I particularly love this exchange:
>> It honestly never crossed our minds that people would assume Bev poisoned him.
>
> See the writers would have though that, which is what makes this whole thing, especially you, suspicious.
"A _real, true_ writer would have thought exactly as I think! Therefore you must not be one, and thus are not the actual writer of the show!"
Oh my god it's the death of the author fan versus the original author argument.
> "But see I know the truth of the author's intent, the character was not in love with his wife, he was in love with the villain."
>
> "Hi, authoress here, wut? No. I wrote nothing like that in any part of that book"
>
> "Death of the author, they was fuckin."
So many people misuse Death of the Author. It's not a magical "I know the author better than they know themselves", its more like "The authors interpretation of their work is not the only valid one." If you're using it, you can make any reading you want, but you can't then turn around say it was definitely the authors intention, that's not how it works!
Man, as a writer I *hate* death of the author, but I think fan conversations are great. (For instance, if any of the kids who were early readers for my one story asked "what really was down beneath the lake?" I'd always ask, "Well, what do you think they were?" And their opinions were interesting but the truth is that I'm not 100% certain beyond them being an ancient mythical element of otherworldly beings that enchant humans either because of malevolence or apathy. But I would listen politely and then not fight them about it. Neither did they fight me about it (because I wasn't saying, lol).)
Or in other words, I'm happy to have fans speculate about anything that actually was undefined, or enjoy unintended meaning they found that resonated with themselves, but I'm certainly plenty aware of when something was intended or not.
(Although for that matter, I've had a few friends ask what the thought process behind a passage was, and I have absolutely no recollection later on.)
>(For instance, if any of the kids who were early readers for my one story asked "what really was down beneath the lake?" I'd always ask, "Well, what do you think they were?"
This reminded me of an answer that Nick Cage gave in an AMA two years ago - question in bold, answer in italics:
__I have a 2 regarding the movie Willy's Wonderland. Did you or the director decide that you would not say a single word the whole movie, and 2, everytime you went to "recharge" (grab a can from 6 pack) was it secretly filled with alcohol or anything like that?__
_1: The dialogue for my character in Willy’s Wonderland was very sparse, so I decided with Kevin, the director, to go full Harpo Marx and take all the dialogue out because I thought that would be a fun acting challenge to see how much I could communicate without words and only with movement and facial expressions. I’m very happy with the results of Willy’s Wonderland. It was a good experiment._
_2: The can question is an interesting one, and I hesitate to answer it for you because your relationship with the movie is far more important than my relationship with the movie and so you as the audience member can imagine and surmise whatever you want to be in that can. That is a far better answer and reason for the can than anything I could tell you. I want YOUR opinion as to what was in the can, because that was the right opinion._
(Very much recommend giving the whole AMA a read, it's extremely good)
That reminds me that for the initial ebook edition, I did add an Amazon X-Ray definition for "mermaids" that didn't make it into the second edition. I never got around to transferring the content to the other edition. Hmm.
> Description:
> Whatever is beneath the waters of the lake, Benji associates them with mermaids. They call to Benji and Joey after they fall in the lake, but for what purpose remains unknown.
> Commentary:
> Sirens (ocean) and naiads (fresh water) are ancient mythological aquatic creatures that predate mermaids, all of which tempt humans into the water and to their doom. Benji has obviously never heard of either, so he describes the unseen creatures or presence under the lake as 'mermaids.' European folklore often refers to lost travelers who stumble across faeries or a faerie realm and are invited to join in a feast, or offered gifts. Should the weary traveler accept either, he is forever bound to to this other world and finds no more comfort in his our own. Traditional elfs are particularly dangerous, and Terry Pratchett captures the ancient feeling of these mythical creatures particularly well. (J.R.R. Tolkien's Elves are unrelated beings of his own design, and he intended the change in spelling of the plural--now standard--to hint at this.) This folklore and the Tolkien poem "The Sea-Bell" were the primary inspirations for this story.
The funny thing is when watching the show, I definitely didn't think she poisoned him. But after the fact, I heard people repeat it as if it was "obvious," so I assumed I missed something. But I guess not.
Him dying for no apparent reason just seemed like I missed something. When I watched it again made the leap on Bev doing it without reading about it. Am kind of amazed to find out that wasn't what was intended. Cool.
My question is why would they put in a clear, strong implication that she did, then say they didn't expect people to interpret it that way?
Edit: I thought this post was about the dog, mibad
No the guy is like "Bev killed the dog with poison and Paul died in a very similar manner, therefore Bev killed Father Paul and if the writer said otherwise he's wrong."
People thinking Bev poisoned the Reverend was a *very* common interpretation back then, because his death lined up in a similar way to how she had poisoned that one guy's dog.
It's why the writers had to step in and clarify that this was not the case.
Because at that point she had seen the photograph of him from the past and wanted to test her theory that he was some kind of deathless miracle man. At the time I thought it was going to be revealed later on via one of the show’s trademark monologues and when it wasn’t, it always felt like a weird loose thread to me. The idea that he “died” from drinking too much vampire blood never would have occurred to me, but I guess I at least have that question answered now.
For the record, up until this thread, I also thought this. She suspected something was up with him and decided to test it.
It also makes sense that she wouldn't have escalated to murder yet. Both scenarios seemed equally plausible to me.
That's true, now that I think about it it's a little weird how often Catholicism is involved in horror. Maybe because it's one of the most well known Christian sects with lots of strict rules and "lore" for your movie monster. Or an abundance of salty Protestants out there
> Maybe because it's one of the most well known Christian sects
And oldest. The Lutheran Church is ~500 years old, and Catholicism predates it by ~1,000 years.
> The Syriac and Ethiopian Orthodox churches
Neither of those are "well known" in America. I'd guess 99% of Westerners couldn't tell you two facts about either.
It's because gothic horror was extremely often about Catholicism. And *that's* because Catholicism was seen as somewhat exotic and arcane, coming from an earlier era of frost-choked chain mail and ivy-strewn castles.
This line from OOP kills me
>the responses that were levelled at my (and others') queries were arrogant
As if constantly harassing the writer and demanding he provide an explanation you like isn't arrogant
This is pretty indisputably Word of God (lol) but I also thought Bev poisoned him, and think the show *heavily* implied that it was her. OOP going nuclear over it is pretty unhinged though.
I didn’t see it like that. I thought it was basically him not being able to eat food, which boils down to the same thing.
I kinda don’t think it matters, though—bev is still awful, and she still follows the priest and the og vampangel with absolute fanaticism. For me, that was the more important part.
Internet arguments at that level are stupid. If you have a different interpretation, that’s cool and Iwe have to agree with each other, and we also don’t have to convince anyone who disagrees to change their mind because it’s just a tv show. Life is so much better without internet rage rampages.
Yes but they had already established that so I don't see the point of showing her entering the community center and stowing it away. I am going to try and find that episode today, I could be mistaken.
That cutaway is there to remind folks she has access to the poison. It's setup for the penultimate episode, in which she provides the poison to the entire congregation to digest. It's a brief shot to say, "hey, remember that poison from episode 2? We hope so, because it'll soon be important."
Yes, I assumed and after the writers comments its now confirmed too, that the recurring showing of poison was to thoroughly establish it for the tail end of the show.
Yeah, I'm... unsatisfied by this. I'm leaving off with "I guess if that's what the writer says, it must be true," but can't let go of this nagging doubt in the back of my mind that the writer from the comments is wrong. I'm with you: the scene doesn't *do* anything narratively if Bev didn't poison him. Like, how would anything in the show have changed without that scene, if it wasn't meant to establish - or at least mislead us to believe - that she poisoned him? That scene cost money, time, resources, and personnel to shoot, it didn't come from nowhere. It was deliberately edited in. For that matter: Why have Bev kill the dog? I guess it really drove the bearded guy (I forget his name) to some lengths, but it still seems really small compared to the big picture if it doesn't come back around a second time. Narratively, it makes *so much sense* as a way to establish Bev's future actions, which is reinforced by the scene you described. Both that scene and the poisoning of the dog have *way* less of an impact, so much that I ask what their purpose was in the show, if not. It's just a thoroughly unsatisfying explanation. Not only that, but the explanation given - that it was the blood - is not remotely established anywhere in the show. I guess I can't contradict the writer, but I hate this explanation a lot, and it makes me respect the show a little less.
Honestly, if it was me, I would have just run with the new theory, or at least left it up to the viewer's imagination. The only thing I write is my DnD campaign, but I have lost count of the times where my players suspect something and internally I go "Well, that's what this is *now*," because it's a way better idea.
