DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow

[Freeverse]

It's not meaningless, it's allowing for the existence of more than one meaning.

No, it allows for the existences of zero meanings to anything.

I think that more than one interpretation of a piece of media is possible. I don't know how to argue in favor of that without invoking the subjective nature of art, but If you disagree with that idea, please say why instead of just saying my position is nonsense.

I would argue that how we interpret a work is extremely relevant at any time we are evaluating its merit.

Cool. Completely irrelevant to the point being made though, so no point to even saying that.

You say that contradictions make a story worse. That's an evaluation of merit, or at least part of how you might evaluate the merit of a particular story.

Contradictions are possible, and the work suffering for them is possible.

Your previous arguments would rule that out, saying that nothing can ever because "it's all subjective maaaan!" and "they wrote it into the work".

I'll admit to being hyperbolic in my initial statements. However, I stand by the spirit in which I made them. While it is certainly possible that a contradiction can be detrimental to a work, that doesn't mean there can be no exceptions. Just for a super easy example, including intentional contradictions in a story can create a dream-like atmosphere that can enhance certain works. It doesn't even have to literally be a dream in the story, you can just include contradictions to make things more surreal.

Also, while it's possible to include something contradictory, it's not like there's an objective measure to where the exact line between a contradiction and something that might seem like a contradiction to some people. A simple example of this would be just like... all retcons. Each and every recton is something that some people will see as a contradiction, while others will simply see it as a natural part of the story.

And hey, maybe you don't like retcons. But maybe it's better to dislike a retcon for how it affects the story and not just because it went against what was previously established.

Also, Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it has no meaning or that it doesn't matter. That's not a very strong understanding of what I'm actually trying to communicate, which is the idea that art is complicated, and we are better equipped to understand it with an approach that accepts the validity of views that are different from our own.

In general, there are many times when the contradiction in question can be easily explained away.

Cool, but I'm not talking about those so it's irrelevant.

I was just covering my bases because I don't know what you do or don't consider a problem. I can't read your mind and you haven't really talked about how you determine what's a problem and what's not. Based on what you've said, it seemed like you were just talking about any sort of contradiction in general. If that's not true, feel the freedom to elucidate.

I mean, we're not on a forum for "fact-based scientific reviews". We're talking about the "Opinionated Episode Guide".

And while you were zeroing in on the title, I was listening to what Chuck actually said and a lot of the time it was pointing out these kinds of contradictions and how they harm the story, either in the individual episode.

All of which your idea would kill.

I've listened to what he said as well, I just happen to think that his statement "I'm just a viewer with an opinion" is still relevant to how he talks about the things he reviews. I think that one of the reasons that Chuck's reviews are valuable is that he brings his own ideas into them. He comes at things from a unique perspective, and that is both entertaining and enlightening.

Chuck points out a lot of contradictions because that's honestly one of the easiest criticisms you can make. Some of those contradictions I agree hurt the story, and on others I disagree. Neither of us is objectively right, because there's no unit of measure for contradictions. There's no contradiction particles we can scan for. There's just human judgement, and since humans are different from one another, we have different judgements. And if you think that Chuck has access to some superior method of analysis that reaches a deeper truth than regular shmucks like us can, and that we should just listen to and accept his judgement, then I'm not sure which videos you've been watching that you've missed the many times he emphasizes that he's just one man, doing his best to explain how he sees things.

My idea only kills rigid absolutism. It certainly doesn't kill Chuck's views, because as he has taken to saying a lot in his recent videos, he wants us to make up our own damn minds.

[CrashGordon94]

I think that more than one interpretation of a piece of media is possible. I don't know how to argue in favor of that without invoking the subjective nature of art, but If you disagree with that idea, please say why instead of just saying my position is nonsense.

You were really arguing that zero interpretations are possible. That's the only way it could be impossible for something to be unfitting or that the only thing needed to make something "fit" is just to include it.

As for how to argue it? Don't bother, just give up. It's not a point worth taking up and defending at all, so don't bother.

And I've said why repeatedly and am doing so now too.

You say that contradictions make a story worse. That's an evaluation of merit, or at least part of how you might evaluate the merit of a particular story.

