#i always rant a helluva lot in these huh

[first-only]

You got any tips on how to analyse media properly?

I don't think I'm too bad at media analyse, but it is always something that I've wanted to better at (and a good skill to have imo! Even if it's just a basic understanding)

See, this is not aimed at you per se, but i really dont like the way people use 'media' now. "Media" could easily also (and sometimes primarily) mean, like, the news. Which is indeed something you very much need to learn to analyze and think (actually) critically about. What are the sources cited? What are the sources' backgrounds, and groundwork, and motivation? Who pays? Who owns the media? Did you look at different sources reporting the same thing? And if you have access only to shitty sources, try to separate the cold facts from emotional manipulation and twisting words and stories (eg our prime minister is talking about unity while actively bribing other parties' representatives. 'unity' takes a different meaning here, yeah?). Think of consequences, not ideals. Even if the ideal is protecting children, will banning drag queens from schools achieve that? What will the actual result be? Are they even trying to protect children or is the goal elsewhere? Media, as in reporting and news work, is genuinely the best to learn to understand tbh.

As for fiction and non-fiction prose and poetry, which is what im assuming you're actually talking about, there's no real set in stone 'real' and 'true' analysis take that can hallmark doing it 'properly'. Of course, some people will tell you it's 'obvious' and then oscillate vastly between approaches themselves. Let me make this more clear - when talking about interpretation and analysis im always reminded of a work of poetry i studied in high school. It was a poem called "you will be wearing white" (in my native tongue), and everyone in class was convinced that, yes, obviously the author is talking about marriage. He's talking to a woman about the future, about /their/ future. Marrying is never mentioned, but love is hinted, she has to be in white. Simple, right? Except our teacher was extremely adamant that no, the poem is definitely not about marriage. She listened to our arguments, called the interpretation shallow and then explained that the work is about the relief of the future, freedom, and happiness. Why? When it was written, brides did not wear white. Marrying for love was.. well, not impossible but definitely not how you would mention marriage one-sidedly in a work of art. White was a color not for a bride, but for a woman free from having to work hard to feed herself and her family, a woman with enough money to afford it. The intent of the author wasnt "i will see you married to me" (or "i will own you", as the teacher would say); but "i will see you happy [and i will be happy too]".

[under the cut because this turned into a monster im sorry]

Which interpretation is more valid? A bunch of high schoolers saw a love poem with a white dress, and thought of a happy marriage, that signifies future happiness. A lit teacher, used to interpreting marriage as the other side of Death, in symbolic meaning of course, and aware of the cultural and period background of the writer, tells them the original way it was meant to be interpreted. A 'modern' outlook versus authorial intent. Now, with all of the blatant wrong info floating around, let me tell you, /this/ is what death of the author means. Interpreting the text for itself, without the background or intent woven into it, even if you know it.

Now, to do Actually Proper, or /academic/ analysis you will have to either follow the author's works, life, intentions, and gimmicks closely, or you will have to catch and learn references to known classics. Especially biblical symbolism and references are an integral part of the classic analysis of (western) Classic Works, and catching how they're interwoven and reference each other is exactly what they teach you in school. Another huge part of this is learning how symbolism works (both in the particular text and outside of it - local symbols and widely used ones). Big archetypes are commonly referred to and used as a base of analysis, and i mean the actual meaning of this word by Jung (and by extension Freud), interwoven into literature on a bigger scale by Joseph Campbell. Im saying this because Star Wars is a good example of what im talking about - Campbell and Lucas are good friends, and the original trilogy is ripe with archetypical symbolism, it's effectively based on it. A simple example - Luke breaking Vader's mask in a vision is usually interpreted as a hint that vader is his father, but thats not the symbolic meaning. The Mask is an archetype - it covers the self in what it wants to see. In breaking the mask, Luke is discovering his fear that if he keeps on this path, if he lets the dark side guide his instincts, he will turn into what vader represents himself. It's a warning, not a foreshadowing. (now, the giant tree, that is the archetype for family, is very much foreshadowing and warning that his roots are in the Dark).

Obviously this approach has many critiques, and not every story will follow or acknowledge it. That doesn't stop you from analyzing it this way anyway. There is a reason when people write analyses theyre calling them "an analysis". There is place for interpretation, a lot of strings to pull, a lot of variables to take into account and a lot of approaches to consider.

Let's look at the infamous blue curtains. Were the curtains always there, and always blue, or are they mentioned specifically for this scene? Does the writer use the color blue in the work before to establish a particular meaning within the confines of this specific work? Are the protagonist's SO's eyes blue for example? Were the curtains in his childhood home blue? Does the writer use common symbolism often? Is blue the color of sadness to them as it usually is? Is the writer so inept as to not know that every word written on a page of a book has to have a meaning? (ie the "the curtains were fucking blue" approach). Or are the curtains a symbol, the cover hiding the outside world from the eyes of the protagonist, and painting his view in blue? Are the curtains the archetype of the Veil, the walkway into the underworld? Thus is the protagonist thinking of death? Does he feel dead? Is the protagonist dying? Or being reborn? (for in symbolic language death itself often just means Change).

None of these readings are Correct. Some would be based on the entire work's properties (looking for other symbolic language for example), some might be supported by the author themself (outside of the text), some might be rooted in cross-references to Classics or religious or culturally significant texts. Others might be a projection of the reader themself, what does blue mean to you? But no matter which approach to analysis you take, finding ways to support it can dip in different wells.

