There is a difference between reading into things and rigorous analysis in metaā that much is clear to me. I donāt always make rigorous analysis myself, nor do I generally expect it from othersā far from it. Iām too lazy. But, I canāt help wanting to determine for myselfā what is that difference?
First of all, rigorous text analysis lays out at least two (if not more) possible interpretations of any given quote or scene, and makes a case for why one should prefer one or the other. The analysis must acknowledge that multiple interpretations exist, and consciously make a case that one is superior, in that it makes more sense than the other. Otherwise, itās inevitably invoking one or more logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning. A reference to an outside logical standard or fact makes it clear that the argument exists in the larger context of a range of readings, or itāsĀ ābegging the claimāā acting as if the proof is demonstrably in the pudding. It isnāt. You cannot in good faith assume that X Ā implies Y, and moreover, you cannot assume others will see it that way without proof. A claim or proposed thesis for textual meaning alone (such as āeating dinner is sexual in BBC Sherlockā) is not proof. It requires citation of consistent textual references using the imagery in that way, so as no other explanation of the subtext would suffice, like citing Irene Adlerās repeated and explicit usage ofĀ ādinnerā as a come-on. You can then tie this to Sherlockās askingĀ āDinner?ā in ASiP. This link benefits from limitation (that is, establishing concrete context, so itās eating dinner in a certain sense, not every time anyone refers to dinner).
Secondly, no textual argument can exist in isolation, cherry-picking scenes or quotes out of context with the larger book/show and the cultural context thereof. Note, the cultural context alone is not enough, as it must be tied in with the established themes and recurring ideas/imagery in the text. Ideally, this is tied together by arguments using authorial intent, though this isnāt necessary and a collection of diverse sources of circumstantial and textual evidence would suffice for rigor. Any given connection between the outside cultural context and a text must be proven separately, such asĀ āMoffat and Gatiss have the ability and cultural impetus to create a queer Holmes adaptation, as they have done with BBC Sherlockā. Such an extraordinarily strong claim requires extraordinarily strong proof, like citing the broad and sweeping BBC guidelines for LGB programming released before Sherlock aired, which the show addresses starting from ASiP in multiple ways. This link benefits from breadth.
Third, any interpretation or reading of a work in progress must work with the charactersĀ āas isā, so that subtext must remain separate from text. A skeptic must be able to see the subtext without assuming prior positive bias, with exceptions for viewers whoāre negatively biased, such as heteronormative viewers. I may consider this another facet of the previous self-sufficiency guideline, or one risks the āpost hoc ergo propter hocā fallacy, where one creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by wanting to believe oneās thesis to the point of assuming future correlation. No object, facial expression, or phrase has an indisputable and predetermined meaning, but patterns do exist and create a consistent meaningĀ āas isā. Thus, theĀ āphone as heartā metaphor relies on multiple contextual correlations to become established, but many times (such as the majority of times Sherlock uses a phone), it is simply a phone. This metaphor adds to subtext but doesnāt significantly alter or determine the meaning of text. In contrast, the slowly developing romance between Sherlock and John in BBC Sherlock is not subtext: it is often subtle, especially for heteronormative viewers, but it is textual.
To show rigor, oneās analysis must thus demonstrate an awareness of context, a sense of doubt and openness to multiple outcomes with any prediction, as well as an awareness of the different levels of textuality. To some degree, prediction is possible based on decoding genre tropes and character motivations, but I consider that separate from a reading of the text as such. Thereās a difference between decoding genre tropes, which are consistent and established, and decoding things like symbolism or subtext in general, which is largely subjective and has multiple possible meanings at all times. In contrast, I believe any rigorous claim to textuality must show that multiple aspects of the text, understandable to a reasonable viewer/reader, depend on a given reading to make sense of concrete events. It is because the canon John/Sherlock romance is absolutely necessary to understand the show that it is the most rigorous reading of the text, though this doesnāt mean all readings that either use or prove canon Johnlock are equally well-established.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
