionable”. Z/S would be like Joan/Leif... sketchy, and wrong. And hopefully having seen those two helps Zoey understand that.... see the parallels (she has a hint that one is playing the other)

As for “Max is being too pushy”... here’s how that goes: he’s been in love with his best friend...for some time...and not said a thing. She accidentally finds out after she gets her superpower. And all the while his feelings seem to grow deeper. And now that she’s aware of his feelings, it seems she’s become more aware of her own (similar) feelings and/or she’s developed them. And sure...after his peer reviews (that “he doesn’t show initiative”) & seeing that his best friend is interested in someone else...who would be just another “not good option” similar to her past bad relationship decisions, ...and after getting mixed signals from her, he made more direct steps.

He sang her his heart songs, but he didnt push her (no, “Hand picked” is not like a date, just “are you free to go and eat”). She only felt pushed because she could “read his mind”. Also... he didn’t sing to her while being in a relationship with someone else...he kept his distance. And at the same time she seems to have become more and more aware about her feelings for him, and she was giving him “wrong signals”. His response - the flash mob was a response to that. And he was just upset that she ran...without any real response (not interested, can’t right now...cause I’m too occupied with dad thing). All he wanted was some sort of respose, and he told her so. She avoided telling him how she really feels (as Mo put it... he’ll understand if you say you don’t know, but you owe your friend an answer)...delaying it...as long as she could.

Also... any rational person would be confused about hearing that someone has superpowers. Again...she avoided giving him an explanation, instead telling him “fairytales of superpowers”. And in the end he was okay with her answer - that she can’t give him an answer at the moment. Even though he was upset, we saw he was still gonna be her friend (even if keeping some distrance, and not doing the movie nights), and that he was sure that one day she’ll be ready (the 1x07 elevator end scene, where both men think she’ll choose them...in the end..when she’s ready)

And in the latest episode we saw that no matter how hurt his feelings were, he did not stop being her friend. As he said “he’ll be there...always...and be the shoulder to lean on”. And you could tell that a huge weight was lifted off his shoulder when he knew her real feelings. When she did what she promised in last episode...be 100% honest with him. Sure... it only happened because of the glitch, when she sang him the heart song, but nonetheless it made things more equal. As he said - it’s unfair that she knows how he feels & can see into his heart but he cannot see into hers. The glitch changed that. Gave him the opportunity to get the answers she “owed him”

So... it’s undertandable that he felt hurt and confused when he saw her sing a heart song to someone else... right after finally giving him some answers. But...during he same conversation he processed it all, and also explained it to her - one song about love, the other about attraction. And he didn’t say “choose me”, he just explained the meanings to her (cause it was obvious she didn’t understand it herself), and told what his choice would be, while saying that he knows she’ll make her decision on her own....cause that ’s what she’s like.

As a friend he doesn’t want her to make the same mistakes she has in the past..hence him being “upset” with her. Cause to him it looks like she wasn’t completely honest (something she promised to be) with him - singing her heart feelings to him, and then to someone else. Claiming that she can’t lose him as a friend and that’s why she’s not ready to try being more than friends, when to an outsider it looks like the real reason is, as he put it - cause she’s confused about her feelings... for two people. All she’d have to tell him...from start... would just be honest and simply just say (more clearly) that she has to focus on her family & dad at this time, and ask for time. She kinda did at the end of 1x07, but because she’s not good with emotions and feelings...and she delayed her answer, she didn’t really let him in...and be the friend she needs at the time, it wasnt as clear as it could’ve been.

So far all his “pushy” behaviour can be seen as being a good friend - he’s trying to help her not start another overly complicated relationship...which she told him (in Pilot) is not what she wants anymore. He points out to her why Simon is not a good option - he’s taken. Yes, part of his “pushiness” seems to come from trying to be less what his peer reviews decribed him like & competitiveness (knowing Simon is kinda his competition). But from his POV... (before she told him about her superpowers& sang him her heart song)... she’d been shown more interest in him (checking him out, giving mixed signals) & at the same time he’s in a bit of hurry because if he doesn’t act soon she may make a move on the new guy/the new guy may make a move on her. So it makes sense that with all of that happening at the same time he seems...to some... to "push” her towards being more than friends... Cause unconciously he may realize that if he doesn’t make a move ...now... he may be too late.

And though it all... he’s still there for her. He might be “mad at her... just a bit”, but he still goes to check on her, still gives her advice, and space... after he knows what’s really going on. (he “pushes” her to confont her feelings about her dad, and deal with it instead of running). He’s not looking for something in return. We saw that over and over in several episodes. He verbalized it in 1x06, and his face/look told it in the end of 1x07 elevator scene.

Also... “Mr Nice Guy” is better than “Mr. Cheater”...any day... in my book. And it surprises me that there are those who think that “nice guy who goes after his best friend” is worse option & worse clichee than the “hot new guy, who is willing to cheat”. For me one is clearly wrong behaviour the other just depends on your preferences.

To quote Mo : Max is funny, and funny always wins. Hence... being Team Max.

So... while up until things got overly complicated, both men could’ve been options, by now the show (writing etc) has made it pretty clear that they’re going for Z/M endgame.

Though the showrunner/writers at times love to focus on the “love triangle” (I still don’t see it in the writing...I only hear it being described so by the showrunner etc), and how they want to continue with that...for a while... which makes it seem a bit like they’re seriously pro “cheating plots” and “human feelings are messy...hence we let the main character continue making bad choices” because “we love the love- triangle drama”, there’s still more evidence in them not really taking it further than the kiss. But yeah... at times the showrunners comments make it sound like he thinks more like the HIMYM creator did and less like Dawson’s Creek creator did. Too fixed in loving the “triangle drama” & not going for character growth... But... I truly hope that all that has just been misleading...and the storytelling is what tells us how it goes.

They already let Simon make a bad move - the kiss. That should be the line over the line that they won’t cross again. He may continue pursuing her by singing songs to her, because he read her heartsong in the wrong way (because he doesn’t know why she did it, and what’s behind it), but if they follow the character growth path, and their current direction... they won’t let him/her go into the “cheating plot” territory again.

My “advice” to Zoey & Simon:

IF I could talk to these fictional characters, then the advice I would have given them...weeks/months ago would have been: just talk to your family & friends...the important people in your life. That’s Jessica for Simon, and Max (Mo, her mom...) for Zoey. Luckily we finally saw Zoey do that in the latest episode. So far we haven’t seen her really share the specific details on her dads health & her feelings regarding it all, with him. She hasn’t really confonted her feelings about it...til now or really confided in anyone in her family...etc... until now/finally. But Simon doesn’t seem to be doing so (he kept it all inside for a long time...until he had a chance to talk to a stranger, Zoey), and even though he made a point to not talk to her about it all, there has been no indication that after the “smoked roses” incident he’s confided in the person he should, Jessica.

Because... it doesn’t take a shared experience to get the support you need. The other person doesn’t have to have lived through the same/doesn’t have to know what it feels like in person to be the right person to lean on. And that was beautifully showcased at the end of ep 1x08, when Max, after he had been told about her dad’s condition, and her feelings regarding it, was the emotional support she needed. It just takes one person - somone who knows you best/well... to help you nagivate your “grief”.

To elaborate: That moment, when she finally was completely honest with Max, and let him in on her dad’s situation, was very important. It was the step to right direction. It also showed Zoey & us that it doesnt take a person who has experienced the same to understand her, support her. It just takes one person, who knows you & is there for you no matter what. And we shan’t forget that since Max was also close with Mitch, he will be personally affected by her dad’s death. So a shared experience... shared grief. Max being “in” on the details means that they’ll lean on each other more on this (so less need fo Zoey to connect about grief with Simon...who doesn’t have a connection with her dad & who doesn’t really know her). It was a crucial moment: Zoey finally not running from it all & properly starting grieving (going through the stages). And she finally let someone really in (something Simon can’t/won’t do with his fiancee... both cause she doesn’t understand him & his not willing to let her in), so this will make their friendship stronger going forward. Meaning: she doesn’t need Simon fro grief bond - she can get that support from Max, too.

And they really need to explore Simon’s character...and let him grow. Based on spoilers we know that were gonna get (finally) some more development and closer look into Max. But they need to look into S. (Is it just the grief? Is is something...more...)

wow ..this turned out way longer than I expected and planned.

Also... no ship wars comments, please. Even though I stated why I prefer one of the options the show has introduced that does not mean this is an invite to start discussion which is better. This is not the purpose of this post. You’re allowed to have your preference. For me there simply is a (single) reason why I cannot support one, while am OK with the other.

THE END

#ZEP #long post #text post #speculation #theory #analysis #Max vs Simon #THIS IS JUST MY TAKE ON HOW I'VE INTERPRETED THE STORYTELLING...SO FAR #ZOEY'S EXTRAORDINARY PLAYLIST #ZOEYS EXTRAORDINARY PLAYLIST #ZOEY'S EP #Zoey Clarke #Max Richman #Max x Zoey #Zoey x Max #Jane Levy #Skylar Astin #TEAM MAX

102 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

Anita Wohlmann & Madaline Harrison, To Be Continued: Serial Narration, Chronic Disease, and Disability, 37 Literature & Medicine 67 (2019)

This article explores the representation of Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease in the television series The Good Wife and The Michael J. Fox Show. We suggest that serial narration offers intriguing ways to rethink the function and meaning of narratives in health contexts, and that the episodic narrative form of television series may afford insights into the structure of medical encounters. Specifically, we examine to what extent serial narration, with its focus on continuity and repetition, might help reimagine the typical narrative of decline, which is implicit in the terminology of neurodegeneration, as well as the narrative of (premature) closure or finitude that often accompanies a diagnosis such as Parkinson's disease. With the dual perspective of a literature and film researcher and a medical practitioner specializing in neurology, we bring serial narration into conversation with the representation of chronic illness and disability on one hand and actual clinical encounters on the other.

