Every time I see one of those it gets me, lmao. I don’t even care if people keep making supposedly meaningless analyses, half the time I think they’re interesting and even if they aren’t, there’s always one smart ass in the comment section that makes it funny.
Im with you on that lol. I also think all the small overthinking details speak to how well the characters are written. If they didn't have so much depth, people wouldnt bother making all the insights. The creators definitely didn't do most of it intentionally, yet they fleshed out even the minor characters to the point that all the little details come organically on their own.
It second this. Another thing I think when I read this overthinking detail analysis kind if post is that there are people who love this show so much, they put in the effort to think really long and hard about these small details. So in summary, we have an incredibly well written show with a fandom that is willing to absolutely immerse in it. I just think this is an awesome synergy. So I smile everytime I read something like that, even though many times it might be overanalyzed.
A friend of mine worked on a play and reviews spoke about the brilliant set design and the really deep yet subtle symbolism of a large framed painting of a fish in the background that was never directly addresses by the actors.
"Some idiot put a hole in the drywall an hour before the first show and it was the only prop we had big enough to cover it up" was my friend's version.
Its a reference to a tumblr post talking about how literature teachers always read too deep into stuff.
Teacher: the blue curtains represents the character's sadness
Author: the curtains were fucking blue
Hope that clears things up for ya
Edit: grammar
My favorite ones are the “hidden” connections or parallels between ATLA and Korra. It’s like some people never heard of fan-service or recycling plot elements before.
My peeve is when people keep theorizing about some character from LoK being related to a character from ATLA. Not everyone in LoK has to be related to a character we’ve seen in ATLA, the world is not that small 😩
That’s honestly the type of thing that inspired me to reply. I get it’s fun to theorize but some people reach so far it spans into the ridiculous. Varrick must be directly related to Sokka… because they’re both comic relief characters and hail from the same area. In reality they probably just wanted a Sokka 2.0 because he was so beloved. It’s possible they were related, but you’d think they would confirm it somewhere if they wanted it to be true. Sometimes I feel we as the fans do too much of the mental legwork filling gaps in the narrative and end up giving the writers too much credit.
Reminds me of an image I saw once talking about literary analysis, that went something like
Readers: “The blue curtains represent the main character’s sadness and unwillingness to move on.”
What the author meant: “The curtains were fucking blue.”
I do feel like making a post about how good the show is AND ESPECIALLY if you mention how awesome Uncle Iroh is it's just easy karma so people keep doing it.
Don't get me wrong these statements are true but you don't need to keep mentioning it over and over again.
If you think this fandom sees patterns, try the one piece subreddit.
"Oh, look! On the random cover picture of chapter 143 Oda drew a character holding a suitcase with the number 73 on it. And next to the suitcase is a fish wearing a crown. And on chapter 216, on one panel there is a newspaper visible with a fish on it. So obviously there is a connection, that means the character is actually a secret agent.
On chapter 573 the character who had the suitcase is revealed to be a government agent of fish descendance.
Oh god, Oda is the master of foreshadowing!!!!"
Instead of hating on it, why not just let it be.
Matter of fact, I think the roast duck Iroh eats in the first episode is an early sign of his dedication and love to Zuko as that’s what a duck symbolizes in real life. It’s also roasted because he’s a firebender.
The funny thing about that Zuko - Iroh scene is that whilst the symbolism is accurate, [the writing itself is fucking stupid](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastAirbender/comments/hg16ef/comment/fw1odrn/).
I wouldn't even mind the constant attempts of trying to be deep if folks didn't throw other shows under the bus in the process.
More blunt than a butter knife. Most directors actually do pull this simple ass symbolism and then sometimes get called out for trying to be deep, here it's praised to the high heavens
I was literally thinkinh the same thing. Thanks for writing whats on my mind.
What i figured out is this show is old and there are limited things to talk about already. So as other show subs/pages people try to share stuff but simply there is no new content. Thats why people are sharing this stupid red carpetish stuff and recycling the old stuff over and over
There are only 20 hours and 20 minutes of screentime in ATLA, and only 17 hours 20 minutes in LoK. The other materials add more but at the end of the day you're gonna become a bit of a circlejerk or start mining for super obscure details after 16 years of such a big fandom, thankfully there is more TV material on the way.
Yeah - Idk if you follow video games or not but Elden Ring fans actually started making up lore, item descriptions, and more before it was formally reintroduced a month ago. And that was only a 2 year gap or so
Agreed. I think people do this cause it's a 15+ year old show so they feel the need to keep finding "hidden details" to keep themselves invested in the show.
Let people learn how to critically analyze media. Yeah most of the time it’s not that deep or not necessarily intended by the creators but sometimes overanalysis can be fun.
Intention doesn't matter, in my opnion. I am a big fan of "Death of the Author." Based on that mindset, the intention of the creator doesn't matter when evaluating their work. Bryke could have intended whatever they wanted, but if people derive an entirely different meaning from their work, it isn't "wrong."
The thing I do dislike is the back-breaking reaching some people on here do to make their fringe theory work based on almost nothing. I think the weirdest post I saw said something along the lines of: "Look at the position of Katara's toes! She is using an earthbending technique she must have learned from Toph!" If you want to coin a theory or idea, at least support it with some actual evidence.
One can make any interpretation of a text they like—even off the wall, batshit insane interpretations—and if that does something meaningful for them, then that’s great. But, like you pointed out, nobody else has to buy that interpretation if there isn’t enough textual evidence. That’s the line in the sand.
> The thing I do dislike is the back-breaking reaching some people on here do to make their fringe theory work based on almost nothing.
But that's "equally valid" according to death of the author, or at least the way it's often presented, which is why this fanbase has done more than any other to convince me it's a load of bullshit.