Things can fit or not fit something, it doesn't matter how anyone "evaluates" anything so it's not relevant to bring up.

I'll admit to being hyperbolic in my initial statements.

Good.

However, I stand by the spirit in which I made them.

Bad.

While it is certainly possible that a contradiction can be detrimental to a work

Your position says otherwise since it says that contradictions are impossible.

Also, while it's possible to include something contradictory, it's not like there's an objective measure to where the exact line between a contradiction and something that might seem like a contradiction to some people.

Yes there is, it's called "being a contradiction", the "objective measure" is listed in this kind of funny book called a "dictionary".

Also, Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it has no meaning or that it doesn't matter. That's not a very strong understanding of what I'm actually trying to communicate

Natural, since it's not a "strong" idea. Except maybe in terms of destructive potential to any and all criticism.

I was just covering my bases because I don't know what you do or don't consider a problem. I can't read your mind

You don't need to read my mind, just read my posts.

Chuck points out a lot of contradictions because that's honestly one of the easiest criticisms you can make.

And that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

because there's no unit of measure for contradictions. There's no contradiction particles we can scan for.

Doesn't matter, you don't need either of those for something to be possible and possible to spot.

And if you think that Chuck has access to some superior method of analysis that reaches a deeper truth than regular shmucks like us can

Not than "us regular shmucks", but more than you can since the metric you use makes it impossible to analyse or really think about anything ever.

In that way, it's not that he's special so much as that you've crippled yourself.

My idea only kills rigid absolutism. It certainly doesn't kill Chuck's views, because as he has taken to saying a lot in his recent videos, he wants us to make up our own damn minds.

Nah, it kills anything beyond vegetating in front of the screen while not thinking about what you're watching. That's the only level of engagement/analysis you can be on where it's not possible for something to not fit.

And I remember the old intro the Threshold review (have it downloaded) and he mentioned one thing he really wants to promote is thinking. That's what you're killing with this idea, and I'm not sure why you're even if you hold such a view.

[Freeverse]

I think that more than one interpretation of a piece of media is possible. I don't know how to argue in favor of that without invoking the subjective nature of art, but If you disagree with that idea, please say why instead of just saying my position is nonsense.

You were really arguing that zero interpretations are possible. That's the only way it could be impossible for something to be unfitting or that the only thing needed to make something "fit" is just to include it.

As for how to argue it? Don't bother, just give up. It's not a point worth taking up and defending at all, so don't bother.

And I've said why repeatedly and am doing so now too.

I've explained more than once that, actually, I don't think this bizarre thing you've interpreted from my words. That it is possible for two differing interpretations to both be valid does not preclude the existence of contradiction, it merely stipulates that whether something is contradictory or not isn't an objective fact when it comes to fiction.

You say that contradictions make a story worse. That's an evaluation of merit, or at least part of how you might evaluate the merit of a particular story.

Things can fit or not fit something, it doesn't matter how anyone "evaluates" anything so it's not relevant to bring up.

The way that you figure out whether something fits or doesn't fit is perhaps the most relevant part of this conversation. That is what I mean by "evaluation" in this context.

While it is certainly possible that a contradiction can be detrimental to a work

Your position says otherwise since it says that contradictions are impossible.

No, my position is that what constitutes a contradiction within fiction isn't an inherent aspect of our universe.

Also, while it's possible to include something contradictory, it's not like there's an objective measure to where the exact line between a contradiction and something that might seem like a contradiction to some people.

Yes there is, it's called "being a contradiction", the "objective measure" is listed in this kind of funny book called a "dictionary".

A situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another.

Ok, how do you measure that? what's the process? I know what my personal process is. I know how someone might approach this through certain critical lenses that I've learned about. But is there one method that everyone can use to come to the same conclusions about every situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another?

Also, Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it has no meaning or that it doesn't matter. That's not a very strong understanding of what I'm actually trying to communicate

Natural, since it's not a "strong" idea. Except maybe in terms of destructive potential to any and all criticism.

There's actually quite a lot of criticism that is made under the supposition that art is subjective. The idea has been around for a while and I don't see much evidence that it's destroyed criticism.