In April 2015, Michael J. Fox told David Letterman on The Late Show about being diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991, at the age of 30. "[T]he doctor said 'You have Parkinson's disease. The good news is that you have 10 years of work left.'"1 Nine years after his diagnosis, in 2000, Fox retired from Spin City, the popular series he had been with since 1996. In 2004, Fox started appearing as a guest in series such as Scrubs and Boston Legal, despite his doctor's prediction. He has been a recurring member of the cast of CBS's The Good Wife since 2010, having appeared in twenty-six episodes over seven seasons. In 2013, NBC launched a new TV series, The Michael J. Fox Show (here: The MJF Show), with twenty-two episodes and Fox in the lead role. Thus, while Fox's doctor offered the expected narrative of decline with a foreseeable end to Fox's career, productivity, and self-fulfillment, Fox's life story did not follow this narrative trajectory. Instead of coming to an end, Fox's career has continued, and his illness became part of a new narrative. As Fox quipped on The Late Show with David Letterman in January 2013: "As long as I play a guy who has Parkinson's, I can do anything."2

As researchers in medical humanities have argued, medical narratives often do not match the "reality" of a disease's progression or the patient's experience of disability. This incongruence has been productively investigated, for example, by research on the power of illness narratives written (or told) by patients, also called autopathographies,3 and by research on the impact of different forms of narrativization (e.g., blogging vs. writing a book) on the experience and meaning-making involved in illness, disability, pain and grief.4 Chronic illness and disability—which we use here alongside one another, acknowledging however that they are distinct experiences and concepts—present [End Page 67] a particular challenge to storytelling, as they undermine classical narrative structures and expectations, such as resolution (i.e., when the "problem" is solved) or closure (i.e., when the illness is overcome). Serial television narration, which is defined by "continuing story lines that run from one episode to another" and by "recurring characters and situations," may offer intriguing ways to rethink the function and meaning of narratives in health contexts.5

The intersections of seriality and illness have been discussed in health humanities before. Historians Volker Hess and J. Andrew Mendelsohn argue in "Case and Series" that the construction of series has been "a basic operation of medical knowing" since the late seventeenth century.6 Hess and Mendelsohn relate seriality to the ways in which doctors drew on "amassed individual histories" to produce generalization, homogeneity, and uniformity.7 In this sense, seriality was "an empirical activity" and not a "function of experience."8 In contrast, Arthur Frank emphasizes the experience of illness and speaks about "a series of dramas" which "enhances the capacity of the ill to find meaning in their plight and—for some—even to learn to enjoy it. Because these dramas are the dramas of all of our lives, all the time, they bring everyone to life, by allowing us to see ourselves in the lives of others whose troubles take them a little closer to the edge than the rest of us are, at least today."9 Fox's example relates to Frank's understanding of the "series of dramas" in so far as it also draws on the notion of joy, which is fundamental to the entertainment industry, and the everydayness that television stages, as for example in the family sitcom. In this paper, we want to focus on Fox's neurodegenerative disorder and explore a potentially productive tension between common narratives of chronic illness and the episodic narrative structure of TV series that may afford insights into the structure of medical encounters. More specifically, we want to examine to what extent serial narration, with its focus on continuity and repetition, might help reimagine the typical narrative of decline, which is implicit in the terminology of neurodegeneration, as well as the narrative of (premature) closure or finitude, which often accompanies a diagnosis such as Parkinson's disease.

In our analysis, which is informed by the dual perspective of a film and literature researcher and a medical practitioner specializing in neurology, specifically Parkinson's disease, we want to bring serial narration into conversation with, first, the representation of illness and disability and, second, actual doctor-patient encounters in the clinic. We are thus interested in exploring the notion of seriality on two levels: On the one hand, we will analyze two TV series—a serial drama, The Good Wife (2009–2016) and a sitcom, The Michael J. Fox Show (2013–2014), in which Fox plays two different characters with neurological disorders—in order to explore how the representation of illness and disability in serial formats might offer new ways of understanding how illness and disability experiences can be framed. The aim of this analysis is to tease out how serial narratives may counter other, sometimes limiting narrative forms, in which illness and disability are often embedded. On the other hand, we will explore how the concept of serial narration applies to clinical practice and how it may offer new ways of understanding narratives that relate to doctor-patient encounters.

Approaching Seriality

Our suggestions are informed by theories from television studies and cultural studies, where seriality is considered a cultural practice with a narrative structure that is, to a great degree, determined by industrial production standards.10 In contrast to a closed narrative structure, such as in books or films, which is characterized by beginning, middle, and end and which moves towards closure and resolution, serial narratives are informed by different principles. From a philosophical perspective, seriality is defined by repetition and difference.11 In literature and cultural studies, serial narration has been investigated as a concept that emphasizes process and "becoming," thus emphasizing relations that are not grounded in either identity or difference.12 As Pamela Gravagne argues in relation to Gilles Deleuze's concept of the time-image film, cinema (and, as we propose here, serial narration) can highlight processes of becoming, as opposed to being, and thus foreground open-endedness and unpredictability.13 One extreme form on the spectrum of serial narration are soap operas (or continuous serials), which are open-ended and thus lack closure. Soap operas, such as General Hospital (1963–2015), can have thousands of episodes and tell the stories of their characters over several decades. Therefore, soap operas are characterized by what the media scholar John Fiske calls "an infinitely extended middle" (180), emphasizing process and change (187). With their continuous "refusal" to end, soap operas offer "process without progression" and are based on "provisional denouements" instead of final and unalterable conclusions.14 Moreover, the viewing experience of a soap opera is different from watching a finite movie. Dennis Porter argues that soap operas have a "life-imitating diachronic capaciousness" with an "implicit claim to portray a parallel life."15 Viewers usually follow the stories for years or even decades, evolving through time just as the characters and actors do.

Sitcoms (or episodic series), on the other end of the spectrum of serial narration, emphasize repetition and cyclicality. With storylines that are always brought to closure at the end of each episode, sitcoms such as Scrubs (2001–2010) suggest a "cyclical nature of the normalcy of the premise undergoing stress or threat of change and becoming restored."16 There is little or no narrative development across the episodes and seasons of sitcoms, which entails that repetition reproduces the routines of everyday life, suggesting to the viewers a sense of safety and security, the familiar and the domestic.17 Even though each episode is self-contained and even though repetition and cyclicality are central to sitcoms, to Fiske, the repetitive nature of sitcoms suggests open-endedness on a different level: "The syntagmatic chain of events may reach closure, but the paradigmatic oppositions of character and situation never can. It is a requirement of television's routine repetition that its stories can never be finally resolved and closed off."18 As a consequence, sitcoms thrive on "joy in repetition."19 Running gags, for example, as a hallmark of the situation comedy, harbor a great potential for dependability and familiarity on the one hand and irony, parody, and mimicry on the other hand.20 Therefore, even though viewers may miss one or several episodes and still keep pace with a sitcom because the basic premise will not change dramatically, this allegedly monotonous sameness also contains (and even demands) change and innovation.21

In between these two poles of serial narration—the soap opera or continuous serial on the one hand and the sitcom or episodic series on the other hand—a number of other narrative forms exist, such as mini-series, flexi-narratives or episodic serials.22 The episodic serial, such as Grey's Anatomy (2005–today), is a hybrid form that has a main plot, which usually features the doctors' private lives and professional challenges and which continuously evolves across several episodes and seasons. (Grey's Anatomy is currently in its twelfth season and, to our knowledge, there is no end in sight.) On the level of the subplot, episodic serials, like Grey's Anatomy, feature medical cases and patient stories, which are usually self-contained and are resolved by the end of an episode so that each new episode introduces a new medical case. Episodic serials are therefore both potentially infinite and provide "the dramatically satisfying finitude of the episodic series."23

These notions of serial narration have been applied to the representation and experience of old age and aging: Countering the typical representations of old age with connotations of finitude, closure, standstill, or decline, serial narration on television offers new approaches to what it means to live in time.24 In soap operas, for example, the genre's characteristics of constant evolution, open-endedness and unpredictability imply that marriage is often not an end-point and that some characters marry multiple times across their life courses and continue to believe in new beginnings as they age.25 Soap operas also leave more narrative space for the representation of older women, who are usually shown with an active sexuality and with economic power.26 Sitcoms such as Golden Girls (1985–1992), can use the ambivalence of the humor expressed in running gags as well as theatrical exaggeration to subvert hierarchical categorizations and stereotypical notions of age and aging.27 Hearing impairment or stubbornness, for instance, which are often associated with old age, can turn into a source of surprise and humor when stereotypical expectations are undermined by the vital and energetic "golden girls." At the same time, the sitcom's recurring characters offer "familiarity and security … a delight in repetition and a feeling of being safe and sound."28 Since each episode restores the harmony among the Golden Girls after an initial conflict, the sitcom's narration is cyclical and thus, even though each episode comes to an end, the sitcom itself can potentially go on forever. In short, when viewers decide to watch Golden Girls, they know what they will get.

To our knowledge, these specific qualities of serial narration have not yet been brought together with (chronic) illness and disability. There is a heated debate by activists and rich controversial scholarship regarding the representation of and narratives about characters with illnesses or disabilities.29 And, of course, there are prominent cases of disability representations in films and the media. Geri Jewell, for example, is known as the first actress with a disability (cerebral palsy) to have a recurring role in a prime time television show (The Facts of Life, 1979–1988). IMDb lists twelve episodes (from 1980 to 1984) in which Jewell appeared as Blair's cousin Geri Tyler ("Geri Jewell"), giving to the protagonist Blair—as Jewell explains in an interview ("Geri Jewell Interview")—more depth and a more humane side. As a stand-up comedian and trained method actress, Jewell was a perfect fit for the role. She even used jokes from her comedy show in The Facts of Life, thus merging, to some degree, her off-screen persona as a comedian and her fictional on-screen character. The light sitcom tone of The Facts of Life is interwoven with an educational purpose, which gives both gravitas and a taste of moralism and didacticism to the show. (In her first appearance, Geri Tyler says, for example, "Questions don't hurt, ignorance does.")

Other famous actors or public personae, such as Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking, have appeared in serial television. Reeve, for example, had a role in the serial drama Smallville (a show about Clark Kent's life before he became Superman) as Dr. Virgil Swann (two episodes were aired in 2003 and 2004), and appeared in one episode in The Practice (2003). Stephen Hawking has had guest appearances in Star Trek: The Next Generation (one episode in 1993), The Big Bang Theory (six episodes, 2012–2016), The Simpsons, and Futurama. As in the case of Jewell, Reeve's and Hawking's personal lives and illnesses overlap with the fictional characters, with the difference that in Reeve's and Hawking's case, the on-screen roles are similar to "cameos": Reeve appears in a remake of the original Superman films, thus creating, by his sheer presence, a link to and acknowledgment of Smallville's ties to the original. Hawking's cameos are of a slightly different kind since he usually plays himself (and not a fictional character as in Reeve's case) so that the on-screen and off-screen persona are practically identical. This also implies that, true to a cameo appearance, we are dealing with character sketches that fulfill a different function, such as raising publicity or attracting viewers. In these cameo roles, TV characters with a disability are not meant to be fully fleshed out characters who develop over the course of a series, which is an important dimension that adds to the distinctiveness of Michael J. Fox's roles in prime time television series.

The cases of Jewell, Reeve, and Hawking and their appearances in serial narrations raise important questions, especially because their off-screen, public life stories intersect with their on-screen personae: How intentional are these intersections?30 How relevant is it to define the boundaries between off-screen reality and on-screen performance? What role does humor play when private story and fictional narrative overlap? How does self-deprecating humor, irony, or sarcasm negotiate or challenge clichéd representations and ableist notions? Who benefits from or is harmed by such humorous representations? After all, a number of stakeholders are involved in television series, all of them having different aims and reservations—the producers of a show (who aim for publicity, higher ratings, financial benefits), the actors (who are interested in employment opportunities, acknowledgement, and a public voice, but who may end up feeling exploited or pitied), disability organizations (who benefit from the publicity and visibility that long-running, successful, prime time TV series entail and who are invested in changing the public image of disability). The audience, too, is an important factor in this discussion, especially in the era of Web 2.0 which allows viewers an even greater public voice in responding directly to on-screen representations. Assuming that viewers engage with a television series over a much longer time period (compared with watching a film in a movie theater, for example), one might argue that this ongoing investment in a fictional narrative might influence the viewers' responses. Whether or not this is actually the case cannot be determined here. However, we find viewers' online comments to be a productive resource for understanding the social responses serialized representations of disability and illness can yield. Reeve's television roles in Smallville and The Practice, for example, reveal that viewers are conflicted about Reeve's appearance, as the following comments illustrate: While fan "Zach Kucala" (now "zach-69") is enthusiastic and feels inspired by Reeve's appearance ("Nothing is Impossible. He is an inspiration to my life"), "jwoven" is indignant, wondering "why oh why do we need to resort to pushing onto screen Chris Reeve."31 Not only does "jwoven" doubt Reeve's acting skills, he also raises ethical questions about care as well as personal value judgments about what he or she wishes to see on screen.

