retcons and gamechangers

ebaeschnbliah:

gosherlocked:

may-shepard:

I’m writing this post because there’s been a lot of talk around emp theory about retconning, and how, if emp is correct, Sherlock will take a substantial turn for the worse. 

I wanted to say a some things about this, from the perspective of someone who has spent a ton of time studying the craft of writing and storytelling from both a creator’s and a critic’s perspective. I hope will be helpful.

First, retconning is not necessarily bad. There are in fact lots of different types of retcon, all of which can be genuinely useful and helpful storytelling devices. 

Second, in the context of current discussions of Sherlock, I wanted to introduce a slightly more specific concept, the idea of the gamechanger, into the discussion. The gamechanger is technically a type of retcon, although it is usually used to more success, and is a product of much more deliberate planning, so to me, it’s a different beast altogether (or at least a different subspecies, see below). This is what I think the show may be doing, and why I think, if emp is correct, it’s all going to be fine.

I’m hoping this post might allow a shift in the way people think about the impact of emp on the show. (In fact, I think, if emp is what’s happening, it’s going to not only enable johnlock faster and more efficiently, but it’s going to make for some very exciting television, but let’s put that aside for now.)

Retcon

Retconning (originally a theological term, WHO KNEW?) is the name for a number of different practices that come out of serialized storytelling. Inevitably, in storytelling contexts where people are laying down a lot of story relatively quickly (traditional comics, soap opera, American television in general), there will be times when the massive bulk of the story’s past pushes writers into inconvenient corners. Enter the retcon!

The basic idea behind the retcon is that, where writers have worked themselves into a corner, they can get out again by inserting fresh information into the past of the story (like a flashback that fills in missing gaps), compressing timelines, ignoring unfortunate avenues of the story’s past that they would rather not acknowledge, or inserting information that contradicts previous truths of the story. All of these devices are types of retcon. Again, none of these types of retcon are necessarily bad. Like everything else in storytelling, it all depends on the level of skill with which they’re applied, and the reason why they’re applied.

When done well, retcon makes magic happen. According to the wiki, the term “retcon” was first used in the context of the DC comics multiverse in the 1980s. The writers found a way to freshen their contemporary storyline by essentially (if I’m understanding this correctly) inserting an au into their story’s past, changing it, and changing details of the present through doing so. Apparently the results were absolutely stunning, and opened whole new avenues for the story. Yay!

When done badly, retcon is a cheat that robs the audience of the thing in which they’re invested. Think about a movie serial, where at the end of episode 10, the character is dangling off a cliff. You can’t wait to see how he gets out of it. Episode 11 starts…and he’s sitting at the bottom of the cliff having a picnic. You’re never given an idea of how he saved himself. The writers are saying that the thing in which you were invested (how is he gonna save himself?) didn’t matter. (Or they’re saying they couldn’t figure a way out of the hole they dug. Either way, really clumsy storytelling.)

Now let’s talk about that infamous Dallas example, because it’s pretty much the worst “it was all a dream” awkward storytelling moment we have available. In that instance, the writers of Dallas erased an entire season of their show by inserting a single fact into the narrative past: it was all a dream. Audiences were justifiably enraged by this choice. Here’s the thing: that decision had nothing to do with the needs of the story, and everything to do with the fact that Patrick Duffy, who played Bobby Ewing, wanted to come back on the show after the writers killed him off (oopsie). It’s a classic case of outside forces causing a decision to be made for the convenience of the showrunners, and at the expense of the story. They threw their own story under the bus, essentially, as a result of an external event. Not a great idea at all. 

So to sum up:

Retcon is a device that grows out of serialized storytelling, especially where that storytelling is done quickly or has a long history.

Retcon is used often when that long history or lack of planning requires a redirect on the part of the writer(s). It is a way to correct accidents of narrative or to alter infelicitous past choices on the part of the writer(s).

Retcon can be done well or poorly.

When done well, retcon opens up new storytelling possibilities going forward.

Retcon is bad when it robs the audience of a resolution in which they are invested.

Gamechanger

A gamechanger is technically a light sort of retcon. In a gamechanger, the writer introduces new information into the story, which doesn’t contradict previous information, but which causes the audience to review and reinterpret the story’s past, enriching the story and the audience’s experience.  

In a real life context, consider your friend who has been ignoring you, which makes you feel bad. Did you say something wrong? Are they mad at you? They finally get in touch and you find out their grandmother just died, and they’ve been busy planning the funeral. Suddenly you understand their behaviour. That’s a real life gamechanger, and will probably cause you to alter your behaviour and the way you think about the situation.

