3 ms·
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
by 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.