Markup View

Author: crazysamaritan

May 30th 2014 at 3:44:58 AM

I'll handle this, since most of the wording you're objecting to is mine.

First, thanks for the video link.  While I did remember the events correctly, I didn't recall the names at all accurately.  The scene is ''not'' CensorDecoy.  Edward passed the test because he was the only recruit actually ''thinking'' before he fired.  The explanation is an example of the invoked version of this trope.  The same scene plays out, only instead of seeing what happened the first time, we see the "monsters" remaining still as Edward narrates his internal thoughts.

The same scene plays out differently than it did the last time, with a new perspective being shown.  Sometimes it is a camera angle, sometimes it is pacing, but '''we''' see something that wasn't there the first time.  '''We''' didn't see Edward's thoughts during the first time the scene played out (went from start to end).  The second time '''we''' see the scene, '''we''' learn something new: what Edward was thinking.

I've seen the mods explain the difference between authorial intent and first-person writing so I'm fairly sure I did that part correctly.

Now, the meat of the definition: you have correctly seen it, yet it isn't clear enough.  "Something else can be yet another something else.". Yes, "one scene can yet be a different scene".  The previous perspective (Edward and the recruits in a pop-up target range testing reflexes) we learn was actually (testing their ability to discriminate targets based on behaviour, not appearance).

With this explanation, do you have any advice?