In the following two sections, we use the interaction between chronic illness and disability on the one hand and serial narration on the other hand as a stimulus to start a conversation about the influences of serial narration on the representation of health and illness. We will focus on two forms of serial narration, the serial drama (or episodic serial) The Good Wife and the sitcom The MJF Show, in which Fox plays two very different dramatic characters, each of whom has a neurological illness. We are not interested in determining which form of serial narration represents chronic illnesses "better" or more accurately. Instead, we will consider how each narrative structure challenges existing illness narratives and may offer new views on the representation of chronic disabling disorders.

Serial Narration and Chronic Illness: The Good Wife

In The Good Wife, Alicia Florrick is an in-demand Chicago lawyer trying to advance her career while navigating a complex private life as the wife of a cheating politician. It is a serial drama, in which each episode's legal case is closed within the episode while other plotlines expand over several episodes or even seasons and thus remain open-ended. In addition to the central cast of the show, which remains largely the same, and a steady stream of new client-characters, a number of secondary characters appear repeatedly though sporadically. Louis Canning (played by Fox) is one of these secondary characters. He is introduced as the opposing lawyer in the second season of The Good Wife, where he represents a drug company in a class action suit of plaintiffs who have lost a family member due to a drug manufactured by a company that is represented by Florrick and her law firm Lockhart/Gardner. Ironically, Louis Canning has a neurological disorder (identified as tardive dyskinesia), which he openly declares in his voir dire towards the jury, where he also explains that drugs help with his symptoms. The irony of this representation is increased by the fact that tardive dyskinesia is actually a disorder caused by exposure to the medication, and has thus been the subject of lawsuits itself. Repeatedly, Canning (who is never addressed by his given name) uses his illness to manipulate the judge and the jurors: he bangs his chair against the table or slowly and with shaking hands pours water into a glass, thus distracting everyone in the courtroom. Clearly, he uses his disability to his own advantage, and the TV series highlights the irony of having Canning as a patient with a drug-induced condition himself defend a pharmaceutical company—an irony that is also reflected in the title of the episode, "Poisoned Pill."

In this and future episodes, Louis Canning is set up as an intriguingly complex trickster figure: He moves across boundaries of truth and falsehood, health and illness, and defies conventional notions, such as the sick role.32 Moreover, Canning's negotiation of his condition does not seem to fit the common narratives of illness or disability, such as inspiration or decline narratives. The premise of the inspiration narrative, for example, is that disability is an affliction to be feared and that people with disabilities are to be pitied. When they manage to overcome their disability (or their suffering from the disability), they are turned into heroes or heroines and considered an inspiration to the non-disabled.33 To G. Thomas Couser, such "triumph over adversity" narratives represent the "tritest script of disability" because they ignore the social context and cultural practices in which disability is embedded.34 These inspirational stories present the disabled as role models with a positive attitude who have overcome suffering due to perseverance or hard work.35 Problematically, this notion of heroic overcoming objectifies and sensationalizes disabled people.36 Moreover, it is said to make "non-disabled viewers feel good about themselves" because it reduces their anxiety about becoming disabled or sick themselves: If disabled people can still achieve extraordinary things (such as winning the Paralympics), non-disabled viewers feel comforted and inspired about what is possible in life.37 In Canning's case, viewers will not condescendingly pat this character on the back or use his performance as a reassurance about what is possible in life. Canning is not a pitiable victim of his condition; he owns his illness and exploits it. He is also not a hero who victoriously overcomes obstacles because of his good attitude, hard work, and good spirits. On the contrary, he is manipulative, cunning, and ruthless, and he uses his condition to his advantage.

The decline narrative is more fully explored (and questioned) in season 6 when Canning's health is foregrounded again. Canning suggests several times that he is dying and that his time is running out as he waits for a kidney transplant.38 True to his character, Canning uses this information to push for a speedy trial, which suits his case. It is never clarified how severely Canning is actually affected. This uncertainty and potential unreliability are further supported by Canning's medical symptoms (he claims to suffer from renal failure), which are incongruent with his stated diagnosis of tardive dyskinesia and are not accompanied by the expected disability: When he appears in a wheelchair in court and on oxygen, he exploits these circumstances for dramatic effect within the episode. From a medical perspective, they seem unrelated to his clinical picture.

The ambiguity of Canning's condition reaches a dramatic climax when Canning is hospitalized in episode 16 of season 6 ("Open Source"). Alicia visits him at his bedside, and Canning tells her that he had a kidney transplant and that he wants to donate money to the family of the donor. This episode alludes to the common notion that, on their deathbed, vicious characters realize that they were mistaken and try to make up for their earlier wrongdoing. This conversion narrative suggests that an illness is similar to a religious conversion experience: It is a dramatic turning point in a person's life, involving "a kind of death of the 'old self' and rebirth to a new and very different self."39 Canning thus appears as a converted patient who transitions "from darkness to light" and is saved by medical intervention.40 However, later in the episode, Canning's statement comes to appear as a cunning fraud when he recovers and does not remember having asked Alicia to transfer money.

On a meta-level and true to the show's status as a serial drama, Canning's story is potentially open-ended and subject to unpredictable turns and surprising events. Even though each season ends with a final episode, the narrative is not "closed or resolved" and has, potentially, "an indefinite run."41 At the very end of season 6, for example, Canning invites Alicia to open a law firm with him. This cliffhanger clearly points to the ongoing involvement of Canning in the next season. Therefore, despite the series' allusions to a foreseeable decline of health and potential finitude of Canning's life, The Good Wife undermines any certainty or predictability about the course of his health, cautioning us to not write Canning off prematurely. Part of this unpredictability is attributable to Canning's unreliability as a trickster figure. Yet, this uncertainty and open-endedness, the constant element of surprise and openness for continuity and change, is also amplified by the serial nature of the narration.

It is this combination of an unreliable character and serial narration that challenges narratives of inspiration, conversion, and decline and contributes to the ambiguity of Canning's health status. This narrative complexity is highlighted by Fox's off-stage narrative and the intermittent use of features of his own illness, further challenging conventional expectations and pointing to the erosion of distinct boundaries between fact and fiction, material reality and social construction, which shape people's experiences of illness and disability in their everyday lives and in fictional worlds. The Good Wife thus engages with conventional expectations by repeatedly inviting viewers to be entertained by Canning and to question the narrative expectations his character triggers. As a serial drama, the narrative structure of potentially endless continuity also sheds a different light on Canning's story of disability and illness, inviting viewers to acknowledge the potential of process and "becoming" and enjoy the show's focus on constant change and innovation.

Serial Narration and Chronic Illness: The Michael J. Fox Show

The MJF Show is a sitcom loosely based on Fox's own story, in contrast to The Good Wife in which that narrative is only implied. The sitcom focuses on Mike Henry, a beloved news anchor on NBC in New York City, who was diagnosed with Parkinson's and retired from work. After having poured all his energy into his family, he decides in the first episode to go back to work, a decision which is applauded by his family and fans. Over the course of the program, we observe how Henry struggles to balance his career, his marriage, friendships, and the "crises" of a typical middle-to-upper-class family. In part due to its structure as a sitcom, The MJF Show functions differently from The Good Wife: Humor and running gags are fundamental. Moreover, the dynamics in the family play a central role. Similar to a serial drama, the show is marked by recurring characters and settings, but there are fewer external characters and the repetitive quality of everyday life is stressed in regular conversations in the kitchen, quarrels at the dinner table, or banter with colleagues at work. In addition, each episode brings a solution to the problems or conflicts presented in the beginning. Harmony is thus usually restored at the end of each episode, a lesson has been learned, and the next episode can begin with no major changes in the general set-up of the series.

Similar to The Good Wife, The MJF Show challenges common illness and disability narratives, both in relation to Henry's professional and private life. Henry is skeptical about the way his return to work will be handled by the TV station: The producers at Henry's job frame his past experiences and future plans within the common inspiration narrative of "overcoming personal obstacles" and dramatize his professional aspirations with slow motion and "lame uplifting music," as Henry complains.42 Thus, The MJF Show exposes the way in which stories like Henry's are exploited by the media, namely as a condescending marketing strategy that announces him as "Mike the poor son-of-a-bitch" not "Mike the newsman," as Henry argues with frustration. Similar to Fox's own statements, his character Mike Henry refuses to be solely defined by his illness or to endow it with undue significance. (The fact that The MJF Show, which is broadcast by NBC, exposes and condemns the mechanisms of the fictional NBC of Mike Henry's universe, adds yet another layer to the humor and irony of the show.) In a similar way, the inspiration narrative is subverted when Mike Henry meets his new assistant and segment producer Kay at the TV station. She introduces herself as a great admirer of his tenacity: "Because to be a part of this […] a part of you […] to call it inspirational is […]." Kay cannot finish her sentence as her eyes well up with tears. Henry mocks her and asks sarcastically "Are you crying? [to his boss] Is she crying?"43

This critique is negotiated in the setting of family life. Conforming to the focus of the sitcom genre on the familiar, the domestic, and the communal, Henry's life is predominantly defined by his role as a family man. In contrast to other representations of characters with disabilities, which predominantly define the characters through their disabilities and present them in relative isolation from other roles and characteristics, The MJF Show makes a point in suggesting that Henry is involved in a lively, dynamic family, which he tries to tame as any other father might do. Of course, the sitcom does not actually mirror normal, everyday lives, but it presents an idealized version of what is supposed to be a typical American family and thus contributes to normalization.44 Moreover, Henry is repeatedly shown with his wife in bed and—toned down to the standards of the family sitcom—we observe the banter, flirting and kissing, that hint at an active sex life. Again, the fact that The MJF Show does not desexualize Henry or declare his erotic desires as deviant suggests that the show refuses to associate disability with asexuality or abnormality.45

The inspiration theme is also addressed in the family setting, when Henry's teenage daughter tries to exploit Henry's inspirational appeal and profit from her father's condition. For a school project, Eve makes a movie about her family, in which her father appears as a struggling hero who overcomes grave obstacles on a daily basis. Eve's voiceover explains: "Although my Dad has experienced enormous tragedy in his life—just putting his pants on every morning is a gift—he bravely soldiers on, and that makes him a hero." To increase the effect of the video, Eve covers Enrique Iglesia's song "Hero," singing "You can be my hero, Daddy" (instead of "I can be your hero, baby"), thus exaggerating the melodrama of the song to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous. Eve's teacher fails Eve, claiming that her video was manipulative and that she delivered a "puff piece," underscoring the inauthenticity or over-simplification of the inspirational or heroic narrative of illness.46

Eve's narrative of her father alludes to the common conception of illness as warfare, which frames diseases as hostile invasions and patients as soldiers who heroically put up a fight.47 Moreover, Eve's film draws on the tragedy narrative, which suggests that a diagnosis of an illness is a disruptive experience that "shatters lives" and tears apart a person's coherent identity into a 'before' and 'after.'48 By magnifying her father's story into a tragedy, Eve frames Henry's condition as one that is supposed to arouse "pity and fear," leading to a "catharsis of the emotions" for the viewers.49 Crucially though, the viewers of The MJF Show are invited to laugh both at Eve's exaggeration and at the ridiculousness of the tragedy narrative in relation to Henry's condition. Thus, The MJF Show both dismantles and ridicules the inspiration and tragedy narratives.