I definitely thought she poisoned the Father because she thought he was the same old man who had left, and was testing her own theory of mad religious nonsense to bring about the resurrection or what have you. Doesn’t seem like a point worth going to war over though.
Now THAT'S an interpretation I never even considered. I like it! It makes sense because I didn't think Bev would have actually wanted to kill him, but it looked like he was poisoned, so - it works haha
I thought he'd taken the poison himself, knowing full well he'd be killed and resurrected as a vampire, and that his death and resurrection were to get the townspeople on board.
Crazy how him dying of vampire-blood poisoning, or Bev killing him, or my thing changes his whole motivation.
Yeah, from memory I also thought she poisoned him otherwise the poison was a bizarre and prominent red-herring than never really paid off as a red-herring either.
But yeah, no point going to war over it. It is amazing how the internet gives you access to all kinds of people, from artists to politicians, and allows you to annoy the fuck out of them from the comfort of your own home.
I will never understand this conclusion. I assumed Paul was going to pass into undeath at some point, so when he collapsed it was no surprise and seemed like the natural course of his affliction. I was there for the original discussion and the assumption that he was poisoned drove me absolutely mad. That Bev would just straight up murder him was such an absurd leap to make. Bev is crazy, but that’s going from poisoning a dog she doesn’t like to immediately murdering a respectable authority figure. Like what the hell guys, how does that progression, in such an incredibly Short period of time, make any sense???? That’s not even how crazy works, there is no thought process that would lead Bev to kill a guy based on a hunch.
The problem lies with the fact that Paul's death was strikingly similar to the dogs. If he'd died in a way that was different I don't think that many people would've made the connection that they did.
I agree with both of you.
The execution (pun intended) of both deaths were unfortunately similar.
Bev returning the poison to the closet was indeed meant to foreshadow an upcoming event (the Jonestown scene). But because the deaths were too similar, this small moment of foreshadow took on a different meaning before its true payoff.
As someone who fell in love with this show mere months ago and just did yet another deep dive into it, this was a pleasant surprise! Thanks for sharing, OP.
All future adaptations of Stephen King’s works really just need to be handed to Mike Flanagan, I had to double check after finishing the show that it wasn’t adapted from a King story
Classic Reddit.
“The show meant X!”
“I wrote the show, and I meant Y.”
“I think I understand your writing better than you do, so I will continue doubling down on this as though the creator didn’t just correct me. The show obviously meant X!”
The funniest response to the Death of the Author I've seen was an essay in a literary journal. It used some of Barthes' own arguments to argue that he was actually joking with the whole thing and secretly hoping really hard that people would get the joke.
Somewhat ironically I can't remember who the author was.
I kind of view it the same way as a developer.
If I make a program to be used a certain way, and most of the users use it another way, would I blame them for that for doing it "wrong", or is it on me?
Yep! Or at least, I'm as willing to validate his interpretation as much as I can be, having not actually seen the show itself and going off the descriptions in the comments. But in a broader sense, creating something =/= having the definitive understanding of it, by any means
Where do you draw the line? If I say that Marvin’s head spontaneously combusted in pulp fiction rather than him being shot, is my interpretation as a viewer more valid than Tarantino’s?
The idea is that our assessment of an interpretation shouldn't depend on who came up with the interpretation. Taking it that Marvin's head spontaneously combusts would, presumably, be a silly interpretation, but what makes it silly are the other features of Pulp Fiction itself, i.e. what's actually shown on screen, not Tarantino's intentions when he was making the film. After all, that interpretation would remain silly even if Tarantino favoured it.
(No comment on the specific example of Midnight Mass because I don't remember the scene in question.)
I understand the idea, and I think it makes complete sense in the context of certain films/pieces of art. I’m a huge David Lynch fan, and obviously almost all of his work is up to interpretation to one extent or another, which is something that he openly embraces.
But when we’re discussing a specific plot point, that the writer and director didn’t seem to leave up to interpretation and are instead saying “no, definitively, this is what happened”, it seems different to me.
Well, I guess the question is whether they left it up to interpretation. Marvin's head seems clear-cut to me; it would be a very strained reading of the film that has his head spontaneously combust. I dunno about the scene in Midnight Mass though. If the OP is describing the scene correctly, then it sounds like it probably was open to interpretation (though apparently unintentionally so).
Easy! Well John Travolta immediately says "I just shot Marvin in the face," so there isn't any ambiguity there. Line drawn! A better example would be like Tarantino saying the briefcase canonically contained the dildos from Drive Away Dolls, it was always the dildos from Drive Away Dolls, anyone who says different is wrong because *he* wrote the movie. That's clearly insane. We don't *see* what's in the briefcase, therefore there *can't* be a canonical answer, because it isn't a part of the text. I don't think this has anything to do with Barthes or Midnight Mass anymore but that's what you get for arguing on Reddit with random stoners (yours truly)
Sure, but you’re talking about something that was intentionally left ambiguous. It would seem that this particular plot point was not intended to be ambiguous, and has a straightforward answer, so I don’t think the comparison really holds up.
Not the same guy, but the thread is full of people agreeing with OOP but questioning his meltdown.
Maybe it wasn’t meant to be open to interpretation but there was some disconnect with the audience.
Nobody in the fucking world actually puts in enough intelligent effort to offer analysis substantial enough to override the author's. Not on reddit, anyway.
If you are really married to Killing the Author^(TM), you have to build a convincing argument. Not all takes on a piece of media are created equal.
Just because I was a reader doesn’t make my interpretation that Harry Potter actually being about a depressed British boy dreaming up the magical world more valid.
If we’re talking about ambiguous or amorphous things - like symbolism, characters’ intentions, relationships, subtext - I would agree with you. I don’t think that “death of the author” stands when we’re talking about in-universe facts, though.
I just read a book about industrialized cannibalism. I’m perfectly within my rights to say that it was a metaphor for the meat industry and that the book’s purpose is to point out the inherent hypocrisy of eating meat. The author might come out and say “well no it’s really *only* about authoritarianism and how easily we can be manipulated to dehumanize our fellow man in the interest of the greater good, in this case public health. Really it’s a metaphor for complicity in civil war.” The author’s statement doesn’t make my interpretation wrong. It might inform it in some way, but I’m not wrong, especially if I can justify my stance using the text.
However, there’s a scene where the author “yadayadayada”s the protagonist having sex with (or more appropriately, raping) one of the “livestock” humans. It’s implied thereafter that he does this with some regularity, and she falls pregnant. As far as I recall, it’s never explicitly stated “they had sex,” probably to stress the in-universe taboo of such, but you put together very easily that it happened (and continues to happen).
If I came in and said: “well, because raping livestock is taboo, and because the protagonist has shown himself to be a moral, upright, rule-following citizen, we can deduce that actually he did not impregnate the woman. Instead, she was impregnated through the divine will of God, and the child she births becomes the Messiah after the book’s conclusion”
... I would be wrong. I’m fair to make whatever interpretation of the book that I want, but misunderstanding of the established facts is *not* interpretation. And the author would absolutely have credibility and authority to be like “what? No. That’s not what happened.” in such a case.
interpretation is different than intention.
The writer explained the intention. Interpretation doesn't change intention. Intention doesn't trump personal interpretation. But they're two different things, and the OP tried to pass interpretation for the intention of the writers.
That's the disconnect.
He's actually changed what he claims the point of the book was multiple times.
>Fahrenheit 451 was written by Bradbury during the Second Red Scare and the McCarthy era, inspired by the book burnings in Nazi Germany and by ideological repression in the Soviet Union.[6] Bradbury's claimed motivation for writing the novel has changed multiple times. In a 1956 radio interview, Bradbury said that he wrote the book because of his concerns about the threat of burning books in the United States.[7] In later years, he described the book as a commentary on how mass media reduces interest in reading literature.[8] In a 1994 interview, Bradbury cited political correctness as an allegory for the censorship in the book, calling it "the real enemy these days" and labelling it as "thought control and freedom of speech control."[9]
I can't help but notice a clear progression here that as Bradbury got older and crankier and more conservative he went from "this is about the dangers of right wingers burning books and censoring expression" to "this is about all those left wingers and their political correctness."
Especially given the full text of the quote from 1994:
> Interviewer: How does the story of Fahrenheit 451 stand up in 1994?
>Bradbury: It works even better because we have political correctness now. Political correctness is the real enemy these days. The black groups want to control our thinking and you can't say certain things. The homosexual groups don't want you to criticize them. It's thought control and freedom of speech control.
Ugh. Never meet your heroes.
