#schrodinger's literary analysis

[joannalannister]

I would not describe myself as a "proponent" because I don’t want Dany to die in childbirth. I don’t even feel very strongly about the likelihood of that theory one way or another. I merely feel that it is one of many possibilities GRRM might write, because I don’t yet know what "the dragon must have three heads" means nor do I yet know what is beyond the curtain of light. We have minimal information about the Others, and we know nothing about whatever the main heroes need to do to save the world. We don’t know enough about anything right now. I can only look at themes and patterns and what little information there is and say, "Well, GRRM will possibly do this" or "maybe GRRM will do that, given what we know about that thing over there". Dany dying in childbirth is only one of many possibilities, it is not my favorite possibility, and it is far too early to write literary analyses of literature that does not yet exist.

@applesofthemoon replied to your post “I’m so conflicted about how Dany should die. On one hand, her Jon and…”

Is that really a theory people subscribe to? So what, Dany dies birthing the third head of the dragon and the Others just twiddle their thumbs for 14-16 years waiting for the kid to reach world-saving age? Or is it a literal baby leading the charge from dragonback?

Miracle baby, born in the other world beyond curtain of light, whose life energy destroys the Others, something like that. It’s not my theory, and I don’t exactly subscribe to it, although I do find it interesting with some compelling thematic elements and a chance of happening. (IIRC @joannalannister is one of the proponents, she talks about it a bit here, but it’s a minor element within her other theories about endgame events.)

However, that some people seem to take the “death in childbirth” theory as a given, that want to write essays about it and what it means for GRRM’s work and for Dany, as if it’s definite, as if already happened, as if we already know the context and details? I find that frankly laughable. (Same as people going “ugh GRRM is so racist and hates Dorne because Arianne’s going to die in the KL wildfire explosion and Dorne will be decimated by dragonfire”. The fuck? Stop acting like these very theoretical speculations that exist only in fans’ minds have already happened!)

[comicaurora]

Addendum and probably a tdlr of the last ask tbh: when, both as a reader looking at other readers and someone reading in general, would you draw a line if something a genuine analysis and criticism of issues in a media vs just a person who really doesn't realize the story is to their taste and that's okay? And is there a way to balance both ends of critical media intake even on the negative side vs having in a community setting it get saturated in such? When is something a "not my cup of tea but I'll be responsible and ignore it" conversation vs a "this is actually a problem"

I can't give an objective answer to such a thoroughly subjective problem. All criticism is relative anyway, holding a story to personal standards or the judgment of the critic's personal understanding of what the art was trying to do, and when coupled with the fact that every single person will be working off a completely unique version of any given story, there's no way to draw any hard lines here. There's a reason why fan forums and discussions are such constant hotbeds of intrigue and why "fandom wank" is such a recurring issue.

Personally, though, I use the following sanity checks when considering my own takes or particularly volatile angles:

Who, if anyone, is this actually hurting? Some stories tacitly contribute to harmful mindsets re bigotry, misery, nihilism, dehumanization, etc. Some stories actively encourage harm. Some stories are wellsprings of positivity and kindness that people just like taking potshots at for points. Not to go all "touch grass" or anything, but sometimes it's very valuable to take a step back and ask "literally what's the point of all this yelling"

How much of the story overall is this complaint relevant to? Is it one background character onscreen for three seconds, one iffy episode, one unresolved subplot, a half-dozen major character arcs? Is this complaint about a story completely undercutting its own message, or is it about one side character not meeting some critical standard during their sub-ten-minute appearance?

What implicit standard is this story or creator being held to by this critique, and do I think that standard is reasonable? Some critics seem to work off a standard of perfectionism that would see every major literary classic scrapped for the wood pulp on the grounds of "icky stuff happened". Others just want the writers they like to actually write the satisfying character arcs they said they would write.

Does this critic only ever complain? If so, I think perhaps their own issues are inhibiting their ability to enjoy things and I consider their perspective dubious. Someone who can't recognize the good in things probably isn't very good at recognizing the bad either.

Is the story over yet? This one's a new addition, but I sometimes see audiences losing their minds and yelling at writers over unresolved arcs in stories that aren't done. If the story ends without resolving important plot threads, that's no good and there's plenty of room to complain, but if the story is between arcs and it hasn't wrapped everything up nicely, seems a bit odd to go full meltdown assuming it'll never be resolved. I expect stories to spend most of their runtime unresolved. This is one of the common driving forces behind storytelling. I'm very familiar with Schrodinger's Arc, where a story's goodness or badness entirely hangs on how one specific thread will resolve down the line. Before that resolves, why assume the worst?

