The best of Serialkon 2015
My late entry about Serialkon, promised months ago. Here's my whole experience in Polish, this entry is what I call "the best bits".
Serialkon is a Polish convention about tv series, and its second edition was in November 2015. People who know a thing or two about it say it's something between a convention and a conference, which sounds serious and academic, but gives the presenters credits they mostly deserve, as their research and argumentation is often a top quality. For me, listening to them is a little peek on social science (it's the closest I'll ever get to it, I think) and, of course, an opportunity to meet other people enjoying my favourite tv shows. To fangirl a little. And to wear a fez. I gathered some thoughts from the convention I believe are worth passing on, and you can click here for some pictures to see there was fun there, too.
Michał Zabdyr Jamróz had a fantastic presentation about a "veil of ignorance". The programm said (that particular presentation was in English):
In his presentation Michał will analyze a case of Human-Zygon negotiations depicted in the Doctor Who’s 50th anniversary special from the perspective of John Rawls’ political philosophy. The latter’s famous 1971 treaty - A Theory of Justice - introduced a concept of the veil of ignorance as a hypothetical situation in which people are forming a social contract the way it should be. The veil makes parties of negotiations unaware of their particular situation thus guaranteeing a fairness of the final agreement. I will argue those events presented in the Day of the Doctor are one the finest and most profound representation of the concept of the veil of ignorance. Moreover, I will even argue the idea of memory modifiers - used in the Human - Zygon negotiations - which is a much more accurate and explanatory illustration for the concept of justice as fairness than the Rawls’ original metaphor of the veil of ignorance.
(source)
The basic question was: as people want the law to suit them, how to create law that would bring justice to everyone? If you're personally involved in a matter, you'd want it to be resolved in a way that suits you best, but if you're not, you may not have enough knowledge of everyone's goals and lack motivation to find the best solution - you may think of a fair one and not look for the most satisfactory one (if you can't share, no one gets the cookies). So John Rawl came up with a theory that the best way to make a fair law is when everyone is aware of everyone's goals, needs and feelings ("sides"), but is ignorant of which "side" is his. That makes people try to find a solution that's best for everyone (think of the "I cut, you choose" procedure). It works fine with two people and a cake but with more serious problems, the theory is just a theory because you can't make people "forget" their nationality, origins and beliefs. Except in science fiction, you actually can and this is - as Michał said - what Steven Moffat does in "Day of the Doctor". The Doctor makes humans and Zygons forget who they are but both sides know what both sides want. (By the way, this is when it's important that UNIT has encountered the Zygons before and they have knowledge of them.) And the key to perfect negotiation... Not knowing what side you're on. In "The Zygon Inversion", we found out what the result was - they made an agreement.
Next time when someone tells you Doctor Who is a show for children, you can talk about representation of theory of justice :)
In another interesting presentation, which title might be translated as "Do your research - Steven Moffat vs Psychology", Joanna Kotek analysed Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty and River Song, and had following observations:
1. Sherlock is not a psychopath, nor a sociopath (and according to Joanna, those two words describe the same disorder; psychopath is the old one but sociopath is not a proper one anymore, now it's called antisocial personality disorder - which Sherlock does not have);
2. the person we could diagnose with antisocial personality disorder is Jim Moriarty, who, weirdly enough, isn't called a psychopath once in the show;
3. Which Steven Moffat's character is called a psychopath? River Song! Whose symptoms do not suggest antisocial personality disorder...
4. ...but somthing called histrionic personality disorder. Let me quote wikipedia:
People with HPD have a high need for attention, make loud and inappropriate appearances, exaggerate their behaviors and emotions, and crave stimulation. They may exhibit sexually provocative behavior, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and can be easily influenced by others. Associated features include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs.
It sounds like a 100% River Song to me. And I thought it was bad writing...
And finally, Magdalena Stonawska talked about some fragments of her master thesis, which was (what a cool topic!) an attempt to describe Polish fandom of Doctor Who. One of her surprising discoveries was the influence Doctor Who had on the fans: a lot of us (I filled her form as well) claimed the show made us stronger in our beliefs, and many people admitted it's actually changed them, made them more open-minded and tolerant, encouraged them to be more active in life, to make a statement when it's needed, and also to enjoy every day and those little happy moments in life. Four people (for a thousand) confessed Doctor Who helped them fight with depression. It's often said that Doctor Who is a show with a strong message for children, with good example and role models, but since its Polish fandom consists mostly of teenagers and people in their twenties, I think we can say its message reaches further than just eight-year-olds. How often does that happen? How many shows can tell the message that gets both to you and your ten year old child? I think that's fascinating.
Among other topics I've been listening to were: history in shows made by BBC; discussion about the ninth season of Doctor Who (the sonic sunglasses have been unanimously criticized ;) ); and week-by-week watching vs binge-watching and how it can change our experience of tv shows. How refreshing it was to find yourself in a room full of people who know how it is to watch five episodes of a show in one day! But we didn't lose our senses completely yet: the presentation started with a question how many of us haven't slept at night, watching Jessica Jones that had just came out. Only two hands up.