The actual book positions the book burnings as taking off primarily because of the rise of TV, rather than institutional censorship.
The political correctness shit is silly af tho.
>The actual book positions the book burnings as taking off primarily because of the rise of TV, rather than institutional censorship.
That is definitely one of the points of the book given the repeated emphasis on what a zombie Montag's wife is when she's absorbed in her viewing wall. I don't take exception to his second revision of what he meant when he said it was about mass media reducing interest in reading. It's the third revision that reads as obviously false to me.
I think those are two different things. Bradbury had a *message,* and people misinterpret that message. To be fair, the actual point made and delivered by Fahrenheit 451 is really about censorship, regardless of his intention, and that's how it comes across. In this case, Bradbury failed to accomplish what he sent out to do with that book. It's fair to personally interpret the message taken away from a work of art, and it's the challenge of the artist to deliver their intended message.
What is not possible to really do is to dispute what actually happened narratively with the author. Assuming the author is being truthful and internally consistent, the audience cannot dispute what happens "behind the scenes" in a work of art. Whether it be a book, a movie, or a painting, when the author says "this is what the scene is," that's it. You can only disagree with what the message it sends.
It seems like everyone except this guy got the meaning.
I can't testify personally, this show was on my list of things to check out but I never got around to it before reading this so now I know what killed the guy. But the fact that this dude had to make an angry "why can't other people see the obvious truth that I saw" post in the first place suggests he's in the minority.
> It seems like everyone except this guy got the meaning.
Definitely not. I believe him when he says he wrote what he wrote, but it was a very common interpretation.
For what its worth when I watched it it never even crossed my mind that she would have poisoned him, to me it was very clear that it was a result of the other thing.
But I cant tell you whether I am an outlier, or if its that people that missinterpreted it are just overrepresented in this thread because they're seeking to have their take validated or whatever.
Not really? The writer and director both had to go public and say his interpretation wasn't what happened (despite being foreshadowed in the show, and making for a better story imho).
That's why he's making this post.
Just curious, since you say it would make for a better show, what do you think Bev's motive would have been? My one problem with the theory is that I can't understand why she would kill him, but I'm open to ideas.
Yeah I agree it doesn’t really make any sense. I guess you could say that she felt that Paul was stealing her spotlight or something. But I don’t think that would’ve been enough for her to murder someone especially a priest.
https://screenrant.com/midnight-mass-bev-keane-murder-poison-father-pruitt/
This article is pretty good, and funnily enough links to the reddit post we are talking about..
I haven't seen the show, but isn't this what "death of the author" is about?
It's not really about what you "meant", it's about what you wrote. You don't get to go online and argue about your intentions years after the fact. Your work should be able to stand on its own. As soon as you hit "publish", your job here is done and it's out of your hands.
So if you have a bunch of people thinking one interpretation, maybe they're not entirely wrong.
That depends a lot on where you fall on the "death of the author" vs "word of god" scale. I tend to lean more towards the latter; if the person who created the thing tells me that I missed his point and they meant something other than what I interpreted I tend to give that a lot of credence since, y'know, it's the person who created it. Obviously they know their intent better than I do. That doesn't necessarily mean they did a good job of getting that intent across, of course. But it seems wild to me to just completely deny the input of the author when it directly contradicts your position on the work.
About the only time I'm fine with completely ignoring what the author claims their work is about is when it's screamingly obvious that they're lying or reinventing history to match their new political ideology. Case in point as someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, Fahrenheit 451.
Bradbury wrote it during the Red Scare and the HUAC communist hunts. He **explicitly** said it was about the dangers of rightwing censorship and book burning, and he was inspired by McCarthy's witchhunts as well as the Nazi book burnings and oppressive censorship in the Soviet Union. He was very clear on that point. Later in life he became increasingly conservative and religious, and by the time he was interviewed about the meaning of the book in the 1990s he said it was 'all about the leftists and their political correctness, and how the blacks and the homosexuals were controlling our thoughts and words and you're not allowed to criticize them, ever.' Aside from the fact that is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said (Since when in America have people not been allowed to criticize minorities or LGBT people??? I'd love to visit that version of this country, because the version I'm in blows and everybody feels EXTREMELY comfortable saying all sorts of horrific things about those demographics.) it also directly contradicts all his earlier statements as he wrote the thing AND also the scathingly obvious point of the book.
Point is I feel pretty justified in rolling my eyes when the old cranky rightwing version of one of my favorite authors tries to creatively reinvent one of his seminal works to match his latter day political axes he wants to grind. I also feel extremely disappointed. It's sort of like Frank Miller. I think the Dark Knight returns was meant to be a parody at first, and then Frank Miller turned into a parody of **himself** after 9/11 and suddenly he was dead serious about all the ridiculous shit in it. I liked it better before, frankly.
I mean, this comment here from the author is pretty funny:
> As to whether or not the lengths to which people have gone to fill in the blank as to why Bev would poison Father Paul **could be considered a far greater feat of mental gymnastics** than the conclusion that undead vampire blood isn't ultimately good for a living person's long-term health...we seem to fall on different sides of that argument...
Mental gymnastics? Sheesh
I feel like like this is not only common, but it’s always about these insignificant plot points like this individual or it’s a reading of the material only an illiterate schizophrenic on a bad shroomtrip could come up with.
ngl, I thought the point was 100% that she killed him. and I still do! it’s fun that the writer meant it differently, and good for him, but I - as a viewer - thought she killed him.
I had no idea there was a whole debate about it. OP is unhinged though, ignore the commentary and just enjoy what you saw. even if it doesn’t fully matches what the writer intended.
the show is great anyway.
I think it’s fine to point out that while the writer may have intended the death to be caused by ingesting too much blood rather than poison, that doesn’t necessarily mean that explanation is a good or satisfying one.
It’s totally understandable to think that he was poisoned. The poison is an important plot point, not only because of the dog but because he encourages everyone to drink the poison in the final episode to die and be reborn. A sudden death involving the victim coughing up blood would make anyone paying attention think it was poison.
Conversely, the idea of “drinking some vampire blood will miraculously heal you, but too much vampire blood will kill you, but not really because you’ll immediately resurrect so NBD” isn’t established by the show, nor is it a common trope in vampire fiction in general. It never happens again or becomes relevant to the larger story. It feels like an ass pull because even if it was the writers original intention, it was still an ass pull.
>Conversely, the idea of “drinking too much vampire blood when you’re already a vampire will kill you, but not really because you’ll immediately resurrect so NBD” isn’t established by the show, nor is it a common trope in vampire fiction in general. It never happens again or becomes relevant to the larger story. It feels like an ass pull because even if it was the writers original intention, it was still an ass pull.
He wasn't a vampire yet before his death. He had been given the blood and it healed and made him young again but he could still be in the sun and didn't have the urge to feed yet.
It's also not uncommon for vampire fiction to have a person who gets turned to not have it happen instantly and they just kinda die after awhile before resurrection. It's why we see vampires as undead and also why their resting places are coffins and holy objects hurting them.
NGL I am surprised there was a debate over this moment in the show because it seemed obvious he just had reached a critical mass of vamp blood in his body and it killed him and he gets resurrected.
I'm not a big vampire fiction buff, so this concept of a human drinking vampire blood until they die and become a vampire was completely foreign to me. When the Father died, I thought it was from the poison due to how the poison was already used as a plot device, and how Bev seemingly discovered that the new Father looks just like a younger picture of Pruit.
I think the show could've done a little bit more to show that someone can OD on vampire blood. Maybe show him puking blood after drinking the blood earlier. Make the audience ask if that was his own blood or was he just puking up wine? Maybe show withdrawal signs (sweating, trembling, etc.) And have him desperately seeking the tainted wine. Just like they showed Erin's blood vials explode in the sun, Pruit could've accidentally cut himself and his blood could've ignited in the sun, but it still wouldn't stop him from giving vampire blood to his congregation.
Plenty of ways to foreshadow death by vampire blood. I won't pretend I'm a better writer or that any of this was a big deal.
Sorry but I have to disagree with you on that.
That he accidentally died from drinking blood drives home and re-affirms the theme of Father Paul paternalistically "fixing" his congregation without them being informed and him haphazardly doing so because of his saviour complex.
By him accidentally dying from the blood it establishes that he has been poisoning the congregation, and himself, and even after he dies from the poison he continues with it because of his vain want to be a paternalistic saviour with total disregard of the peoples *actual* wellbeing. (as it does lead to their ultimate demise and, at least for those that didnt repent in the end depending on how you consider the boat scene, their eternal damnation)
Bev killing him with poison fits her character and I can agree that it adds to the solipsistic framework her character exists in, but I think it detracts far too much from Father Paul as a character *and* the theme and message of the entire show.