This role of the inspiration theme is continued in episode 7 ("Golf"), when Henry and his wife are invited to a charity golf event. Henry plans the trip as a romantic retreat with his wife, but when he meets Chaz, another guest at the event who is legally blind and ruthless when it comes to using his disability for his advantage, Henry starts to compete with Chaz about who is more inspirational and thus deserves more public attention and praise for his achievements. In this episode, Chaz's unscrupulous manipulation of ableist stereotypes resembles Louis Canning in The Good Wife, and it adds another layer to Henry's derisive critique of the inspiration narrative in earlier episodes. The "Golf" episode reveals that Henry is not an infallible hero in shining armor; he has gotten used to the benefits and status that come with the inspiration narrative and he now enjoys them too much to share them. At the end of the episode, Henry confesses to his wife: "I just want to be the inspirational guy. I guess this has become a bigger part of my identity than I realized."50 In contrast to The Good Wife, where Louis Canning's manipulative and exploitative strategies are aligned with similarly ruthless strategies used in the arena of competitive, able-bodied lawyers, the sitcom's serial formula of The MJF Show has its hero Henry return to his good senses at the end of the episode. After his spin into morally dubious domains, Henry's insight about his own weakness towards the benefits of the inspiration theme only increases the show's overall critique of ableist stereotypes and problematic disability narratives.

From a narratological perspective, one recurring feature is particularly remarkable in The MJF Show: In each episode, the characters do not only play their roles, they also comment on their actions. Thus they are both subjects within the episode's plot and somewhat distanced narrators of their stories. This meta-discourse is a mode that has become quite established in TV series, and The MJF Show puts it to an interesting use. In the "Golf" episode, for example, Henry steps out of his role as a family father and inspiration-competitor and shares the lessons he has learned at the end of the episode. Speaking directly to the camera in a separate room, Henry maintains: "Sometimes you get used to playing certain roles. Maybe you are the ambitious one, or the smart one, the inspiring one. But you cannot let those roles define you. 'Cause if you are too hung up on how other people see you, you might forget to stop and enjoy the view." In adding this extra narrative layer to the show, The MJF Show suggests that the characters can create distance between themselves and the plot by becoming, to some extent, the tellers of their own stories.51 Whether or not this implies more narrative power and authority is questionable given that the characters remain their fictional selves and do not abandon their roles. But it adds an additional layer of self-reflection that potentially complicates the topics discussed in the plot. However, rather than being subversive, Henry's commentary in the "Golf" episode may also be understood as educational and moralistic and may thus continue a tradition of didacticism in the representation of disability that is also present in The Facts of Life.

Humor thus takes an ambivalent position in the representation of disability and chronic illness. In contrast to Louis Canning's comical stunts in the serial drama The Good Wife, The MJF Show's use of humor is part of the sitcom's distinctive genre and thus crucial to the representation of chronic illness and disability. Humor, as scholars argue, can be both affirmative and subversive of a status quo,52 and it "may be used to cope with difficult situations, to expose social problems, to confront societal taboos, and to safely vent frustration."53 When applied to the representation of characters with disabilities and their experiences, humor can help the characters create distance towards what is painful, or it can contribute to downplaying feelings of being rejected and dismissed.54 As a consequence, humor can be a sign of powerlessness or resignation (towards what cannot be changed or is too painful to address without ironic distance) or it can indicate a position of power and authority, in which the characters who make jokes about themselves use humor to unite disparate parts of the self and normalize alterity.55 In the latter sense, humor subverts the notion of disability as a tragedy narrative, suggesting instead that being disabled is not so fundamentally tragic that you cannot laugh about it.56

In the case of Fox, who in the sitcom prefers the role of what pop culture wiki TV Tropes calls the "Disabled Snarker" over that of the "Inspirationally Disabled," the role of humor is not only central to his performance in The MJF Show but also closely interwoven with his public image as an actor, who gained fame and an (inter)national profile through his involvement in sitcoms (e.g., Family Ties) and science-fiction comedy films (e.g., Back to the Future).57 The humorous quality of Fox's fictional roles and his sustained public image as a comedy actor further overlap with his self-presentation in talk shows such as The Late Show with David Letterman, when the actor and private person quips about his employment opportunities and capacities. By inviting his fans to laugh with him when he jokes about himself, Fox suggests that he is in a position of authorial power, which paves the way for a humorous representation of his own condition, Parkinson's disease, that can apply to other illnesses, in which the disease becomes familiarized and normalized and invites process and "becoming" (for example, in trying to understand and come to grips with the complexities involved in the inspiration narrative).

However, Fox's position of authorial power and control is of course relative. His success in shaping the public narrative of his (dis)ability is dependent on the structures of the industry he works for and on the public's taste, over which he has little influence. Fox's ambitious aim to reimagine a story of chronic disease within different narrative frames did not last long: The MJF Show was cancelled mid-season after only fifteen of the planned twenty-two episodes had been aired. This outcome is not unusual as series typically get cancelled quickly when the rating figures remain below expectations. Therefore, when the show failed, as Howard Moore argues, NBC "treated it just like every other show that fails. No special treatment. That's all anyone expects."58 From the perspective of serial narration, this unexpected cancellation adds another interesting twist to the potential of serial narration: It increased the open-ended character of the show, exactly because the series remained fragmentary and incomplete. According to some researchers, such a fragmentary state of TV series may even have a particularly activating effect on viewers, triggering lively discussions in online blogs or inspiring fans to create their own derivative works of fan fiction, in which the characters of the original work live on or are entirely reimagined.59

In the context of serial narration, which emphasizes repetition and "becoming," TV series offer a thought-provoking platform to reimagine common narratives of illness and disability. Continuous serials such as soap operas remain open-ended and refrain from providing closure while episodic series such as sitcoms and dramatic serials offer resolution in each episode against a background of ongoing conflict or evolving plots. Both imply an open-ended aesthetic of representation that offers an alternative to a closed narrative structure, which can be particularly productive when applied to representations of chronic illness or disability, as we have tried to show in the examples from The Good Wife and The Michael J. Fox Show. In the next section, we want to move beyond the representational dimension and test to what extent there might be a practical value to the features of serial narration that can provide insight into actual clinical settings.

Seriality in Clinical Practice

Comparing TV series to clinical practice may at first seem farfetched given their many differences. After all, medical encounters aim at providing care, not entertainment or social commentary. Nonetheless, as Kathryn Montgomery has demonstrated, there are crucial narrative conventions at work in the clinical framework that can be productively examined.60 In what follows, we will outline some of the structural similarities between serial narration and clinical practice, highlighting how these intersections provide new perspectives toward health care or illness experiences on a theoretical and attitudinal level. We will then discuss how attention to the serial structure of health care may challenge existing doctor-patient narratives and yield opportunities to reimagine what it means to attend to patients with chronic diseases or disabilities.

Medical encounters have several structural parallels to serials on television, in part because they share some of the same constraints. They recur at specific intervals and the action takes place within a familiar setting or "set," the doctor's office. A doctor's appointment follows a predictable narrative structure; it moves through the opening questions, to the examination and the diagnosis and plan. Similar to television serials, medical encounters are subject to external pressures, such as administrative requirements, that share some features with television production standards.61 Likewise, the creation of a television series is schematized and shaped by industrial production principles, such as labor division and strict time windows of writing, filming, editing, and broadcasting.62 In keeping with this, the structure of television series and the processes in the clinic share a high degree of standardization and ritualization.

The open-ended structure of continuous serials, which follow the lives of characters over decades and give rise to the idea of "process without progression," allows characters opportunities for re-invention and new beginnings, with "provisional denouements" instead of final and unalterable conclusions. This parallels the experience of a chronic illness that unfolds over many years, in which decompensation can be followed by an intervention that, at least temporarily, arrests the progression of the illness and restores the status quo for a period within the overall course of the illness, thus constituting—in a medical analogy—a moment of "provisional denouements."63 However, in chronic degenerative diseases, there is an end to the narrative so that ultimately possibilities are foreclosed. The narrative of decline cannot be postponed entirely and has a known conclusion, just like normal aging. What can be modified is how the participants (doctor and patient) understand and shape the narrative process over the course of the illness: Within the serial, episodic and ultimately fragmentary structure of the medical encounter, there is an opportunity to create new narratives that allow for "becoming," the assumption of new roles and the occurrence of unexpected plot twists. Thus, we can question our expectations of closure and resolution. Serial narration involves an interesting paradox that also exists—to some extent—in doctor-patient encounters: Each episode (or medical encounter) comes to an end eventually, but the ending is provisional because the plot will resume in the next episode (or visit to the clinic). However, the doctor-patient plot does not necessarily pick up where it left off. This rupture in the "syntagmatic chain of events" emphasizes once more the provisional nature of closure and resolution, particularly in the encounter with chronic disease in which the larger narrative of the illness is open and continually changing and in which the paradigmatic oppositions of character and situation—health and illness—cannot be resolved.64

The episodic, fragmentary structure of serial narration also has parallels in health care. Similar to a TV series, the doctor generally has no access to the patient's life beyond the clinic, which can be compared to the off-screen gaps between episodes on television. The life of the patient unfolds in between the clinical episodes, and this influences the role of the doctor, who is unlikely to be the "main character" in the patient's story. Awareness of this dimension of fragmentation challenges common linear trajectories. For example, narratives of decline reduce individuals to stereotypes, such as the inevitable decline of "the elderly" as they age, or those with a chronic disease who find their identities conflated with their illness—a characterization rejected both explicitly and implicitly by Fox's narrative. The episodic structure of TV series, which involves the gaps between the broadcasting of each new episode, suggests a notion of temporality in which the common linear understanding of time is punctuated by gaps and holes, and where lives unfold off-screen for the characters, the actors, and the viewers alike. As the lives of both doctor and patient evolve in the time between their medical encounters, a heightened awareness of these different temporalities can promote the recognition of an expanded identity for the patient and a multiplicity of roles both with and apart from the illness. These "off-stage" events and their accompanying narratives also influence the encounter and require re-inventions and new beginnings as both doctor and patient take stock of the changes since the last encounter and revise their shared narrative accordingly.

