(no subject)
Apr. 28th, 2007 06:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethHaving cleaned up my bookmarks, am reading really old meta.
Someone somewhere said (and I cut n paste and closed and oopsed)
the actual CANON that we *all* share is relatively tiny: it's the statements and visible acts...nothing more
Having done transcripts, read transcripts, and compared subtitles on TV and on DVD; having watched in a fandom where there were typically two showings of an episode a day, and the one more people watched was edited to hell and gone; having watched in a fandom where the episodes on different continents had, what, ten minutes difference?
I think it's safe to say:
We share some statements and visible acts. But rather large groups of us have rather large differences in what was visible, or audible, or interpreted from those audiovisual stimuli.
It isn't like a written text. Typed text you can cutnpaste and end up with the same quote every time. Handwriting is open to interpretation. Spoken language? *Full* of ambiguities, even if both speaker and listener have the exact same accent. So texts like television where one set of people produce the primary audiovisual text and then totally another turn it into typed words? *Huge* differences can turn up in different viewings.
I'm sure somebody somewhere has studied this, but I have not yet discovered where.
/type
-> Doctor Who *1845 start*
Someone somewhere said (and I cut n paste and closed and oopsed)
the actual CANON that we *all* share is relatively tiny: it's the statements and visible acts...nothing more
Having done transcripts, read transcripts, and compared subtitles on TV and on DVD; having watched in a fandom where there were typically two showings of an episode a day, and the one more people watched was edited to hell and gone; having watched in a fandom where the episodes on different continents had, what, ten minutes difference?
I think it's safe to say:
We share some statements and visible acts. But rather large groups of us have rather large differences in what was visible, or audible, or interpreted from those audiovisual stimuli.
It isn't like a written text. Typed text you can cutnpaste and end up with the same quote every time. Handwriting is open to interpretation. Spoken language? *Full* of ambiguities, even if both speaker and listener have the exact same accent. So texts like television where one set of people produce the primary audiovisual text and then totally another turn it into typed words? *Huge* differences can turn up in different viewings.
I'm sure somebody somewhere has studied this, but I have not yet discovered where.
/type
-> Doctor Who *1845 start*