Serialkon is a Polish convention about tv series, and its second edition was in November 2015. People who know a thing or two about it say it's something between a convention and a conference, which sounds serious and academic, but gives the presenters credits they mostly deserve, as their research and argumentation is often a top quality. For me, listening to them is a little peek on social science (it's the closest I'll ever get to it, I think) and, of course, an opportunity to meet other people enjoying my favourite tv shows. To fangirl a little. And to wear a fez. I gathered some thoughts from the convention I believe are worth passing on, and you can click here for some pictures to see there was fun there, too.
Michał Zabdyr Jamróz had a fantastic presentation about a "veil of ignorance". The programm said (that particular presentation was in English):
In his presentation Michał will analyze a case of Human-Zygon negotiations depicted in the Doctor Who’s 50th anniversary special from the perspective of John Rawls’ political philosophy. The latter’s famous 1971 treaty - A Theory of Justice - introduced a concept of the veil of ignorance as a hypothetical situation in which people are forming a social contract the way it should be. The veil makes parties of negotiations unaware of their particular situation thus guaranteeing a fairness of the final agreement. I will argue those events presented in the Day of the Doctor are one the finest and most profound representation of the concept of the veil of ignorance. Moreover, I will even argue the idea of memory modifiers - used in the Human - Zygon negotiations - which is a much more accurate and explanatory illustration for the concept of justice as fairness than the Rawls’ original metaphor of the veil of ignorance.
(source)
The basic question was: as people want the law to suit them, how to create law that would bring justice to everyone? If you're personally involved in a matter, you'd want it to be resolved in a way that suits you best, but if you're not, you may not have enough knowledge of everyone's goals and lack motivation to find the best solution - you may think of a fair one and not look for the most satisfactory one (if you can't share, no one gets the cookies). So John Rawl came up with a theory that the best way to make a fair law is when everyone is aware of everyone's goals, needs and feelings ("sides"), but is ignorant of which "side" is his. That makes people try to find a solution that's best for everyone (think of the "I cut, you choose" procedure). It works fine with two people and a cake but with more serious problems, the theory is just a theory because you can't make people "forget" their nationality, origins and beliefs. Except in science fiction, you actually can and this is - as Michał said - what Steven Moffat does in "Day of the Doctor". The Doctor makes humans and Zygons forget who they are but both sides know what both sides want. (By the way, this is when it's important that UNIT has encountered the Zygons before and they have knowledge of them.) And the key to perfect negotiation... Not knowing what side you're on. In "The Zygon Inversion", we found out what the result was - they made an agreement.
Next time when someone tells you Doctor Who is a show for children, you can talk about representation of theory of justice :)
In another interesting presentation, which title might be translated as "Do your research - Steven Moffat vs Psychology", Joanna Kotek analysed Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty and River Song, and had following observations:
1. Sherlock is not a psychopath, nor a sociopath (and according to Joanna, those two words describe the same disorder; psychopath is the old one but sociopath is not a proper one anymore, now it's called antisocial personality disorder - which Sherlock does not have);
2. the person we could diagnose with antisocial personality disorder is Jim Moriarty, who, weirdly enough, isn't called a psychopath once in the show;
3. Which Steven Moffat's character is called a psychopath? River Song! Whose symptoms do not suggest antisocial personality disorder...
4. ...but somthing called histrionic personality disorder. Let me quote wikipedia:
People with HPD have a high need for attention, make loud and inappropriate appearances, exaggerate their behaviors and emotions, and crave stimulation. They may exhibit sexually provocative behavior, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and can be easily influenced by others. Associated features include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs.
It sounds like a 100% River Song to me. And I thought it was bad writing...
And finally, Magdalena Stonawska talked about some fragments of her master thesis, which was (what a cool topic!) an attempt to describe Polish fandom of Doctor Who. One of her surprising discoveries was the influence Doctor Who had on the fans: a lot of us (I filled her form as well) claimed the show made us stronger in our beliefs, and many people admitted it's actually changed them, made them more open-minded and tolerant, encouraged them to be more active in life, to make a statement when it's needed, and also to enjoy every day and those little happy moments in life. Four people (for a thousand) confessed Doctor Who helped them fight with depression. It's often said that Doctor Who is a show with a strong message for children, with good example and role models, but since its Polish fandom consists mostly of teenagers and people in their twenties, I think we can say its message reaches further than just eight-year-olds. How often does that happen? How many shows can tell the message that gets both to you and your ten year old child? I think that's fascinating.
Among other topics I've been listening to were: history in shows made by BBC; discussion about the ninth season of Doctor Who (the sonic sunglasses have been unanimously criticized ;) ); and week-by-week watching vs binge-watching and how it can change our experience of tv shows. How refreshing it was to find yourself in a room full of people who know how it is to watch five episodes of a show in one day! But we didn't lose our senses completely yet: the presentation started with a question how many of us haven't slept at night, watching Jessica Jones that had just came out. Only two hands up.