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.)