Chuck points out a lot of contradictions because that's honestly one of the easiest criticisms you can make.

And that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

I'm not trying to discredit him or his opinions, I'm saying that the reason he does this has less to do with the inherent superiority of that approach, and more to do with the abundance of options. I am actually in favor of pointing these things out, because it's a fount of discussion.

Now, if these things were inarguable, I would think that would actually mean there's less to talk about, because if it's an incontrovertible fact, then all you can really say is either "ah, I see, I did not notice that" or "oh, good, I also noticed that"

And if you think that Chuck has access to some superior method of analysis that reaches a deeper truth than regular shmucks like us can

Not than "us regular shmucks", but more than you can since the metric you use makes it impossible to analyse or really think about anything ever.

In that way, it's not that he's special so much as that you've crippled yourself.

I can analyze the meaning of your text fairly well. I'm often attempting to respond to your broad arguments, rather than just the specific sentence I have in the quote. I'm using my personal perspective to supplement the actual text in front of me, and that includes things that I've learned in the past and experiences I've had in similar discussions, all of which colors my interpretation.

My idea only kills rigid absolutism. It certainly doesn't kill Chuck's views, because as he has taken to saying a lot in his recent videos, he wants us to make up our own damn minds.

Nah, it kills anything beyond vegetating in front of the screen while not thinking about what you're watching. That's the only level of engagement/analysis you can be on where it's not possible for something to not fit.

And I remember the old intro the Threshold review (have it downloaded) and he mentioned one thing he really wants to promote is thinking. That's what you're killing with this idea, and I'm not sure why you're even if you hold such a view.

You may not care about subjective analysis, and so the idea of that being the primary way that someone approaches art may not match your idea of active viewership. But as someone who does care about subjective analysis, I can assure you, I definitely do think about what I'm watching. In fact, I keep thinking about it even after I stop watching it, and I even think about it after hearing other people tell me what they think about it. Which is the primary benefit of subjectivity. You get to synthesize your understanding of a work with the understanding that other people have about that same work.

When I made my initial post, I was not saying that I judge all works to be equal, or that everything about them is equally good. I was saying that there is in fact a place for whatever is inside the story, because that's where it is. It may not be a good place, and the story may be better if it were removed entirely, but there is no way to definitively prove that. You can make your case, you can use the text to support your argument, but ultimately it's your opinion of how well or poorly it was implemented. You have to interpret its place in the work, and if your interpretation leads you to believe that it doesn't fit, that is valid, but it's not the only valid interpretation.

I spend a lot of time thinking, and I enjoy thinking about what I'm watching, especially when I'm watching something I love. I don't, however, think that I'm going to come to The One True Interpretation. Because I don't think it exists. I don't need to believe that there's some perfect analysis that is the most correct out of all of them to justify analyzing something. I accept that I have my own perspective, my own bias, my own interests and my own priorities, and then I decide to think about stuff anyway. Hopefully, Albert Camus would be proud.

Really, if the idea that there might not be a right answer kills off all thinking, we might be dealing with some pretty fragile thoughts.

[Thebestoftherest]

What is going on here?

[Freeverse]

I think that it's up to reader interpretation whether certain elements fit with certain stories. There was some disagreement.

[Thebestoftherest]

I think that it's up to reader interpretation whether certain elements fit with certain stories. There was some disagreement.

Thank you

[CrashGordon94]

I've explained more than once that, actually, I don't think this bizarre thing you've interpreted from my words.

Then you wouldn't have had any argument against "you should make sure what you put in fits", that you did argue against that shows the truth.

A situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another.

Ok, how do you measure that?

Not a valid question.

It just works the same as everything else, the fact that asked at all worries me.

There's actually quite a lot of criticism that is made under the supposition that art is subjective. The idea has been around for a while and I don't see much evidence that it's destroyed criticism.

It's only because people don't obey your unworkable ideal and work under a system where it's possible for something to be in a work that doesn't fit.

You may not care about subjective analysis, and so the idea of that being the primary way that someone approaches art may not match your idea of active viewership. But as someone who does care about subjective analysis, I can assure you, I definitely do think about what I'm watching

Only if you were lying, because the only way you could have something where it's impossible for something to not fit is if you don't think about what you're watching at all. And that is the argument you're making, otherwise you wouldn't have piped up against my initial point otherwise.