The properties of repetition and cyclicality also operate in both serial narratives and the clinic. Repetition within a sitcom may function to create a sense of safety, security, and familiarity, which allows the exploration of charged material and social taboos under a veneer of everydayness, often using humor. In a medical encounter, the familiarity of the setting and structure of the encounter may, ideally, create a safe space to approach the reality of illness with an emphasis on dependability, familiarity and "homelikeness"—crucial factors which are often disrupted in the experience of illness.65 In a sitcom, it is the homelike set which produces a safe, dependable space of sameness and repetition within which variation, improvisation and humor can unfold. Repetition bridges the gaps between episodes, establishing a sense of continuity and shared purpose. For similar reasons, doctors often use specific references to personal details they have learned from previous encounters with the patient to "frame" the next encounter and establish a common point of reference. Repetition—for example of shared jokes or references to some aspect of the doctor and patient's history together—can create a space of safety and familiarity in which it is possible to approach difficult and frightening material when used within a predictable structure. It is important to note here that such a sustained relationship with a specific doctor over time often does not correspond to the reality of what, for example poor and uninsured, patients experience. These patients go through episodic encounters in a variety of medical settings with constantly changing providers, and this situation highlights the powerless and vulnerability of the patient seeking care. Repetition and cyclicality, instead of providing pleasure or a sense of safety, reinforce the fragmentation of care. Joy in repetition becomes the repetition of despair.

Similar to serial narration, doctor-patient encounters follow a standardized, predictable format with its own structure and narrative rules. Within this format, doctors can benefit from awareness of the need for variation or improvisation in their encounters with patients, deviating from the usual procedures to maintain engagement in the service of a more authentic encounter. Academic research has recognized the significance and beneficial impact of humor in health care settings.66 Humor is one form of improvisation that can be used to defuse tension or establish rapport within the predictable, repetitive narrative of medical encounters, although the use of parody and irony in health care carries a risk of misinterpretation. Paul Wells argues in his analysis of comic forms: "Repetition constitutes an important structure device because it creates the conditions for a comic event with particular economy. Viewers know that certain events are going to take place and what they essentially await are the variations on the main theme."67 Repetition thus may create space for creative innovation and improvisation, which help maintain engagement, attention, and curiosity despite (or because of) existing formulaic patterns, repetition, and standardization. Understanding repetition as a resource for innovation and improvisation in health care has the potential to enrich the experience of the encounter for physicians as well as those they care for, allowing both parties to experience a sense of personal connection and shared meaning.

To illustrate the power of repetition in a clinical setting, we want to draw on an oncology case that Cheryl Mattingly describes in The Paradox of Hope (2010), a study in which she analyzes the urban hospital as a border zone and describes African-American families with children who have a chronic medical condition. Mattingly is a medical anthropologist, who places the encounters she observes within ethnographic concepts of rituals, liminal spaces, and healing dramas. Interestingly, many of her observations also resonate with our concept of serial narration. For example, in her description of "a 'routine' clinical visit" between Andrena and her preschool daughter Belinda at Belinda's oncologist, Dr. Branden, Mattingly distinguishes usefully between Andrena's and Belinda's perspective on the encounter (which is experienced as a continuing nuisance and "portentous" event, filled with fear, tears, and sorrow) and the doctor's view, for whom the visit "may be routine" and—even though he greatly cares for Belinda—for whom it may be just one of many patient encounters during a busy day.68 According to Mattingly, the fifteen-minute visit, in which Dr. Branden does a physical exam of Belinda and discusses the latest MRI results with Andrena, is "couched within a family-like time," in which the doctor chit-chats with the mother and plays a "Yes I Can/No You Can't" game.69 This game, Mattingly reports, is one that Dr. Branden plays with Belinda whenever he notices that she has taken medical instruments from the wall in his office to play with them. Following Sabine Sielke, we might think of this scene as a moment of joyful repetition to both Belinda and Dr. Branden.70 Mattingly describes the following interaction: "'Hey,' Dr. Branden jokes, noticing the instruments still clutched in [Belinda's] right hand. 'you can't have those! Give them back!' He playfully moves to take them from Belinda. She snatches her hand away, grinning. 'No! I can have them!' she shouts. 'No, you can't!' he says, raising his voice. 'Yes I can!' she repeats even more loudly, laughing now. 'Okay,' he sighs in mock defeat. 'I guess I'll just have to listen to your chest.' Belinda hugs him and he puts his arm around her.'"71

Importantly for our argument about seriality and the entailing concepts of repetition, variation, episodic temporality, process and "becoming," Mattingly's example illustrates how the little game not only draws on serial characteristics of sameness and repetition but also establishes—as many sitcoms do—a moment of familiarity, safety, and "homelikeness," a fatherly bond of trust that allows Dr. Branden to "participate in an intimate family game" with Belinda and that indicates a "sense of partnership with Andrena."72 This short moment of the ritual or repeated game produces a "time out of time,"73 a moment in which the linear sequence of medical events and procedures, prognostics, and treatments, is punctuated with a parallel time of play and momentary self-forgetfulness. "Thus," Mattingly notes, "in the middle of the grimmest scene, comes the possibility of foolishness, of humor, a momentary forgetting of the terrible reasons that bring these three together."74

This brings up the question: How does the concept of serial narration offer an expansion of or alternative to Mattingly's sensible and convincing analysis of the scene, which draws on the concepts of ritual and game? And, what problems arise from applying the notion of serial narration to clinical practice? Mattingly's example demonstrates the idea that repetition reproduces the routines of everyday life which, as we argued earlier, may create a safe space for medical encounters to approach the reality of illness. However, this example also illustrates some potential limitations to applying the notion of serial narration, derived from the larger context of entertainment and popular culture, to clinical practice, in which so much is at stake. The game between Belinda and her doctor works well within this specific pediatric setting, but it raises the question if and to what extent humor in general, as well as games—such as verbal games or puns—can be applied to other age groups as well and how they may risk trivializing or infantilizing patients. Certainly, and Mattingly makes this clear in her discussion, the "Yes I Can/No You Can't" game was so successful in Belinda's case because it echoed a similar game between Belinda and her mother, which Dr. Branden seems to have picked up. Caution and sensitivity are required to forestall a well-intended ritual, game, or address achieving the opposite, namely the reiteration of condescending or reductionist narratives. Another contradiction is raised by our application of serial narration to this case from clinical practice: Serial narratives such as sitcoms, as we have argued above, are to some degree cyclical and can potentially continue forever. This temporal unfolding conflicts with the implicit goal of Mattingly's and other medical encounters, in which all parties hope for a successful resolution that concludes the narrative of illness. Thus, the notion of "joy in repetition" and the goal of entertainment underlying narrative decisions in television serials are at odds with the reality of the clinical encounter. We recognize these critical distinctions and do not intend to imply that television series are analogous to clinical encounters. However, we do want to suggest a few potential benefits in recognizing their similarities.

The increasingly standardized and regulated routines in health care have been related to job dissatisfaction and burnout on the side of health care professionals.75 The concept of seriality, in the context of endless routines and administrative monotony, may offer a resource for an attitudinal shift because it reimagines the value of repetition. In other words, despite the dullness of endless routines and the alienating effect of standardization and other constraints, serial narration reminds us that repetition can also—to some extent—be enjoyed, and that a great deal of the entertaining quality of popular culture relies on some form of routine and sameness. A tedious repetition may thus harbor more nuances and surprises than we expect, inviting us to consider the subtleties of variation and the possibilities for improvisation. Could this, we wonder, be a resource to foster resilience and self-care?

In a larger context, the emphasis on serial narration highlights the concept of narrative that potentially expands the anthropological analysis. As Frank has argued, narratives have the power to constrain the possibilities for the characters in a given story.76 For those with an illness or disability, conventional narratives confine them to the possibilities available within those narratives. As we described earlier, in both The Good Wife and The MJF Show, the character played by Fox changes the narrative and challenges the notion that his identity is defined by his illness. In Mattingly's example, the repetition of a game in this episode within the larger narrative of the illness allows Belinda to be a little girl, playing just like any other little girl, reclaiming her humanness in the face of the devastating narrative of a child with a life-threatening illness. We would argue that this also allows the doctor a moment's respite in which he can experience her as a little girl as well, lifting the encounter out of the realm of "just one more patient" and bringing all parties a moment that makes their larger task easier to bear.

Mattingly's example from clinical practice also raises the question to what extent serial narration may inspire a reimagination of stereotypical doctor narratives. Doctor narratives have been categorized into types or myths. Montgomery, for example, identified the detective narrative in her clinical research: The sleuth narrative shapes medical reasoning and practice when the detective-diagnostician searches for clues that reveal the cause of a crime, finds evidence, makes assumptions, and ultimately resolves the crime.77 Mattingly speaks of three canonical genres within which medical narratives of healing are typically framed: the Science Detective Story, the Battle (in which the physician is the soldier or colonel who fights on the patient's body as if it were a field of battle) and the Machine Repair (in which the heroic and dexterous surgeon repairs the broken body-machine).78 One might also add the hagiography as a typical doctor narrative, in which a God- or saint-like doctor saves patients and is untouchable and larger than life.79 These narratives share the premise that a quick solution can and will be achieved by an ingenious doctor, who against all odds manages to restore the patient's health. If he or she should fail, the heroism is restored in another way (for example by finding the doctor not guilty). Popular television series, such as House, MD or Grey's Anatomy, draw on the above-mentioned narrative types and represent admirable doctor-heroes—as questionable as their heroism may be—who manage to resolve their cases within the temporal constraints of a forty-five-minute episode. Needless to say, these narratives do not fully capture the realities of health care. Moreover, in their representation of temporality, they depict a mode of caring for patients that excludes a long-term mutual engagement with chronic diseases or disabilities. In these examples of doctor narratives, seriality works to reinforce problematic narratives surrounding illness and clinical practice. Such serial doctor narratives on television reflect fantasies about health care on one hand and shape how we understand clinical practice on the other. Moreover, they contribute to problematic narratives around chronic illness and disability and take a toll on doctors as well.80

Increasing awareness of the narratives embedded in medical encounters offers not just patients but also their physicians the opportunity to reimagine themselves in narratives that reflect a wider range of possibilities. As we have outlined above, serial narration allows for different narrative framings: With its focus on long-term involvement and entanglement, where resolutions are only provisional and the story is theoretically endless, serial narration may offer narratives that represent physicians' long-term, open-ended, and process-oriented relationship with their patients. A couple of recent TV series illustrate this promising potential. Importantly, these series—such as The Big C (2010–2013), Chasing Life (2014–2015) or Club der roten Bänder (2015–present)—focus not on doctors but on patients, and how they and their families deal with a cancer diagnosis and the subsequent treatment.81 In these series, doctors take on important roles: they are long-term companions instead of ingenious detectives and problem solvers; they are human beings whose lives unfold alongside their patients' lives; and they are continually engaged with and take an interest in their patients across numerous episodes and seasons. Interestingly, the three series mentioned here focus on cancer, and the notion of death and final closure is very present in the serial narration. Simultaneously, the series have also maintained a degree of open-endedness given that, after each season, the continuation of the story depended on whether or not the producers and broadcasting companies would commission another season.82 As these examples suggest, seriality provides a narrative perspective on medical encounters which offers both patients and their physicians the opportunity to reimagine themselves and envision a wider range of narrative possibilities.

