[004]
rva98014
Current Version
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
At that moment in the story, from Alma\'s POV, she\'s justified in denying Mirabel\'s perception due to a complete lack of evidence and the fact that there is a reasonable motivation for Mirabel to be \
to:
At that moment in the story, from Alma\\\'s POV, she\\\'s justified in denying Mirabel\\\'s perception due to a complete lack of evidence and the fact that there is a reasonable motivation for Mirabel to be \\\"seeing things\\\" right after Antonio\\\'s successful gift ceremony. We, the audience, know Mirabel\\\'s telling the truth but no one else does.
At this point, no gaslighting is occurring according to the basic definition of the term. Alma was not trying to affect Mirabel\\\'s mental state, Alma was not the active agent in making the cracks go away, nor did she have a strong reason to believe Mirabel\\\'s claim.
But wait... later that evening, we overhear Alma\\\'s prayer, conversation, whatever to Pedro in which she talks about cracks and the family being vulnerable. This implies that Alma either (1) has some kind of previous awareness of the Casita having cracks which disappear (this is possible because Bruno\\\'s been repairing cracks for a decade) or (2) she believes there\\\'s some truth to what Mirabel claims.
If (1), this implies that earlier in the evening Alma had knowledge that what Mirabel claimed to see \\\'\\\'could have happened\\\'\\\' even though Alma had nothing to prove it to herself that it really did happen as Mirabel claimed but choose to ignore it to preserve the Madrigal family image.
If (2), it shows Alma was more interested in preserving the Madrigal family image than supporting and believing her grand-daughter.
It\\\'s a convoluted situation. It requires looking at the scene as it actually plays out, then gaining some new information, and revisiting the earlier scene to say that something kinda-like gaslighting occurred. Plus it requires a complex wall of text explanation to layout all that\\\'s occurring.
In my opinion, a more solid situation is Alma lied to cover her fear that the Casita was crumbling and Mirabel was the collateral damage. Just because the result is something similar to what occurs in gaslighting doesn\\\'t make it a solid example of that trope.
I hold that what occurs is too much of a deviation to the standard definition of gaslighting and the trope should just be left out of the list.
At this point, no gaslighting is occurring according to the basic definition of the term. Alma was not trying to affect Mirabel\\\'s mental state, Alma was not the active agent in making the cracks go away, nor did she have a strong reason to believe Mirabel\\\'s claim.
But wait... later that evening, we overhear Alma\\\'s prayer, conversation, whatever to Pedro in which she talks about cracks and the family being vulnerable. This implies that Alma either (1) has some kind of previous awareness of the Casita having cracks which disappear (this is possible because Bruno\\\'s been repairing cracks for a decade) or (2) she believes there\\\'s some truth to what Mirabel claims.
If (1), this implies that earlier in the evening Alma had knowledge that what Mirabel claimed to see \\\'\\\'could have happened\\\'\\\' even though Alma had nothing to prove it to herself that it really did happen as Mirabel claimed but choose to ignore it to preserve the Madrigal family image.
If (2), it shows Alma was more interested in preserving the Madrigal family image than supporting and believing her grand-daughter.
It\\\'s a convoluted situation. It requires looking at the scene as it actually plays out, then gaining some new information, and revisiting the earlier scene to say that something kinda-like gaslighting occurred. Plus it requires a complex wall of text explanation to layout all that\\\'s occurring.
In my opinion, a more solid situation is Alma lied to cover her fear that the Casita was crumbling and Mirabel was the collateral damage. Just because the result is something similar to what occurs in gaslighting doesn\\\'t make it a solid example of that trope.
I hold that what occurs is too much of a deviation to the standard definition of gaslighting and the trope should just be left out of the list.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
At that moment in the story, from Alma\'s POV, she\'s reasonably denying Mirabel\'s perception due to a complete lack of evidence and the fact that there is a reasonable motivation for Mirabel to be \
to:
At that moment in the story, from Alma\\\'s POV, she\\\'s justified in denying Mirabel\\\'s perception due to a complete lack of evidence and the fact that there is a reasonable motivation for Mirabel to be \\\"seeing things\\\" right after Antonio\\\'s successful gift ceremony. We, the audience, know Mirabel\\\'s telling the truth but no one else does.
At this point, no gaslighting is occurring according to the basic definition of the term. Alma was not trying to affect Mirabel\\\'s mental state, not the active agent in making the cracks go away, nor had a strong reason to believe Mirabel\\\'s claim.
But wait... now we overhear Alma\\\'s prayer, conversation, whatever to Pedro in which she talks about cracks and the family being vulnerable. This implies that Alma either (1) has some kind of awareness of the Casita having cracks beforehand which disappear (which is possible because Bruno\\\'s been repairing cracks for a decade) or (2) she believes there\\\'s some truth to what Mirabel claims.
If (1), this implies that earlier in the evening Alma had knowledge that what Mirabel claimed to see \\\'\\\'could have happened\\\'\\\' even though Alma had nothing to prove it really did happen at that moment and choose to ignore it to preserve the Madrigal family image.
If (2), it shows Alma was more interested in preserving the Madrigal family image than supporting and believing her grand-daughter.
It\\\'s a convoluted situation. It requires looking at the scene as it actually plays out, then gaining some new information, and revisiting the earlier scene to say that something kinda-like gaslighting occurred. Plus it requires a complex wall of text explanation to layout all that\\\'s occurring.
In my opinion, a more solid situation is Alma lied to cover her fear that the Casita was crumbling and Mirabel was the collateral damage. Just because the result is something similar to what occurs in gaslighting doesn\\\'t make it a solid example of that trope.
