Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-24732895-20140910035928/@comment-11533671-20140922034355

Grahamburglar wrote: Now, Jester:

1) Possible World theory is used in several disciplines, not just literature (or just television or other mediums of fiction). To say that that's Pavel's theory actually makes him out to simply be a philosopher, it denies all of his credibility in a discussion like this. :P Fiction theory is the application of possible world theory on works of fiction -- but there are more than one way of doing this and, therefore, more than one theory within fiction theory. Fiction theory isn't *just* structuralism, after all.

2) There are differences in how you would academically talk about any piece of fiction dependent upon its medium, but the fact is that the writer's worldbuilding doesn't change in any of them, nor does the fact the audience brings its own knowledge to the work to help them create that world for themselves. And nowhere have I ever seen or heard any academic ever claim otherwise. That's why I asked for a source.

3) Now, again, yes. Pavel says the PW should stand on its own and be the center of our understanding. And I haven't disagreed with that. But, if we do that and ignore all of the knowledge we bring with us, we would have been left asking "what were those things that almost trampled Scott?" right up until we found out about the deer Peter's nurse killed and heard them call it a deer. We didn't have to ask that though -- and the reason why is because we have information we can use from the AW to help us. It's not the central world in this case, and it isn't a comparison between the two. But audiences do this, Pavel understood that and clearly allows for it in his theories.

1) All of that is understood and despite FT being more than just structure, its structure is often criticized for its rigidity. That was my point.

2) A writer's world building isn't structured by anything but the writers imagination and the "rules" they incorporate in that world. There is absolutely no instruction manual that says a writer must do "this or that" in order to build a world. There are guides to help a writer avoid common literary mistakes and advice as to how to go about it but they are not a "must". The point being that how one approaches world building is entirely up to the writer...do they use real life as a basis, create something entirely new and original or borrow from another work?

3) Your argument here is nothing short of grasping for straws.

To wrap this up:

Every experience in life is always measured by our own understanding & knowledge...that isn't what our debate is about though.

So yeah, you see what appears to be a deer in TW and assume it's a deer unless told otherwise by the show.

Case in point: The show 'Hannibal' had shown us a stag that is really the metaphorical representation of Hannibal Lecter as Will Graham sees him. The audience didn't know that until it was revealed.

What I'm saying (as does Pavel) is that once you see something not align with our real life experiences you cannot make that maligned incident beholden to real life rules. You can only critique it based on the TW universes' "rules".

In Malia's case, you find her character inconsistent and a contradiction. How so?

I've never heard it stated anywhere what her academia level really is. Our assumptions are all based on her age when she first turned. Not that I'm saying she is Doogie Howser M.D. but that we have no idea what her educational grasp was at age 9.

She states deer is her fave food (irl it's actually quite tasty if tenderized correctly). She is a werecoyote and it doesn't strike me as odd that she would prefer deer over anything else she could have possibly had since. Her food choice isn't an inconsistency nor a contradiction.

She says she'd leave the others but not Stiles and somehow this is a contradiction? A contradiction to what? There are ppl irl that would say the same thing. How are these things inconsistent? They aren't. At all. Period.

I get that you wanted and/or expected some explanation but really man, if you nitpick over such trivialities then why watch at all? That sort of viewing leads to disappointment no matter what you watch.

And yes, it is trivial because we don't NEED to know the specifics as to how she has reintegrated. She did. Accept it and move on because if that bothers you then I find it odd how you can accept Buffy mentally surviving all she has went through when irl a normal human would be driven insane.