Uhm, I think I understand what you mean, Nonnie, but let me know if I’ve misinterpreted. ^^ I think when people write meta they try to take as much into consideration as possible e.g. patterns in the text, what’s been said by Davis, Mulcahy etc., references made in the text, cinematography etc. The more we can back up the sources for our meta, the stronger our argument.
Take Star Wars as an example. Star Wars is both mentioned in the text (the running joke being Scott hasn’t watched it, Stiles telling Scott he’s a better Yoda than Derek) and by Davis, who described Season 4 as having an Empire Strikes Back vibe. The fact that it’s both been mentioned frequently in the text and by the creators means that we can take it seriously as a source of inspiration for the text. And knowing it’s an important source means that we can look for similar patterns between the two texts, and create strong theories about where the TW text is headed.
Star Wars, even the original trilogy (told from Luke’s perspective) is ultimately the tale of Anakin Skywalker. He comes out of the left field, this slave kid from the Outer Rim who turns out to be the legendary Chosen One foretold to bring balance to the Force. Qui-Gon Jinn (a pretty maverick character as far as the Jedi Order goes), believes in Anakin whole-heartedly and risks a great deal to train him, before he shuffles off his mortal coil and leaves the job to Kenobi. Anakin may be the Chosen One, and it may be his tale, but the reality is he was always a small player in a larger story - the story of the Jedi and Sith, the centralisation of power in the galaxy, the Republic split, and the Clone Wars. I mean, Episode 1 really has balls all to do with Anakin - the plot is really all about the Trade Federation’s invasion of Naboo (with Palpatine pulling the strings from the shadows). Anakin’s abilities help him to achieve heroic status during the Clone Wars, but no one stops to ask what bringing balance to the Force actually means. We have a character who didn’t ask to be a Chosen One, didn’t want to leave his mother, was brought into a culture that forbid him basic freedoms (being with his family, making a family of his own). He becomes selfish, bitter, afraid, and when he loses his mother, he vows never to lose someone he loves again, particularly Padme, whose death he starts having prophetic dreams of. Ironically, this pledge is what leads Anakin to the Dark Side and to Padme’s death. It’s a good old Shakespearean tragedy. Anakin’s story is a road to hell paved with good intentions.
So taking a look at the source, what similarities can we draw with TW that the writers may have intended? S3a drilled into our heads the importance of a narrative’s perspective: who is our narrator and how does that change the way the story is being shown? Like Anakin, Scott comes out of the left field. As far as we know, he isn’t personally connected to the Nemeton, Eichen House, or the Argents vs. Hales. Peter tells us he only bit Scott because he happened to be in the woods that night. Like Anakin, the story of Beacon Hills and the Argent/Hale feud is told through Scott’s perspective. Adding to that, it turns out Scott is a True Alpha with a mentor who believes whole-heartedly in him (Deaton and the druids could also be likened to Jedi with all their talk of balance). Allison dies in Scott’s arms like Shmi died in Anakin’s, and afterwards, just like Anakin, Scott vows never to let another person die on his watch.
When we make speculation based on all of this material it has a bit more weight to it. For instance, we can make a strong argument for the text signalling Scott’s up-coming dark arc. Anakin’s role as Chosen One was to bring balance to the Force, and he did - but he did that via an extended trip to the Dark side (bringing down the golden age of the Jedi, then sacrificing himself by killing the Emperor). Alternatively, you could make an argument that Scott isn’t Anakin, but Luke - both Anakin and Luke don’t want to become their fathers, and both failed their tests against themselves in the cave on Dagobah [Luke] / in the dream “Time of Death” [Scott]. In fact, Noshiko makes a very similar comment to Yoda when Scott asks her what will he see in his dreams when he “dies”.
Luke: What’s in there?
Yoda: Only what you take with you.
Scott: What happens when I’m out, am I going to feel anything?
Noshiko: It might feel like you’re dreaming
Scott: Good dreams or bad?
Noshiko: I suppose that depends on you.
