#metaception

Thank you for the ask!

There are two distinct questions here:

What makes OFMD a compelling ground for media and critical (meta) analysis?

What’s the critical basis I’m using in writing meta analysis and how did I learn to use it the way I do?

Why Write Meta Analysis of “Our Flag Means Death”?

The first question is easy: THERE IS SO MUCH TO UNPACK HERE. It’s all right out in the open, too, and it’s a real credit to David Jenkins that he created a supportive environment for the cast, the creative directors, the writers, and his entire CREW to bring all of their creative selves. 

OFMD is so full of love for its characters and story that it always takes my breath away whenever I think about it. So much creative energy and love was wrapped into this show in so many ways that I’ll never shut up about it ever.

The second question has a longer answer.

Analytical Training, Experience, and Practice (Not Necessarily In That Order)

While I am formally trained and have a BA in English, I would still credit my experience as a writer-practitioner as equally or more important in my analytical background as the formal training.

I am first and foremost a writer, and I “read” texts like a writer who wants to figure out what makes a narrative function. Learning how something is working is fundamental to being able to replicate it in your own artwork.

The simplest term for what I use as a framework for all my meta is a technique historically called close reading, but I’d openly admit that I am more flexible and informal with it than you’d find taught in a typical college class! 

Think of a “reading” in literature or film/media analysis as a bit like what a study or practice sketch does for visual artists.

When I was writing my meta post on The Tragedy of Israel Hands, I very explicitly decided to tackle OFMD and what was happening with Izzy by breaking down the show into episode-by-episode readings from Izzy’s point of view. 

I also chose to add some extra spice based on direct scene transcriptions, mentions of Izzy by-name even when he wasn’t on-screen, and what was happening for him as a character (what was his story?) vs. the obvious romance that was happening for Edward and Stede in the foreground.

David Jenkins had helpfully stated in an interview that OFMD was broken up into acts, so I just followed his lead on doing the same in my analysis. ;) He’d also suggested doing a rewatch with a focus on Con O’Neill and I was intrigued by the possibility of what I might find.

Turned out? Con managed to fit an actual three-act tragedy into the same visual and narrative space (albeit in the background) as Rhys and Taika acting the main romance in the foreground! This is fucking incredible in my opinion. Con’s narrative counterpoint with Izzy adds so much depth and richness to the romance and the comedy. I could chew glass over it (and I did! hence the post).

I firmly believe that ANYONE can do a good and detailed textual reading (with or without formal training), so here’s my quick(?) breakdown of how that works for me in the hope that it will inspire you and others to try your hand!

The best way to get good at analysis is to practice. Analyze, analyze, analyze! Write, write, write! Create in whatever way makes sense to your brain and energizes you to explore how you think about what you love. You don’t even have to publish/share the results. It can just be for you if you want.

As usual, only do what works for you. 

If there’s a thought or a step that you want to skip? Skip it. Do what you want. Create and write meta! Enrich the OFMD fandom with your own readings. :D

Ferus-Style Close Reading Guide

Goal: Break things down to build a detailed, text-supported understanding of a creative product (story, episode, play, film, painting, etc.). You can do this whenever you’re interested in something and feel like spending more time with it as a method of learning more and deeply appreciating a work of art.

Pick a moment in the text (show, fanfic, story, etc.) that interests you.

Interest is crucial! Think about why you’re interested. Sit with the text a bit.

Take extensive notes on what’s happening. You can also use another method you prefer like outlining, grabbing screencaps, or some combination to record and organize your first impressions and thoughts.

This serves as a record of where you started.

Don’t necessarily try to interpret right away, but DO decide for yourself what you think is happening in a moment or a particular scene. This can be as short as a single line of text or a few seconds of interaction in a TV episode or film. Trust yourself! The best art, by and large, does what it does in plain sight and will repeat or reinforce the significant themes and symbols.

Hold off on interpretation to allow yourself time to develop a good understanding of what has actually taken place in the text. Plenty of professional critics are weak at this step and jump straight into reshaping events to fit their thesis and interpretation rather than reading “out of” a text. It’s not necessarily bad (and there are techniques that use this sort of interpretation), but it’s really not where I’m coming from.

Break down your favorite scenes into as many moments (or points of focus) as are likely to be relevant to your analysis. If you’re working with a specific character, focus on their actions or their scenes (or other ‘by name’ references when they’re not on-screen). If the focus is a motif (a visual element), try to figure out what its appearance or framing is accomplishing when it is present. How do other characters react to it or introduce it? How do these interactions “read” to you? Again, what is happening?

This is the focusing step that typically tells me where the rest of my analysis is going. At this point I usually have an idea of what I’m seeing when it’s either reinforced by one or more sequential scenes (reinforced) or dropped and sidelined in an interesting way.

Take a step back and think about how the moment you’re analyzing is ‘working.’ What does it do? What purpose does this story beat or moment serve? Why is it happening in this moment, at this specific time, and what important features of character, setting, or story are happening? What are the consequences that follow?

I can’t stress consequences enough! Actions having consequences is a fundamental element of a well-structured narrative. The narrative consequences for a character or a plotline are one of the things that is MOST controlled by authorial choice. Do these consequences fit in with the theme you’ve noticed? Why or why not? Whatever is happening here is usually some of the most interesting elements of the narrative (if they’re present). 

Write down your initial guesses about the answers the questions above. Or answer a few of your own questions in a first pass. Theorize!

Now that you’ve considered the individual moments, scenes, or elements and taken a stab at the larger emergent themes it’s time to mash them together into a coherent picture (what are YOU seeing?). How are you seeing this text?