I hold that what occurs is too much of a deviation to the standard definition of gaslighting and the trope should just be left out of the list.
At this point, no gaslighting is occurring according to the basic definition of the term. Alma was not trying to affect Mirabel\\\'s mental state, not the active agent in making the cracks go away, nor had a strong reason to believe Mirabel\\\'s claim.
But wait... now we overhear Alma\\\'s prayer, conversation, whatever to Pedro in which she talks about cracks and the family being vulnerable. This implies that Alma either (1) has some kind of awareness of the Casita having cracks beforehand which disappear (which is possible because Bruno\\\'s been repairing cracks for a decade) or (2) she believes there\\\'s some truth to what Mirabel claims.
If (1), this implies that earlier in the evening Alma had knowledge that what Mirabel claimed to see \\\'\\\'could have happened\\\'\\\' even though Alma had nothing to prove it really did happen at that moment and choose to ignore it to preserve the Madrigal family image.
If (2), it shows Alma was more interested in preserving the Madrigal family image than supporting and believing her grand-daughter.
It\\\'s a convoluted situation. It requires looking at the scene as it actually plays out, then gaining some new information, and revisiting the earlier scene to say that something kinda-like gaslighting occurred. Plus it requires a complex wall of text explanation to layout all that\\\'s occurring.
In my opinion, a more solid situation is Alma lied to cover her fear that the Casita was crumbling and Mirabel was the collateral damage. Just because the result is something similar to what occurs in gaslighting doesn\\\'t make it a solid example of that trope.
I hold that what occurs is too much of a deviation to the standard definition of gaslighting and the trope should just be left out of the list.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
At that moment in the story, from Alma\'s POV, she\'s reasonably denying Mirabel\'s perception due to a complete lack of evidence and the fact that there is a reasonable motivation for her to be \
to:
At that moment in the story, from Alma\\\'s POV, she\\\'s reasonably denying Mirabel\\\'s perception due to a complete lack of evidence and the fact that there is a reasonable motivation for Mirabel to be \\\"seeing things\\\" right after Antonio\\\'s successful gift ceremony. We, the audience, know Mirabel\\\'s telling the truth but no one else does.
At this point, no gaslighting is occurring according to the basic definition of the term. Alma was not trying to affect Mirabel\\\'s mental state, not the active agent in making the cracks go away, nor had a strong reason to believe Mirabel\\\'s claim.
But wait... now we overhear Alma\\\'s prayer, conversation, whatever to Pedro in which she talks about cracks and the family being vulnerable. This implies that Alma either (1) has some kind of awareness of the Casita having cracks beforehand which disappear (which is possible because Bruno\\\'s been repairing cracks for a decade) or (2) she believes there\\\'s some truth to what Mirabel claims.
If (1), this implies that earlier in the evening Alma had knowledge that what Mirabel claimed to see \\\'\\\'could have happened\\\'\\\' even though Alma had nothing to prove it really did happen at that moment and choose to ignore it to preserve the Madrigal family image.
If (2), it shows Alma was more interested in preserving the Madrigal family image than supporting and believing her grand-daughter.
It\\\'s a convoluted situation. It requires looking at the scene as it actually plays out, then gaining some new information, and revisiting the earlier scene to say that something kinda-like gaslighting occurred. Plus it requires a complex wall of text explanation to layout all that\\\'s occurring.
In my opinion, a more solid situation is Alma lied to cover her fear that the Casita was crumbling and Mirabel was the collateral damage. Just because the result is something similar to what occurs in gaslighting doesn\\\'t make it a solid example of that trope.
I hold that what occurs is too much of a deviation to the standard definition of gaslighting and the trope should just be left out of the list.
At this point, no gaslighting is occurring according to the basic definition of the term. Alma was not trying to affect Mirabel\\\'s mental state, not the active agent in making the cracks go away, nor had a strong reason to believe Mirabel\\\'s claim.
But wait... now we overhear Alma\\\'s prayer, conversation, whatever to Pedro in which she talks about cracks and the family being vulnerable. This implies that Alma either (1) has some kind of awareness of the Casita having cracks beforehand which disappear (which is possible because Bruno\\\'s been repairing cracks for a decade) or (2) she believes there\\\'s some truth to what Mirabel claims.
If (1), this implies that earlier in the evening Alma had knowledge that what Mirabel claimed to see \\\'\\\'could have happened\\\'\\\' even though Alma had nothing to prove it really did happen at that moment and choose to ignore it to preserve the Madrigal family image.
If (2), it shows Alma was more interested in preserving the Madrigal family image than supporting and believing her grand-daughter.
It\\\'s a convoluted situation. It requires looking at the scene as it actually plays out, then gaining some new information, and revisiting the earlier scene to say that something kinda-like gaslighting occurred. Plus it requires a complex wall of text explanation to layout all that\\\'s occurring.
In my opinion, a more solid situation is Alma lied to cover her fear that the Casita was crumbling and Mirabel was the collateral damage. Just because the result is something similar to what occurs in gaslighting doesn\\\'t make it a solid example of that trope.
I hold that what occurs is too much of a deviation to the standard definition of gaslighting and the trope should just be left out of the list.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
If my current example seems unstructured, it\'s because I was trying to take everyone\'s perspectives into account and it\'s quite difficult given the lexical devaluation of the term against all that happens in the movie.
to:
If my last comment seems unstructured, it\\\'s because I was trying to take everyone\\\'s perspectives into account and it\\\'s quite difficult given the lexical devaluation of the term against all that happens in the movie.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Remember, my vote was simply to remove the entry for gaslighting completely.
to:
Remember, my vote was simply to remove the entry for gaslighting entirely.