When I made my initial post, I was not saying that I judge all works to be equal, or that everything about them is equally good. I was saying that there is in fact a place for whatever is inside the story, because that's where it is

And exactly what I'm talking about, despite your backpedalling, you go back to this awful, unworkable point.

[Freeverse]

I've explained more than once that, actually, I don't think this bizarre thing you've interpreted from my words.

Then you wouldn't have had any argument against "you should make sure what you put in fits", that you did argue against that shows the truth.

Honestly, one of the reasons I have a problem with that kind of thinking is that it tends to be dismissive of representation, which I consider to be quite a good thing in general. And I could certainly rattle off some examples of times when general audiences uncritically accepted the notion that certain types of people don't belong in certain works based on faulty information, but I do also simply disagree with the fundamental position that there are just some things you can't put in some settings.

I've said before that it's useful to consider what you're writing and how it interacts with the rest of the work. You've come away with a flawed understanding of what I'm actually arguing against, which is the idea that there is some essential characteristic that someone is describing when they say that something doesn't fit. In reality, that's an opinion, not a fact.

A situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another.

Ok, how do you measure that?

Not a valid question.

It just works the same as everything else, the fact that asked at all worries me.

It seems like you are suggesting that your personal assumptions about what constitutes a contradiction are de facto correct. The fact that you think it's obvious could be an indicator that you simply haven't been challenged on these assumptions. But I'm knda stuck just working off conjecture if you won't actually tell me your process. This is why it's important in critical discourse that you are able to communicate your position so that other people can engage with what you actually believe, rather than making assumptions or guesses.

In my estimation, your approach is an intuitive one. You see something that doesn't sit right with your current understanding, and based on a gut reaction, you either consider it to be new information or a contradiction. But if you don't tell me, I can't know for sure which things you would consider to be new developments and which things you would consider to be contradictions. I just don't know you that well.

There's actually quite a lot of criticism that is made under the supposition that art is subjective. The idea has been around for a while and I don't see much evidence that it's destroyed criticism.

It's only because people don't obey your unworkable ideal and work under a system where it's possible for something to be in a work that doesn't fit.

OK. Maybe I should have just come out swinging on this one.

The vast majority of critical theory is explicitly subjective. The common understanding of critical theory, that essentially anyone doing any kind of serious media analysis follows, is that a subjective framework of one kind or another is both necessary and useful. I am not saying that all critique must follow from the academic model, but by and large, art is understood by the people who study it to be highly subjective.

What I'm saying is that, actually, I'm following along with a so-called "unworkable ideal" that was created long before I was born by a multitude of other people, in a framework that has continued to adapt and evolve throughout my lifetime. I am not the original source of this process, I actually learned it by reading, discussing and thinking about art.

You may not care about subjective analysis, and so the idea of that being the primary way that someone approaches art may not match your idea of active viewership. But as someone who does care about subjective analysis, I can assure you, I definitely do think about what I'm watching

Only if you were lying, because the only way you could have something where it's impossible for something to not fit is if you don't think about what you're watching at all. And that is the argument you're making, otherwise you wouldn't have piped up against my initial point otherwise.

I did make my original point in a way that shaved off the nuance. 'cause I thought it was funny. I wouldn't call that lying, personally.

But obviously contradictions aren't the only thing you can think about when you're watching something. I tend to think about things I care more about, like the themes, atmosphere, characterization, and frankly, just... most of a show. Like, most parts of a show are more important to me than how well the setting fits together. It's just not my priority.

Also, the point I was trying to make, is that you are assuming the only way to think about a show is the way that you think about a show. I'm trying to make the case that there are other ways of thinking, different from your own.

And it's not like I don't take note of contradictory elements, it's just that I don't make assumptions about my own correctness regarding what I see as a contradiction. The lack of assumptions is actually conducive to thinking about things, since assumptions can restrain your thinking.

When I made my initial post, I was not saying that I judge all works to be equal, or that everything about them is equally good. I was saying that there is in fact a place for whatever is inside the story, because that's where it is

And exactly what I'm talking about, despite your backpedalling, you go back to this awful, unworkable point.