In narrative, a gamechanger usually causes the story to redirect in some major way from where it seemed to be going, up until the point where the gamechanger was introduced.

Here’s why a gamechanger is not quite the same as a retcon:

Generally speaking, a gamechanger is not a product of rapid serialized storytelling, but a thing that is planned from the beginning, or from earlier on. 

The classic example of a gamechanger is the twist at the end of The Sixth Sense. What appears to be a story of a child psychologist helping a little boy who is traumatized by the fact that he sees ghosts, alters completely when it’s revealed that the child psychologist is himself a ghost. (I know that’s a terrible summary but shrug emoji.) So, what you get, once you know the gamechanger, is the opportunity to rewatch the movie, or rethink it in a whole new way. What appears, on first viewing, to be a sort of beautiful story of therapeutic resolution and understanding, turns into an even more beautiful story about mutual redemption, about this little boy, who seems terribly messed up, becoming a hero of sorts, even as the therapist comes to a better understanding of himself, and opens up the potential for his own healing. 

If done well, the gamechanger results in a much richer text than the one the audience thought they were dealing with. It should cause the audience to sit up and take notice, rethink the story, and recast past events in the story in light of this new information. Because of the delicacy of pulling off a gamechanger, it is something that must be carefully calculated, with lots of clues seeded so that when the audience sees it, the response is, “oh…yeah!” as opposed to “wtf?”

Those clues are often things that are usually presented as “normal” or “narrative fact” in the story, and/or rely on audience assumptions to fly under the radar. A gamechanger story introduces gaps into the narrative that are filled in later. In The Sixth Sense, we’re sort of pushed into an understanding that the therapist’s wife is angry with him because he’s been working too hard. She’s ignoring him at dinner. She’s flirting with another man, preparing to cheat on our hero. We are led to supply wrong ideas (their marriage is in trouble) in the gaps left by the narrative (the main gap being that their marriage is technically over because he dead). In light of the gamechanger reveal, we are forced to rethink those ideas. (She’s not ignoring him; she can’t see him. She’s not cheating; she’s mourning, and moving on.)

To sum up: 

A gamechanger bears a strong resemblance to certain types of retcon, specifically, the kind that seeds backstory in order to enhance the narrative in the present.

Unlike a typical retcon, a gamechanger is a product of deliberate storytelling choices.

A gamechanger aims to enrich the story through the narrative reveal. 

In order for a gamechanger to work, there must be incongruities or gaps in knowledge placed deliberately into the story, as pointers toward the real truth of the narrative. The audience is called upon to supplement those gaps with their own assumptions.

A gamechanger, when it’s revealed, will clarify and recast those narrative gaps, correcting wrong assumptions. The delight of a good gamechanger lies in the audience’s ability to review the narrative after the gamechanger is revealed, and to see how the new information enhances their understanding, or explains incongruities and gaps. 

Sherlock

It’s not news to anybody here that hlv left us with some serious questions. It is a narrative with great giant gaps in its timeline, many moments of wtf-ery and, in my opinion, wild incongruities, especially in characterisation, when compared with earlier episodes of the show. It is a narrative practically screaming for a gamechanger.

We know (don’t we?) that the narrative of Sherlock has been meticulously planned since forever ago. The evidence that the showrunners have an astounding degree of control over all elements of this story is absolutely massive. (Speaking as a writer, I’m wildly jealous of their obvious skill.) I trust them not to have fucked up so badly that they need to retcon. If they pull the rug out from under their own story, I’m sure it’s going to be a glorious gamechanger.

BUT even if you are skeptical about all of that, and that’s fine if you are, and thanks for reading this far, I just want to point out that mini gamechangers are already all over the narrative of Sherlock. Every time Sherlock does a deduction, pretty much, we’re given the opportunity to recast the mystery of the case he’s dealing with in light of new information. Gamechanging is practically a narrative staple of the show. If the writers do that on a constant basis in miniature, why wouldn’t they pull a similar trick on a grand scale? 

Tags under the cut.

Weiterlesen

@may-shepard: Thank you so much for this beautiful and detailed explanation. This is exactly how I feel about EMP - brilliant gamechanger if done well, not terrible retcon.

Thank you @may-shepard  for writing this comprehensive explanation. This was a very interesting read. So far Sherlock BBC is - at least in my opinion - a really extraordinary TV-Show. Lovingly detailed and very beautifully crafted. I have all the faith it will continue that way in S4 and (hopefully) beyond.