#media interpretation

[prokopetz]

Creating a burner account to post textually unsupported interpretations of stories I wrote myself and then call myself out over them.

[dxxtruction]

Something about how the painting behind them while they fucked ass up face down in the coffin in Paris and that it looked what could honestly be described as the state of their relationship - explosive, free in its expressiveness, kind of this sun that overshadows the blue sky, kind of messy, there’s some holes burned through, but it adds to it. It's like as if there’s something that could even burn the sun, but, oh, look it can’t really touch it either. (They can't touch us). Idk - It’s abstract. The point is more that it is abstract. You can interpret anything from it. Abstract in a greater time than ever for rejecting a god exists. Abstract in the middle of a relationship they think is clearly defined, like a religious worship in its existence in replacement for the old religions, all power in say of who’s who, what and how. Read them to me while I fuck you. And yes maitre, get up and do so without a question. Let the whole world know we do. Nothing can burn out the sun.

Something about how they presumably fuck now, but who knows, and yet the painting hangs out in front, it’s on a bed, and this painting is no longer abstract but naturalistic. How its depiction can only be defined as one thing and that thing is the kiss of Judas, Jesus' very moment of betrayal. How this too can only be described as defining the state of their relationship. They live now always while knowing, deep down, past pretending, the betrayal is actually their god now. They define because they have to define, and what they are its become stale, clean, organized down to the letter. It lacks as much expression as the way Jesus' face is depicted up there. And there can be nothing else. But the abstracted is present more than ever, they're existing more in thought, symbol, and not in concretes - stay anyway, define anyway. Define, define, define, but the real abstract painting they once lived in can never be replicated. It's all lies and deceit, and only when it's hot and convenient. They can never climb up to the gates of heaven and fuck around for the whole world to see again - they’re alone. Alone even amongst themselves. They still can't be touched, but that's by fault not a show of their strength. They're Sleeping right in front of their shit.

Yeah, something about that.

[bayesiandragon]

I feel like a fair chunk of arguments over why one favors what media interpretation over another can be explained by one simple fact: most people, when something already fits their worldview or preferences, approach it with "can I believe it", but when faced with one that doesn't necessarily have more or less evidence backing it but that doesn't fit with their worldviews or preferences approach it with "must I believe it". When looking at two interpretations to something ambiguous, it's almost inevitable that each will be held to a different standard of evidence based on how much it slots with your prior beliefs.

[art-crumbs-main]

Thinking about the subjectivity of art and how what someone sees in art can tell you a lot about them and their past, maybe.

Because it took someone actually telling me to realize Hozier's Take Me To Church was a song about forbidden lovers being ostracized and riddled with Catholic guilt and having beautiful, kinky, reverent sex about it.

I originally interpreted it as a bitter break-up song about someone who was deeply mentally ill being manipulated into putting an abusive partner on a pedestal akin to a deity. It ALWAYS felt deeply sarcastic to me.

[mai-komagata]

Omg I loved contrapoints new video on twilight. I’ve never read twilight but great essay on women’s sexuality. A+ no notes even got theology right.

[anevilmanstit]

it's truly amazing to me how the same person in different interpretations could make you feel so different.

For example Blackbeard (aka Edward Teach)

In ofmd I would die for Ed. I love him to bits even though he's not a really good person.

In one piece I hate the everliving shit out of him. If I could kill him, I would without hesitation.

And in The Pirates of the Caribbean, I don't really care for him. I mean he's there, he did some bad and some good things, but I'm mostly indifferent to him.

[quipxotic]

I don’t think I realized before c3e95 how bad we are as a fandom in separating out what the players know vs what the characters know. I’ve done it too - I swore up and down that at least Orym with his high passive perception could hear what Laudna said when she fed on the Willmaster in the hole. I based that on Ashton having conversations with people standing outside the hole while he was in it, which has happened a few times, but the very next episode Matt clarified that no one could hear what she said or did in there. So despite me KNOWING with complete certainty that I was right, I was in fact wrong.

Some of this comes from the theater of the mind aspect of playing any TTRPG. We can’t see what the characters are doing, as we would with a show, movie, or video game, and we aren’t in their heads, seeing things from their perspective as we might with a book. We see the players react to events and don’t always know if that was them reacting as themselves or them reacting in character. It makes for a format that is full of possibilities for confusion and a constant need for clarification.

It would also help if we all learned to hold on less tightly to our own personal theories, but that’s a general fandom skill issue not anything specific to CR or the format.

[anarcho-mom-unist]

Some thoughts on interpretation and the need to resist rescuing a text

(The following is not scholarship but getting some of my thoughts in one place)

The goal of interpreting a text is not to save it and make it free of anything harmful or any evidence of bias. The goal is understanding —and that includes understanding that comes from bringing a different perspective to a text that finds meaning and applicability regardless of the author’s intention.

Like as much as there is bad translation and misunderstanding of purpose or context involved in the clobber passages of the Bible (that is, the handful of verses cited by homophobes for why queer don’t deserve dignity and God backs them up on it) and intensity of the homophobia therein, you’re not going to miraculously expunge all homophobia from the Bible —Romans 1:26–27 is not beating the homophobia allegations however you translate it and Leviticus 20:13 is still quite awful if it’s not a proscription on all sex between men just the kind that follows the power relations of heterosexual sex (you’ve replaced blanket antipathy toward all sex between men for conditional acceptability of certain kinds of sex between men, how very progressive and in line with liberation-oriented Judaism or Christianity!)