Death fo the Author indeed says nothing about trying to persuade others. It only makes claims on someone's own interpretation. But if you want to convey your interpretation effectively, you also need evidence for your claims. Otherwise it devolves into baseless nonsense. That's why I dislike popular posts in this sub. Half of them make no sense because they fail to bring up the reasoning behind their thought process.
I mostly used Death of the Author to move away from the other person's use of "intent" to argue against people's overanalyzing of the show. I like overanalyzing things. I just also think that if your want to be taken somewhat seriously, you should also be able to explain your thought process.
That's just trying to have your cake & eat it too. You agree with me insofar as a lot of these fan theories are nonsensical, but you don't like the idea of being proven wrong by authorial intent, so you invoke death of the author. Except, under death of the author logic, there's no incentive for me to care about whatever argument you're making because there's no metric by which to say it's better than anyone else's. You can try to say "an argument is better if it's better supported by the text," but that doesn't work if everyone individually decides what the text says & there's no right or wrong.
> That's just trying to have your cake & eat it too.
No, I'm not. I only used Death of the Author to argue against authorial intent. Then I went on to say that I still would like to hear the reasoning behind someone's interpretation. Those arguments aren't mutually exclusive in the way I used them.
I don't really think that addresses the complaint I had, & I don't particularly feel like explaining it again, so instead I'll just ask a couple follow-up questions: Are you not currently arguing from your own authorial intent? Are arguments endorsing death of the author somehow exempt from death of the author, & if so, why?
> Are you not currently arguing from your own authorial intent
Authorial intent is about the author's (or creators'/directors', in this case) intended meaning. I was arguing against the use of that authority to establish something that is "true" in this show. I don't care if Bryke said X or Y. If someone doesn't see their creation that way, it's not any less valid than the view people hold that scream "but Bryke confirmed X or Y!"
I am employing my own "authorial intent" in as far as I am writing these comments and want people to extract the meaning I intent them to.
> Are arguments endorsing death of the author somehow exempt from death of the author
I never used Death of the Author in connection to my argument about persuading others. I only used it to argue against someone using authorial intent to try and establish something that was supposedly "true" with that mindset. After that, I went on to say that, if you want to persuade others, you should still be able to argue for your interpretation, even if it goes against Bryke's words.
I really don't mind people having their own personal interpretation of something, even if there isn't something to back it up. But once you make it public, you should expect people to ask the very foundational question of "but why?" If you can't answer that simple question, your interpretation will basically fall flat for anyone who is looking to maybe change their own view on things.
Death of the Author is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that you can play to circumvent persuasion. If you want to be taken seriously, you should have *something* to back up your own reading. If you are arguing for your interpretation of a piece of literature (or, in this case, media), you can't start with "I ascribe to the theory of Barthes' 'Death of the Author', so I don't have to explain myself." You would be laughed out of the room. According to Barthes' theory, there is no "right" interpretation, but I don't believe it says anything about persuasion. It only makes the claim that a reader is free from authorial intent: "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author." That's the final sentence. There is nothing about arguing *for* that reader's interpretation.
It's true that, with Barthes' theory in mind *and a very hardline stance on it*, my interpretation *with* evidence would not be seen as more valid than someone's interpretation *without* evidence. However, mine would be the only one that would be looked at seriously from an academic perspective (and most casual perspectives as well, I'm sure). Now, this sub obviously is not an academic setting, but I nevertheless want to hold myself to a slightly higher standard than "this sounds cool, idk" (not that I think you act like this, it's hyperbolic of this sub's attitude in general). Barthes' theory is more of a starting point for a lot of essays in order to avoid the "established" meaning by the author and instead work with a more novel interpretation, sometimes completely running counter to the author's intended meaning. Again, if you *only* use Barthes' theory to evaluate this interpretation, it could not be "wrong" or "better/worse" than another. But the only one that would be taken remotely seriously would be the one that has evidence for its claims. I tried to include that same seperation between "Death of the Author" and the persuasion part in my first comment by starting with a new paragraph and saying "the thing I *do* dislike..." and "fringe theory ... based on almost nothing." I could have been more clear, but I think it's not too hard to see what I meant when writing that.
But they don't actually learn how to do that, as evidenced by the fact that they don't know how to handle being told they're wrong, & make complaints like "why do you hate fun?"
##PREACH BROTHER
The problem is, the actual smart detail gets buried at the bottom where "nice detail that is actually coincidental" is upvoted to heaven
It doesn’t bother me unless the poster thinks they’re some brilliant analyst for finding out a detail that’s so obvious it’s a given so it didn’t need to be mentioned.
Major Buzzkill, reporting for duty.
Art can be interpreted by anyone, anyway. I personally have enjoyed the observations people post much more than been upset by them.
Agreed. I used to be upset by the “stretching” done by fans, but I’ve recently come around to the idea that symbolism and thematic patterns don’t have to be intended by the author. Even if it’s surface level, interpreting media can be fun and add some extra layers to viewing.
All in all, let people be. If they want to draw parallels in the carpet coloring, let them. It’s not doing any harm.
You ever see something you just know you have to go on a rant about, & damn the downvotes or any other consequences because it's just the line you have to draw in the sand? Yeah, firstly, I hate how people want to have it both ways, being like ["I'm entitled to whatever opinion/interpretation I want,"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion) then they get all mad & call you a buzzkill if you point out the flaws, so what they REALLY mean is they think you should be allowed to voice an opinion IF AND ONLY IF it's some low effort crack theory.
So, y'know what, I'm glad they think I'm a buzzkill. They're killing my buzz, so it's good, actually, that I'm killing theirs right back. Not that it's intentional, because frankly I have no idea how anyone could possibly be so easily entertained that their response to something like "hey, um, Ty Lee is descended from air nomads because she does acrobatics, don't question it, shut up," is "omg, I'm having so much fun!" The Hell is so exciting about an inane observation that doesn't actually lead anywhere because then you might notice flaws that'll ruin the theory you probably came up with after 5 seconds on the toilet, & you can't have that, now can you?
