3 ms·

> it's totally laudable (and often leads to better stories) to exercise some restraint, or to remove the most jarring content that might bring viewers out of th

> it's totally laudable (and often leads to better stories) to exercise some restraint, or to remove the most jarring content that might bring viewers out of the story, but I disagree with the argument that doing otherwise to preserve the integrity of a fictional world is bad. > it's totally fair to criticize why an author constructed a world the way they did, or to say "I don't want to read a story that takes place in this world". I very much agree with you. In my view, the point of the Thermian argument is not that the critic is too much of a prude for disliking the violence or sexism, the point is that the apologist is unable to express any storytelling purpose or emotional impact of the violence, so they just reiterate the diegetic. "The violence is in the movie because the is villain is violent". The Thermian argument is not that the artist should self-censor to remove these things, but that they should be able to express how it achieves their artistic goal. > a tribe of warrior women wears chainmail bikinis, that is totally fine if it's actually rational within the fictional world > I'd say diagetic explanations are actually one of the best defenses for storytelling choices I could agree with this too, but I guess it depends what kind of media you and I are watching and how much rationality is involved. Besides, if an artist wants chainmail bikinis with no rational explanation whatsoever, that's also fine in its own way as an expression of sexuality. But we should just admit that we think it's sexy instead of pretending there's actually some tribal traditional reason for it. There's just no way that's rational when the enemy is shooting arrows at you without rewriting all laws of physics just to make this work. The comment chain here is "I'm tired of TV shows using so much violence" -> "We shouldn't hide the truth of violence" and that's a Thermian argument because there was no truth until the authors wrote it, unless it's a documentary. But still I haven't seen SG so I can't comment re: how it uses the violence. Thanks for the rebuttal, I like talking about this. And much respect to everyone involved of course.

gameman144 5y ago
Ah, that's a really good point that the argument just requires a diegetic defense to actually provide a rationalization within the world. I assumed that the "that's just the way it is" example was an easy-to-counter example, but if I'm understanding you correctly, the argument is opposed to it specifically because it's so weak. That makes a lot more sense, thanks for taking the time to explain!
- voussoir 5y ago
  As I rewatch Dan's video, I do get the same feeling that you do. He doesn't give any examples of "good" diegetic explanations, only bad ones. So it seems as if he's not interested in rationalization of any kind. But he's not saying that rationalization is useless, he's just saying it can't defend against non-diegetic questions like "Why did the author choose to write so much violence?". Rational explanations are still useful because the viewer needs to understand what they're seeing. No media will be impervious to criticism no matter how rational it is, and that's okay because critiques and discussions are what make media interesting and help us understand the artist's intentions.
  - latexr 5y ago
    > He doesn't give any examples of "good" diegetic explanations, only bad ones. Because the video isn’t about diegetic explanations, but the practice of using diegesis to defend against criticism. The titular Thermian Argument doesn’t come up unless criticism is levied, so “good diegetic explanations” bear no relevance. Dan’s point is that it is a weak defence.

gameman144 5y ago

Ah, that's a really good point that the argument just requires a diegetic defense to actually provide a rationalization within the world. I assumed that the "that's just the way it is" example was an easy-to-counter example, but if I'm understanding you correctly, the argument is opposed to it specifically because it's so weak. That makes a lot more sense, thanks for taking the time to explain!

voussoir 5y ago
As I rewatch Dan's video, I do get the same feeling that you do. He doesn't give any examples of "good" diegetic explanations, only bad ones. So it seems as if he's not interested in rationalization of any kind. But he's not saying that rationalization is useless, he's just saying it can't defend against non-diegetic questions like "Why did the author choose to write so much violence?". Rational explanations are still useful because the viewer needs to understand what they're seeing. No media will be impervious to criticism no matter how rational it is, and that's okay because critiques and discussions are what make media interesting and help us understand the artist's intentions.
- latexr 5y ago
  > He doesn't give any examples of "good" diegetic explanations, only bad ones. Because the video isn’t about diegetic explanations, but the practice of using diegesis to defend against criticism. The titular Thermian Argument doesn’t come up unless criticism is levied, so “good diegetic explanations” bear no relevance. Dan’s point is that it is a weak defence.