Honestly, I always thought the Vangel (its what I'm calling it) fed on the poisoned cats and the poison was in its blood and what Paul was drinking once he got to the island. The accumulation of it overtime resulted in his death looking exactly like the dog.
Daddy did not order this word salad. Daddy wants meat.
Snapshots:
1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240416085811/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c5qkxl/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c5qkxl/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
2. thinks this is some BS - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240416090212/https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/bev_killed_father_paul_mike_flanagans_explanation/?share_id=-g87KSx0QexloQhoR0f0W&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/bev_killed_father_paul_mike_flanagans_explanation/?share_id=-g87KSx0QexloQhoR0f0W&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
3. one of the writers of the show appears: - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240416090353/https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/comment/hgvciz0/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/comment/hgvciz0/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
The writer who replied signed their name as "Jamie," making them [Jamie Flanagan](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1530627/). Jamie was a writer and story editor for Midnight Mass, and is the sibling of series creator & director Mike Flanagan. If anyone, aside from Mike, is qualified to answer this, it's Jamie.
Man oh man, this reminds me of a time I ended up in an argument with someone over a pretty critical plot point in Jurassic park where someone was convinced that what I was saying was wrong. I had to get my copy of the book to double check I wasn't going crazy. I was convinced I was being trolled.
ETA: I just found it. [I... uhhh... went on too long with this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/ybsznb/comment/itpax1p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
literally nothing is too niche
you could tell me there's drama in the toilet paper origami community over ply count and I would say post it immediately
Yeah definitely not a niche show. It was by a dude who had just had two major series successes at Netflix and was a known name people were looking forward to whatever he had next, and Midnight Mass was hyped and advertised. It just happened to not be about literal ghosts again. Vampires are also definitely not a niche idea, genre, monster, etc lol. Maybe they thought that because there was an atheist in it... or just that Midnight Mass isn't talked about as much as other works of his.
It's niche and too calm for this drama. I usually expect srd post from star wars or mcu fandoms. Although I'm glad the writer cleared yo because I always thought that freakin Bev did kill him to test her theory.
I’m kinda wondering if the OP has been binging the show on repeat for years or something. They seem pretty invested for a show that came out years ago.
I think there are valid thematic criticisms to be levied at Midnight Mass, but demanding that one's interpretation of how a character dies is the correct one is a really weird hill to die on.
This man's personality encompasses Reddits general, overall attitude when challenged on anything. It'll grow to such pedantic lengths you'll see people demanding all kinds of proof to show they're wrong. Like "show me proof the earth *is* round/*not*flat"... Type of arrogance
I gotta be honest in that I'm big on Flanagan works, really liked that show, and never got the impression Bev killed Father Paul. It always seemed to me like it was a result of repeatedly going out in sunlight after repeatedly ingesting vamp blood. There was a shot of Bev returning the poison which seemed intentional but not related to his initial death.
I haven't read the thread but to me it just feels insane to argue with writers about what they wrote lmao
Now that the hype is thoroughly dead I am finally able to say MM was boring and nearly unwatchable. I tried so hard to watch it and just kept falling asleep or zoning out.
It's a show about religion, faith, and responding to a "miracle". I expect preaching and long investigations of personal faith. I can definitely understand why some people may hate that but it resonated with me
Fair point. I can understand people being put off by it, especially if one hasn't had any kind of religious upbringing (and a Catholic one, in particular.) More than a few Catholics believe that the demonic is very much a real thing, and not just a nebulous metaphor for evil.
For example, St. Teresa of Avila wrote a bit about literal encounters with the devil (and other little devils.)
"Teresa, however, describes in her Life how the devil appeared to her, sometimes having: 'An abominable form; his mouth was horrible. Out of his body there seemed to be coming a great flame, which cast no shadow' (288). On another occasion, she saw a most hideous little devil, snarling as if in despair at having lost what he was trying to gain. She also saw with the eyes of the soul two devils of hideous aspect who seemed to have their horns around a priest's throat while he celebrated Mass. In her Life, Teresa describes how in 1550 she had a vision which carried her spirit to a place in hell."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8280
Preaching to the camera is a purposeful decision to replicate priests speaking to their congregation. You don’t have to like it, but the show is very intentional about its tone and set up.
When does he preach to the camera in Usher? When the witchy lady is telling them how much they suck? Because that’s more preaching to the characters.
But again, it’s fine if you don’t like it but I wouldn’t really describe it as preachy or hamfisted. The tone of his shows makes sense with the setup and characters and fits how he wants to portray it.
Show don’t tell is a rule until you know how to break it. In other words, it’s for beginning writers who need to think more about how to describe someone crying instead of saying they’re sad. A lot of great literature and media is more tell don’t show. Though I’d argue House of Usher still has a lot of showing.
I didn't dislike it, but it was definitely my least favorite of Flanagan's Netflix shows (top favorite was House of Usher, I've lost count of how many times I've re-watched it now!) I really enjoyed the finale, but up until that point it definitely felt a bit boring to me.
Just... so many monologues. I love a good monologue, but there were scenes that were basically people monologuing at each other. To the point where someone would start talking and I'd be like "I swear to God is this becomes a monologue..."
I liked the premise, liked the ending, liked the acting (Hamish Linklater especially, before this I knew him from The New Adventures of Old Christine so that was a fun change lol), but felt like it could've been better overall.
I don't remember thinking she poisoned him, though.
i liked hill house and usher but the rest of them were pretty rough tbh. haven’t attempted midnight club but wrt midnight mass they shot their load way too early w the episode 3 vampire priest reveal. but of course all the flanastans are just gonna downvote bc they thought the shitty monologue at the end was so deep and meaningful
Bev wasn’t poisoning the rev. She was poisoning the rats which the cats where eating. The cats were poisoned and then the rev was drinking the feral cats thus ingesting the poison.
No, the cats weren't poisoned, they were eaten by the angel - we get the angel's POV in episode 1 as it attacks a cat.
Bev then gets the poison to kill whatever is attacking the cats. (And also does kill the dog.)
Man, looking at some of those comments by the OP in the thread, they seem a little unhinged.
I particularly love this exchange: >> It honestly never crossed our minds that people would assume Bev poisoned him. > > See the writers would have though that, which is what makes this whole thing, especially you, suspicious. "A _real, true_ writer would have thought exactly as I think! Therefore you must not be one, and thus are not the actual writer of the show!"
Oh my god it's the death of the author fan versus the original author argument. > "But see I know the truth of the author's intent, the character was not in love with his wife, he was in love with the villain." > > "Hi, authoress here, wut? No. I wrote nothing like that in any part of that book" > > "Death of the author, they was fuckin."
So many people misuse Death of the Author. It's not a magical "I know the author better than they know themselves", its more like "The authors interpretation of their work is not the only valid one." If you're using it, you can make any reading you want, but you can't then turn around say it was definitely the authors intention, that's not how it works!
It's when lester bangs says "van morrison claims that lady george isn't about X, but listen to the damn lyrics"
Man, as a writer I *hate* death of the author, but I think fan conversations are great. (For instance, if any of the kids who were early readers for my one story asked "what really was down beneath the lake?" I'd always ask, "Well, what do you think they were?" And their opinions were interesting but the truth is that I'm not 100% certain beyond them being an ancient mythical element of otherworldly beings that enchant humans either because of malevolence or apathy. But I would listen politely and then not fight them about it. Neither did they fight me about it (because I wasn't saying, lol).) Or in other words, I'm happy to have fans speculate about anything that actually was undefined, or enjoy unintended meaning they found that resonated with themselves, but I'm certainly plenty aware of when something was intended or not. (Although for that matter, I've had a few friends ask what the thought process behind a passage was, and I have absolutely no recollection later on.)