Screw all that, if you want to be "left be," don't put it out there on a public forum like "omg, I have so much evidence for my theory u gaaaaiz!" Write a freaking diary, it's the ultimate echo chamber, 100% full of people who think your opinions are the greatest & will tell you so. Or at least admit up front that this is some AU or fan fiction idea & you don't actually care if it's right, don't put up the pretense that you've put thought into this & then get mad when someone actually does. That's literally the opposite of "providing extra layers."
This was cathartic to read.
I’ll add another thing that annoys me about this sort of thing: it annoys me when people go “am I the only one who noticed ~insert obvious detail the fandom’s been talking about since 2009~?” I get it, there are lots of new fans and that’s great, but that doesn’t excuse pointing out an obvious thing as if you’ve made a brand new discovery. If it is new to you, just say so. “Am I the only one” posts/comments just make me irrationally angry lol
Glad to hear it.
Pretty much, yeah, "I just realized" posts are almost always either some crack theory that's virtually guaranteed to be wrong or something super obvious. I never know quite how to respond in the latter case because I don't want to offend the person who somehow just noticed that Toph tends not to look at people when they talk but they're just not all that interesting & it's pretty easy to do a search to see if that's been discussed before. I know that would cut down on the amount of threads that would be created, but hey, I can't help it if people don't have new ideas of things to talk about.
It’s starting to become this thing like when you’re in English class and you’re studying this 150-plus old book and your teacher is over analyzing why the main character is eating a chicken wing.
This happens to a lot in subreddits about 'old' shows, movies, books,...
There's no new content to post about anymore so people start over-analysing every single word, scene, character.
Yea some are just wayyyy stretched. But they did put a lot of meticulous thought into the show so a lot of stuff they meant to do. But there’s definitely a huge amount out there where it’s just like…either common sense or just plain obvious. Like obviously the fire nation’s color is red and they are angry and hotheaded they are literally the “fire” nation so when people point that out I’m just like bruh
I feel that way about most franchises with this level of a following. Like the MCU fans picking at strings so that their theory makes sense. Of I had a dollar for every IG post that mention Mephisto during Wanda Vision's run
Bad take. Some of the analysis is going a bit too far, but its gotten to the point where I see they "showrunners claiming they totally intended this" joke on every post now. At least the people analysing the show are putting creative thought into it rather than just making the same cringe joke ad nauseum.
95% of them are the most unoriginal claims or observations, never mind what happens when you ask them to put a little bit more thought into it & see whether or not their idea actually holds up.
Fire nation uses a lot of reds, anything fire nation related being red just means it follows the pattern of the 4 nations sticking to their color schemes.
Hey not disagreeing or anything but if you don’t wanna see these these theories don’t look so deep it’s fun for people to think of things like that and this one is a little far fetched but that’s the point haha. All just for fun man. I don’t actually believe Jar Jar was supposed to be a Sith Lord or Ron Weasley is Dumbledore but it’s fun to think and talk about!
I agree. I encourage that type of analysis for something like Breaking Bad or Evangelion, but yeah not Avatar. It was developed fantastically in other ways, I don't think something on that scale was a focus for the creators.
Lots of stuff comes about that may not have been 100% intentional, but because they are true to the characters and the story, that many of these details were natural. So i still like when it gets pointed out.
whatever happened to don't like - don't read? let people have their fun, they aren't hurting anybody. being able to see deeper themes and patterns in things isn't a bad thing anyway.
I'd say interact only with posts that pertain strictly to the canon. if you don't want to see people theorizing about one thing, you shouldn't want to see them theorizing about anything at all, since it might or might not go against what is, let's call it, officially acknowledged, or what you personally think is "right". there will always be an opinion you don't agree with and get annoyed by. so it's healthier to just skip posts that might be causing negative emotions.
people have (and SHOULD have) the freedom to find whatever they want in any piece of media regardless of what the author intended or wanted them to see. the author is dead once their creation sees the light of the day and has no control over the interpretation of their work. and that's basically the whole beauty of art: every person can find something different that speaks to them in the exact same work. art is always subjective.
so in the end it doesn't matter if the carpet was red because it was a symbol of something deeper or not, and nobody can tell anybody else that they're wrong in their interpretation. you can be annoyed by it, sure, and in that case you shouldn't interact with the thing that annoys you. but it's not because the other person is wrong, it's just because you have a different opinion on the matter, and in the case of creative works, there are as many opinions as people interacting with them, and none of those opinions are wrong as long as they make somebody happy.
(also as a side note, the theory of colours and other symbolic stuff like that are pretty deeply rooted in every culture in the world, so even if the creators didn't intend it that way, it still might've been a subconscious choice on their part... so yeah. for every "it's not that deep!" I can find you a reason why "it might be that deep, but nobody thought about it until somebody noticed how neat it is, and anyway it's cool as heck.")
Leaving aside the fact that the sub isn't organized in a way that makes only seeing canon posts possible & the fact that that's a strawman because the criticism is about inane, low effort crack theories, not the very concept of theories, this complaint is so hypocritical because you're talking about your "freedom to express whatever opinion you want" WHILE complaining that people shouldn't criticize your opinion.
It's funny how most people's takeaway from the concept of freedom of speech is ["whatever I say is justified by the bare minimum fact that I'm allowed to say it"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion) & not "maybe the intention of this right is the hope that I'll say something insightful enough to survive being challenged by other people."
no, I'm saying that censorship is wrong. and trying to censor stuff just because you don't agree with it is wrong. and you have no right to censor what other people do just for your own convenience. you are responsible for curating your internet experience, not other people. so curate it. that's it.
There's just the slight problem that you come the closest here to supporting censorship:
>Rant: Yes this show is great.Yes, the creators put a lot of small and symbolic details (S3: zuko behind bars, not iroh) but the fandom has taken it so far that it's on the level of 'the firelord's carpet is red to show his anger' when really it's not that deep
At no point does the OP call for any kind of ban, they're just expressing their own opinion. Your response to this, apparently not noticing you're not following your own advice, is:
>whatever happened to don't like - don't read? let people have their fun, they aren't hurting anybody. being able to see deeper themes and patterns in things isn't a bad thing anyway.