When you encounter something that goes against human dignity in a text, you don’t have to rescue you it —especially in the case of religious texts. You can recognize that your nominal coreligionists of the past took the same name(s) and authority of their god or gods that they otherwise used to make statements about the necessity of caring for strangers, lifting up the lowly, showing mercy, etc. and also said “but these types of people don’t deserve that, according to that/those which we call holy and divine.” It is, in fact, imperative to say, “that sucks, we need to do things differently.”

This kind of interpretive posture is necessary whether it’s something as high stakes as religion or something as low stakes as a cartoon that you like.

[sgt-papricka]

i feel like the media literacy discourse in fandom an opinions on media is basically the "show don't tell" problem

In media characters say one thing and do another

sometimes what they say is what they do but sometimes they say something and do the complete oposite

i think some people take in both what a character says and then what they do and others only take in what the character says and believe the character without comparing it to the actions

So character will say "i'm a good person and super trustworthy" but will then cheat on their spouse or whatever

so one part of fandom is like "but character A said they are trustworthy!" And another part of fandom will say "yes, they did say that but, then they cheated (action)"

and that's where (i think) the media literacy is happening, people are believing what character are saying but ignoring what they are doing so it is true, we (hypothetical) are watching rwo different shows

[stennyandbaddecisions]

This is why I fuck with Hideaki Anno so heavily cuz he’s legit just like, “alright nerds you’re gonna make your OWN interpretation of my media and all those interpretations have the same probability of being correct unless it’s so fucking off base that I have to lightly course correct but otherwise go crazy” and legitimately I find that to be the best way to interact with a rabid fan base that refuses to leave you alone

[fanaticalthings]

Bruce Wayne except he texts like an ominous boomer

wdym you can't tell if he's threatening them?

Based on this post by @mysterycitrus :)

<- Prev Masterlist Next ->

Bonus:

Happy birthday, Tim 🥰

[lemonidae]

Why Do People Think Jojo Is Gay?

[maryfailstowrite]

when I say there isn’t right or wrong in media analysis and interpretation I mean it in a “we can acknowledge the main message this piece of media wants to convey, while also agreeing that parts of it are left up to interpretation” kind of vibe and not an “omg sure!!! misinterpret this whole piece of media and don’t let anyone tell you you’re wrong!!!” kind of vibe. that’s not the vibe I want to bring to the function.

like, there are a thousand different point views you can analyze a piece of media from, and a thousand interpretations you can make of different events and subtext/symbolism. this doesn’t erase the main message the piece is trying to express, it just makes that message more interesting and engaging by letting the viewer add to it with their own ideas. it’s the fun of it. god forbid a girl has fun 😞.

[within-infant-rind]

My favourite part of fandom, and about literature and tv shows in general, is the way people interpret a moment, a line, a scene and a theme. Even when we know an authors intention, it is the execution and perception that understands the meaning.

At the end of the day, no two people are going to have the same perspective on something and it’s really cool to see people sharing ideas.

This is mostly about House of the Dragon, because it is genuinely interesting to see the fans divide over TB or TG much like the fictional people and houses in the story.

Fortunately for us, at the end of the day it truly does not matter which side you choose, it has no bearing on our lives, but it’s fascinating to see people describe their understanding or interpretation of a scene in a way that is unique to yours. (I think the one thing we can universally agree on is that Ramin Djawadi continues to fucking crush it musically.)

[mai-komagata]

Subtext is not the same thing as queer baiting

Subtext is a way of telling multiple stories at once. It is a way of layering meaning so people can take multiple layers of meaning from a story beyond the literal one. It can allow marginalized groups to tell their stories even when they are not the target audience or would suffer legal and societal repercussions from telling it. It allows a very personal work to achieve universal applicability. Subtext can be brave and it can be cowardly. It can be intentional or unintentional.

Subtext is not a replacement for literal representation but it is a different thing entirely. Discounting subtext eliminates all complexity and richness from art. You can have both queer representation and queer themes and have those be separate. Both are valid and important ways of adding queer stories into the media canon. Subtext can be a poor way of telling a story better told literally. Literal gay characters can be weaker than subtextual gay themes when all the gay character does is say “hi I’m gay”. It depends why and how it’s done.

Subtext isn’t in itself queerbaiting. Queerbaiting is about implying that a queer storyline will happen in the *text* of the story while at the same time denying that there are queer hints in the work when pressed on it later. Those hints might take the form of subtext or explicit plot, but the key is that the expectation built is that it would be textual with plausible deniability. And the denial part will be explicit by the end.

Like the matrix isn’t queer baiting bc it has trans subtext. The trans subtext is real. It isn’t less real for being simply subtext. But at no point was it hinted that neo would wake up from the matrix a different gender or sex in a future installment.

[annisrealandsoami]

I think it’s weird that people get really pressed when people don’t get the same interpretation of media.

Like yes, the original meaning is this

But if you didn’t know that and you got a completely different meaning, that doesn’t mean your interpretation is wrong

It’s just not the original meaning.

Like with the music, people almost constantly assign their own meanings to it. This doesn’t erase anything, it’s just how they are interacting with this song.

That’s not inherently bad, like they are making it out to be. That’s just human experience. You can definitely tell people the original meaning behind something, but please don’t shit on people for not immediately getting that.