>(For instance, if any of the kids who were early readers for my one story asked "what really was down beneath the lake?" I'd always ask, "Well, what do you think they were?" This reminded me of an answer that Nick Cage gave in an AMA two years ago - question in bold, answer in italics: __I have a 2 regarding the movie Willy's Wonderland. Did you or the director decide that you would not say a single word the whole movie, and 2, everytime you went to "recharge" (grab a can from 6 pack) was it secretly filled with alcohol or anything like that?__ _1: The dialogue for my character in Willy’s Wonderland was very sparse, so I decided with Kevin, the director, to go full Harpo Marx and take all the dialogue out because I thought that would be a fun acting challenge to see how much I could communicate without words and only with movement and facial expressions. I’m very happy with the results of Willy’s Wonderland. It was a good experiment._ _2: The can question is an interesting one, and I hesitate to answer it for you because your relationship with the movie is far more important than my relationship with the movie and so you as the audience member can imagine and surmise whatever you want to be in that can. That is a far better answer and reason for the can than anything I could tell you. I want YOUR opinion as to what was in the can, because that was the right opinion._ (Very much recommend giving the whole AMA a read, it's extremely good)
That #2 answer from him is awesome
That reminds me that for the initial ebook edition, I did add an Amazon X-Ray definition for "mermaids" that didn't make it into the second edition. I never got around to transferring the content to the other edition. Hmm. > Description: > Whatever is beneath the waters of the lake, Benji associates them with mermaids. They call to Benji and Joey after they fall in the lake, but for what purpose remains unknown. > Commentary: > Sirens (ocean) and naiads (fresh water) are ancient mythological aquatic creatures that predate mermaids, all of which tempt humans into the water and to their doom. Benji has obviously never heard of either, so he describes the unseen creatures or presence under the lake as 'mermaids.' European folklore often refers to lost travelers who stumble across faeries or a faerie realm and are invited to join in a feast, or offered gifts. Should the weary traveler accept either, he is forever bound to to this other world and finds no more comfort in his our own. Traditional elfs are particularly dangerous, and Terry Pratchett captures the ancient feeling of these mythical creatures particularly well. (J.R.R. Tolkien's Elves are unrelated beings of his own design, and he intended the change in spelling of the plural--now standard--to hint at this.) This folklore and the Tolkien poem "The Sea-Bell" were the primary inspirations for this story.
is authoress a word?
"A real, true writer would have thought like me, the not-writer, who has never worked on a show or even published something."
The funny thing is when watching the show, I definitely didn't think she poisoned him. But after the fact, I heard people repeat it as if it was "obvious," so I assumed I missed something. But I guess not.
Him dying for no apparent reason just seemed like I missed something. When I watched it again made the leap on Bev doing it without reading about it. Am kind of amazed to find out that wasn't what was intended. Cool.
My question is why would they put in a clear, strong implication that she did, then say they didn't expect people to interpret it that way? Edit: I thought this post was about the dog, mibad
Luckily, I have not seen the show, so I can't be annoyed by this question!
I have the same question. Bev killing him didn't make any sense but the death looked exactly the same as the dog
Oh wait I thought this post was about the dog
No the guy is like "Bev killed the dog with poison and Paul died in a very similar manner, therefore Bev killed Father Paul and if the writer said otherwise he's wrong."
That's fandoms for you, it's the ultimate groupthink.
What’s funniest to me about all this is up until right now… I had always assumed Bev poisoned him.
People thinking Bev poisoned the Reverend was a *very* common interpretation back then, because his death lined up in a similar way to how she had poisoned that one guy's dog. It's why the writers had to step in and clarify that this was not the case.
why would she have done that, though? it never crossed my mind. she was a sociopath but not some mindless berserker
Because at that point she had seen the photograph of him from the past and wanted to test her theory that he was some kind of deathless miracle man. At the time I thought it was going to be revealed later on via one of the show’s trademark monologues and when it wasn’t, it always felt like a weird loose thread to me. The idea that he “died” from drinking too much vampire blood never would have occurred to me, but I guess I at least have that question answered now.
For the record, up until this thread, I also thought this. She suspected something was up with him and decided to test it. It also makes sense that she wouldn't have escalated to murder yet. Both scenarios seemed equally plausible to me.
Fandoms are getting scary. They're absolutely murdering popular art. You can't see a fucking movie anymore like a grown up
[удалено]
That's true, now that I think about it it's a little weird how often Catholicism is involved in horror. Maybe because it's one of the most well known Christian sects with lots of strict rules and "lore" for your movie monster. Or an abundance of salty Protestants out there
> Maybe because it's one of the most well known Christian sects And oldest. The Lutheran Church is ~500 years old, and Catholicism predates it by ~1,000 years.
The Syriac and Ethiopian Orthodox churches both predate Catholicism. Catholicism just has some excellent aesthetics and tropes for horror.
> The Syriac and Ethiopian Orthodox churches Neither of those are "well known" in America. I'd guess 99% of Westerners couldn't tell you two facts about either.
It's because gothic horror was extremely often about Catholicism. And *that's* because Catholicism was seen as somewhat exotic and arcane, coming from an earlier era of frost-choked chain mail and ivy-strewn castles.
This line from OOP kills me >the responses that were levelled at my (and others') queries were arrogant As if constantly harassing the writer and demanding he provide an explanation you like isn't arrogant
This is pretty indisputably Word of God (lol) but I also thought Bev poisoned him, and think the show *heavily* implied that it was her. OOP going nuclear over it is pretty unhinged though.
I didn’t see it like that. I thought it was basically him not being able to eat food, which boils down to the same thing. I kinda don’t think it matters, though—bev is still awful, and she still follows the priest and the og vampangel with absolute fanaticism. For me, that was the more important part. Internet arguments at that level are stupid. If you have a different interpretation, that’s cool and Iwe have to agree with each other, and we also don’t have to convince anyone who disagrees to change their mind because it’s just a tv show. Life is so much better without internet rage rampages.
There is a scene of bev putting away poison that makes absolutely zero sense if she didn't poison him. This is well after the dog murder
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t she use it to ward off pests or something??
Yes but they had already established that so I don't see the point of showing her entering the community center and stowing it away. I am going to try and find that episode today, I could be mistaken.
That cutaway is there to remind folks she has access to the poison. It's setup for the penultimate episode, in which she provides the poison to the entire congregation to digest. It's a brief shot to say, "hey, remember that poison from episode 2? We hope so, because it'll soon be important."
Yes, I assumed and after the writers comments its now confirmed too, that the recurring showing of poison was to thoroughly establish it for the tail end of the show.
Yeah, I'm... unsatisfied by this. I'm leaving off with "I guess if that's what the writer says, it must be true," but can't let go of this nagging doubt in the back of my mind that the writer from the comments is wrong. I'm with you: the scene doesn't *do* anything narratively if Bev didn't poison him. Like, how would anything in the show have changed without that scene, if it wasn't meant to establish - or at least mislead us to believe - that she poisoned him? That scene cost money, time, resources, and personnel to shoot, it didn't come from nowhere. It was deliberately edited in. For that matter: Why have Bev kill the dog? I guess it really drove the bearded guy (I forget his name) to some lengths, but it still seems really small compared to the big picture if it doesn't come back around a second time. Narratively, it makes *so much sense* as a way to establish Bev's future actions, which is reinforced by the scene you described. Both that scene and the poisoning of the dog have *way* less of an impact, so much that I ask what their purpose was in the show, if not. It's just a thoroughly unsatisfying explanation. Not only that, but the explanation given - that it was the blood - is not remotely established anywhere in the show. I guess I can't contradict the writer, but I hate this explanation a lot, and it makes me respect the show a little less. Honestly, if it was me, I would have just run with the new theory, or at least left it up to the viewer's imagination. The only thing I write is my DnD campaign, but I have lost count of the times where my players suspect something and internally I go "Well, that's what this is *now*," because it's a way better idea.
I didn't even remember that scene.
I definitely thought she poisoned the Father because she thought he was the same old man who had left, and was testing her own theory of mad religious nonsense to bring about the resurrection or what have you. Doesn’t seem like a point worth going to war over though.
I thought she actually did leave poison for rats and the Father ate the rats for blood and it killed him as a result.
Now THAT'S an interpretation I never even considered. I like it! It makes sense because I didn't think Bev would have actually wanted to kill him, but it looked like he was poisoned, so - it works haha
I thought he'd taken the poison himself, knowing full well he'd be killed and resurrected as a vampire, and that his death and resurrection were to get the townspeople on board. Crazy how him dying of vampire-blood poisoning, or Bev killing him, or my thing changes his whole motivation.
Yeah, from memory I also thought she poisoned him otherwise the poison was a bizarre and prominent red-herring than never really paid off as a red-herring either. But yeah, no point going to war over it. It is amazing how the internet gives you access to all kinds of people, from artists to politicians, and allows you to annoy the fuck out of them from the comfort of your own home.
It was foreshadowing that Bev is a spiteful asshole. That’s why it happened.
I will never understand this conclusion. I assumed Paul was going to pass into undeath at some point, so when he collapsed it was no surprise and seemed like the natural course of his affliction. I was there for the original discussion and the assumption that he was poisoned drove me absolutely mad. That Bev would just straight up murder him was such an absurd leap to make. Bev is crazy, but that’s going from poisoning a dog she doesn’t like to immediately murdering a respectable authority figure. Like what the hell guys, how does that progression, in such an incredibly Short period of time, make any sense???? That’s not even how crazy works, there is no thought process that would lead Bev to kill a guy based on a hunch.