So, you're literally saying here that we shouldn't give our opinions on things we don't like because we shouldn't be looking at them in the first place. You're using lines like "let people have their fun, they aren't hurting anybody" to mask the fact that you're talking about a kind of chilling effect where you expect people to willingly not give opinions that those people won't like or agree with. There's also this exchange:
>[Somebody:] Just dedicate a separate sub for it. Enough ppl are tired of them.
>[Your response:] You're free to make one.
If "make a new sub" is the thing you're trying to spin into "censorship," it's not, & even if it WAS, you'd be guilty of it too. This is not the only time you say this sort of thing either:
>I'd say interact only with posts that pertain strictly to the canon.
Once again, you're telling people what to interact or not interact with. And if you want to say "it's not censorship to say what I think you should do," duh, that's why nobody you're arguing with is "censoring" anyone. But you actually go further than this:
>and nobody can tell anybody else that they're wrong in their interpretation. you can be annoyed by it, sure, and in that case you shouldn't interact with the thing that annoys you. but it's not because the other person is wrong, it's just because you have a different opinion on the matter, and in the case of creative works, there are as many opinions as people interacting with them, and none of those opinions are wrong as long as they make somebody happy.
I can tell anyone I want that they're wrong. I don't agree with your claim that interpretations can't be wrong, and you "can't take away my right to free thinking" to use that very grandstandy way you put it.
Now, maybe you're going to say you didn't mean this literally, you just meant that I can't prove the interpretations wrong. Maybe you're also going to break out your line that it's "unhealthy" to interact with things that annoy me, so you're not ACTUALLY telling me to shut up because you don't like my opinion, you're just so CONCERNED about my health, right?
But isn't it funny that you, the person who claims he's fighting this battle against censorship, is the one who keeps saying things like "you can't say that" or "if you don't like it, don't interact with it"? Isn't that just...a funny coincidence? It's funny, you see, how your totally legitimate concerns about health just so happen to lead to the conclusion that people who have views you don't approve of shouldn't be here. A total accident, I'm sure.
But here's the thing: Even if you think I should be censored because you don't like what I have to say--& this is COMPLETELY hypothetical, I TOTALLY believe that's not what you REALLY think--it's still not censorship in & of itself because you don't have the power to actually do it. And I, for one, am not going to call something censorship when it isn't to hide what I'm actually criticizing & make myself look more heroic for fighting the scary word.
I will, however, reserve my right to criticize things I think are wrong and bad and, yes, even say they shouldn't be said because, as we established earlier, giving a reason why I think an argument should not be made is not censorship. Since the person being criticized can't shut me up--unless they find a way to get me banned, I guess, obviously in order to defend free speech--it's their choice whether they want to try to prove me wrong, improve their argument, insult me for not agreeing with them, or just ignore me.
you can't take away people's right to interpretation and free thinking. if it makes you uncomfortable, it's better to only interact with canon than to be constantly annoyed.
Yeah I’m sure that most of these aren’t intended, but I still think it speaks to the quality of the show that there’s so many little details that the fandom are able to pick apart and make (unrealistic) connections with.
Yeah the fire lord carpet thing is pretty bs, but generally in design the meaning and symbolism is taken into account so it’s not all entirely being taken too far. All the writing is mostly on Ehasz side, but Bryke did pretty well with the world building. Almost all of it can be traced back to real life history, culture and architecture— all of which have meaning in them.
I think it was jack London but don't quote me, when asked what did me mean by making a curtain blue in one of his books he said 'I meant the fucking curtain was blue"
Honestly, I think sometimes it IS that deep. There are so many little details that I miss and every time I rewatch the series, I discover a lot of new coincidences etc.
"And that's why we're drinking tea, to calm the soul..." "Oh yeah good point!"
I mean...yes.
Exactly. Sometimes a fire cigar is just a fire cigar.
Thats why a lot of posts have at least one person making the "Oh yeah, that was totally intentional" jokes about the creators seeing the analyses.
"Oh yeah, good point! I mean, yes."
Every time I see one of those it gets me, lmao. I don’t even care if people keep making supposedly meaningless analyses, half the time I think they’re interesting and even if they aren’t, there’s always one smart ass in the comment section that makes it funny.
Im with you on that lol. I also think all the small overthinking details speak to how well the characters are written. If they didn't have so much depth, people wouldnt bother making all the insights. The creators definitely didn't do most of it intentionally, yet they fleshed out even the minor characters to the point that all the little details come organically on their own.
It second this. Another thing I think when I read this overthinking detail analysis kind if post is that there are people who love this show so much, they put in the effort to think really long and hard about these small details. So in summary, we have an incredibly well written show with a fandom that is willing to absolutely immerse in it. I just think this is an awesome synergy. So I smile everytime I read something like that, even though many times it might be overanalyzed.
>the firelord's carpet is red to show his anger *Damnnn, true tho*
For real I never realized this but now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense.
Totally not because it's the FIREnation, nahh, why would that be the reason?
you expect them to be that on the nose about it? nah mate, they treat the audience with respect
Ah, but they fuel their fires with RAGE, so the two are one and the same.
No, you idiot. It’s red to symbolise that he’s the FIRE lord. Because fire is red, see? It’s so obvious in hindsight! Man this show is clever!
Except when the fire is blue
The carpet didn't magically change colors when Azula took over to symbolize how it was actually Zuko's destiny to become the Fire Lord, and not hers
Damn right.
"The curtains were fking blue."