Let's go back to SW to have more clear examples. The dominant social media approach seems to be that The Empire is the nazi regime and everything is intentionally made to look and feel this way. Is this supported by authorial intent? Or is it more of a modern interpretation by people who want to find their morality everywhere. There was a post flying around mocking someone for saying Anakin is a Jesus figure, but, regardless of that person's other views, that /is/ a valid interpretation. Be it that Vader is actually the antichrist who fooled people into thinking he was a saviour, or be it that the story can be read as an attempt at construing what it would be like if their lord was in fact a mortal and fallible man. And Lucas? Lucas has given enough interviews to show that he was just writing about his special blorbos and their epic story about the magic of the universe.

When it comes to modern storytelling, be it shows or movies, etc, the approach to analysis is often Doylist first. Who is the target audience? Who paid for its production? Was there censors and content policies? Who are the actual writers, what conditions did they write under (did they know the whole story? were they allowed freedom of creativity? were they paid enough? how did they get that position?)? Was the story influenced by fans/social media's reaction? I feel like this is where the modern meaning of 'trope' comes from - it's more of a cliche, a setting of "the good guy" "the bad guy" and so on. Easily digestible and reproducible. That doesnt mean there isnt merit to deeper analysis however. Even if its unintentional (and thats not always the case) sometimes the best stories come from disjointed and confused narratives. A game sequel forgot about an entire essential part of the lore? Maybe something happened behind the scenes that explains it, and furthers the current narrative. Practicing suspension of disbelief and being charitable to the narrative is never wasted imo, you practice creative thinking and watsonian explanations, thus an 'internal' interpretation of the narrative.

I honestly think the most immediately helpful thing when approaching a story is your own, personal, what used to be called 'emotional intelligence', now emotional differentiation. Yes, knowing your own feelings, but also ability to decipher and interpret characters' feelings, emotions, goals, driving forces. The general theme of the narrative, and yes the narrative itself - what is the story about? Why did Luke refuse to kill Vader? Did he betray the republic for his family? Does he sympathize with a murderer? Did he Choose the Light and realize that walking into the dark side will make him worse? Or did he showcase his own character and personality, defend his own principles? Or all at once?

You know, i genuinely think that doing some analysis of fics can help with the basics of interpretation. Even bad fic. It's easier to see what the author is trying to tell you, and how they're doing it. Are they telegraphing simple movements just to make you understand the physicality of the situation? Are they trying to make it poetic and how? When reading a more advanced versus a more inexperienced writer, where are the differences between their ways of showing intent, and achieving it? The strings of symbolism and metaphor are also usually better visible in fic for an inexperienced analysis, because you can both juxtaposition the original text, and get an interpretation of it. And then, beyound authorial intent - how does your headcanon and interpretation of the canon differ from the fic author's? Why? Does the original text support their reading? How? Do the intent and the result in the reader match? What words do they use so their fic can be interpreted differently than intended? (the amount of 'fluff' ive read that was actually an unintentional horror lol).

I do want to say that if you're trying to get better at analyzing in order to participate "better" in fandom, that's your choice and all that, but it's not necessary. It's a buzzword nowadays how "critical thinking" and "actual analysis" in media are rotten and forgotten, but the fact is - this is fandom. Yes overanalysis and essays exist, but they were never lit crit or academic essays. They serve the purpose of fandom. And the purpose of fandom is very often, very expectedly, and very normally, "the curtains are blue, because his lover's tie is blue". There's nothing wrong with that. This is a hobby. We're here for fun. And way overanalyzing something in a completely haywire direction is tons of fun. Like hell, my personal take on a shallow ass FPS game with a base mechanic of healing orbs and vampiric attacks? Souls exist in this universe, thus soulmates too, thus my headcanons are toootaly canon-compliant. Was this the intent of the shallow FPS? Hell no. Is it supported by the source? Sure.

Worth saying however that like actual academic lit crit and analysis is a whole ass science and a huge field with many resources, theory and /a lot/ of work. If you want to get into it seriously, classes or at least reading theory is kind of a low bar, to be honest. And reading /a lot/ of classics - cant catch those references and universal symbols and common lit knowledge if you havent experienced them. It's genuinely not just making some shit up on the basis of five lines. And honestly? A lot of the theory is biased, and subjective, and western-centric so you gotta analyze the analysis theory. Yeeah.

Now the actual advice i will give you when it comes to existing in a social media world that's viscerally discoursing over every story is don't get gaslighted. Just because everyone is shouting loudly about a particular interpretation doesn't mean it's the only valid real one (or that it's valid at all). Listen to yourself too, read the source for yourself, if you care check on the author/s (and disregard as needed). If we went on tumblr one day and the dash was covered with new hot takes over how Luke is supporting fascism by not mercilessly killing his father will that mean he is the villain of the story? We've seen the Steven Universe/Aang is the real villain takes. Were they the villains? Is the claim supported by the text? Was Kylo Ren a one-dimensional villain with zero nuance? Did the text support that, regardless if it's his fans or haters that claim it? The Only Rule to make an objectively Valid take is take the entire source into account. Cherrypicking will get you an incomplete idea of the narrative and character. Support your claim with canon examples, references to outside sources, authorial intent, doesn't matter - but if you take a single scene, or a partial context, you're achieving a headcanon and personal fun (which is great!) but not an analysis that will hold to scrutiny and outside inspection.