[shadow-djinni]

Literary Criticism and Fandom

A Crash-Course on Schools of Criticism for the Fandom Meta Writer

Online fandom circles are the biggest hotbed of literary criticism and analysis outside of academia--but thanks to academic gatekeeping, most producers of fandom meta don't have the terminology to accurately describe our viewpoints, much less understand how to interact with people producing meta from other schools of criticism. However, looking for formal schools of analysis on your own time can be intimidating, and most people don't bother with it. So, without further ado: a brief description of the formal schools of criticism, colloquial fandom terms for the above, and how to recognize your own schools of criticism.

Schrodinger's Author

Death of the Author is, by and large, the biggest divide in both formal and informal schools of criticism. Both fandom analysis and academic analysis are split on this topic: how much weight do the words of the author have in interpretation of the narrative? and should the author's words be allowed to take precedence over what is shown by the narrative, even if the two directly contradict each other?

Only two academic schools of criticism hold the author's words and intentions in higher regard than the text (hereafter used to mean the body of the work itself), historicism and post-historicism, both of which are smaller, less popular schools of analysis. By contrast, fandom is experiencing a rising trend in analysis via stated authorial intent (colloquially known as Doylist analysis), rather than by exploration of the text.

All other schools of academic criticism hold the author's stated intent with a piece to be negligibly valuable at best, and most often disregard authorial intent entirely in favor of working solely with the text, and other works in the same genre. Unfortunately, with contemporary writers so readily in reach to ask about their intent, Death of the Author is a declining concept in fandom spaces, and increasingly few critics write pieces based solely in text or genre alone.

The Author Lives

Historicism, Post-Historicism, and Doylist Analysis

Historicism

The oldest school of literary criticism, historicism leans heavily into archival work and seeks to explain authorial intent by analysing other works by said author, or by finding and reading personal communications or private writing. Authorial intent is prized above all. Historicism does not mesh well with most other schools of criticism, except occasionally memeticism, as any statement by the author on the meaning or implication of a text is viewed as more legitimate than any interpretation of the text itself.

Post-Historicism

Updated for the modern era, post-historicism views works through the lens of authorial intent and wider trends in society, seeking to reconcile tropes and plot points with the social issues at large during the time a piece was written. Author's statements of intent are considered valuable, but often used to frame insights on the author's personal worldview and interactions with their society.

Doylist

A fandom original, Doylist analysis is the less nuanced sibling of post-historical analysis. While post-historicism analyses a work and authorial intent through the frame of a wider society, Doylism is used to pick out "problematic" elements of a work for analysis and criticism, and in modern fandom frequently results in the lambasting of creators as intentionally bigoted, regardless of what their actual beliefs may be. Paradoxically, statements of authorial intent are frequently taken at face value, and used as battering rams against people from other schools of criticism.

The Author is Dead

Watsonian Analysis, Formalism, Intertextualism, and a Brief Foray into Reader-Response and Memeticism

Watsonian

Another fandom original, Watsonian analysis is the answer to Doylism. While Doylist analysis looks for out-of-text explanations for artefacts of the text, Watsonian analysis looks to the text itself for explanations of phenomena in the text. While Watsonian analysis often overlooks real-world social trends that explain specific phenomena, it's the perennial favorite of fic writers looking for in-universe explanations for plot points.

Formalism

The analysis of the text, and only the text, for interpretation of meaning. Formalism delves into metaphor and implications of tone--and in visual media, various symbols and background lighting and character expressions as well, while never leaving the source text. The weakest of the Death of the Author schools, Formalism often pairs with Intertextualism or Memeticism to gain or lend credence to an interpretation.

Intertextualism

Rather than look only at a single work, Intertextualism studies larger trends in trope and genre, and explores how the text uses these tropes to express its message. Formalism is, by itself, the strongest of the Death of the Author schools, though it may borrow from others from time to time.

Reader-Response and Memeticism

All authors have biases. This is taken as fact in both fandom and academic critical circles, but few critics register that they themselves are not impartial judges, and that their interpretations are often strongly influenced by their own lens. A good critic will look at themself and understand their biases when it comes to interpretation, and not present their own viewpoint as universal.

Memeticism, on the other hand, is strongly grounded in reality. Is this text realistic? the memetic critic asks, and compares tropes and plot points to real-world counterparts to determine their value and meaning. Memetic criticism, while not applicable to all genres as a whole, is often useful in character analysis.

Finding Your School

At this point, you might be asking, "okay, so how does all of this apply to me, or to my favorite meta critic?"

Unfortunately, as I demonstrated last night, incompatible schools of criticism can lead to impressive clashes between analysts, with neither able or willing to understand the other's viewpoint. Understanding your own and others' preferred schools of analysis is integral to carrying on productive discussion with other analysts.