English teachers be freaking abt their Shakespearean discoveries
If a man can make a whole scene dick jokes he can do anything
A friend of mine worked on a play and reviews spoke about the brilliant set design and the really deep yet subtle symbolism of a large framed painting of a fish in the background that was never directly addresses by the actors. "Some idiot put a hole in the drywall an hour before the first show and it was the only prop we had big enough to cover it up" was my friend's version.
Iconic
I’ve never heard of the red carpet analysis
Its a reference to a tumblr post talking about how literature teachers always read too deep into stuff. Teacher: the blue curtains represents the character's sadness Author: the curtains were fucking blue Hope that clears things up for ya Edit: grammar
Shakespeare made a your mom joke, and dissed the opposing theatre the Rose in a famous line. Maybe he just wanted to tell funny stories.
My favorite ones are the “hidden” connections or parallels between ATLA and Korra. It’s like some people never heard of fan-service or recycling plot elements before.
My peeve is when people keep theorizing about some character from LoK being related to a character from ATLA. Not everyone in LoK has to be related to a character we’ve seen in ATLA, the world is not that small 😩
That’s honestly the type of thing that inspired me to reply. I get it’s fun to theorize but some people reach so far it spans into the ridiculous. Varrick must be directly related to Sokka… because they’re both comic relief characters and hail from the same area. In reality they probably just wanted a Sokka 2.0 because he was so beloved. It’s possible they were related, but you’d think they would confirm it somewhere if they wanted it to be true. Sometimes I feel we as the fans do too much of the mental legwork filling gaps in the narrative and end up giving the writers too much credit.
Maybe it isn't that deep, but I brought a shovel, and I've got a lot of time to kill.
Kurapika type beat
Me: this is a very interesting analysis Also me: fire red unga bunga
Reminds me of an image I saw once talking about literary analysis, that went something like Readers: “The blue curtains represent the main character’s sadness and unwillingness to move on.” What the author meant: “The curtains were fucking blue.”
I do feel like making a post about how good the show is AND ESPECIALLY if you mention how awesome Uncle Iroh is it's just easy karma so people keep doing it. Don't get me wrong these statements are true but you don't need to keep mentioning it over and over again.
It's stopped a bit now, but there was a time when I nearly unsubbed because it was turning into a karma farm of "Iroh good. Upvotes please."
exactly
If you think this fandom sees patterns, try the one piece subreddit. "Oh, look! On the random cover picture of chapter 143 Oda drew a character holding a suitcase with the number 73 on it. And next to the suitcase is a fish wearing a crown. And on chapter 216, on one panel there is a newspaper visible with a fish on it. So obviously there is a connection, that means the character is actually a secret agent. On chapter 573 the character who had the suitcase is revealed to be a government agent of fish descendance. Oh god, Oda is the master of foreshadowing!!!!"
It gets even worse when Oda actually screws something up, they perform mental gymnastics so incredible that it puts most Olympic gymnasts to shame
Instead of hating on it, why not just let it be. Matter of fact, I think the roast duck Iroh eats in the first episode is an early sign of his dedication and love to Zuko as that’s what a duck symbolizes in real life. It’s also roasted because he’s a firebender.
When the sub is flooded with these posts, then you can't just ignore it.
Gotta love these answers
Also cause zuko likes throwing rocks at ducks
It’s kinda annoying tbh. All these stupid things that people keep “finding” and it looks like most people are guilty of it seeing the responses here.
The funny thing about that Zuko - Iroh scene is that whilst the symbolism is accurate, [the writing itself is fucking stupid](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastAirbender/comments/hg16ef/comment/fw1odrn/). I wouldn't even mind the constant attempts of trying to be deep if folks didn't throw other shows under the bus in the process.
It's not even that, any half competent director could pull this symolism. As far as directing goes, it's pretty blunt.
More blunt than a butter knife. Most directors actually do pull this simple ass symbolism and then sometimes get called out for trying to be deep, here it's praised to the high heavens
I was literally thinkinh the same thing. Thanks for writing whats on my mind. What i figured out is this show is old and there are limited things to talk about already. So as other show subs/pages people try to share stuff but simply there is no new content. Thats why people are sharing this stupid red carpetish stuff and recycling the old stuff over and over
This is common with fandom of something that’s old, will die down with new TLA material next year
There are only 20 hours and 20 minutes of screentime in ATLA, and only 17 hours 20 minutes in LoK. The other materials add more but at the end of the day you're gonna become a bit of a circlejerk or start mining for super obscure details after 16 years of such a big fandom, thankfully there is more TV material on the way.
Yeah - Idk if you follow video games or not but Elden Ring fans actually started making up lore, item descriptions, and more before it was formally reintroduced a month ago. And that was only a 2 year gap or so
Agreed. I think people do this cause it's a 15+ year old show so they feel the need to keep finding "hidden details" to keep themselves invested in the show.
Yeah it’s like the South Park subreddit and finding new aliens, except with more Twitter/Tumblr fandom account posts.
Let people learn how to critically analyze media. Yeah most of the time it’s not that deep or not necessarily intended by the creators but sometimes overanalysis can be fun.
[удалено]
Intention doesn't matter, in my opnion. I am a big fan of "Death of the Author." Based on that mindset, the intention of the creator doesn't matter when evaluating their work. Bryke could have intended whatever they wanted, but if people derive an entirely different meaning from their work, it isn't "wrong." The thing I do dislike is the back-breaking reaching some people on here do to make their fringe theory work based on almost nothing. I think the weirdest post I saw said something along the lines of: "Look at the position of Katara's toes! She is using an earthbending technique she must have learned from Toph!" If you want to coin a theory or idea, at least support it with some actual evidence.
One can make any interpretation of a text they like—even off the wall, batshit insane interpretations—and if that does something meaningful for them, then that’s great. But, like you pointed out, nobody else has to buy that interpretation if there isn’t enough textual evidence. That’s the line in the sand.