Conclusion

In discussing the intersections of serial narration, the representation of chronic illness and disability, and the echoes of seriality in clinical practice, we hope that we have outlined productive areas that may offer serial narration as a heuristic tool to rethink conventional narratives related to chronic illness, disability, and health care and open up new spaces of framing experiences on both the patients' and the practitioners' side. Seeing clinical experiences through the lens of serial narration offers a number of intriguing possibilities to re-evaluate notions of repetition, standardization, unpredictability, or lack of closure. Serial narrative, we have suggested, represents a productive model to rethink narrative frames of illness experiences as well as doctor-patient encounters. Seriality provides additional narrative frames as alternatives to the decline narrative, which better capture the complicated nature of neurodegenerative illness and, more generally speaking, the complex discourses in health care. Instead of foregrounding ideals of predictability and linear progression, the concept of seriality may more aptly represent that doctors and patients are often confronted with an unpredictable, sometimes even cyclical course of a disease. In foregrounding continuity over closure or resolution, and repetition and episodic fragmentation over linearity, serial narratives emphasize the everydayness of chronic illnesses instead of featuring them as exceptional tragedies or implicitly demanding a heroic overcoming. Moreover, serial narratives may help define new narratives that offer examples of living with and finding meaning in illness or disability as one aspect of the lives we lead. Michael J. Fox's example illustrates that even though he faces challenges, his narrative both on-screen and off-screen continues with Parkinson's disease and not in spite of it.

Notes

1. Lynch, "Michael J. Fox—Letterman—2015.04.15."

2. Danae, "Michael J Fox on David Letterman."

3. Hawkins, Reconstructing Illness. Frank, Wounded Storyteller.

4. Good, Medicine, Rationality, and Experience. Höttges, "Blogging the Pain." Adams, Reiss, and Serlin, eds., Keywords for Disability Studies.

5. Kroon, "Serial Television Program." Serial narration is, of course, not confined to television. As Kelleter points out, popular seriality has a long history and can be observed, for instance, in the publication of serialized commercial novels in periodicals since the nineteenth century or comic books ("Populäre Serialität," 18–19).

6. Hess and Mendelsohn, "Case and Series," 287.

7. Hess and Mendelsohn, "Case and Series," 287, 299.

8. Hess and Mendelsohn, "Case and Series," 310.

9. Frank, "Five Dramas," 394.

10. See Kelleter, "Populäre Serialität"; Sielke,"Joy in Repetition"; Mittell, Genre and Television.

11. Deleuze, Repetition and Difference.

12. Sielke, "Joy in Repetition," 389.

13. Gravagne, "Magic of Cinema," 41–42.

14. Harrington, "Time, Memory," 26.

15. Qtd. in Harrington, "Time, Memory," 25.

16. Mintz, "Situation Comedy," 114–15.

17. Mills, Sitcom, 23–24.

18. Fiske, Television Culture, 145.

19. Sielke, "Joy in Repetition." The relation between joy and an illness experience is also discussed by Frank in "Five Dramas of Illness," where he draws on Anatole Broyard's notion of the theater drama, which entices viewers both to suffer with the protagonists and to enjoy the spectacle. What is there to enjoy in illness? Following Frank, health care professionals play parts in the dramas of their patients and they need to play their parts well, which is something that can be enjoyed ("Five Dramas," 380). Doubt, following Frank, can also be enjoyed when it is understood as a prerequisite of suspense: "without well-founded doubt, there would be no story worth telling, and by extension, no life worth living" (392). Quoting again from Broyard, Frank argues that illness gives patients "a great permission," it liberates them from coping and allows them to live fully, however limited this life is (381). Frank, however, is cautious and does not fully embrace Broyard's notion of joy. Still, he concedes that the serial quality of illness dramas allows him "to grasp the necessity and possibility in illness, to know it as a road I had to travel" (394).

20. Sielke, "Joy in Repetition," 388. Küpper, "Blanche and the Younger Man."

21. Kelleter, "Populäre Serialität," 22. Also see the collection of essays on a poetics of seriality by Elisabeth Bronfen and colleagues, which argues that repetition does not produce sameness but difference (Bronfen, Frey, and Martyn, eds., Noch einmal anders).

22. See Nelson, TV Drama; Dolan, "Peaks and Valleys."

23. Dolan, "Peaks and Valleys."

24. Oró-Piqueras and Wohlmann, eds., Serializing Age.

25. See C. Lee Harrington's chapter on "Time, Memory, and Aging on the Soaps" in Oró-Piqueras and Wohlmann, Serializing Age.

26. Fiske, Television Culture, 226.

27. Küpper, "Blanche and the Younger Man."

28. Küpper, "Blanche and the Younger Man," 225.

29. See, for example, chapter 3 on "Disability in the Media, or, Why Don't Disabled Actors Play Disabled Roles?" in Davis's The End of Normal, 31–42; Garland-Thomson's blog entry "Hot Sex and Disability at the Movies"; and Shinn's Atlantic essay "Disability is Not Just a Metaphor."

30. Other actors with disabilities playing characters with disabilities in TV series include, for example: Marlee Matlin (deaf actress, who played in The West Wing and The L Word), R. J. Mitte (actor with cerebral palsy who played Walter White Jr. in Breaking Bad), Peter Dinklage (actor with achondroplasia/dwarfism who plays Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones). The list of actors/roles is much more extensive in relation to full-length movies, of course.

31. Kucala, "Comment"; jwoven, "Comment on 'Burnout.'"

32. Frank, "From Sick Role."

33. Chrisman, "Reflection on Inspiration."

34. Couser, Signifying Bodies, 33–34, 132.

35. Heideman, "Inspiration Porn"; Peace, Bad Cripple.

36. Heideman, "Inspiration Porn"; Peace, Bad Cripple.

37. Heideman, "Inspiration Porn"; Peace, Bad Cripple.

38. The Good Wife, episode 8, "Red Zone."

39. Hawkins, "Change of Heart," 547.

40. Cantor, "Choosing to Live," 286.

41. Casey et al., Television Studies, 224.

42. Michael J. Fox Show, episode 1, "Pilot."

43. Michael J. Fox Show, episode 1, "Pilot."

44. Mills, Sitcom, 19–23.

45. Rana, "Schwerhörigkeit und Maskulinität," xx.

46. Michael J. Fox Show, episode 1, "Pilot."

47. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 62–67.

48. Pound et al., "Illness in the Context of Older Age."

49. Greenhalgh, What Seems to Be the Trouble?

50. Michael J. Fox Show, episode 7, "Golf."

51. Rana, "Handlungskraft, Subversivität und Komik," xx.

52. Piacentino, "Humorous Subversions."

53. Shultz/Germeroth, "Should We Laugh or Should We Cry?", 230.

54. Rana, "Handlungskraft, Subversivität und Komik," xx.

55. Rana, "Handlungskraft, Subversivität und Komik," xx.

56. Rana, "Handlungskraft, Subversivität und Komik," xx.

57. For explanations of these roles, see "Series / The Michael J. Fox Show."

58. Moore, "Michael J. Fox Show Is Cancelled."

59. Jamison, fic: Why Fanfiction; Cuntz-Leng, "Twinship, Incest."

60. Montgomery Hunter, Doctor's Stories.

61. See Kelleter, "Populäre Serialität"; Mittel, Genre and Television.

62. Kelleter, "Populäre Serialität," 18.

63. Harrington, "Time, Memory," 26.

64. Fiske, Television Culture, 145.

65. Svenaeus, "llness as Unhomelike."

66. Sala et al., "Satisfaction and the Use of Humor"; Penson et al., "Update: Laughter."

67. Wells, Understanding Animation, 169 (original emphasis).

68. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 149.

69. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 147.

70. Sielke,"Joy in Repetition."

71. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 148.

72. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 150–1.

73. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 153.

74. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 152.

75. For example, see Hyman et al. "Risk of Burnout"; Edwards, Kornacki, and Silversin, "Unhappy Doctors."

76. Frank, Letting Stories Breathe.

77. Montgomery, Doctor's Stories, 24.

78. Mattingly, Paradox of Hope, 57–72.

79. See e.g., Browner, Profound Science, 219.

80. O'Hagan, "Narrating Our Selves."

81. The BBC One TV series Doctor Foster (2015–today) interweaves patients' stories with Dr. Gemma Foster's life, but clearly it is her private life and her marital problems that are central to the narrative. Similarly, The Cosby Show (1984–1992) primarily focuses on Cliff Huxtable's family life and not his work as an obstetrician.

82. For a discussion of Chasing Life, see Wohlmann "Chasing Life." Another interesting TV series in this context is Speechless (2016–present), which follows the life of the DiMeo family and the eldest son J. J., who has cerebral palsy and who is played by an actor with cerebral palsy.

Bibliography

Adams, Rachel, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin, eds. Keywords in Disability Studies. New York and London: New York University Press, 2015.

Bronfen, Elisabeth, Christiane Frey, and David Martyn, eds. Noch einmal anders: Zu einer Poetik des Seriellen [Once Again Different: Towards a Poetics of the Serial]. Zürich and Berlin: Diaphanes, 2016.

Browner, Stephanie P. Profound Science and Elegant Literature: Imagining Doctors in Nineteenth-Century America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

Cantor, David. “Choosing to Live: Cancer Education, Movies, and the Conversion Narrative in America, 1921–1960.” Literature and Medicine 28, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 278–332.

Casey, Bernadette, Neil Casey, Ben Calvert, Liam French, and Justin Lewis. Television Studies: Key Concepts. London: Routledge, 2002.

Chrisman, Wendy L. “A Reflection on Inspiration: A Recuperative Call for Emotion in Disability Studies.” Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies 5, no. 2 (2011): 173–84.

Couser, G. Thomas. Signifying Bodies: Disability in Contemporary Life Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009.

Cuntz-Leng, Vera. “Twinship, Incest, and Twincest in the Harry Potter Universe.” Transformative Works and Cultures 17 (2014).

Danae, Jovan. “Michael J Fox on David Letterman Watch Video.” Online video clip. YouTube, May 23, 2015. Accessed October 7, 2016.

Davis, Lennard J. The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013.

Deleuze, Gilles. Repetition and Difference. 1968. Translated by Paul Patton. London: Continuum, 2001.

Dolan, Marc. “The Peaks and Valleys of Serial Creativity: What Happened to/on Twin Peaks.” In Full of Secrets: Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks, edited by David Lavery, 30–50. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1995. Edwards, Nigel, Mary Jane Kornacki, and Jack Silversin. “Unhappy Doctors: What Are the Causes and What Can Be Done?” British Medical Journal 324, no. 7341 (April 6, 2002): 835–38.

Fiske, John. Television Culture. London: Routledge, 2003.

Frank, Arthur. “Five Dramas of Illness.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50, no. 3 (Summer 2007): 379–94.