I'm not backpedaling. If I were to say that I judge all works to be equal, that would be an opinion, and thus, compatible with the belief that the value I was assigning is subjective.

Also, I've yet to hear any convincing arguments that my point is awful or unworkable. So far it's just been an insistence that it's nonsense, or that it doesn't allow for thinking, or that I'm brushing off any disagreements, but not why any of those things must be the case. I do not think any of those things are the case, because it makes sense that different people have different opinions about what does and what doesn't fit, and we can think about why that is, and if I were attempting to bush off any disagreements, I don't think I would have written quite so many words here.

There's really nothing all that radical about the idea. The concept of contradiction is a real thing, but fiction isn't real, so you can't prove or disprove a contradiction in fiction.

[CrashGordon94]

Honestly, one of the reasons I have a problem with that kind of thinking is that it tends to be dismissive of representation, which I consider to be quite a good thing in general.

Sure, but you shouldn't break your story or setting for it, which is my point. If something doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

And I could certainly rattle off some examples of times when general audiences uncritically accepted the notion that certain types of people don't belong in certain works based on faulty information

You could, but it wouldn't matter. The "faulty" ones don't invalidate the legitimate ones.

but I do also simply disagree with the fundamental position that there are just some things you can't put in some settings.

Too bad, that's just a fact and there's no way to break from it without devolving into the "uncritically accept whatever you see on screen" thing you keep weakly saying you don't support (but clearly do if you come out with points like this).

The vast majority of critical theory is explicitly subjective. The common understanding of critical theory, that essentially anyone doing any kind of serious media analysis follows, is that a subjective framework of one kind or another is both necessary and useful. I am not saying that all critique must follow from the academic model, but by and large, art is understood by the people who study it to be highly subjective.

What I'm saying is that, actually, I'm following along with a so-called "unworkable ideal" that was created long before I was born by a multitude of other people, in a framework that has continued to adapt and evolve throughout my lifetime. I am not the original source of this process, I actually learned it by reading, discussing and thinking about art.

That's a lot of fancy words and posturing but at the end of the day, a "framework" where it isn't possible for things to contradict is one that doesn't allow for any analysis at all, any "framework" that actually functions will recognise that sometimes something put into a work won't fit or work.

Giving a name to this junker of an ideal doesn't fix that.

But obviously contradictions aren't the only thing you can think about when you're watching something.

I never said otherwise, but a paradigm that doesn't allow them to exist and be recognised doesn't allow for any of the other things you claim you care about.

I'm not backpedaling.

You absolutely are. You keep claiming to not support what I say you do but that's clearly false if you come out with shit like "there is in fact a place for whatever is inside the story, because that's where it is", the only way to do that is if you support exactly the reductive, uncritical "accept whatever you see on screen without thinking" position I've been pointing out that you do.

Also, I've yet to hear any convincing arguments that my point is awful or unworkable.

The only way "there is in fact a place for whatever is inside the story, because that's where it is" is if you uncritically accept everything on screen, but otherwise it is absolutely indisputably possible to show things that contradict or don't fit. And such an idea does indeed kill off all analysis and criticism because there's not really anything you can do with uncritically accepting everything other than just go "I liked that!" and stop there. And there's plenty of reason to want to do something other than that, but the ideal you push allows for absolutely nothing else.

There's really nothing all that radical about the idea.

I could certainly see that uncritically accepting whatever you see might be the othodoxy some places, but certainly not anywhere like here.

[Fianna]

Subjectivity doesn't mean no analysis can be done. It just means that the analysis will be based on certain premises that not everyone will agree on.

An objective analysis begins with certain indisputable facts (for example, an airplane needs X amount of lift relative to weight in order to achieve takeoff) and then analyzes the subject in question to see how (or if) it conforms to those facts.

A subjective analysis begins with an opinion (for example, that a certain action scene was thrilling) and then analyzes how the subject in question created that opinion. If you agree with the premise the analysis is based on, then it can help you understand how your own reaction to the subject was shaped. If you disagree with the premise, then it helps you understand how other people's reactions were shaped. Either way, it provides insight.