Keep repeating the process above for other surrounding scenes (the context) or moments relevant to your analysis.

YMMV with repetition. A longer analysis takes more repetition. A shorter or more contained analysis may only go through this process once. Again -- no one person will see the same scene the same way as another! Everyone has a valuable perspective to contribute.

Theorize once again after stringing the analytical moments together and connecting them -- what new ideas occur to you once you’ve chewed over the “small” interesting bits separately? Does a pattern begin to emerge? Why or why not?

You can learn as much from figuring out your first impressions were wrong (and looking again to see what’s ACTUALLY happening) as you will from being “right” the first time. Enjoy the experience!

You can learn almost as much from absence as from presence. While that may sound cryptic at first, glaring absences when characters or significant elements are NOT present are just as important in their own way, and may help you discover other themes in the same text. Strategic absences are MUCH more difficult to identify without careful attention. They’ll be obvious when you begin to look for them (which is the fun bit).

“Establishing” shots (introductions, first/last shots, first/last words) are always important.

Repeated and reinforced themes are generally stronger indications that a particular symbol or motif is significant. Looking for repetition or apparently deliberate call-backs to previous episodes, comments, scenes, or character relationships are often where the most fruitful opportunities for analysis are located.

Write up your general conclusions based on what you’ve learned from your smaller (close) bite-size readings and why you believe they’re significant along with how they’re functioning. If you observe a theme or pattern, focus your writing on how that pattern is built up and the evidence you found to support that conclusion.

And you’re done! Or whatever process you prefer is finished. For now. ;)

-

The most important element in my analytical process is close attention to the different on-screen choices (in framing, acting, and dialogue) that I’m seeing in a particular episode. 

I take extensive notes on what’s happening, sometimes by recording transcripts of the dialogue and often through watching and re-watching a scene of particular interest.

To continue with my example meta, The Tragedy of Israel Hands was based on rewatching OFMD with a focus on what was happening to Izzy in both the foreground and the background, with these questions in mind: 

What would this story arc appear to be from Izzy’s perspective?

What extent was that interpretation supported by: each character’s arc, the framing of various shots, and the choices and tone throughout the context of Con O’Neill’s overall performance of this character?

Was there a narrative thread linking together Izzy Hands’s story as a contrast to Edward and Stede’s foreground romance?

And now you have the meta on the meta. METACEPTION. -is shot-

Thank you so much!  It’s really fun to throw out my theories, even as I know most of them will get blown up by canon.  But meta is a huge part of how I enjoy a fandom, and I only have one IRL friend into TMA right now, so this is a great place to really get my nerdity on.

I don’t actually take any notes.  When I’m writing my big metas each week, I listen once for fun, then again pausing and writing my analysis.  Sometimes I need to pause even the first time to write, and then that part will usually get cut and pasted to somewhere with better flow in the essay.

When I’m trying to remember facts or episode details, I tend to turn to the TMA wiki here.  It’s not complete, but it’s a good place to start when I need some quick facts or research.  

People like to say “but you shouldn’t think so much about negative things!” and this is true but it is not absolutely true. It’s a truth that has to be kept in moderation.

If human beings didn’t find enjoyment, satisfaction, and fulfillment in:

Identifying problems

Thinking about those problems

Offering solutions to the problems

Actually solving the problems

Then humanity would never have advanced so far.

So what if people like to get that enjoyment out of problems in fiction? At minimum, that doesn’t hurt anyone else, assuming that they aren’t yelling about the problem into a megaphone outside your window at 2am. You can say they should spend their time on real problems instead, but that isn’t so, because this is fixing problems as entertainment, chiefly. Lots of people like to play simulation games for fun, where they are a waitress, a farmer, a shop owner; that doesn’t mean that getting a part-time job doing the real thing would be stress-relieving and fun like the game is!

Moreover, a lot of people mediate their thoughts on real-life traumatic issues through media specifically because the stakes are so low. It’s emotionally easier for me to think about sexism if I’m thinking of it in relation to fictional characters, who aren’t real and thus aren’t really out there suffering. Fictional problems are also, within the medium of imagination, actually fixable. I don’t like the canon ending of Naruto, so I imagine a different one that’s exactly the way I want it, or I can read other peoples versions. In contrast, my ability to solve [major world issue of your choice] is nearly nonexistent, my efforts a mere drop into a sea–not worthless, but not satisfying. I think many of us need the satisfaction of saying “There, that’s fixed then,” that we don’t get in the real world.

Noo artigo no https://www.informatico.pt/217002/humor-informatico-0-metaception/

Humor Informatico - 0 Metaception

Now, I don't know much about the way Hydra ranks work, but consider for a moment how you would have to go about rising through the ranks of such an organisation. 

Imagine the things she'd have had to give them, the work she'd had to do.

The things she'd have to do. 

Join Hydra or die. That is the option they give to gifteds. How many do you think she's seen refuse? Knowing that she can't step in and save them because it would blow her cover? 

Someone like Jemma is not made for watching people she wants to help die. 

People are saying this might be her Bahrain.

He decides to do research for his role by going to a government site where he accidentally gets caught in a gamma explosion.

He goes back to his day job, only to find out when he tries to be angry, he turns into a giant green rage monster, but instead of freaking out, the director, Director Fury (he demands you use his full title), decides to use this because hell, why use special effects when you have the real thing. And Tony Stark is basically RDJ who plays Bruce's science partner on the TV show and Pepper is his PA. Clint is the boom operator with a lot of snark, and Maria is the cinematographer and Natasha is the head editor. Coulson is Fury's assistant and Steve is the history consultant because this is a historical drama. And Loki and Thor are producers looking to buy the TV show.