Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-24732895-20140910035928/@comment-6383956-20140920025949

Jestermonkey4u wrote:

Lastly, the idea that fictional worlds mimic ours until stated otherwise is only one theorists view and even then it still does not apply to worlds that have established differences that are vastly different from our own (such as having supernatural creatures). It's applicability is for worlds that have minimal differences...ie...a parallel world wherein Al Gore was President. Jester, you're blatantly wrong on this. Like, you could almost make arguments for everything else you said but this is appallingly uneducated on the subject. The principle of mutual belief (or whatever term for you want to call it -- ps the reason it has *three* names is because the same principle was "created" by different people). This principle however is used a great deal in analysis of Tolkein's works -- there are elves, dwarves, and -- oh yes -- dragons in Middle-earth. If they can use it for that, it sure as hell is applicable to Teen Wolf.

The fact is this principle was created because it is how audiences interpret fiction. Let me repeat that: this is how audiences interpret fiction. It doesn't matter what medium the fiction is in. Largely because worldbuilding isn't particularly different between mediums. The difference is merely the way the story is told, not the story itself.

Jester.... let me explain to you how much you, specifically you, didn't want to bring up Thomas Pavel. He is, without a doubt, one of the world's foremost literary theorists. And he would not agree with you on anything that you and I have ever disagreed about. Ever. Not one thing. He is one of the originators of the Possible Worlds theory, you see. And I think the fact that his theory has a different name than what I'm talking about is why you think he disagrees with me. But the principle of minimal departure is actually a pretty vital component of the Possible Worlds theory. (Furthermore, Jester, because Pavel's version of PW theory insists upon fictional worlds being complete worlds, saying that "kanimas did not exist in Teen Wolf season 1" is blatantly false because kanimas were revealed to exist in that fictional world later, meaning that they always had existed. That's why, according to PW theory, in an instance where we know there's multiple supernatural creatures in the world and we know we haven't seen all of them, "I don't know" is the appropriate answer. I know that's not this argument, but just to drive home my point of Pavel disagreeing with you across the board. :P) Really, the only thing Pavel agrees with you about is that it can be dangerous to cling to minimal departure too much -- like if I were saying "well, real werewolves turn into wolves" or something because that's how the legends of our world go. Or, even more like his argument, "this show is so unrealistic! There's no such thing as werewolves!" But I'm not taking this that far -- all I'm saying is, if the canon doesn't explain something you have to fill in with real world knowledge. When that doesn't work, you've got

I think this article does the best job of explaining it: http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/possible-worlds.

As for fiction theory just being about "literature".... let me explain something to you guys. "Literature" is written works. Look it up. So, if you have a script..... that's literature. Which means, when you film a scripted television show, that's literature. Which is why literary theory is used in analysis of movies and TV and theater, even video games.... and if you'll note, some of the articles I've cited even refer to drawings and artwork. Because the medium is not important to the theories. They are applicable anyways.

The complete lack of understanding about fiction theory here is beyond frustrating for me, so I am going to bring this back to Malia specifically. Here are the problems.

1) Obviously there is a difference in the legal system from the world we live in. We have NO IDEA what that difference is, or how her case is being handled, or why she was able to check herself out of Eichen House. We can assess that this is something that differs from the real world but we have zero way of understanding what the hell is happening with her. This is -- at best -- a plot hole. (I mean, for instance, that scene where they explain to Stiles that he can't use a phone for the first 72 hours he's there, they could easily have added a "and once you've been here ___ days you can check yourself as soon as you feel ready." And viola, one hole solved! But alas, nope.)

2) We could say that a feral werecoyote is adaptable and able to adjust to new surroundings, fit into society. Absolutely we could. Except she's not always. She is when it's convenient, but other times she says her favorite food is deer or tells Coach about running through the woods to get away from predators. Yes, it's played for laughs but that doesn't keep it from being a totally canonical inconsistency that has no explanation.

And since neither of these issues have explanations, we're currently left wracking our brains trying to fill it in. And the only explanation I can come up with is Jeff Davis is a hack who doesn't know how to write and probably has never even taken a creative writing course in his entire adult life since he doesn't know even the beginnings of the theories I've been talking about in this thread.