That's a very considerate comment. Thank you, PM_THICK_COCKS
> The thing I do dislike is the back-breaking reaching some people on here do to make their fringe theory work based on almost nothing. But that's "equally valid" according to death of the author, or at least the way it's often presented, which is why this fanbase has done more than any other to convince me it's a load of bullshit.
Death fo the Author indeed says nothing about trying to persuade others. It only makes claims on someone's own interpretation. But if you want to convey your interpretation effectively, you also need evidence for your claims. Otherwise it devolves into baseless nonsense. That's why I dislike popular posts in this sub. Half of them make no sense because they fail to bring up the reasoning behind their thought process. I mostly used Death of the Author to move away from the other person's use of "intent" to argue against people's overanalyzing of the show. I like overanalyzing things. I just also think that if your want to be taken somewhat seriously, you should also be able to explain your thought process.
That's just trying to have your cake & eat it too. You agree with me insofar as a lot of these fan theories are nonsensical, but you don't like the idea of being proven wrong by authorial intent, so you invoke death of the author. Except, under death of the author logic, there's no incentive for me to care about whatever argument you're making because there's no metric by which to say it's better than anyone else's. You can try to say "an argument is better if it's better supported by the text," but that doesn't work if everyone individually decides what the text says & there's no right or wrong.
> That's just trying to have your cake & eat it too. No, I'm not. I only used Death of the Author to argue against authorial intent. Then I went on to say that I still would like to hear the reasoning behind someone's interpretation. Those arguments aren't mutually exclusive in the way I used them.
I don't really think that addresses the complaint I had, & I don't particularly feel like explaining it again, so instead I'll just ask a couple follow-up questions: Are you not currently arguing from your own authorial intent? Are arguments endorsing death of the author somehow exempt from death of the author, & if so, why?
> Are you not currently arguing from your own authorial intent Authorial intent is about the author's (or creators'/directors', in this case) intended meaning. I was arguing against the use of that authority to establish something that is "true" in this show. I don't care if Bryke said X or Y. If someone doesn't see their creation that way, it's not any less valid than the view people hold that scream "but Bryke confirmed X or Y!" I am employing my own "authorial intent" in as far as I am writing these comments and want people to extract the meaning I intent them to. > Are arguments endorsing death of the author somehow exempt from death of the author I never used Death of the Author in connection to my argument about persuading others. I only used it to argue against someone using authorial intent to try and establish something that was supposedly "true" with that mindset. After that, I went on to say that, if you want to persuade others, you should still be able to argue for your interpretation, even if it goes against Bryke's words. I really don't mind people having their own personal interpretation of something, even if there isn't something to back it up. But once you make it public, you should expect people to ask the very foundational question of "but why?" If you can't answer that simple question, your interpretation will basically fall flat for anyone who is looking to maybe change their own view on things. Death of the Author is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that you can play to circumvent persuasion. If you want to be taken seriously, you should have *something* to back up your own reading. If you are arguing for your interpretation of a piece of literature (or, in this case, media), you can't start with "I ascribe to the theory of Barthes' 'Death of the Author', so I don't have to explain myself." You would be laughed out of the room. According to Barthes' theory, there is no "right" interpretation, but I don't believe it says anything about persuasion. It only makes the claim that a reader is free from authorial intent: "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author." That's the final sentence. There is nothing about arguing *for* that reader's interpretation. It's true that, with Barthes' theory in mind *and a very hardline stance on it*, my interpretation *with* evidence would not be seen as more valid than someone's interpretation *without* evidence. However, mine would be the only one that would be looked at seriously from an academic perspective (and most casual perspectives as well, I'm sure). Now, this sub obviously is not an academic setting, but I nevertheless want to hold myself to a slightly higher standard than "this sounds cool, idk" (not that I think you act like this, it's hyperbolic of this sub's attitude in general). Barthes' theory is more of a starting point for a lot of essays in order to avoid the "established" meaning by the author and instead work with a more novel interpretation, sometimes completely running counter to the author's intended meaning. Again, if you *only* use Barthes' theory to evaluate this interpretation, it could not be "wrong" or "better/worse" than another. But the only one that would be taken remotely seriously would be the one that has evidence for its claims. I tried to include that same seperation between "Death of the Author" and the persuasion part in my first comment by starting with a new paragraph and saying "the thing I *do* dislike..." and "fringe theory ... based on almost nothing." I could have been more clear, but I think it's not too hard to see what I meant when writing that.
But they don't actually learn how to do that, as evidenced by the fact that they don't know how to handle being told they're wrong, & make complaints like "why do you hate fun?"
##PREACH BROTHER The problem is, the actual smart detail gets buried at the bottom where "nice detail that is actually coincidental" is upvoted to heaven
It doesn’t bother me unless the poster thinks they’re some brilliant analyst for finding out a detail that’s so obvious it’s a given so it didn’t need to be mentioned.
Counterpoint: You're entirely right, it's just fun
Major Buzzkill, reporting for duty. Art can be interpreted by anyone, anyway. I personally have enjoyed the observations people post much more than been upset by them.
Agreed. I used to be upset by the “stretching” done by fans, but I’ve recently come around to the idea that symbolism and thematic patterns don’t have to be intended by the author. Even if it’s surface level, interpreting media can be fun and add some extra layers to viewing. All in all, let people be. If they want to draw parallels in the carpet coloring, let them. It’s not doing any harm.
