![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ciaranbochna, who asked the following:
When you watch a film, or read a story, on how many levels are you processing it (meta, themes, future writing, characterization, etc)?
Which, oh, is complicated. Primarily because it varies on a case by case basis, depending on the day I'm having, the medium involved, how recently I'd been having discussion with people, how much sleep I've had recently ... *grins sheepishly* It varies, is my point. But ... okay, maybe we can get high and lows, and a mean from that?
ciaranbochna, who asked the following:When you watch a film, or read a story, on how many levels are you processing it (meta, themes, future writing, characterization, etc)?
Which, oh, is complicated. Primarily because it varies on a case by case basis, depending on the day I'm having, the medium involved, how recently I'd been having discussion with people, how much sleep I've had recently ... *grins sheepishly* It varies, is my point. But ... okay, maybe we can get high and lows, and a mean from that?
How I read/watch a text, yes? Since that's the essence of the question. Okay. Lets see.
Firstly, I will say that I almost never process it on a level of 'things I intend to write about', if that's what you mean by future writing? I don't really tend to think in advance about things I want to write, mostly they just tend to show up out of my subconscious. Everything I read and watch is sort of thrown into the subconscious stew, yes, but what ideas swim surfaceward out of that ... well. I'm not wholly sure of the mechanism for that myself, and sometimes I have to wonder about what the hell goes on down there -_-;
But what I think about when watching or reading something ... Okay. On first watch/read through, there tends to be only two conscious levels. The first is the part of me that's getting caught up in the story and falling madly in love with the characters (almost always the characters, worlds are second tier, though often prominent). That part is fairly automatic, tied mostly to my id, and doesn't really require monitoring at all. It will note out the characters I love, the story elements I love, the story elements I have instinctive problems with, and things like that. It's not really that in-depth on first run through, just an instinct-level 'these are the parts I like and these are the parts that make me nervous' sort of thing.
The second thing that's running on first watch is ... Um. In visual media, the part that's noting production values and particularly clever staging or set dressing or costuming or artwork or camera angles. In written texts, it's the part that's noting language, the shades and sensations thereof. I have a particular love of things like stage lighting, or physical effects, and visible effects for some reason increase my enjoyment, because I like getting a sense of the technical work that went into making this story (things like the LOTR Weta extras on the DVD, or the lighting work on the 25th Anniversary production of Les Mis, or the adorably bad special effects on Classic Doctor Who). I also have an appreciation for ... Ah. There are some writing styles that feel better to me? I like a lot of fairly archaic styles, that you get in 19th century literature or high fantasy, things like that. But I also like some of the sparser styles. There was one book, a children's book I got out of the library, I can't for the life of me remember the name of it, but I remember that it was the cleanest feeling story I'd ever read. Not in theme or in story, just in language, in structure, spare and elegant and clean. There's a part of me that's always watching that, and I think it's the same part that looks at production values on visual media, just translated for medium?
The deeper things, the proper engagement with theme and characterisation and message and structure, that doesn't happen consciously until later. Not necessarily rewatch/read, though I tend to rewatch/read a lot of things I like. It just takes a while to percolate up from the instinctive id-processing of first watching/reading up to conscious thoughts. The little things I noticed on first run through, the things that pinged instinctive 'yes please' or 'oh gods, oh gods, please don't' or 'huh, there's something odd in that' or 'oh gods, that's what he meant, that's what he was giving away' or ... You know, the little snags of thought in the story, the things that catch you briefly through the pull of the narrative. They come back, then. They float back up, lay themselves out, or just poke at the underside of my thoughts until I work them through.
This is the part where I work out why the thing with Rhodey and Tony on the sand dune hit all my buttons, or why the thing with Daniel and the memories and his unique position in the city unnerved me so, or why LA Confidential had so many characters I madly adored when they were all horrible people, or why enemy mine storylines intrigue me so, or why that tiny moment of connection between Natasha and Clint felt like the most important part of the movie for me, or why that overarching use of descriptors across the canon made me trust Holmes that little bit more ...
And see, there is an element of self-awareness to that. The way I process stories is inherantly tangled in the way I process the world, the things that matter to me and the themes and characters that causes to be highlighted to me. I like the structures of language and the tricks of staging because there is part of me that adores systems, that loves seeing how a story may be created from such disparate parts. I like certain themes and traits, hope and connection and mercy and honour, because they are hopes or fears or longings I feel in the real world. By looking at the part of stories that hit me and snatch at the id-places, I can get a good idea of the structure of that subconscious stew, the things lurking around down there that are shaping how I see the world. There is ... an element of self-exploration in how I process stories, a feedback loop that has formed between the things I want to see and my realisation of the things I want to see and my exploration of why I want to see them.