Frank, Arthur. “From Sick Role to Narrative Subject: An Analytic Memoir.” Health 20, no. 1 (2016): 9–21.

Frank, Arthur. Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Frank, Arthur. The Wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness and Ethics. 1995. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “Hot Sex and Disability at the Movies.” Huffington Post Blog, February 21, 2013. Accessed May 9, 2017.

“Geri Jewell.” Internet Movie Database, IMDb.com, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0422434/.

“Geri Jewell Interview.” Archive of American Television, Television Academy Foundation. March 10, 2016. emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/geri-jewell.

Good, Byron J. Medicine, Rationality, and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Gravagne, Pamela H. “The Magic of Cinema: Time as Becoming in Strangers in Good Company.” International Journal of Ageing and Later Life 8, no. 1 (2013): 41–63.

Greenhalgh, Trisha. What Seems to Be the Trouble? Stories in Illness and Healthcare. Oxford and Seattle: Radcliffe, 2006.

Harrington, C. Lee. “Time, Memory, and Aging on the Soaps.” In Serializing Age: Aging and Old Age in TV Series, edited by Maricel Oró-Piqueras and Anita Wohlmann, 25–48. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2016.

Hawkins, Anne Hunsaker. “A Change of Heart: The Paradigm of Regeneration in Medical and Religious Narrative.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33, no. 4 (Summer 1990): 547–59.

Hawkins, Anne Hunsaker. Reconstructing Illness: Studies in Pathography. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1993.

Heideman, Elizabeth. “‘Inspiration Porn is not Okay’: Disability Activists Are Not

Impressed with Feel-Good Super Bowl Ads.” Salon.com, February 3, 2015. www.salon.com/2015/02/02/inspiration_porn_is_not_okay_disability_activists_are_not_impressed_with_feel_good_super_bowl_ads/.

Heiserman, Arthur, and Maura Spiegel. “Narrative Permeability: Crossing the Dissociative Barrier in and out of Films.” Literature and Medicine 25, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 463–74.

Hess, Volker, and J. Andrew Mendelsohn. “Case and Series: Medical Knowledge and Paper Technology, 1600–1900.” History of Science 48 (2010): 287–314.

Höttges, Bärbel. “Blogging the Pain: Grief in the Time of the Internet.” Special Issue: Literature and Medicine II. Gender Forum: An Internet Journal for Gender Studies 26 (2009). http://genderforum.org/literature-and-medicine-ii-issue-26-2009.

Hyman, S. A., D. R. Michaels, J. M. Berry, J. S. Schildcrout, N. D. Mercaldo, and M. B. Weinger. “Risk of Burnout in Perioperative Clinicians: A Survey Study and Literature Review.” Anesthesiology 114, no. 1 (2011): 194–204.

Jamison, Anne. Fic: Why Fanfiction Is Taking Over the World. Dallas, TX: BenBella, 2013.

jwoven. “Comment on ‘Burnout.’” IMDb.com, June 27, 2006. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0677731/?ref_=nm_ mg_act_2.

Kelleter, Frank. “Populäre Serialität” [Popular Seriality]. Populäre Serialität: Narration—Evolution—Distinktion. Zum seriellen Erzählen seit dem 19. Jahrhundert [Popular Seriality: Narration—Evolution—Distinction. On Serial Narration since the 19th Century]. Edited by Frank Kelleter. Bielefeld: Transkript, 2012.

Kroon, Richard W. “Serial Television Program.” A/v A to Z: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Media, Entertainment and Other Audiovisual Terms. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2014.

Kucala, Zach. “Comment on ‘Rosetta.’” IMDb.com, April 10, 2007. www.imdb.com/title/tt0703001/reviews?ref_=tt_urv.

Küpper, Thomas. “‘Blanche and the Younger Man’: Age Mimicry and the Ambivalence of Laughter in The Golden Girls.” In Serializing Age: Aging and Old Age in TV Series, edited by Maricel Oró-Piqueras and Anita Wohlmann, 251–66. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2016.

Lynch, Andrew. “Michael J. Fox—Letterman—2015.04.15.” Online video clip. YouTube, July 11, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnlj-NyiP-Y.

Mattingly, Cheryl. The Paradox of Hope: Journeys Through a Clinical Borderland. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

Mills, Brett. The Sitcom. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

Mintz, Larry. “Situation Comedy.” In TV Genres: A Handbook and Reference Guide, edited by Brian G. Rose, 107–29. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Mittell, Jason. Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Montgomery Hunter, Kathryn. Doctors’ Stories: The Narrative Structure of Medical Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Moore, Howard. “The Michael J. Fox Show is Cancelled: What It Really Means.” ChicagoNOW, February 18, 2014. http://www.chicagonow.com/hippy-shakes/2014/02/the-michael-j-fox-show-is-cancelled-what-it-really-means/.

Nelson, Robin. TV Drama in Transition: Forms, Values and Cultural Change. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1997.

O’Hagan, Lucy. “Narrating Our Selves.” Journal of Primary Health Care 9, no. 2 (2017): 100–4.

Oró-Piqueras, Maricel, and Anita Wohlmann, eds. Serializing Age: Aging and Old Age in TV Series. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2016.

Peace, William. “The Demeaning Language Associated with Disability.” Bad Cripple. December 16, 2015. http://badcripple.blogspot.de/2015/12/the-demeaning-language-associated-with.html.

Penson, Richard T., Rosamund A. Partridge, Pandora Rudd, Michael V. Seiden, Jill E. Nelson, Bruce A. Chabner, and Thomas J. Lynch, Jr. “Update: Laughter: The Best Medicine?” The Oncologist 10 (2005): 651–60.

Piacentino, Ed. “Humorous Subversions.” Studies in American Humor 3, no. 12 (2005): 47–51.

Pound, Pandora, Patrick Gompertz, and Shah Ebrahim. “Illness in the Context of Older Age: The Case of Stroke.” Sociology of Health and Illness 20, no. 4 (1998): 489–506.

Rana, Marion.“Handlungskraft, Subversivität und Komik in der Kinder- und Jugendliteratur über Behinderung: Josh Berks Jugendroman The Dark Days of Hamburger Halpin.” [Power of Agency, Subversive Behavior and Humor in Children’s Literature and Young Adult Fiction on Disability: Josh Berk’s The Dark Days of Hamburger Halpin]. In Komik in der Kinder- und Jugendliteratur: Subversivität und Vergnügen im Fremdsprachenunterricht, edited by Eva Burwitz-Melzer, Daniela Caspari, and Emer O’Sullivan, 125–36. Vienna: Praesens Verlag, 2018.

Rana, Marion. “Schwerhörigkeit und Maskulinität: Narrative Verhandlungen von Männlichkeit, sexuellem Begehren und sexueller Attraktivität in Alexander Görsdorfs Taube Nuss: Nichtgehörtes aus dem Leben eines Schwerhörigen” [Deafness and Masculinity: Narrative Negotiations of Masculinity, Sexual Desire and Sexual Attractiveness in Alexander Görsdorf’s Taube Nuss: Unheard Things from the Life of a Deaf Person]. Unpublished.

Sala, Fabio, Edward Krupat, and Debra Roter. “Satisfaction and the Use of Humor by Physicians and Patients.” Psychology and Health 17, no. 3 (2002): 269–80.

“Series / The Michael J. Fox Show.” TVTropes. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/TheMichaelJFoxShow.

Shinn, Christopher. “Disability Is Not Just a Metaphor.” The Atlantic, July 23, 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/07/why-disabled-characters-are-never-played-by-disabled-actors/374822/.

Shultz, Kara and Darla Germeroth. “Should We Laugh or Should We Cry? John Callahan’s Humor as a Tool to Change Societal Attitudes Toward Disability.” Howard Journal of Communications 9, no. 3 (1998): 229–44.

Sielke, Sabine. “Joy in Repetition: Acht Thesen zum Konzept der Serialität und zum Prinzip der Serie” [Joy in Repetition: Eight Theses on the Concept of Seriality and the Principle of the Series]. In Populäre Serialität: Narration—Evolution—Distinktion. Zum seriellen Erzählen seit dem 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Frank Kelleter, 383–98. Bielefeld: Transkript, 2012.

Svenaeus, Fredrik. “Illness as Unhomelike Being-In-The-World: Heidegger and the Phenomenology of Medicine.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14, no. 3 (August 2011): 333–43.

Wells, Paul. Understanding Animation. London: Routledge, 1998.

Wohlmann, Anita. “Chasing Life.” In Serienfragmente, edited by Vera Cuntz-Leng, Sophie Einwächter and Vincent Fröhlich. Springer, forthcoming.

#tv series #narrative #chronic disease #disability #the good wife #michael j. fox #parkinsons disease #smallville #television #The Michael J. Fox Show #christopher reeve #medical encounter #neurodegeneration #representation

0 notes

aspiestvmusings · 4 years

Text

ZEP: S1 - CLARKEMAN ENDGAME

This is part of my ZEP: S1 Thoughts Master Post

Here’s the new & updated long analysis post for ZEP S1. This one features the whole season, all 12 episodes.

Just me...dissecting & analyzing the storyline...with focus on Zoey & Team Max. But since the stories are so intertwined, there’s Zoey/dad & Zoey/Simon talk, too. Among other things...relevant to it all...

ZEP: MAX & ZOEY - THOUGHTS 1 [LINK HERE]

WHY TEAM MAX IS ENDGAME

THE LOVE TRIANGLE

I hear the showrunner & the characters talk about a “love triangle”, yet I don’t see one (just confused, grieving people). I hear them talk about a deep emotional bond between Z&S, and yet I don’t see it on screen. I see a pretty shallow connection due to their dads - “grief bond” with no actual deeper connection. And though I personally don’t “feel” that they actually feel attraction to the other, I’m willing to admit that perhaps each truly thinks they do…and actually find the other attractive. But nonetheless the story, to me, has clearly been told in a way that showcases the differences of the two men in her life.

One thing that kinda supports my theories is that while we & Zoey have heard Max sing her actual “love songs” (revealing that the connection they have is love, friendship, romance), then Simon’s “heart songs” have been mostly related to his grief (”Should I stay or should I go” is kinda an exception here). Meaning their connection is based on that, and his grief is what she’s supposed to help him with. All S’s songs have been about his inability to deal with the loss of his dad, and the problems in his life & relationship that have come from this. Which is why I’m still a bit confused why the show is calling it a love triangle, when it doesn’t really seem to be.

Since they all sing their innermost thoughts, and the songs are related to the feelings they have, and connected to the “problem” Zoey is supposed to help them with, then for Simon that seems to be “everything grief related” (he’s still not dealing with the loss, and it affected his relationship with Jessica..etc)…and I don’t understand why Zoey isn’t more actively helping him with that…instead focusing on “do I possibly have romantic feelings for the man?”, when she & Mo established that if she doesn’t help the person who she hears sing with their problem… that’s not good. I think THIS is the thing that has “confused” me. (but we all know network shows love their love triangles and such drama, so they have to play it like that..). So I really hope that in the coming eps we will see Z. help S. deal with his grief (she has her family, Mo & Max…who help her, but S. doesn’t seem to have any support system…) and “fix him”.