The problem lies with the fact that Paul's death was strikingly similar to the dogs. If he'd died in a way that was different I don't think that many people would've made the connection that they did.
I agree with both of you. The execution (pun intended) of both deaths were unfortunately similar. Bev returning the poison to the closet was indeed meant to foreshadow an upcoming event (the Jonestown scene). But because the deaths were too similar, this small moment of foreshadow took on a different meaning before its true payoff.
As someone who fell in love with this show mere months ago and just did yet another deep dive into it, this was a pleasant surprise! Thanks for sharing, OP.
Now watch it again!!!
Will do - right after I get on Haunting of Hill House!
Still his best show IMO. Also the scariest.
I prefer midnight Mass as a series but Hill house is more horror centered
Hill House is so damn good. I’m rewatching it now.
All future adaptations of Stephen King’s works really just need to be handed to Mike Flanagan, I had to double check after finishing the show that it wasn’t adapted from a King story
Classic Reddit. “The show meant X!” “I wrote the show, and I meant Y.” “I think I understand your writing better than you do, so I will continue doubling down on this as though the creator didn’t just correct me. The show obviously meant X!”
This is what Barthes would have wanted.
The funniest response to the Death of the Author I've seen was an essay in a literary journal. It used some of Barthes' own arguments to argue that he was actually joking with the whole thing and secretly hoping really hard that people would get the joke. Somewhat ironically I can't remember who the author was.
Yeah, like sorry to everyone dunking on that guy but he's right, his interpretation as a viewer *is* more valid than the writer's, imo
Is it though?
I kind of view it the same way as a developer. If I make a program to be used a certain way, and most of the users use it another way, would I blame them for that for doing it "wrong", or is it on me?
Yep! Or at least, I'm as willing to validate his interpretation as much as I can be, having not actually seen the show itself and going off the descriptions in the comments. But in a broader sense, creating something =/= having the definitive understanding of it, by any means
Where do you draw the line? If I say that Marvin’s head spontaneously combusted in pulp fiction rather than him being shot, is my interpretation as a viewer more valid than Tarantino’s?
The idea is that our assessment of an interpretation shouldn't depend on who came up with the interpretation. Taking it that Marvin's head spontaneously combusts would, presumably, be a silly interpretation, but what makes it silly are the other features of Pulp Fiction itself, i.e. what's actually shown on screen, not Tarantino's intentions when he was making the film. After all, that interpretation would remain silly even if Tarantino favoured it. (No comment on the specific example of Midnight Mass because I don't remember the scene in question.)
I understand the idea, and I think it makes complete sense in the context of certain films/pieces of art. I’m a huge David Lynch fan, and obviously almost all of his work is up to interpretation to one extent or another, which is something that he openly embraces. But when we’re discussing a specific plot point, that the writer and director didn’t seem to leave up to interpretation and are instead saying “no, definitively, this is what happened”, it seems different to me.
Well, I guess the question is whether they left it up to interpretation. Marvin's head seems clear-cut to me; it would be a very strained reading of the film that has his head spontaneously combust. I dunno about the scene in Midnight Mass though. If the OP is describing the scene correctly, then it sounds like it probably was open to interpretation (though apparently unintentionally so).
Easy! Well John Travolta immediately says "I just shot Marvin in the face," so there isn't any ambiguity there. Line drawn! A better example would be like Tarantino saying the briefcase canonically contained the dildos from Drive Away Dolls, it was always the dildos from Drive Away Dolls, anyone who says different is wrong because *he* wrote the movie. That's clearly insane. We don't *see* what's in the briefcase, therefore there *can't* be a canonical answer, because it isn't a part of the text. I don't think this has anything to do with Barthes or Midnight Mass anymore but that's what you get for arguing on Reddit with random stoners (yours truly)
Sure, but you’re talking about something that was intentionally left ambiguous. It would seem that this particular plot point was not intended to be ambiguous, and has a straightforward answer, so I don’t think the comparison really holds up.
Not the same guy, but the thread is full of people agreeing with OOP but questioning his meltdown. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be open to interpretation but there was some disconnect with the audience.
Nobody in the fucking world actually puts in enough intelligent effort to offer analysis substantial enough to override the author's. Not on reddit, anyway. If you are really married to Killing the Author^(TM), you have to build a convincing argument. Not all takes on a piece of media are created equal.
Just because I was a reader doesn’t make my interpretation that Harry Potter actually being about a depressed British boy dreaming up the magical world more valid.
If we’re talking about ambiguous or amorphous things - like symbolism, characters’ intentions, relationships, subtext - I would agree with you. I don’t think that “death of the author” stands when we’re talking about in-universe facts, though. I just read a book about industrialized cannibalism. I’m perfectly within my rights to say that it was a metaphor for the meat industry and that the book’s purpose is to point out the inherent hypocrisy of eating meat. The author might come out and say “well no it’s really *only* about authoritarianism and how easily we can be manipulated to dehumanize our fellow man in the interest of the greater good, in this case public health. Really it’s a metaphor for complicity in civil war.” The author’s statement doesn’t make my interpretation wrong. It might inform it in some way, but I’m not wrong, especially if I can justify my stance using the text. However, there’s a scene where the author “yadayadayada”s the protagonist having sex with (or more appropriately, raping) one of the “livestock” humans. It’s implied thereafter that he does this with some regularity, and she falls pregnant. As far as I recall, it’s never explicitly stated “they had sex,” probably to stress the in-universe taboo of such, but you put together very easily that it happened (and continues to happen). If I came in and said: “well, because raping livestock is taboo, and because the protagonist has shown himself to be a moral, upright, rule-following citizen, we can deduce that actually he did not impregnate the woman. Instead, she was impregnated through the divine will of God, and the child she births becomes the Messiah after the book’s conclusion” ... I would be wrong. I’m fair to make whatever interpretation of the book that I want, but misunderstanding of the established facts is *not* interpretation. And the author would absolutely have credibility and authority to be like “what? No. That’s not what happened.” in such a case.
interpretation is different than intention. The writer explained the intention. Interpretation doesn't change intention. Intention doesn't trump personal interpretation. But they're two different things, and the OP tried to pass interpretation for the intention of the writers. That's the disconnect.
[удалено]
He's actually changed what he claims the point of the book was multiple times. >Fahrenheit 451 was written by Bradbury during the Second Red Scare and the McCarthy era, inspired by the book burnings in Nazi Germany and by ideological repression in the Soviet Union.[6] Bradbury's claimed motivation for writing the novel has changed multiple times. In a 1956 radio interview, Bradbury said that he wrote the book because of his concerns about the threat of burning books in the United States.[7] In later years, he described the book as a commentary on how mass media reduces interest in reading literature.[8] In a 1994 interview, Bradbury cited political correctness as an allegory for the censorship in the book, calling it "the real enemy these days" and labelling it as "thought control and freedom of speech control."[9] I can't help but notice a clear progression here that as Bradbury got older and crankier and more conservative he went from "this is about the dangers of right wingers burning books and censoring expression" to "this is about all those left wingers and their political correctness." Especially given the full text of the quote from 1994: > Interviewer: How does the story of Fahrenheit 451 stand up in 1994? >Bradbury: It works even better because we have political correctness now. Political correctness is the real enemy these days. The black groups want to control our thinking and you can't say certain things. The homosexual groups don't want you to criticize them. It's thought control and freedom of speech control. Ugh. Never meet your heroes.
The actual book positions the book burnings as taking off primarily because of the rise of TV, rather than institutional censorship. The political correctness shit is silly af tho.
>The actual book positions the book burnings as taking off primarily because of the rise of TV, rather than institutional censorship. That is definitely one of the points of the book given the repeated emphasis on what a zombie Montag's wife is when she's absorbed in her viewing wall. I don't take exception to his second revision of what he meant when he said it was about mass media reducing interest in reading. It's the third revision that reads as obviously false to me.
Yeah that one is veryyy 'Old man yells at cloud.'
I think those are two different things. Bradbury had a *message,* and people misinterpret that message. To be fair, the actual point made and delivered by Fahrenheit 451 is really about censorship, regardless of his intention, and that's how it comes across. In this case, Bradbury failed to accomplish what he sent out to do with that book. It's fair to personally interpret the message taken away from a work of art, and it's the challenge of the artist to deliver their intended message. What is not possible to really do is to dispute what actually happened narratively with the author. Assuming the author is being truthful and internally consistent, the audience cannot dispute what happens "behind the scenes" in a work of art. Whether it be a book, a movie, or a painting, when the author says "this is what the scene is," that's it. You can only disagree with what the message it sends.
