Talk:Watsonian vs. Doylist
Origin?
From this discussion in f_fa: http://fail-fandomanon.livejournal.com/32016.html?thread=145644304#t145644304
People are saying the origin is further back than what is posited in the article (though I can't tell because the article doesn't actually say explicitly any year). Can't access the reference (friendlocked), but maybe someone can check? -- hl. 03:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This reference? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.blakes-7/msg/969dffdb62993fcf?hl=en ? I can see it. It's a post on alt.fan.blakes-7 from March 20, 2000. I've added the info to the main page -- Liviapenn 09:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I meant the reference in the fanlore article! Fairestcat's post. If I didn't misread, fanlore didn't say any explicit date, so I couldn't tell if the one of 2000 would be older or not... -- hl. 13:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh right! I think Fairestcat's post is only cited the second time it's mentioned. I didn't realize it was locked now. But it was from 2005, so 2000 is definitely the earliest internet cite so far. -- Liviapenn 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Authorship
In light of the material cited in the footnote (beyond what's present on the specific Web page, Allen has published a book-length work making his case), I modified the previous language referring to Sir Arthur's authorship as "incontestable". It's premature to regard Allen's thesis as proven, but it's a serious and well-made argument, with some highly interesting resonances and implications for modern fanfic writers. --djonn (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I can imagine that the idea of Doyle's wife as the true author of her works being more accepted and used today than if it was idealized in the past. Of course this theory will be widely analyzed, discussed and of course worked on by fans -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Section on non-continuity analysis?
I've seen discussion about using Watsonian v. Doylist analysis to contrast authorial intent with its justification in-universe (eg. having a worldbuilding reason for a female character a wearing skimpy outfit vs. revealing a creator's misogyny), and I think it would be great to add to the page. Putting this here because I don't know how to word it yet and because I don't where best to put it, structure-wise --TernaryFlower53 (talk)
TernaryFlower53 do you have a link to this thread? It would be great to be able to add her and show how some fans use Watsonian vs. Doylist to mask problems in your favorite works -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
yes! this tumblr post is the one i was thinking of, which touches on discussing sexism in-world vs authorial intent, and this one is another example of people using watsonian vs doylist for literary analysis beyond just continuity errors. --TernaryFlower53 (talk)
This Tumblr link from the GoT/ASOF fandom on why the use of the name Joffrey is hilarious. People arguing over why someone chose a name and why the character of that name killed someone. I made of course an archive of the page to add as a reference in the article. I just need to find out how. Ellakbhesse (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)