What Cats Know: Story Notes · 8:39pm Dec 23rd, 2016
Writing story notes for this is tricky, because this is one of those stories where I feel like giving away any information at all will spoil the mystery and ruin the story. In fact, part of me thinks I should have left it at the first draft stage. But let me give it a shot.
This was originally intended to be ready for Halloween, but things got in the way. Releasing it on or about the Winter Solstice is also good.
That first scene, where Sweetie Belle describes going off to her grandparents for Hearth's Warming, and the death of her granny? That scene, including the cats, is autobiographical. That scene came first, and the entire rest of the story was an attempt to not let it down.
The worldbuilding bits committed by Twilight are from my notes for my Star Swirl the Bearded stories, here repurposed. The astronomical observatory scene is also inspired by a similar scene from Final Fantasy 7, which is another story heavily steeped in themes of loss and coping that appears, at first glance, to be something else entirely.
The line Twilight recites, "All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. Unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again", is from an ancient pony text commonly known as "The Teacher", which predates the Princesses, and which is commonly attributed to the ancient king Sorrowmane the Wise.
Cats are powerful symbols, and they must be handled with care. Cats ruled us all long before ponies did. "Curiosity killed the cat" was a line that did not make it into the story, which is a shame, because it's exactly the sort of thing Discord would say to Sweetie Belle. I have no doubt that my discussion of the mysterious and supernatural powers of cats is woefully incomplete, but it is a mystery after all.
(is that "negative story space"? Does the story include, or shall we say benefit from, all the things it does not include? I have had a couple glasses of wine this evening.)
There is a lot going on here, and it would be a disservice to the story for me to try to identify them all. Some would slip through the cracks.
I would end this with a piece of thematically appropriate music, but I don't have one available. Please leave any suggestions in the comments.
Thanks to everyone for reading 
maor cat pics >:(
I'll say that indeed, there are things untold that must be kept that way. I don't see how adding details about the mystery would improve your story, quite the contrary.
The only little thing that I found a bit disturbing is the frequent change of location and time. We jump from one place to another really often. It's a small detail and subjective.
Negative story space is something delightful. Yes, many people will miss it,[1] but all stories are not for all people.
I've always thought that the universe should run according to the laws of poetry rather than physics, but I am not, alas, in charge of such things.
----------
[1] Until it is pointed out to them, then they will not be able to un-see it... if it is done well.
4352591
Surely the laws of physics are the laws of poetry, just expressed in the language of mathematics?
Whatever rules it follows, the sense of mystery sustains this story. Both the Mystery of the Cats, and the mundane questions - Why is Sweetie Belle talking like that? Where is Rarity? That kept me reading.
This takes a more weary, more depressing turn when the rest of "Sorrowmane's" musings provide context:
"Vanities of vanities," says the Teacher;
Vanity of vanities, all is futility.
What profit has a man from all his labour
In which he toils under the sun?
One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
But the earth abides forever.
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
And hastens to the place where it arose.
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
<...>
All things are full of weary labour;
Man cannot express it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor the ear filled with hearing.
That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which it may be said,
"See, this is new"?
It has already been in ancient times before us.
There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.
This may be too sombre, but what about Death Zone by Apocalyptica? Somewhat fits with the brooding mood throughout the story
As for the end where Opal let Sweetie see Rarity for one last time, Hey Brother by Avicii came to mind:
Seems like a good song of remembrance for two sisters
♪ What if I'm far from home?
Oh brother, I will hear you call!
What if I lose it all?
Oh sister, I will help you hang on!
Oh, if the sky comes falling down, for you
There's nothing in this world I wouldn't do ♫
I didn't say this in the comments of the story itself, but about the only thing in your story that I wish was different was the small bit about "Cats own us"
I just really REALLY hate that phrase. It's fine in a joking sense, but in the sense of this story it's presented as fact. I just don't believe that.
When you have a cat, I don't feel they 'own you' yet at the same time I don't feel we own them either. We can be that cats human, but not in an ownership way.
It's a companionship. The cat has chosen to spend it's time with you. It's a gift yes, but it relies on you just as much as we rely on them. A two way street.
We need them for the company, love, and curiosity they provide, and in turn they need us for some of the similar things.
