Is Once Upon A Time worth of Watsonian analysis?

[Bar Farer]

From https://fanlore.org/wiki/Watsonian_vs._Doylist :

Watsonian and Doylist describe two ways to engage with canon.

Watsonian perspective tries to interpret the text from the standpoint of the text. This is sometimes called an in-universe perspective.
Doylist perspective stands outside the text, and is sometimes called a real worldperspective. Things that happen in canonhappen because of decisions made by the author or TPTB; inconsistencies are probably authorial error. These explanations will sometimes be written right into the canon.
So the question is do you find any sort of Watsonian analysis fruitful with OUAT because it seems that the world building and characterizations are very inconsistent to the point where the only explanation is “things happen because A&E want it to happen”.
What do you think?

[sciencevsmagic]

So the question is do you find any sort of Watsonian analysis fruitful with OUAT because it seems that the world building and characterizations are very inconsistent to the point where the only explanation is “things happen because A&E want it to happen”. What do you think?

No, I think a Watsonian analysis of OUAT is pointless. This is exactly what makes discussions about the show so frustrating.

But this is nevertheless an interesting topic. My understanding is that you can rely solely on a Watsonian perspective with some material, provided that it has adequate internal consistency. You can rely solely on a Doylist perspective too, but this would greatly reduce the enjoyment you get from the story. With OUAT and most other things, people use a combination of the two. It starts getting interesting when people use different perspectives for the same situation.

For example, take the time the Charmings kidnapped Malificent’s baby. There are many who take a Doylist view on this and conclude that this seemingly out of character arc came about because the writers were out of ideas but wanted to give the couple something to do. Hence, these people are not inclined to hold the Charmings morally accountable for this act. Those applying a Watsonian perspective however, might reason that the Charmings have been known to act selfishly before, and therefore this was completely in character.

Which perspective is more valid? Are they always equally valid, or there situations where one might be more valid than the other? Is it hypocritical to take a Watsonian view of your most hated character’s misdeeds while taking a Doylist view of your favourite’s?

[RumplesGirl]

I like @sciencevmagic example above about the Charmings. My first instinct was to simply say “no” but the Charming example is spot on in how people interpret this show.

However I am going to go mostly with my gut and say “no.” This show and its plot, character motivations, ect are largely dictated by TPTB (Adam and Eddy, and also ABC) not because thier world–or even some of their characters–make sense and are consistent.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[nevermore]

To the question is do you find any sort of Watsonian analysis fruitful with OUAT because it seems that the world building and characterizations are very inconsistent to the point where the only explanation is “things happen because A&E want it to happen”. What do you think?

Great question, and I think @sciencevsmagic brings up the really excellent point about strategic interpretation, depending on what your stakes are in analyzing a particular character or plot element.

Overall, though, a Watsonian analysis of OUAT is a thankless task because A&E and crew do such a half baked job at world-building. Consider, by contrast, something like Game of Thrones that has a robust and extremely detailed pre-built world that the show can refer to in adapting the plot of ASOIAF to the screen. There, it would make a lot of sense to try to analyze the motivations, often hidden, complex, and contradictory, of the different characters (or the layered results of various events) because the ground doesn’t shift from under you, unless that shift is planned. With OUAT? It’s like toddler storytelling: “no, it was a dragon, no, actually it was a unicorn, and they were in a castle, no on a pirate ship…” You get the picture.

[Author]

Posts