a not-nearly-comprehensive guide to classical logical fallacies as employed in fandom

[pocochina]

I should probably preface this by saying I don't think I've seen more bad arguments than usual or worse arguments than usual lately. But I do feel like I've seen an uptick in people expressing a few specific frustrations across a surprising variety of fandoms? And so when a post earlier this week (locked and not mine, so I'll go no further, but if

Comments

[cuddyclothes]

Tell us what you really feel! I'm not sure what you are getting at, as comprehensive and well-written as this article is. Different show runners, different writers, different advertisers all have a direct effect on any show. That's why a "fan favorite" is kept. That's why Jo went from being a potential love interest to a "little sister" character. Being renewed for Season 6 meant that SPN didn't end the way Kripke envisioned it, which was both brothers jumping into the pit. So that meant creating half-brother Adam and working around the issue in various ways. That's a real-world problem, not a problem with internal logic.

I thought Sam's mental illness was excellently portrayed--until he got better. Are you trying to say that there is One True Way to view the show that has nothing to do with the process that produces it? Why is it so wrong to blame the writers/showrunners when retcon happens? Or other "huh"? moments that do seem out of character. Jensen himself said they have a few "clunkers" every season

[pocochina]

See, there's a difference between "this sucked because of xyz pattern/verifiable external influence/whatever" or even just "this sucked" and "an interpretation of the text which incorporates elements which are verifiable aspects of the text is objectively wrong because those verifiable in-text events don't count because [fallacy

[cuddyclothes]

But I do think it would be gross of me to go around saying "House and Cuddy OBVIOUSLY would've made it work, because the parts of the show where House fucked it up were OBVIOUSLY OOC and don't count and if you don't see that then you're a HATER!" The first thing is an opinion. The second thing is telling people they didn't see what they saw. There are still fans that cling to House/Cuddy and say they waited SIX YEARS FOR IT TO HAPPEN AND YOU TOOK IT AWAY WAAAH. No, it happened, House fucked it up and she wouldn't forgive him for slipping for the first time in years. In the season finale, he saw she had company (including a new man) in her living room--and crashed his car into it. David Shore et al. were "I'm shocked, SHOCKED that anybody would have a problem with that!" Lisa Edelstein quit the show after that, so they had to scramble to put together something credible for S8. In the series' final episode, House and Wilson rode off into the sunset on motorcycles. As a House/Wilson shipper I was very happy

[cuddyclothes]

Speaking of haters, did you see the explosion at my 9.10 review? When I dared criticize Dean?

[bleodswean]

A nice summation of the most common screams we tend to hear in fandom.

I, personally, read meta and occasionally the follow-up commentary to try and sort the viewer/reader's take on an arc, scene, character more than to arrive at an analytic interpretation. That is simply fascinating to me. Why and how a specific viewer, or group of banded viewers, will hold to a certain interpretation or defamation of an established interpretation is psychologically fascinating.

Not that I'm sitting here, stroking my goatee, and making copious notes while fandom lies on the red couch....but the variance and passion of fandom is more growth-provoking to me as a writer/thinker than defending my position. Heh.

[pocochina]

Why and how a specific viewer, or group of banded viewers, will hold to a certain interpretation or defamation of an established interpretation is psychologically fascinating.

Oh, it so is. I've caught myself torturing logic to defend my own opinion of a character, good or bad - though I've always enjoyed the narrative and fandom in question a great deal more after I acknowledged that pattern and knocked it off, whether that changed my ~official opinion for better or worse.

the variance and passion of fandom is more growth-provoking to me as a writer/thinker than defending my position. Heh. Agreed, actually, though it probably doesn't look that way, lol. I really don't enjoy the frequency with which I feel pressured to defend my position. But when people try to gaslight me out of acknowledging that gaslighting is occurring in a narrative, DEFEND I MUST

[bleodswean]

I don't know GoT but I can follow this. And those are the things I want to talk about too. It's very frustrating, with my Literature background to find myself mired in an exchange with someone who is all netspeek and teh love about a character cuz he's hunky. *bored now* I mean there are places for that *ahem* tumblr *ahem* but when it explodes on LJ and becomes ugly and loud and mean...I have to back out. I had to quit three TVD/TO journals last year because I truly thought I might induce a brain aneurysm.

I love your brain. *licks* And I've told you this before. It's not because we share fandom commonalities as we really don't, but because of this elegant way in which you balance fandom-y thoughts and intellectual meta. It's just lovely. Keep on, bb.

[pocochina]

♥

I feel like my lack of Literary knowledge makes fandom much easier to enjoy, lol.

[ash48]

Hey there, I'm not entirely sure I've got the gist of this (apologies if I don't), nor do I know the article you're referring to but this assumes that the people (fans) who are writing up reviews or critics on the show are professional writers - that these ways of arguing (or rather not effectively arguing) are understood. I would say that someone "ranting" about a character doing something they consider OOC are not going to go through a check list of the best way to form an argument. I mean, if they are professional writers and are perhaps writing a piece for a magazine or academic article then yes, using those forms of arguments would be not only frustrating but annoying enough not to read. But if I see those on someone's LJ (or personal blog) I'd accept that their arguments may very well be flawed. Especially when talking about something as passionately as their fav character being OOC

[pocochina]

In terms of isolated posts, I'd agree. But it's not just contained to rant posts. My concern is when people casually say "OF COURSE EVERYONE KNOWS that XYZ significant thing that totally happened doesn't count" and then that becomes part of the fannish consensus, to a point where if you say "I acknowledge that this episode happened!" you're the one who's wrong.

There's actually quite a lot of context, as this is something I've been thinking for quite a long time, but as an example: I didn't think of a sufficiently abstract way to make the "no true Scotsman" point until yesterday, though for about a year and a half I've been privately thinking of it as "no true Leland," after a particular favorite character of mine who ~EVERYONE KNOWS was "out of character" for 50+ out of the 80-some episodes in which he appears, people were so resistant to rethinking their snap impressions of him from the pilot!

For a more concrete example, perhaps, I put up this post a few days ago. As I said in the heading, I felt like I had to say all of that,

[kalliel]

This is wonderful. <3

[pocochina]

UR <3

[ever_neutral]

Your rage is pure and beautiful 2 me.

[pocochina]

<33

I mean, it annoys the crap out of me regardless. But like...by the end of the Supernatural hiatus this winter, just from whatever I wrote on my tiny little blog over those few weeks, I'd had several people come out of the woodwork to say "it freaks me out that nobody acknowledges this, people've personally tried to lecture and bully me out of spotting this pattern, &c" - and if anything, that's a small sample, since, you know, there's obviously no obligation to leave feedback or make contact and people mostly don't. This is not an uncommon thing, that people are noticing themselves being gaslit out of acknowledging abuse. You know, because POSITIVITY!!