The Analysis Namespace.

Maybe we could permit multiple analyses of each work? There are lots of angles you can analyse any given work from (biographical, structuralist, post-structuralist, Freudian, feminist, etc.). That's without even going into the fact that particularly extensive or complex works contain numerous aspects which may be analysed.

edited 3rd Aug '11 9:15:57 PM by BobbyG

It's not exactly a mistake. And Analysis is how the writer of such an entry in question interprets the elements of the work. What they mean and their implications.

Analysis are subjective by nature. Of course, I think that is in bad form to edit over another person's analysis unless it doesn't follow the guidelines established or is simply badly written (As in, spelling and grammatical flaws, bad use of the formatting, such as one-bracket potholes or whatever)

If an edit war happens to break out, well, that's why we ATT, Edit Histories, P Ms, moderation, etc etc.

^I thought we did? At least, more than one Analysis page analysed different aspects of the series.

edited 3rd Aug '11 9:19:12 PM by juancarlos

I'm talking about when two people want to write two different, valid analyses of the same work which contradict one another. The best way to avoid an edit war, to my mind, would be to simply allow both analyses to exist alongside one another.

Multiple analyses, even on the same subject, would be good.

If we can get people to write multiple analyses on the same subject.

I wonder if there's a way we can have quality control or something, though...

@Bobby G: Ah.

I concur, then. As long as Natter is discouraged, I think it'll work wonders, yes.

^apart from the current means of policing and hoping for the best?

I can't think of nothing.

edited 3rd Aug '11 9:28:53 PM by juancarlos

The reason I ask this is because there are multiple ways to interpret To Kill A Mocking Bird and Watership Down.

Damn.

Well, here's to hoping we get some decent analyzers then.

I wish I could write some analyses myself, but I suck at them.

@Vorpy: there are, yes. And all of those are welcome as long as they're clear and follow the guidelines we have established for general editing and whatever guidelines we've established for Analysis.

@Cygan: If you can and want, I recommend doing one and posting it here, so we can see it and...well...I dunno, give some feedback, I guess.

I couldn't know where to start.

In which sense? Show? Aspect of the show? How to begin the analysis?

How to analyze it.

Hmmm...

the biggest problem with that question is that there're still many variables in there, including, most importantly what aspect of the show.

What you have to do is simply interpret said aspect of the show and present arguments that support such interpretation.

See: RE: My Higurashi review, which started as an attempt to do that.

The problem that of coparing a review with an analysis is that you're comparing a subjective interpretation of the show's quality and appeal vs a subjective interpretation of the show's narrative and meaning. Or, to quote Bobby G a page back

So, if I gave you X scene, what you'd have to do is try to understand what the author is conveying, the motivation of the character, and the commentary that said author is trying to make using this scene. Either to an outside world (I.E Commentary on the current geopolitical situation of the world) or in-universe (Commentary on the character. Their mental states, etc)

[By now, I'm really sleepy, so I'm just giving my idea of what I think an analysis is and what should go in it, rather than some custom advice. I apologize, but I don't think I'm a good analyst. I recommend reading what we have so far in the Analyse page to get a feel of what you should be looking for)

edited 4th Aug '11 1:19:36 AM by juancarlos

No, I'm saying that I tried to analyze the work, but failed due to, well, sucking at it, and ended up writing a review when I was meant to be analyzing it and why I didn't like it.

I'd like it if the analysis pages made a bit more of a focus to discuss how trope use is used to further and is furthered by particulars of a work. I want it to be a tvtropes namespace not malformed literary analysis forum badly transported onto a tvtropes namespace. Do we need another look into the soul of Holden Caulfield?

Take a look at the first,second and third pages made for the namespace.

Is no-one for analysising the features that make Snake Plissen an Anti-Hero? How Bayformers incorporated disaster movie tropes to create a heightened sense of immersion? The way Watership Down uses the interjection of the mythological stories, not just in a thematic sense, but in a structural sense? Or the use of ancillary stories to extend the scope of American Gods? The uses of Xanatos Gambit by David Xanatos?

edited 4th Aug '11 12:14:00 PM by SomeSortOfTroper

I think tropes could certainly be analyzed. I don't think we need to forbid the analysis of anything else, though.

^^While those are not bad ideas, I don't want the namespace to be all about tropes. I think that the namespace has a lot of potential, and as such, we should exploit it all.

Even if it means another analysis of the Catcher in the Rye.

Ninja'd by INUH

edited 4th Aug '11 12:16:58 PM by juancarlos

I'm moderately happy with the content of the namespace at the moment but I think that the impact of seeding a few more trope focused things would be positive. Even aside from a "vision for the namespace", I think that maybe this sort of stuff would be easier to produce.

The standard for the level of typing you have to do to push something into "take it to the analysis page" is fairly low for this stuff. A main page takes an alphabetical list of bullet points with a few lines. Just adding a weight of importance to particular tropes, adding more about how they are connected together, talking about what you think worked well or badly, I think these things can take only a paragraph or two and come up in people's thoughts naturally more often.

Well, yes, I guess we could do analysis of tropes too. But considering that we do quite a bit of that on the main pages, we should prioritize analyzing works first.

The site's not really about analysis of fiction, though, it's just about cataloguing tropes. We can go into a lot more depth in this namespace.

^^I don't see a need to prioritize either. If someone wants to contribute to the namespace, I'd see that as a good thing whether it's an in-depth analysis of the work as a whole or just a look into why the story wouldn't work if The Hero weren't a Jerk with a Heart of Gold.

Taking a look at Vampires Are Sex Gods, the sort of thing that is in the trope description would make a good basis for an analysis, yes? Looking at when it evolved, where it started and why it started. It would need more information, such as which works originally used it, and how its' changed from its' past depiction to its' present depiction and why this may be so.

This is the sort of thing that would be good here, correct?

(I wish I had a less annoyingly creepy example, but whatever.)

Yeah, entries like that could be quite interesting to read.