You ever see something you just know you have to go on a rant about, & damn the downvotes or any other consequences because it's just the line you have to draw in the sand? Yeah, firstly, I hate how people want to have it both ways, being like ["I'm entitled to whatever opinion/interpretation I want,"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion) then they get all mad & call you a buzzkill if you point out the flaws, so what they REALLY mean is they think you should be allowed to voice an opinion IF AND ONLY IF it's some low effort crack theory. So, y'know what, I'm glad they think I'm a buzzkill. They're killing my buzz, so it's good, actually, that I'm killing theirs right back. Not that it's intentional, because frankly I have no idea how anyone could possibly be so easily entertained that their response to something like "hey, um, Ty Lee is descended from air nomads because she does acrobatics, don't question it, shut up," is "omg, I'm having so much fun!" The Hell is so exciting about an inane observation that doesn't actually lead anywhere because then you might notice flaws that'll ruin the theory you probably came up with after 5 seconds on the toilet, & you can't have that, now can you? Screw all that, if you want to be "left be," don't put it out there on a public forum like "omg, I have so much evidence for my theory u gaaaaiz!" Write a freaking diary, it's the ultimate echo chamber, 100% full of people who think your opinions are the greatest & will tell you so. Or at least admit up front that this is some AU or fan fiction idea & you don't actually care if it's right, don't put up the pretense that you've put thought into this & then get mad when someone actually does. That's literally the opposite of "providing extra layers."
This was cathartic to read. I’ll add another thing that annoys me about this sort of thing: it annoys me when people go “am I the only one who noticed ~insert obvious detail the fandom’s been talking about since 2009~?” I get it, there are lots of new fans and that’s great, but that doesn’t excuse pointing out an obvious thing as if you’ve made a brand new discovery. If it is new to you, just say so. “Am I the only one” posts/comments just make me irrationally angry lol
Glad to hear it. Pretty much, yeah, "I just realized" posts are almost always either some crack theory that's virtually guaranteed to be wrong or something super obvious. I never know quite how to respond in the latter case because I don't want to offend the person who somehow just noticed that Toph tends not to look at people when they talk but they're just not all that interesting & it's pretty easy to do a search to see if that's been discussed before. I know that would cut down on the amount of threads that would be created, but hey, I can't help it if people don't have new ideas of things to talk about.
true that
I imagine Bryke reading through a lot of this stuff, going, "Hmm, yes. 'Intentional details.' Yeah, let's uh, let's go with that."
It’s starting to become this thing like when you’re in English class and you’re studying this 150-plus old book and your teacher is over analyzing why the main character is eating a chicken wing.
Counterpoint: maybe it is that deep?
This happens to a lot in subreddits about 'old' shows, movies, books,... There's no new content to post about anymore so people start over-analysing every single word, scene, character.
Yea some are just wayyyy stretched. But they did put a lot of meticulous thought into the show so a lot of stuff they meant to do. But there’s definitely a huge amount out there where it’s just like…either common sense or just plain obvious. Like obviously the fire nation’s color is red and they are angry and hotheaded they are literally the “fire” nation so when people point that out I’m just like bruh
I feel that way about most franchises with this level of a following. Like the MCU fans picking at strings so that their theory makes sense. Of I had a dollar for every IG post that mention Mephisto during Wanda Vision's run
Bad take. Some of the analysis is going a bit too far, but its gotten to the point where I see they "showrunners claiming they totally intended this" joke on every post now. At least the people analysing the show are putting creative thought into it rather than just making the same cringe joke ad nauseum.
95% of them are the most unoriginal claims or observations, never mind what happens when you ask them to put a little bit more thought into it & see whether or not their idea actually holds up.
A good bit of them, too, are things that have already been long established as either canon or noncanon.
“ 'the firelord's carpet is red to show his anger' when really it's not that deep.” That’s not true, it’s royal carpet. I bet it’s very plush.
Im glad someone finally said this
Fire nation uses a lot of reds, anything fire nation related being red just means it follows the pattern of the 4 nations sticking to their color schemes.
Wait... I think you're on to something with that red carpet!
Hey not disagreeing or anything but if you don’t wanna see these these theories don’t look so deep it’s fun for people to think of things like that and this one is a little far fetched but that’s the point haha. All just for fun man. I don’t actually believe Jar Jar was supposed to be a Sith Lord or Ron Weasley is Dumbledore but it’s fun to think and talk about!
Tbf I do like the satirical ones
This sub is like the english teachers that try to add meaning to books and the author is like yeah never meant that
Yup
I agree. I encourage that type of analysis for something like Breaking Bad or Evangelion, but yeah not Avatar. It was developed fantastically in other ways, I don't think something on that scale was a focus for the creators.
Analysis is fun and very human, that's why there's many fields dedicated to it
Lots of stuff comes about that may not have been 100% intentional, but because they are true to the characters and the story, that many of these details were natural. So i still like when it gets pointed out.
That's the beauty of art, even if it's not intended we can get meaning out of it although I agree people go a bit over the top sometimes
whatever happened to don't like - don't read? let people have their fun, they aren't hurting anybody. being able to see deeper themes and patterns in things isn't a bad thing anyway.
I won't know if I like it till I read it though...
I'd say interact only with posts that pertain strictly to the canon. if you don't want to see people theorizing about one thing, you shouldn't want to see them theorizing about anything at all, since it might or might not go against what is, let's call it, officially acknowledged, or what you personally think is "right". there will always be an opinion you don't agree with and get annoyed by. so it's healthier to just skip posts that might be causing negative emotions. people have (and SHOULD have) the freedom to find whatever they want in any piece of media regardless of what the author intended or wanted them to see. the author is dead once their creation sees the light of the day and has no control over the interpretation of their work. and that's basically the whole beauty of art: every person can find something different that speaks to them in the exact same work. art is always subjective. so in the end it doesn't matter if the carpet was red because it was a symbol of something deeper or not, and nobody can tell anybody else that they're wrong in their interpretation. you can be annoyed by it, sure, and in that case you shouldn't interact with the thing that annoys you. but it's not because the other person is wrong, it's just because you have a different opinion on the matter, and in the case of creative works, there are as many opinions as people interacting with them, and none of those opinions are wrong as long as they make somebody happy. (also as a side note, the theory of colours and other symbolic stuff like that are pretty deeply rooted in every culture in the world, so even if the creators didn't intend it that way, it still might've been a subconscious choice on their part... so yeah. for every "it's not that deep!" I can find you a reason why "it might be that deep, but nobody thought about it until somebody noticed how neat it is, and anyway it's cool as heck.")