Um. Which is possibly a sideline to your actual question, but it's an element, it's part of it. Everytime I watch or read a story, there's part of me that's watching myself, that's evaluating how that story is connecting to me and why, and how much effort there is in that and on which end ... things like that. Observer effect, how I'm changing my own viewing of the text just by being who I am. *grins faintly*
But, back on track. To summarise the answer to your question? On a conscious level, I'm not actually processing that much on first run-through, more instinctively making notes and internalising key features that ping me in certain ways. Subsequent viewings and/or contemplation is what teases those instinctive notes out into more conscious thoughts on the story, how it affected me, and why. And I'm always biased towards certain story or staging or character elements that hit internal buttons for me, which in some ways is useful for examining parts of me rather than necessarily the story itself.
Ah. And I hope there is a useful answer somewhere in that, yes? *grins sheepishly*
Firstly, I will say that I almost never process it on a level of 'things I intend to write about', if that's what you mean by future writing? I don't really tend to think in advance about things I want to write, mostly they just tend to show up out of my subconscious. Everything I read and watch is sort of thrown into the subconscious stew, yes, but what ideas swim surfaceward out of that ... well. I'm not wholly sure of the mechanism for that myself, and sometimes I have to wonder about what the hell goes on down there -_-;
But what I think about when watching or reading something ... Okay. On first watch/read through, there tends to be only two conscious levels. The first is the part of me that's getting caught up in the story and falling madly in love with the characters (almost always the characters, worlds are second tier, though often prominent). That part is fairly automatic, tied mostly to my id, and doesn't really require monitoring at all. It will note out the characters I love, the story elements I love, the story elements I have instinctive problems with, and things like that. It's not really that in-depth on first run through, just an instinct-level 'these are the parts I like and these are the parts that make me nervous' sort of thing.
The second thing that's running on first watch is ... Um. In visual media, the part that's noting production values and particularly clever staging or set dressing or costuming or artwork or camera angles. In written texts, it's the part that's noting language, the shades and sensations thereof. I have a particular love of things like stage lighting, or physical effects, and visible effects for some reason increase my enjoyment, because I like getting a sense of the technical work that went into making this story (things like the LOTR Weta extras on the DVD, or the lighting work on the 25th Anniversary production of Les Mis, or the adorably bad special effects on Classic Doctor Who). I also have an appreciation for ... Ah. There are some writing styles that feel better to me? I like a lot of fairly archaic styles, that you get in 19th century literature or high fantasy, things like that. But I also like some of the sparser styles. There was one book, a children's book I got out of the library, I can't for the life of me remember the name of it, but I remember that it was the cleanest feeling story I'd ever read. Not in theme or in story, just in language, in structure, spare and elegant and clean. There's a part of me that's always watching that, and I think it's the same part that looks at production values on visual media, just translated for medium?
The deeper things, the proper engagement with theme and characterisation and message and structure, that doesn't happen consciously until later. Not necessarily rewatch/read, though I tend to rewatch/read a lot of things I like. It just takes a while to percolate up from the instinctive id-processing of first watching/reading up to conscious thoughts. The little things I noticed on first run through, the things that pinged instinctive 'yes please' or 'oh gods, oh gods, please don't' or 'huh, there's something odd in that' or 'oh gods, that's what he meant, that's what he was giving away' or ... You know, the little snags of thought in the story, the things that catch you briefly through the pull of the narrative. They come back, then. They float back up, lay themselves out, or just poke at the underside of my thoughts until I work them through.
This is the part where I work out why the thing with Rhodey and Tony on the sand dune hit all my buttons, or why the thing with Daniel and the memories and his unique position in the city unnerved me so, or why LA Confidential had so many characters I madly adored when they were all horrible people, or why enemy mine storylines intrigue me so, or why that tiny moment of connection between Natasha and Clint felt like the most important part of the movie for me, or why that overarching use of descriptors across the canon made me trust Holmes that little bit more ...
And see, there is an element of self-awareness to that. The way I process stories is inherantly tangled in the way I process the world, the things that matter to me and the themes and characters that causes to be highlighted to me. I like the structures of language and the tricks of staging because there is part of me that adores systems, that loves seeing how a story may be created from such disparate parts. I like certain themes and traits, hope and connection and mercy and honour, because they are hopes or fears or longings I feel in the real world. By looking at the part of stories that hit me and snatch at the id-places, I can get a good idea of the structure of that subconscious stew, the things lurking around down there that are shaping how I see the world. There is ... an element of self-exploration in how I process stories, a feedback loop that has formed between the things I want to see and my realisation of the things I want to see and my exploration of why I want to see them.
Um. Which is possibly a sideline to your actual question, but it's an element, it's part of it. Everytime I watch or read a story, there's part of me that's watching myself, that's evaluating how that story is connecting to me and why, and how much effort there is in that and on which end ... things like that. Observer effect, how I'm changing my own viewing of the text just by being who I am. *grins faintly*
But, back on track. To summarise the answer to your question? On a conscious level, I'm not actually processing that much on first run-through, more instinctively making notes and internalising key features that ping me in certain ways. Subsequent viewings and/or contemplation is what teases those instinctive notes out into more conscious thoughts on the story, how it affected me, and why. And I'm always biased towards certain story or staging or character elements that hit internal buttons for me, which in some ways is useful for examining parts of me rather than necessarily the story itself.
Ah. And I hope there is a useful answer somewhere in that, yes? *grins sheepishly*