Good news for one team, perhaps not so good for the other team.

Based on everything we’ve seen on the show (the storytelling, the promotional materials, the spoilers)… everything points to Max/Zoey being the endgame. I’ve seen many fans (both those who support Team M & those who support Team S), say that they get the same message from the storytelling. It does seem to be the clear message from the show…no matter how they get there..or when…

The “proof”:

First: The actor who portrayes Max is billed higher (probably mostly cause he’s done more well-known musical projects before than the other actor), and he’s featured in much more promotional materials (promo pics, posters, promo videos…) and in more central role, than the other actor. The promotion is vastly focused on M/Z. They use those characters & actors… a lot…for promotion. That suggests only one thing.

Second: They told us the premise of Zoey’s future relationships in the Pilot already via this Max/Zoey conversation:

Zoey: I have a long history of — what do you call my past relationships again? –

Max: – “Unnecessarily complicated, exhausting for everybody, the opposite of good”?

Zoey: Yeah. Those things. Which is why this time I’m just gonna take things slow, and wait for the right “in”

And with Zoey/Simon thing has been just a repeat of her past experiences which she claims she doesn’t want to re-live again, and this show is all about her growth as a character/person, this cannot be the endgame. Even if they’d reveal that S/J have broken up… all that’s already happened has followed this exact description (see Max’s quote)

Third: While Zoey sang her heart song to Max and they had a moment for themselves (though..let’s be honest…they get interrupted so much that others in the office must’ve overheard a lot by now…), the heartsong to Simon seemed to be more like a setup for having Max see it. And while both songs are about her deepest, secret feelings/desires… and there’s truth in both, then the way the scenes were set up makes it seem like she sang to her best friend to make him aware of how she really feels (what he said in the previous ep: he needs to know/get a respose from her…and this gave him that). But the other song was meant to be overheard by her best friend…and that was the goal of the song/scene (not the song itself, but that he saw). Again pointing to the show going for Max as the endgame.

Fourth: The triangle is as follows: Both Max & Simon like Zoey, but she only really likes one of them. Both men sang heart songs to her (Max = I think I love you, Sucker, If I can’t have you, 500 miles), and she sang to both…but different songs. Simon sang “If you say that you are mine, I’ll be here ‘til the end of time” in 1x05, so it’s coming from his side. Zoey in 1x08 sang “I’m Yours” to Max (that her heart is his), but she sang “I want you to want me” to Simon (not that she wants him, but she wants him to want her). As her best friend explained it - one is about love, the other physical attraction. But… if you listen to the lyrics more closely then based on them she’s singing about how she saw S. crying & all alone (1x01) and how that affected her, compared to singing to M. how she’s “caught feelings”. So she’s only actually interested in Max, as her feelings for Simon are not mutual (beyond the grief bond). One is one-sided and more “superficial”, the other is mutual and more “serious”.

Fifth: While we’ve seen that Zoey thinks she’s caught feelings for Simon (what she told her mom at the engagement party), and she hasn’t really admitted this to anyone besides her mom, she seems to not see it as a good thing. She also claims to both Max & Simon that she doesn’t really have feelings for Simon/wasn’t aware of her feelings and/or that she’s basically over it… so kinda “little white lies”. She seems to think they have a sort of connection and/or she seems to find him attractive…despite realizing that it cannot happen because he’s engaged. (and before Simon went and took the wrong step, he said the right thing - they leaned too much on each other about their grief, and they should just go back to co-workers, and that’s all. Sadly…that was changed because of the “glitch” that mislead…people). But… we also saw that she is fighting against having feelings for the morally questionable engaged man, cause she probably realizes it’s a bad idea.

Sixth: All this time, but especially in the last episode, the show has tried to show the two men in her life differently, and show the differences in their “relationships” with Zoey. It’s a very classic “fairytale story” that follows often-used “clichees”. They’ve shown how the two are different, and how the connection between both “ships” is different. And everything points to them starting to make the difference even more clear. By now they all are aware of each others feelings…to some point… and both men are aware that they’re both competing for her interest.

And she’s aware that she is interested in both… but in different ways, and for different reasons. And again they used Max to vocalize the choice before her - will she choose physical attraction without deeper connection or love and deeper emotional connection…AKA “new attractive co-worker who went through what shes going through VS her best friend, who is always there for her…no matter what. The options were made clear, now it’s her decision. And it’ll depend a lot on how each man will act from now on…at the most difficult time in her life (she’s now really going to lose her dad).

If Simon will try to make advances based on the heart song she sang, which gave outmixed signals AND at the same time Max will continue being a good friend (as we saw in 1x08…despite their dispute) then that’ll make Z/S grow furher apart and Z/M grow closer. And since it’s all become too complicated and messy for everyone… then it’s very possible all this will get to Jessica, and break those two apart. But… that’s IMO gonna be the opposite from making the path clear for S/Z. To have Simon as a character grow they need to have him deal with his grief, and all that. The Simon vs Max thing is a lot like Leif/Tobin thing… where the peer reviews made one become sketchy and start playing games, and the other start working on bettering themselves. I expect similar differences of paths taken for S & M. Especially because we’ve not only seen Tobin 2.0, but also Max 2.0 (and we’ll see more of that..in coming eps)

Seventh: We ve heard spoilers than in the S1 finale there will be a “heart song” for/from/with one of the two and Zoey. From how the scene is decribed it sound more like something fitting to Max (Max/Zoey). Which fits with how the season and story has been built so far. That seems to also confirm where they’re taking it. Cause…they’ve established that just like on most shows the main character HAS TO have a love interest, and so far they’ve only introduced two options.

Other reasons why Zoey will most likely choose “love” over “physical attraction” (in the end, even if she’ll choose differently for now):

We saw Zoey’s reaction when she found out that S. had a SO/was engaged - she ran. And though she might find him attractive (physically)…as she found out via her heart song in 1x08, and she might feel a connection to him (because of the heart song she heard him sing in 1x01), she hasn’t shown interest in actually being with him… because she knows he’s taken. And also because she’s not really in the right place to start a relationship. She/They may not realize it, but they don’t have much more in common than grief - that’s the center of their bond (for now). Despite her interest/attraction to him & her thinking she “likes” him…

This is also why it’s easier for her to admit she has/had feelings for Simon, but she’s having trouble admitting…to herself (and Mo) & to Max that she may have feelings for her best friend. There’s nothing to lose with the first, but a lot to lose with the second. She’s afraid (and she varbalized it at the end of 1x07) that something could not go well… etc

She is completely at easy with Max seeing her with a facemask on, eating take-out, alone, at home, but she hides it (the true self) from Simon. She wears “a mask” with Simon, but doesn’t with Max. Same with how she didn’t tell Simon about her dad in 1x08 (brushing it off: hospital = lollipop), while telling Max that her dad had an apointment that morning. And though it did take her time to find the courage to tell him about it all in detail, she did..in the end. But from the start she shared the main info even if she didn’t tell what exactly happened and how she feels about it. She didn’t completely brush it off with him…even if the news made her unable to process and share it…right away.

We saw how she resisted her personal heart songs to Leif/Joan & to Simon, while being completely at ease with singing them to her best friend (Max) and her dad (Mitch). Cause if we leave out the big dance numbers (Crazy, Pressure), then she tried stopping herself from singing the others…the personal songs… and/or apologized for what’s to come…with Simon, too. But with Max (and her dad) the song just came to her…without the need to apologize or resist it. And afterwards she just tried to claim it didn’t mean as much, because she’s just in denial (and not really ready to start a relationship…because right now she is going through stages of grief). There’s a huge difference in both the heart songs she sang & HOW she sang them.

And we’ve seen that she really appreciates him as a friend, and as she told him - she can’t lose him as a friend…she needs him in her life. She cares about his feelings. She is afraid she gave him the wrong impression, she runs after him to explain things to him, because she knows that he got hurt. She actually cares about him…and is feelings (as a friend). And they’ve not shown the same reaction with Simon. And though the friends to one-sided to more-than-friends trope is “an overused clichee”, it isn’t necessarily bad. It can work well. Examples: Mondler on Friends, Peraltiago on B99…

Max may have the advantage of having known her longer, and knowing her better (because they’ve been friends for 5 years), and hence she’s more comfortable around him. And…that’s the reason why she let him in on her superpower secret, and why she tells him about…things. But… that’s precisely why she should and will choose Max over Simon. (He’s been there for her…always…and he continues to be there for her…through this hard time in her life.)

We saw how even though he was upset with her (for keeping secrets from him, from setting him up with someone else when she knew about his feelings for her…just because she didn’t dare to be honest with him & communicate…and hearing her sing to another person, too…) he was still there for her. A shoulder to lean on…literally and figuratively. He came to her rescue when she put her job at risk (singing Pressure), he gave her her mom’s message and supportive advice regarding her dad… And though there’s a hint of competitiveness that he seems to feel after the 1x07 elevator end scene (where we saw that both men seem to think they’ll be the end choice), and him wanting some kind of response from her, the 1x07 end scene and other moments have shown us that he’s willing to wait til she’s ready.

Especially…since in 1x07 he felt like it’s unfair that she can see into his heart and knows how he feels about her, he doesn’t. But in 1x08 he got to see into her heart (because even though she’d promised to always be honest with him from now on… she wasn’t fully… for a bit… and the “glitch” made her break her promise…til the evening), and it’s more “fair”. He now isn’t as in the dark, and less uncertain. I think the glitch was good for him, because he now knows how she really feels. All he wanted was an honest answer. And though it’s undertandable that he’s a bit hurt by what he’s heard & seen lately… but in the end it was beneficial. As Mo put it… he deserves an answer…no matter what it is…

I get the feeling that by now Zoey’s actually aware that she has feelings for her best friend. She might’ve not been aware of it all until he sang the first heart song to her, but after that we’ve clearly seen that she has either started to realize she actually has feelings for him or that she’s started to have feelings for him. She showed signs of jealousy when he was with Autumn (seeing them talking at the coffee shop, dancing at the club…). She couldn’t stop staring at him when she walked in during the Mo’ Makeover…indicating clearly that she finds him also physically attractive. Not to mention the emotional connection, and friendship. All the looks she gives him, her song & dance during “I’m Yours”… all for him…

And she cares about his feelings & not hurting him (running after him when he sees her heart song to Simon…) The look she has, when he brings her dad pudding & when she sees him with her dad or when she hears him sing “500 miles”, or the looks and giggles when she sings her heart song to him…. While she’s in no place in a relationship at this time, I think she’s realized that despite her grief and emotional state she’s developing feelings for her best friend. And that… just like what’s going on with her dad, seems to scare her.

#ZEP #ZOEY'S EXTRAORDINARY PLAYLIST #CLARKEMAN #TEXT POST #ONG POST #LIST POST #ZOEYS EXTRAORDINARY PLAYLIST #Zoey's EP #Zoey Clarke #Max Richman #Zomax #Zax #ZEP S1 #ZEP SEASON 1 #SEASON 1

6 notes · View notes