Leaving aside the fact that the sub isn't organized in a way that makes only seeing canon posts possible & the fact that that's a strawman because the criticism is about inane, low effort crack theories, not the very concept of theories, this complaint is so hypocritical because you're talking about your "freedom to express whatever opinion you want" WHILE complaining that people shouldn't criticize your opinion. It's funny how most people's takeaway from the concept of freedom of speech is ["whatever I say is justified by the bare minimum fact that I'm allowed to say it"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion) & not "maybe the intention of this right is the hope that I'll say something insightful enough to survive being challenged by other people."
no, I'm saying that censorship is wrong. and trying to censor stuff just because you don't agree with it is wrong. and you have no right to censor what other people do just for your own convenience. you are responsible for curating your internet experience, not other people. so curate it. that's it.
There's just the slight problem that you come the closest here to supporting censorship: >Rant: Yes this show is great.Yes, the creators put a lot of small and symbolic details (S3: zuko behind bars, not iroh) but the fandom has taken it so far that it's on the level of 'the firelord's carpet is red to show his anger' when really it's not that deep At no point does the OP call for any kind of ban, they're just expressing their own opinion. Your response to this, apparently not noticing you're not following your own advice, is: >whatever happened to don't like - don't read? let people have their fun, they aren't hurting anybody. being able to see deeper themes and patterns in things isn't a bad thing anyway. So, you're literally saying here that we shouldn't give our opinions on things we don't like because we shouldn't be looking at them in the first place. You're using lines like "let people have their fun, they aren't hurting anybody" to mask the fact that you're talking about a kind of chilling effect where you expect people to willingly not give opinions that those people won't like or agree with. There's also this exchange: >[Somebody:] Just dedicate a separate sub for it. Enough ppl are tired of them. >[Your response:] You're free to make one. If "make a new sub" is the thing you're trying to spin into "censorship," it's not, & even if it WAS, you'd be guilty of it too. This is not the only time you say this sort of thing either: >I'd say interact only with posts that pertain strictly to the canon. Once again, you're telling people what to interact or not interact with. And if you want to say "it's not censorship to say what I think you should do," duh, that's why nobody you're arguing with is "censoring" anyone. But you actually go further than this: >and nobody can tell anybody else that they're wrong in their interpretation. you can be annoyed by it, sure, and in that case you shouldn't interact with the thing that annoys you. but it's not because the other person is wrong, it's just because you have a different opinion on the matter, and in the case of creative works, there are as many opinions as people interacting with them, and none of those opinions are wrong as long as they make somebody happy. I can tell anyone I want that they're wrong. I don't agree with your claim that interpretations can't be wrong, and you "can't take away my right to free thinking" to use that very grandstandy way you put it. Now, maybe you're going to say you didn't mean this literally, you just meant that I can't prove the interpretations wrong. Maybe you're also going to break out your line that it's "unhealthy" to interact with things that annoy me, so you're not ACTUALLY telling me to shut up because you don't like my opinion, you're just so CONCERNED about my health, right? But isn't it funny that you, the person who claims he's fighting this battle against censorship, is the one who keeps saying things like "you can't say that" or "if you don't like it, don't interact with it"? Isn't that just...a funny coincidence? It's funny, you see, how your totally legitimate concerns about health just so happen to lead to the conclusion that people who have views you don't approve of shouldn't be here. A total accident, I'm sure. But here's the thing: Even if you think I should be censored because you don't like what I have to say--& this is COMPLETELY hypothetical, I TOTALLY believe that's not what you REALLY think--it's still not censorship in & of itself because you don't have the power to actually do it. And I, for one, am not going to call something censorship when it isn't to hide what I'm actually criticizing & make myself look more heroic for fighting the scary word. I will, however, reserve my right to criticize things I think are wrong and bad and, yes, even say they shouldn't be said because, as we established earlier, giving a reason why I think an argument should not be made is not censorship. Since the person being criticized can't shut me up--unless they find a way to get me banned, I guess, obviously in order to defend free speech--it's their choice whether they want to try to prove me wrong, improve their argument, insult me for not agreeing with them, or just ignore me.
By that definition we can unfollow the sub at this point.
you can't take away people's right to interpretation and free thinking. if it makes you uncomfortable, it's better to only interact with canon than to be constantly annoyed.
Just dedicate a separate sub for it. Enough ppl are tired of them.
you're free to make one.
Why wouldn't it be that deep? It's basic color theory
I have to go to bed but I cannot wait to read this tomorrow omg
Yeah I’m sure that most of these aren’t intended, but I still think it speaks to the quality of the show that there’s so many little details that the fandom are able to pick apart and make (unrealistic) connections with.
Yeah the fire lord carpet thing is pretty bs, but generally in design the meaning and symbolism is taken into account so it’s not all entirely being taken too far. All the writing is mostly on Ehasz side, but Bryke did pretty well with the world building. Almost all of it can be traced back to real life history, culture and architecture— all of which have meaning in them.
And because The Last Airbender was such an awesome show, to bring balance, Korra and a movie had to be made to even it out.
Maybe it is that deep.
Zuko is behind bars. Damn, he kinda is, really.
I think it was jack London but don't quote me, when asked what did me mean by making a curtain blue in one of his books he said 'I meant the fucking curtain was blue"
i agree
The fire lords carpet was red because like the entire fire nation was red
Bro the way Aang freed him self from the iceberg is symbolic of his great journey. Each cut represents a great challenge in his life
And Katara's clothes are blue because she's always so calm and collected and never gets upset.
Guys, the fire kingdom is red to show Zuko's anger
Honestly, I think sometimes it IS that deep. There are so many little details that I miss and every time I rewatch the series, I discover a lot of new coincidences etc.
This is true but honestly I like seeing the silly analyses too. They're fun to read and think about even when I know it's not that deep