Some times I just don't think certain things lend themselves to Watsonian interpretations. What does and doesn't is an admittedly arbitrary thing for me.

I don't see the need for a Doylist interpertation here.

Yeah, if you want do use Doyalist explanations for everything, it all boils down to "because money/toys/kids show." Why even watch, then?

Because it's still a good show?

I'd take a solid Doylist explanation over a flimsy Watsonian one.

Regardless of what it seems I don't use a Doylist interpretation for everything. I just prefer not to go out of my way to make up in-universe reasons for why certain things happen.

Also this.

edited 2nd Nov '12 11:26:01 AM by Mio

But in this case, there are perfectly good inuniverse reasons.

A huge part of this show's appeal is the consistency of the characters and the world. You don't have to reach very far for a Watsonian explanation for nearly anything, so why not? Like with this Luna one, they straight up show you that she isn't spending the days in Canterlot. It's not reaching or flimsy at all to say that she wouldn't be there during the battle.

I'd prefer a Watsonian explanation, as that explains it in ways I can use for headcannon building, which I really like doing. Doylist is fine, but pointless.

Actually the show does often need Doylist explanations. For example all the random sightgags that would make no sense in a real universe.

@Story

Such as?

As I've always said, I believe Luna spends most of her time in the Everfree Castle because it is more familiar to her than Canterlot. That's why she wasn't there during most of the finale she was sleeping in the Everfree which is far enough away she wouldn't notice.

Like the fact that Pinkie grows two extra hooves and clones herself in "A Friend in Deed."

But seriously, I'm going with the Watsonian explanation here, because like Perpetual said, it really isn't much of a stretch. We're explicitly shown that Luna isn't spending all of her time in Canterlot, and we know that they're preparing for possible danger, so the idea that Luna wasn't around for the invasion due to taking care of business elsewhere seems to me like a logical extension of the information we have. Yes, we have to rely on conjecture for the specifics of what she was doing and why, but the basic "she wasn't in Canterlot for some reason" theory is supported pretty well.

My personal take on the Watsonian Versus Doylist bits are that things directly relevant to the plot and characters are Watsonian, but stuff like gags or background events with no bearing on the plot are Doylist. I.e. I take Pinkie's Rule of Funny antics from a Doylist approach because they're just that; Rule of Funny.

edited 2nd Nov '12 12:02:14 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Ah, yeah, I guess the quick little things Pinkie does sometimes need that, but anything that has an effect on the plot is almost always explainable in-universe.

Because FRIENDSHIP!

That's my explanation for everything and I'm sticking to it.

@J Teeth: I understand that. I guess for me I never really thought to think about why Luna wasn't there because, frankly, the episode it self really didn't care. We just get one kind of jokey line lampeshading the fact that she wasn't there for the invasion and it's never followed up on. To me that is the episode saying "yeah, she probably should have been there, but what can you do?", and maybe that is a silly way to think about things, but that is why I personally did not look for a watsonian interpretation in that particular case, and why I find attempts to find one silly and pointless.

Pouty face.

Lyra's pet.

@Mio So, you don't accept Watsonian explanations on the grounds that we have to search for them and make them up, but you're fine with deriving Doyalist explanations from what you think a joke might be telling you in subtext? Both are equally presumptuous in this situation.

Why not combine both approaches? Luna missed most of the final because her livestream crashed and so when she came back at the end she asked everyone what she missed.

I like to think of things this way: I'm not going to do the writers' job for them. If I need to think about a watsonian explanation more than they've obviously done, then I won't bother.

Especially in a case like this, where having a bit of Suspension of Disbelief would make the whole thing simpler and more enjoyable. Heck, they even lampshaded the fact to make it easier to do just that.

@Kayeka

Except that if you have to use a Doyalist explanation, then your Suspension of Disbelief is already broken because it took you out of the story enough to to bother you. A Watsonian explanation is using logic to reinforce the suspension of disbelief.

And again, we don't even have to reach for anything not given by the writers here, since they showed that Luna isn't in Canterlot during the day. Lampshading doesn't mean that what's being lampshaded doesn't make any sense.

Random question regarding Canterlot Wedding.

We haven't seen Cadance's parents, did we? Is it more plausible to assume that she doesn't have parents (maybe they deceased or something) or that they just couldn't make it to the wedding for some reason? I am slightly more inclined toward the former; I mean, if your daughter is having this really big wedding, I am pretty sure reasonable (given the general atmosphere of the series, I am going to assume they are) parents would definitely want to attend it.

edited 2nd Nov '12 1:05:05 PM by dRoy

@Lurker: I never really said that I don't accept them at all, sometimes I do accept Watsonian explanations. Sometimes I do feel that there is more to it that can be looked at.

This particular time however I really did not get that impression, thus how I reacted.

I think I've seen Watsonian interpretation more often then not used to repair Suspension of Disbelief then to enhance it.

edited 2nd Nov '12 1:08:29 PM by Mio

Do you even know what suspension of disbelief means? Because I don't think we are on the same wavelength here.

To me, it means being able to say "buck it, it's a good show, and I'm not going to care about such pesky details."

edited 2nd Nov '12 1:07:20 PM by Kayeka

That's the MST3K Mantra. Suspension of Disbelief is whether or not you can believe that the episode's events actually happened (in the context of its own universe, of course). They're related, but the first is used to restore the second.

A Doyalist explanation means that you don't believe that it could have happened in-universe, and thus Suspension of Disbelief is broken.

edited 2nd Nov '12 1:14:46 PM by PerpetualLurker

Oh, I believe it could have happened. I just don't care, and I'm not going to put more thought in it than the author did.