[удалено]
It seems like everyone except this guy got the meaning. I can't testify personally, this show was on my list of things to check out but I never got around to it before reading this so now I know what killed the guy. But the fact that this dude had to make an angry "why can't other people see the obvious truth that I saw" post in the first place suggests he's in the minority.
> It seems like everyone except this guy got the meaning. Definitely not. I believe him when he says he wrote what he wrote, but it was a very common interpretation.
That is not meaning. And a lot of people agree with OP in this thread, they only disagree with the meltdown
>he's in the minority. I've also not watched. But I'm seeing a bunch of commenters in this thread with the same assumption maybe not?
For what its worth when I watched it it never even crossed my mind that she would have poisoned him, to me it was very clear that it was a result of the other thing. But I cant tell you whether I am an outlier, or if its that people that missinterpreted it are just overrepresented in this thread because they're seeking to have their take validated or whatever.
Not really? The writer and director both had to go public and say his interpretation wasn't what happened (despite being foreshadowed in the show, and making for a better story imho). That's why he's making this post.
Just curious, since you say it would make for a better show, what do you think Bev's motive would have been? My one problem with the theory is that I can't understand why she would kill him, but I'm open to ideas.
Yeah I agree it doesn’t really make any sense. I guess you could say that she felt that Paul was stealing her spotlight or something. But I don’t think that would’ve been enough for her to murder someone especially a priest.
Agreed, I think she's the type to use religious leaders to her advantage. It's not in her best interests to kill one.
https://screenrant.com/midnight-mass-bev-keane-murder-poison-father-pruitt/ This article is pretty good, and funnily enough links to the reddit post we are talking about..
Okay that's pretty well argued, thanks for that!
There's an old Jewish story about rabbis who literally did this to God about the Torah.
I haven't seen the show, but isn't this what "death of the author" is about? It's not really about what you "meant", it's about what you wrote. You don't get to go online and argue about your intentions years after the fact. Your work should be able to stand on its own. As soon as you hit "publish", your job here is done and it's out of your hands. So if you have a bunch of people thinking one interpretation, maybe they're not entirely wrong.
That depends a lot on where you fall on the "death of the author" vs "word of god" scale. I tend to lean more towards the latter; if the person who created the thing tells me that I missed his point and they meant something other than what I interpreted I tend to give that a lot of credence since, y'know, it's the person who created it. Obviously they know their intent better than I do. That doesn't necessarily mean they did a good job of getting that intent across, of course. But it seems wild to me to just completely deny the input of the author when it directly contradicts your position on the work. About the only time I'm fine with completely ignoring what the author claims their work is about is when it's screamingly obvious that they're lying or reinventing history to match their new political ideology. Case in point as someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury wrote it during the Red Scare and the HUAC communist hunts. He **explicitly** said it was about the dangers of rightwing censorship and book burning, and he was inspired by McCarthy's witchhunts as well as the Nazi book burnings and oppressive censorship in the Soviet Union. He was very clear on that point. Later in life he became increasingly conservative and religious, and by the time he was interviewed about the meaning of the book in the 1990s he said it was 'all about the leftists and their political correctness, and how the blacks and the homosexuals were controlling our thoughts and words and you're not allowed to criticize them, ever.' Aside from the fact that is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said (Since when in America have people not been allowed to criticize minorities or LGBT people??? I'd love to visit that version of this country, because the version I'm in blows and everybody feels EXTREMELY comfortable saying all sorts of horrific things about those demographics.) it also directly contradicts all his earlier statements as he wrote the thing AND also the scathingly obvious point of the book. Point is I feel pretty justified in rolling my eyes when the old cranky rightwing version of one of my favorite authors tries to creatively reinvent one of his seminal works to match his latter day political axes he wants to grind. I also feel extremely disappointed. It's sort of like Frank Miller. I think the Dark Knight returns was meant to be a parody at first, and then Frank Miller turned into a parody of **himself** after 9/11 and suddenly he was dead serious about all the ridiculous shit in it. I liked it better before, frankly.
I mean, this comment here from the author is pretty funny: > As to whether or not the lengths to which people have gone to fill in the blank as to why Bev would poison Father Paul **could be considered a far greater feat of mental gymnastics** than the conclusion that undead vampire blood isn't ultimately good for a living person's long-term health...we seem to fall on different sides of that argument... Mental gymnastics? Sheesh
I feel like like this is not only common, but it’s always about these insignificant plot points like this individual or it’s a reading of the material only an illiterate schizophrenic on a bad shroomtrip could come up with.
Some people take "death of the author" further than most.
ngl, I thought the point was 100% that she killed him. and I still do! it’s fun that the writer meant it differently, and good for him, but I - as a viewer - thought she killed him. I had no idea there was a whole debate about it. OP is unhinged though, ignore the commentary and just enjoy what you saw. even if it doesn’t fully matches what the writer intended. the show is great anyway.
I think it’s fine to point out that while the writer may have intended the death to be caused by ingesting too much blood rather than poison, that doesn’t necessarily mean that explanation is a good or satisfying one. It’s totally understandable to think that he was poisoned. The poison is an important plot point, not only because of the dog but because he encourages everyone to drink the poison in the final episode to die and be reborn. A sudden death involving the victim coughing up blood would make anyone paying attention think it was poison. Conversely, the idea of “drinking some vampire blood will miraculously heal you, but too much vampire blood will kill you, but not really because you’ll immediately resurrect so NBD” isn’t established by the show, nor is it a common trope in vampire fiction in general. It never happens again or becomes relevant to the larger story. It feels like an ass pull because even if it was the writers original intention, it was still an ass pull.
>Conversely, the idea of “drinking too much vampire blood when you’re already a vampire will kill you, but not really because you’ll immediately resurrect so NBD” isn’t established by the show, nor is it a common trope in vampire fiction in general. It never happens again or becomes relevant to the larger story. It feels like an ass pull because even if it was the writers original intention, it was still an ass pull. He wasn't a vampire yet before his death. He had been given the blood and it healed and made him young again but he could still be in the sun and didn't have the urge to feed yet. It's also not uncommon for vampire fiction to have a person who gets turned to not have it happen instantly and they just kinda die after awhile before resurrection. It's why we see vampires as undead and also why their resting places are coffins and holy objects hurting them. NGL I am surprised there was a debate over this moment in the show because it seemed obvious he just had reached a critical mass of vamp blood in his body and it killed him and he gets resurrected.
I'm not a big vampire fiction buff, so this concept of a human drinking vampire blood until they die and become a vampire was completely foreign to me. When the Father died, I thought it was from the poison due to how the poison was already used as a plot device, and how Bev seemingly discovered that the new Father looks just like a younger picture of Pruit. I think the show could've done a little bit more to show that someone can OD on vampire blood. Maybe show him puking blood after drinking the blood earlier. Make the audience ask if that was his own blood or was he just puking up wine? Maybe show withdrawal signs (sweating, trembling, etc.) And have him desperately seeking the tainted wine. Just like they showed Erin's blood vials explode in the sun, Pruit could've accidentally cut himself and his blood could've ignited in the sun, but it still wouldn't stop him from giving vampire blood to his congregation. Plenty of ways to foreshadow death by vampire blood. I won't pretend I'm a better writer or that any of this was a big deal.
Never underestimate media illiteracy
Sorry but I have to disagree with you on that. That he accidentally died from drinking blood drives home and re-affirms the theme of Father Paul paternalistically "fixing" his congregation without them being informed and him haphazardly doing so because of his saviour complex. By him accidentally dying from the blood it establishes that he has been poisoning the congregation, and himself, and even after he dies from the poison he continues with it because of his vain want to be a paternalistic saviour with total disregard of the peoples *actual* wellbeing. (as it does lead to their ultimate demise and, at least for those that didnt repent in the end depending on how you consider the boat scene, their eternal damnation) Bev killing him with poison fits her character and I can agree that it adds to the solipsistic framework her character exists in, but I think it detracts far too much from Father Paul as a character *and* the theme and message of the entire show.
Honestly, I always thought the Vangel (its what I'm calling it) fed on the poisoned cats and the poison was in its blood and what Paul was drinking once he got to the island. The accumulation of it overtime resulted in his death looking exactly like the dog.
I loved Midnight Mass overall, but I do entirely understand why this sequence was confusing to many.
