Meta rec

[sholio]

xparrot has a a great breakdown on the writers of SGA, which episodes they wrote and an overall analysis of their writing style. (Subjective, of course, but it's impossible not to be, and she's very up-front about that

Comments

"You're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" XD

[xparrot]

(thanks for the linkage!)

I actually can understand this completely. You know I love internal-text examinations as much external; somehow for me I can separate in-series and out-series without difficulty (and that's a really interesting point about live theater, because I do love live shows - yet somehow seeing RENT 3 different times, with 3 different casts, I can still love the character Mark without being bothered by him having a different face and voice every time.) I've always been fascinated by movie & TV production (I blame my father, we used to watch making-of specials years before DVD specials!) but it doesn't impede my ability to suspend reality when watching - I can simultaneously appreciate David Hewlett's acting and adore Rodney McKay, not sure how that works, but there you go.

I also find, for me, that I resort to examining the external more when I'm dissatisfied with the internal (a lot of Gnine & my writer discussions have been coming up lately in the context of Shipping and Why We Don't Want It.) It's easier to blame the writers than to blame the characters?

I think I somehow have an inner belief in the "reality" of a fictional world that transcends the presentation - that I know that Rodney and Atlantis are the creations of writers and actors and CGI and such; but the TV show I watch is a shadow of some greater thing that I love, and therefore to study the presentation doesn't impede my enjoyment of the true thing behind it. Umm. If that doesn't sound too weird... To me, [why char X did Y?] and [why did Z write X doing Y?] are both fascinating questions, and one doesn't trump the other.

(--er, I am not trying to convert you over to my side, because I can totally understand why you feel that way - I'm just sort of fascinated myself with trying to figure out why it doesn't bother me!)

Re: "You're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" XD

[sholio]

Different people relate to things differently, that's all. My sister *really* has trouble reconciling two different versions of canon -- for example, the X-Men movies vs. the X-Men comics, or the Red Dwarf books vs. the TV show, which present events in a different order and style. That kind of thing bothers her a lot. She hates AU plots for the same reason. Me, I don't have the slightest difficulty holding two mutually contradictory versions of canon in my head at once (probably a survival trait gained through many years of comics fandom *g*). But thinking too hard about the meta-reality of the show makes it a little harder, or maybe just less fun, for me to accept the internal reality of the show. Basically, as both a fan and a fanfic writer, I'd rather handwave an explanation for a plot or characterization inconsistency than write it off as "the writer screwed up" (even though that's what actually happened). "Because the writers needed [xxx]" is not as satisfying for me as working out an in-universe explanation.

On the other hand, I certainly *can* enjoy this sort of meta-discussion, and I'm glad you made your post; it's fascinating stuff. It's just that I don't incline that way as easily as I lean towards discussing the internal reality of the show. And it's kind of interesting that after all this time in fandom, I'm just now realizing this about myself ...!

Also...

[sholio]

The thought also occurred to me that another thing muddying the waters here is that authorial intent has a lot of meaning to me. I initially started to type "I believe in authorial intent" but that's a little misleading because it makes it sound like I feel that other people should be bound by it, and I don't believe that at all. However, for me, in analyzing the text I usually give the author's intent the weight of canon. I'm not going to get all wanky about it and argue "But Mallozzi [or JKR, or whoever] said it, so it must be so!" I don't care if other people believe differently. But if I've been reading one interpretation into the text, and then find out that the author meant it differently, I give up my own in favor of theirs. Which means, the more I find out about what the author meant, the less room there is for me to analyze and revisit the text from my own point of view, and it's especially unpleasant if I have something that I really WANT to believe about the text and then find out that it isn't so. I'm generally happier if I just don't know.

Re: Also...

[xparrot]

Hmmm...! Now this I can understand completely; I've run into it before, that an author's take counters my own, and it causes unpleasant dissonance. It's one of the things I like about TV, though, because the writer's say is not the be-all-and-end-all - the writer might intend one thing, but the other writers, or the director, or the actors, do not always agree. I think it might be why I get especially interested in the 'why's of TV shows I fan on, because there are so many different POVs, all of them valid in their ways, that I can somehow, hmm, justify my own interpretation? If the writer's take supports my own, it's great; but if they don't, it doesn't deny or devalue mine. While as I'm less interested in an author's deconstruction of a novel, because there is a single intent there, that I have a harder time denying...

...I don't know if I'm making any sense here! But I'm thinking all of this is tied into other aspects of my fanning - like the difference between my Type A and Type B fandoms (Gnine pointed out when we discussing this last night that we both are much less interested in the external-reasons for Type A fandoms, which much more tend to have a single vision). The truth is that much as I love books, I don't *fan* on them the same way I do with TV shows, and I think the constraints of a single vs multiple creator intent has something to do with that. Hmm. My ability to pair up non-canonically paired chars plays into this, too (like, I can see the McShep even knowing the writers/actors don't intend it...putting aside my suspicions about JFlan...but I have a hard time seeing canon slash in, say, Locke Lamara, even though the subtext is even stronger...?)

