i saw a sub/dub comparison of this scene on youtube years ago and it has refused to leave my mind ever since so i’m recreating it here since i can’t find the original video anymore
normally stuff like this feels performative because anyone can talk shit online to someone and most normal people would just ignore it and block you but in this instance its the funniest thing in the world because you know for a fact its getting to him
I’m watching Splash (1984) which is a romcom about a guy who falls in love with a mermaid, and when she chooses a human name she chooses Madison and guy says “that’s not a real name, but alright” which seems to imply that Madison was not a name until at least the 80’s and all girls named Madison are actually named after the mermaid. thought you should know
do not. respond to my doylist criticism with a watsonian explanation.
just because i don’t see an explanation in the notes yet
‘Doylist’ and 'Watsonian’ are basically two different lenses to use when analyzing a story. A Watsonian approach comes from within the story, exploring and explaining it in the way a character would in-universe, hence the name referencing John Watson. Doylist (as in Arthur Conan Doyle) is analysis from an outside perspective, treating the story as a story written by someone and focusing on more meta aspects.
If someone asks, “Why did [Character X] say [Y],” a Watsonian explanation would focus on the in-universe factors: the character’s backstory, motive, personality, beliefs, and so on, all things that someone within the story could perceive. A Doylist explanation might focus on thematic relevance and highlight authorial intent; why did the author choose to write that?
Both forms of analysis are valuable, and ideally, a story should hold up to both internal and external scrutiny, and those analyzing a story should recognize and use both perspectives. The reason a Watsonian explanation can’t be used to counter a Doylist critique (per the original post) is that it fails to recognize the core of the critique. A post about how strange it is that an author chose to write something a certain way cannot be countered by providing the in-universe explanation, because those are the exact choices the Doylist lens is criticizing. In the same sense, you can’t counter a Watsonian critique by explaining authorial intent or some such. (Authorial intent is not authorial success.)
🫁
ID: grainy image of a white woman glaring at someone in a beanie and hoodie who has their back to the viewer