Then you’ve got sources like Silent Hill and Jacob’s Ladder. Like Star Wars, we know the short story, “An Incident at Owl Creek Bridge” is an important source, it’s both in the text and mentioned by Davis as the inspiration for Derek’s dream sequence. The Japanese internment camp was called Oak Creek (in one scene, Noshiko even talks about an “incident at oak creek”). So again, speculation about Stiles’ role in Derek’s dream has more weight to it. Jacob’s Ladder and Silent Hill are harder to pin down, because they aren’t specifically mentioned in the text or by the creators by name. They appear in other ways. For example, Jacob’s Ladder was based on Incident at Owl Creek Bridge. It’s pretty much the story of Jacob’s trip through Bardo. In addition, several names, places and cinematography techniques are taken directly from each source. For example, The Chemist is a major character in Jacob’s Ladder, who created a drug that essentially turned soldiers into Berserkers. S4 also features an antagonist only referred to as The Chemist, and also introduced Berserkers. S2 used a technique made famous by Jacob’s Ladder (the fast shaking head - Peter under the ice in S2’s Ice Pick), instantly recognisable to any film/horror buff, all of which makes it a pretty concrete source. So any speculation/meta written based off of a source like Jacob’s Ladder still has credence, but isn’t as easy to prove as a source like Star Wars.
Ultimately, I guess what I’m arguing here is the more we can back up our theories, the more solid they are. Sources help us do that. The more you can prove your source was used, the stronger your speculation. I know that athenadark has a rule of three: if you can find three things to back up your meta, then your meta makes a pretty solid argument. That make sense, nonnie? I’m shockingly bad at explaining myself. XD
Paige - what is in a name, a Teen wolf meta
flower-of-the-desert came upon the information that Paige was given a Last name.
So Derek’s Paige was Paige Krasikeva
I’m giving full credit to flower-of-the-desert on this next part:
Krasi is slavic for resurrect or initiate
Keva means, gentle, beautiful, precious.
So this is disturbing for a few reasons, like is she still around somehow? I’ll get to that in a bit.
-eva is a patronymic ending for females in Bulgaria so even though the name is a portmanteau the inference from the -eva ending is that Paige is from a bulgarian line of immigrants likely.
Paige is a given name for males and females. It is of Latin origin (Byzantine “Págius” young boy helper/mate of young nobles, from “padius” young boy, derived from Greek “Paidion” child) and its meaning is “young helper” or “young child”. A page in medieval households was usually a young boy whose service was the first step in his training as a knight. Use may possibly indicate an ancestor who was a page.
So interpretation of the name as a whole:
Paige Krasikeva - Young helper who resurrects the precious tree
Paige is according to Julia/Jennifer the sacrifice which brought new life to the nematon.
I also want to point out that Paige sacrificed herself willingly, she asked Derek to end her suffering, she unwittingly sacrificed herself willingly to the nematon, everything suggests there is greater power in willing sacrifice, Jennifer even alludes to this.
I also want to point out Paige was not alone in her sacrifice Derek was an intrinsic part and he also sacrificed something, he sacrificed his innocence, you are undeniably changed after you’ve taken a life, you can’t go back, Derek honouring Paige’s wish was a type of sacrifice, he had to commit an act he was against because she asked.
So the resurrection part of her name likely refers to the nematon and not that Paige overcame death.
A classic novel isn’t good because it’s a classic, rather it is a classic because it was important to the development of the art. And that certainly doesn’t mean that any given person, on any given day, will enjoy reading it. It means that, as a writer, I should be aware of what the classic novel changed in the historical progression of novel story telling. Some classics are pretty terrible, even unreadable, but they are still important.
That is not entirely true
some classics are classics because they won’t die, that despite critical slaughtering they are fun to read and parents pass them to children as a good read, they are made into films and tv miniseries more often than those so called “classics”.
That rule only came in with Joyce who believed a book should only be important if it challenged the reader and was written in prose so dense the book could be used as an anchor at sea.
Most classics before the 1930s survived because they were good books, yes the language of Jane Eyre is boring to the modern audience but it lingered not because of it’s early feminism but because the story is great, the girl who the wicked Mr Rochester falls in love with. RD Blackmore’s Lorna Doone is considered to be the literary equivalent of doodles written on a beer mat but it’s never been out of print. Dracula isn’t even considered a good example of the gothic genre but it’s a classic.
All this post says is I don’t like to read old books but I appreciate that they exist and I’m a novelist so I must be a right
well I’m a novelist too and I think you’re talking out of your arse
books that are unreadable don’t become classics, they fade into obscurity, and those books you’re looking down on, people read them three hundred years later.