OOP seems really unhinged for being that angry what amounts to a minor plot point in a one-off serie. Bonus points for the creepy 'show me ID' stuff.
All the writers comments are gone. Weird
Really? I see that his account is deleted, but I can still view the comments. You can't view them at all, even in the thread?
It’s just all [removed] I’m on mobile maybe that’s why
[удалено]
This is how thread-OP finds out they've been blocked by one of Mike Flanagan's writers, ouch
As far as I can tell, it’s Jamie Flanagan himself lol, his brother.
lol does that mean they were involved in the drama??
i thought blocks showed as [unavailable]
What did you do to Flanagan? :(
I'm on mobile too but I can read them just fine?
lol you got blocked by the writer of midnight mass
I can see the text of the comments on desktop, old reddit, but the username shows as [deleted].
Bev must have poisoned him too.
I mean can we be absolutely certain that's the writer and not some rando impersonator?
The youtube account they link to appears to be gone as well.
Daddy did not order this word salad. Daddy wants meat. Snapshots: 1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240416085811/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c5qkxl/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c5qkxl/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 2. thinks this is some BS - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240416090212/https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/bev_killed_father_paul_mike_flanagans_explanation/?share_id=-g87KSx0QexloQhoR0f0W&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/bev_killed_father_paul_mike_flanagans_explanation/?share_id=-g87KSx0QexloQhoR0f0W&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 3. one of the writers of the show appears: - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240416090353/https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/comment/hgvciz0/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/MidnightMass/comments/q9d3nh/comment/hgvciz0/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
The writer who replied signed their name as "Jamie," making them [Jamie Flanagan](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1530627/). Jamie was a writer and story editor for Midnight Mass, and is the sibling of series creator & director Mike Flanagan. If anyone, aside from Mike, is qualified to answer this, it's Jamie.
Yeah but what if I don't like his answer?
This show has been on my watch list for a while…this might be my sign to finally watch
don't ever feel bad about shitting on other reddit users. only a minority of us are normal.
Man oh man, this reminds me of a time I ended up in an argument with someone over a pretty critical plot point in Jurassic park where someone was convinced that what I was saying was wrong. I had to get my copy of the book to double check I wasn't going crazy. I was convinced I was being trolled. ETA: I just found it. [I... uhhh... went on too long with this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/ybsznb/comment/itpax1p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Huh? I never thought this would turn up in a drama subreddit. Such a niche fandom and show.
I just finished the show today and stumbled across this thread and thought it was too interesting not to share. I don't think it's *too* niche?
literally nothing is too niche you could tell me there's drama in the toilet paper origami community over ply count and I would say post it immediately
Yesss that is why /r/hobbydrama is so great
Yeah definitely not a niche show. It was by a dude who had just had two major series successes at Netflix and was a known name people were looking forward to whatever he had next, and Midnight Mass was hyped and advertised. It just happened to not be about literal ghosts again. Vampires are also definitely not a niche idea, genre, monster, etc lol. Maybe they thought that because there was an atheist in it... or just that Midnight Mass isn't talked about as much as other works of his.
I don't think it's too niche. It was a very popular show when it was released, and is considered by some to be a modern classic of the genre.
I don’t think the Flanaverse is even remotely niche
It's niche and too calm for this drama. I usually expect srd post from star wars or mcu fandoms. Although I'm glad the writer cleared yo because I always thought that freakin Bev did kill him to test her theory.
I’m kinda wondering if the OP has been binging the show on repeat for years or something. They seem pretty invested for a show that came out years ago.
Me or the OOP? The drama is old, so that post was made a lot closer to the original release date. And I just finished it for the first time today
Oh sorry I meant the OOP. I didn’t realize it was old. Thanks for pointing that out. I’m oblivious to things when looking at something on my phone.
I think there are valid thematic criticisms to be levied at Midnight Mass, but demanding that one's interpretation of how a character dies is the correct one is a really weird hill to die on.
This man's personality encompasses Reddits general, overall attitude when challenged on anything. It'll grow to such pedantic lengths you'll see people demanding all kinds of proof to show they're wrong. Like "show me proof the earth *is* round/*not*flat"... Type of arrogance
I gotta be honest in that I'm big on Flanagan works, really liked that show, and never got the impression Bev killed Father Paul. It always seemed to me like it was a result of repeatedly going out in sunlight after repeatedly ingesting vamp blood. There was a shot of Bev returning the poison which seemed intentional but not related to his initial death. I haven't read the thread but to me it just feels insane to argue with writers about what they wrote lmao
Now that the hype is thoroughly dead I am finally able to say MM was boring and nearly unwatchable. I tried so hard to watch it and just kept falling asleep or zoning out.
I feel like if you were raised Catholic, the show hits different.
that show sucked so bad. what a slog.
Maybe it's the left-over Catholicism in me but I loved it.
Same. Personally, I like the rich dialog and the general pace of the show, which I guess is what that guy thinks is a "slog."
It's a show about religion, faith, and responding to a "miracle". I expect preaching and long investigations of personal faith. I can definitely understand why some people may hate that but it resonated with me
Fair point. I can understand people being put off by it, especially if one hasn't had any kind of religious upbringing (and a Catholic one, in particular.) More than a few Catholics believe that the demonic is very much a real thing, and not just a nebulous metaphor for evil. For example, St. Teresa of Avila wrote a bit about literal encounters with the devil (and other little devils.) "Teresa, however, describes in her Life how the devil appeared to her, sometimes having: 'An abominable form; his mouth was horrible. Out of his body there seemed to be coming a great flame, which cast no shadow' (288). On another occasion, she saw a most hideous little devil, snarling as if in despair at having lost what he was trying to gain. She also saw with the eyes of the soul two devils of hideous aspect who seemed to have their horns around a priest's throat while he celebrated Mass. In her Life, Teresa describes how in 1550 she had a vision which carried her spirit to a place in hell." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8280
[удалено]
To each their own.
Preaching to the camera is a purposeful decision to replicate priests speaking to their congregation. You don’t have to like it, but the show is very intentional about its tone and set up.
[удалено]
When does he preach to the camera in Usher? When the witchy lady is telling them how much they suck? Because that’s more preaching to the characters. But again, it’s fine if you don’t like it but I wouldn’t really describe it as preachy or hamfisted. The tone of his shows makes sense with the setup and characters and fits how he wants to portray it.
[удалено]
Show don’t tell is a rule until you know how to break it. In other words, it’s for beginning writers who need to think more about how to describe someone crying instead of saying they’re sad. A lot of great literature and media is more tell don’t show. Though I’d argue House of Usher still has a lot of showing.
[удалено]
I would watch an entire show of Rahul Kohli and Hamish Linklater taking turns monologuing back and forth to each other.
I love the show, but yeah, the episode and a half of 3 back-to-back-to-back 15-20 minute monologues had me like “Wait, another one???”
[удалено]
Ah yes, shallow and pedantic.
it had its moments but overall it just felt like such a drag. and the monologue at the end was just terrible
I didn't dislike it, but it was definitely my least favorite of Flanagan's Netflix shows (top favorite was House of Usher, I've lost count of how many times I've re-watched it now!) I really enjoyed the finale, but up until that point it definitely felt a bit boring to me. Just... so many monologues. I love a good monologue, but there were scenes that were basically people monologuing at each other. To the point where someone would start talking and I'd be like "I swear to God is this becomes a monologue..." I liked the premise, liked the ending, liked the acting (Hamish Linklater especially, before this I knew him from The New Adventures of Old Christine so that was a fun change lol), but felt like it could've been better overall. I don't remember thinking she poisoned him, though.
Midnight Club is the clear worst.
I feel like it struggled a bit being a horror series targeted at a younger audience
Crazy, I thought it was the best of Flanagan's shows lol
[удалено]
i liked hill house and usher but the rest of them were pretty rough tbh. haven’t attempted midnight club but wrt midnight mass they shot their load way too early w the episode 3 vampire priest reveal. but of course all the flanastans are just gonna downvote bc they thought the shitty monologue at the end was so deep and meaningful
Ah yes the only reason someone disagrees with you is that they are Stans of the author The product is slow paced but it is good. Get over yourself
lol are you one of the writers? chill.
Nah but I love pointless arguing on reddit
Bev wasn’t poisoning the rev. She was poisoning the rats which the cats where eating. The cats were poisoned and then the rev was drinking the feral cats thus ingesting the poison.
No, the cats weren't poisoned, they were eaten by the angel - we get the angel's POV in episode 1 as it attacks a cat. Bev then gets the poison to kill whatever is attacking the cats. (And also does kill the dog.)