I'm going to use myself as an example here, seeing as I know my schools and methodologies the best and am most easily able to explicate them. I fall firmly into the Death of the Author camp, for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that once an author has released a work, they no longer have a say in how people can approach or interpret their texts. Secondly, I don't have the time, patience, or interest to scour interviews with writers or showrunners or VAs or whoever for some little tidbit to add to my meta. Most of the time, I don't know who any of those people are, so what they have to say is irrelevant.

In terms of specific schools of analysis, I'm a fair mix of Watsonian and Formalist analysis, owing to my background as a fic writer. It's difficult to write fic without answers to questions--sometimes very specific and unlikely-to-be-answered questions--so analysis of text is vitally important to that understanding. To do so, I often lean into Intertextualism or Memeticism--but only one or the other at any given time, as the two schools are usually incompatible.

So, for all you meta analysts out there: what's your school? Taking time to analyse your own analyses and critical style will make you stronger as a critic, and smooth over interactions with other analysts, even those from incompatible schools.

[jguidein]

AUCET Syllabus 2018 Download Science/ Arts/ Law Entrance Exam Pattern

AUCET Syllabus 2018

Dear candidates who are preparing for Andhra University Common Entrance Test, they need to check Exam Pattern��under the AUCET Syllabus 2018 to prepare the exam which is provided here. The Andhra University and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University have declared a notification recently to invite applications from the applicants through AUCET Exam for several Courses.��The Andhra University and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University have announced AUCET Syllabus, for various Graduate and Post Graduate Courses. The Andhra University and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University announce notifications every year for the online application form of knowledgeable and promising contenders into several courses. Various numbers of applicants participate in Andhra University Common Entrance Test from several places of Andhra Pradesh. Applicants who had applied for Andhra University CET 2018 Online Application Form for taking admission in various Graduate and Post Graduate courses. Now all participants are waiting for AUCET Syllabus 2018. Therefore all participants need to check the syllabus from here and attain current details which are issued by our responsible team of www.JobsBtao.in and you can also see the links which are how to prepare for the exam in minimum time or preparation exam tips. The AUCET Syllabus 2018 has presently announced by Andhra University and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University. This is good news for all the contenders who’re actually coming for this examination. Emulative can simply crack this exam with good marks. Participants will be selected based upon their performance in the Andhra University Common Entrance Test, conducted by Andhra University & Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University. Applicants who possess Bachelor’s Degree/Master Degree/Intermediate in a relevant field are able to apply. We are as well giving the batter details regarding Andhra University and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Syllabus for upcoming exams. NRSC Scientist Engineer Syllabus 2018

AUCET Syllabus 2018 Brief Details:

Organization Name: Andhra University and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Declaration Type: AUCET Syllabus 2018 Exam Date: Updated Soon Status: Available AUCET Syllabus & Exam Pattern Download in PDF: The Andhra University and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University are planning to organize the Andhra University Common Entrance Test as soon as possible. Contenders who are going to attend the entrance exam must check the AUCET Syllabus and exam pattern through online mode. As per the official information, Andhra University & Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University recently published Andhra University Common Entrance Test Syllabus through the syllabus the cell will give admission in various courses. HSSPP Jr Computer Instructor Syllabus 2018 We have the full report regarding your AUCET Syllabus 2018. If you prepare yourself for this syllabus you may clearly get an idea to crack the examination. For connected details read the complete page. If you are looking forward a solution to your problems, then you don’t have to search anywhere AUCET Syllabus 2018, you will find your syllabus in below segment of the web page. We are informing the Syllabus and Exam Pattern for the guidance of contenders. AUCET Syllabus 2018   Disciplines Name of the Subjects Life Sciences syllabus. Cell Biology. Genetics. Molecular Biology and Genetic Engineering. Biotechnology. Bimolecular. Immunology. Techniques. Physiology. Metabolism. Animal Science. Plant Science. Microbiology. Nutrition. Ecology Environment and Evolution. Physical Sciences syllabus. 1.Electricity, Magnetism and Electronics Electrostatics. Dielectrics. Capacitance. Magneto statics. Moving charge in the electric and magnetic field. Electromagnetic induction. Varying and alternating currents. Maxwell’s equations and electromagnetic waves. Basic Electronics. Digital Principles. 2.Modern Physics Atomic Spectra. Molecular Spectroscopy. Quantum Mechanics Inadequacy of classical Physics. Matter Waves. Uncertainty Principle. Schrodinger Wave Equation. Nuclear Physics Nuclear Structure. Alpha and Beta Decays. Nuclear Reactions. Crystal Structure. X-ray Diffraction. Nanomaterials. Bonding in Crystals. Magnetism. Superconductivity. 3.Thermodynamics and Optics Kinetic theory of gases. Thermodynamics. Thermodynamic potentials and Maxwell’s equations. Low-temperature Physics. Quantum theory of radiation. Statistical Mechanics. The Matrix methods in paraxial optics. Aberrations. Interference. Diffraction. Polarization. Laser, Fiber Optics, and Holography. 4.Mechanics and Waves and Oscillations Vector Analysis. Mechanics of Particles. Mechanics of rigid bodies. Mechanics of continuous media. Central forces. Special theory of relativity. Fundamentals of vibrations. Damped and forced oscillations. Complex vibrations. Vibrations of bars. Vibrating Strings. Ultrasonic’s. Mathematical Sciences syllabus. 1. Linear algebra and vector calculus Linear Algebra. Multiple integrals and Vector Calculus. 2. Abstract Algebra & Real Analysis Groups. Rings. Real Numbers. 3. Differential equations and solid geometry Differential equations of first order and first degree. Differential equations of the first order but not of the first degree. Higher order linear differential equations. A system of linear differential equations. 4. Solid geometry The Plane. The Line. The Sphere. Cones, Cylinders, and corticoids. Chemical Sciences syllabus. 1. Inorganic chemistry S-block elements. P-block elements. Organ metallic Chemistry. Chemistry of d-block elements. Chemistry of f-lock elements. Theories of bonding in metals. Metal carbonyls and related compounds. Coordination Chemistry Spectral and Magnetic Properties of Metal Complexes Reactivity of metal complexes. Stability of Metal Complexes. Hard and soft acids bases (HSAB. Bioinorganic Chemistry. 2. Organic Chemistry Structural theory in Organic Chemistry. Acyclic Hydrocarbons. Alicyclic hydrocarbons (Cycloalkanes). Benzene and its reactivity. Polynuclear Hydrocarbons. Halogen compounds. Hydroxy compounds. Carbonyl compounds. Carboxylic acids and derivatives. Active methylene compounds. Exercises in interconversion. Nitrogen compounds. Heterocyclic Compounds. Introduction and definition. Carbohydrates. Amino acids and proteins. Mass Spectrometry. 3. Physical Chemistry Gaseous state. Liquid state. Solid state. Solutions. Colloids and surface chemistry. Phase rule. Dilute solutions. Electrochemistry. Chemical kinetics. Photochemistry. Thermodynamics. 4. Chemistry and Industry Separation techniques. Spectrophotometry. Molecular sectors copy. 5. Drugs, Formulations, Pesticides and Green Chemistry Drugs. Formulations. Pesticides. Green Chemistry. 6. General Chemistry Atomic Structure and elementary quantum mechanics. Chemical Bonding. Stereochemistry of carbon compounds. General Principles of Inorganic qualitative analysis. Molecular Symmetry. Theory of quantitative analysis. Evaluation of analytical data. Introductory treatment. Geology syllabus. 1. Palaeontology, Indian Geology, and Economic Geology Palaeontology. Indian Geology. Economic Geology. 2. Petrology and Structural Geology Nature and scope of Petrology. Metamorphic rocks. 3. Physical Geology, Crystallography, and Mineralogy. Physical Geology. Rivers. Wind. Earthquakes. Volcanoes. Crystallography. Mineralogy. Formation. Mineralogy. Optical Mineralogy. Humanities & Social Sciences syllabus. Reasoning. Numerical ability. General English. Current affairs. English. 1. Literary Terms. Genres. Literary Movements and Trends. Critical concepts. 2. Verb. Verb patterns and structures. Phrasal verbs concord. Active and Passive Voice. Prepositions. Question tags. Articles. Synonyms and antonyms. One word substitutes. Note taking. Confusables. 3. Comprehension. Unknown poem and passage. Letter writing. Idioms. Phrases. Exam pattern for AUCET Entrance Exam: Section Asked questions Scores Max. Marks Section A. 40. 40. 90. Section B. 30. 30. Section C. 20. 20. AUCET Some Useful Article: How to Prepare For Exam Last Time Study How to Prepare For Examination Best Tips English Improvement Best Tips The process to Check AUCET Syllabus 2018: Initially, all participants need to go on official website of Andhra University Common Entrance Test which is “www.audoa.in”. On the home page choose a suitable link. Save/download AUCET Syllabus in PDF file. Prepare for the exam according to the syllabus and get good marks. Note: Dear Applicants, if you have any query regarding AUCET Syllabus 2018 they can comment us on the comment box. For more connected details all candidates need to visit the following links. AUCET Important Links: AUCET Syllabus Apply Online Official Website Read the full article