Of course this is just a personal pet peeve, and I didn't hold it against the story. I've just always been annoyed by the phrase, as I've had plenty of cats, and none of them have 'owned me' They constantly try to get into crap you have to prevent them from doing, and anyone who owns a cat knows one of the best things about them is to mess with them.
For example, this is something I did to mess with mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=typmQK_3Hs4
So yeah, I've just never seen how my cat is suppose to 'own me'. Hell I know she desires my company, because if she was asleep in my room and I went to go hang in the living room, she'd move to the living room just to be near me again. She does it all the time.
That aside I did like the story. Enough that I felt like putting that Last Unicorn quote in the comments. ^_^
Completely coincidentally, that was the music I was listening to while reading this story. It was quite fitting.
Oh, definitely. Going overboard on information here would hurt the sense of wonder driving the mystery, which is the story's strongest point- it would take the story from a foray into the Things Not Meant To Be Known to a plain old treatise on someone's ideas for some cool worldbuilding. The more knowledge Sweetie Belle is able to find, the less it would seem that this is actually something hidden to everyone, and right now the balance is golden. The same goes for the lack of information about how Rarity died.
I also very much like how the ending is presently open to interpretation, whether Sweetie really is being watched over by cats or if she's just projecting/imagining the final scene as part of a coping mechanism.
4353430 "Dogs have owners, cats have staff." And yeah as far as a cat is concerned, you belong to it and exist merely to serve it's needs.
Okay, just read the story yesterday, still need to comment but.... glad I read this, one little line here made the entire story snap into focus in a "how the hell did I not see that?" way, the bit about a story dealing with coping with loss. That... yeah how did I not... oh right i know how, I tend to be very, very literal, and have a really hard time seeing stuff like that in stories unless it is explicitly part of the narrative. Still.. that does put a lot of the story in perspective.
4352591 I am very, very much one of those who has a hard time seeing that kind of stuff. I take a very literal approach to things, and well, you've seen how I can analyze the buck out of what is in a story and overthink tiny details all day etc.... but have a hard time seeing what isn't there at times or making thematic leaps that aren't obvious and blatant.
Also... no, no.... let's keep it to laws that have firm, understandable sense to them. Or if we ARE going with that, at least just go full Discworld and make it all based on Narrativium.
4359507
This is the joke that everyone says about owning cats, and I'm sorry in my experience it's just not true. I realize it's a personal viewpoint/opinion, and I didn't hold it against the story, but nothing anyone says is going to change my mind on the matter again, given my own personal experience.
I'm having unreasonable difficulty in replying to comments on this story and blog
I guess it's the same difficulty as in writing it: it feels like anything I say is either pointless, or giving away too much information.
4352543 4352591 4352706 4354970
I'm glad it worked so well. At risk of sounding incredibly pretentious, I always thought this story wasn't so much a mystery as it was a story about mysteries themselves.
Well, a story about mystery, loss, and cats
4353430
I recently reread The Last Unicorn myself. That was indeed where the line came from.
4352872
It was an inconclusive, melancholy line for an inconclusive, melancholy lecture, yes.
Deathzone certainly has the loss part of the theme down, but it's lacking the mystery part. If I had a piece of music that hit both those two points, I could compromise on the cats
4359502
Well, I'm glad you liked it, and I'm glad the notes added something to your experience of the story.
Whereas I come from the world of English Lit studies, and eat thematic analysis for breakfast
4362834
Heh, ohhhhhh the fun times with that... well for everyone else in the class, since most of the time it just devolved into me and the teacher arguing with each other over which mattered more, the 'thematic" aspects, and "What the author was trying to say about society" and all that stuff about things which had nothing to actually do with the narrative itself. Or my point on... what matters is if the story is good. On the facts of the Narrative, on what is actually IN the story. Wish I knew more that I do now back then, just to have better ways to make my point. (And they knew it wasn't just some random person that didn't care about reading bitching, cause I was the class bookworm and everyone knew how much I read and loved reading.) And does not mean I do not analyze the fuck out of stories, or be able to pick them apart and study them. Hell, just look at the size and depth of my reviews and/or commentary. I LOVE doing that to stories, but focusing on the Narrative and the facts of the story.