I'm also thinking about what you said about reconciling differing versions of canon, because I sometimes can manage that but sometimes struggle with it...these are all related things, I think, but I'm not sure how they fit together.

(Except now that I've deconstructed SGA eps from the external perspective, I'm getting really itchy to get back to ficci)ng and viewing them internally...!)

Re: Also...

[sholio]

Dissonance, yes, that's an excellent word for it! The thing is, fandom is so heavily emotional -- though usually I can stay on an even keel when confronted with different interpretations from my own, there are times when I don't even want to see other fen's take on canon, let alone the author's! Even if I tell myself intellectually that it shouldn't matter, my emotional side, the part of me that fans, doesn't always get the memo ...!

I see what you're saying about type A and B fandoms, although interestingly, I think I'm actually the opposite -- the ones that I enjoy as complete unto themselves are usually the ones where I can tolerate a lot of external meta-examination of canon, whereas the things I fan on are (usually) imperfect enough that I just want to enjoy them for their own sake and not do a whole lot of soul-searching about them; it's quite likely that I'll just come up with a million reasons not to like them anymore!

I think it might be why I get especially interested in the 'why's of TV shows I fan on, because there are so many different POVs, all of them valid in their ways, that I can somehow, hmm, justify my own interpretation? If the writer's take supports my own, it's great; but if they don't, it doesn't deny or devalue mine.

Heh, if only I were so zen about it, I'd probably have an easier time reading creator and actor commentaries. As it is, I do incorporate the actors' statements about how they play their characters, or the writers' about their intent for a given scene, into my own view of canon. It may simply be that having it pointed out to me is enough to get me to see it in canon, where I didn't see it before -- that is, it's not precisely that I'm taking their word for it; it's more that knowing the actors were playing a scene in a certain way, or the writer had a particular slant in mind when they wrote the scene, is enough for me to totally see it when I watch the scene again. I'm pretty sure that's why I was so completely thrown for a loop, earlier this summer, by some of Jason Momoa's interview comments regarding how he sees his character's relationship with McKay. Granted, I may well be reading more into the interview than *he* intended, but it took me until "Broken Ties" to even get back to the point where I enjoy watching the two of them in the same scene at all, and they used to be my second-favorite character relationship on the show.

Re: Also...

[xparrot]

there are times when I don't even want to see other fen's take on canon, let alone the author's! Even if I tell myself intellectually that it shouldn't matter, my emotional side, the part of me that fans, doesn't always get the memo ...!

*nods* This definitely happens to me - I can only take so much criticism about a show before I freak out - either stop being able to enjoy it, or have to hide from it. One of the reasons I can analyze SGA to this extent is that I really, truly love the show in spite of all its flaws, so my affection is pretty much unshakable; and I'm still bothered by too much negative meta.

I'm pretty sure that's why I was so completely thrown for a loop, earlier this summer, by some of Jason Momoa's interview comments regarding how he sees his character's relationship with McKay.

Hah - I almost mentioned this exact thing, because I was thrown for the same loop. Except here's where authorial intent can help, too, because someone asked Mallozzi about that question, and he denied Momoa's interpretation - I can't remember his exact quote, but it was something along the lines of, well, they're not standard friends but they're still friends. In essence, having multiple creators means if I don't like one creator's interpretation, I'm comfortable with telling myself, "They're wrong!" And that SGA has such varying characterizations among the writers and actors gives me a lot of wriggle-room to reach interpretations that satisfy me (One reason I like analyzing the writers is that then, if I don't like an element, I can easily tell myself, "Well, that's just the way this guy writes it, it's not the way the chars really are." And no, I don't know what that "really" actually means, but it exists for me somehow, the reality beyond what we see...?)

(ah, here, found Mallozzi's quote:
"I’m sure Jason was simply referring to “friends” in the traditional sense. While Ronon and McKay aren’t exactly best buddies, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an unvoiced camaraderie and mutual respect there." Made me feel rather better about it. If nothing else, Mallozzi genuinely seems to believe in the teammanship of the team!)

Re: Also...

[naye]

I think it says a lot about how I react emotionally to these things that Mallozzi's comment really cheered me up! And this after I avoided the Jason interview on purpose, knowing that he had said something I probably didn't want to read. But it's obvious that Rodney and Ronon are friends in the way we mean it. So there! ♥

Re: Also...

[sholio]

Oh, it's really nice to know it's not just me, re: the interview. Mallozzi's comment made me grin. If Gero's a Rodney fanboy, I think Mallozzi fans on Team. Which, well, you won't catch me complaining about!