I am very, very, incredibly much a Watsonian when it comes to looking at stories. Everything is viewed first and ultimately from the perspective of how things work, what they mean, and how they matter, solely within the confines of the story itself. Which is why, I think, this story really works for me despite being built on the idea of it being the theme and what things represent beyond themselves. it's all applied at the watsonian level, everything works as it's own self contained narrative, because this is about Sweetie exploring the concept herself, and everything in it is solid, fixed, facts. They aren't just metaphors for things. Yes you can analyze the hell out of what each of them stand for, but they are first and foremost ponies. People, characters, whatever word you wanna use. Everything has it's own solid, firm, internal logic and exist for reasons of their on in 'verse, not JUST to create things for the Doyalists to think about.
Really that aspect of the story.. I love, and is why I so praise the skill and how well crafted the story was, being able to be both such a wonderfully held together and self contained story, while also having so much meaning and context, and applicability outside of the Narrative, without either one suffering. My hold ups and what keeps me from just fully loving the story beyond appreciating the skill with which it was done, was more about the subject matter and what exactly was setting Sweetie off. The theme it was dealing with are.. ones I just... I tend to be a bit uncomfortable dealing with, and then add on well..... the big reveal and...... yeah...
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people who are reading a Story Notes blog to have read the story, or at least not care about spoilers. No need to worry about spoiling anything here.
4362877
Well, the story has to work within itself, of course. But I also happily accept that every story is a reflection of some part of the society in which it was created, and I study stories not just to learn about the story itself but also the world around it. If we can't do that then we're limiting the power of literature far more sharply than I am willing to allow
4362924
There are plenty of opportunities for analysis and interpretation left that nobody's commented about.
Oh, I'm not just thinking about spoilers
4362931 True, but at that point you are more getting into sociology or other related things. Yes stories can be a good way to learn about the cultures that created them, just like art, tools, architecture, pretty much anything. At least in a broad sense. But that has little bearing on the story in and of itself. The is merely using the story as a tool in a larger context.
My biggest issue with that whole, 'using the story to find out about the author' type stuff, and trying to find out what the 'author' truly means, is that the vast majority of the time, it comes off more like the person is simply using the story as a Rorschach test and seeing what they want to see. Case in point, all the Lit types that go on and on about how LOTR was really Tolkien making a WWII analogy, despite that is provably, and patently false on multiple levels. Also it's why I really do not like analogy. Claiming that something in a story is really this other thing outside to narrative.... Much preferring applicability, everything in the story is what it is and nothing else, however parts of that can be applied to other situations as well. it's also one of many many reasons I love this show, because it does try more often then not to craft it's lessons using applicability over allegory.
4363012
Quite often authors do want to communicate particular observations about the world around them through their work, even without going for full-on allegory. In my experience authors, even popular genre authors, are often a lot more thoughtful than their work than is immediately apparent in the text. And even the ones that didn't mean to do it on purpose often end up doing it anyway, simply by their choice of tools, themes, styles, and how they structure the story.
On the one hand, Lord of the Rings isn't an allegory, for either world war. On the other hand, Lord of the Rings is unquestionably a story informed by the author's perspective as a lover of rural England, his experiences fighting in World War 1 and seeing how that war decimated the country he loved, and his career studying and teaching Northern European languages and mythology. Those are all integral parts of Lord of the Rings, and the book cannot survive without them. You don't have to say that a text was allegory to say that the author was drawing inspiration from his own experiences and his own professional expertise, and was trying to communicate those experiences with the world through telling a story.
In general, for me, the great value of literature is exactly that it teaches us about the world we inhabit, and the people we share it with. That's why it's important. This is true both of humanity at large, and of particular parts of it in particular places and times.
4363034 Also true, authors lives will influence the story. But that is meaningless when it comes to looking at the story itself. All that matters for the Narrative, is the Narrative, the facts of the story as they are written. The rest, it's interesting trivia, but only really useful for trying to look at the author him/herself, or gain better understanding of 'why' things are like they are in the story at the Doyalist level. none of that matters on the Watsonian level, and that is all one can truly say IS inherently and truly part of the story, are the solid, unquestionable, provable facts of the story.
All the rest, all the things it says about the world, all the meaning outside of itself, that is only imprinted on the story by those reading it. Comes from how they apply the facts of the story to their own experances, and as such, is not inherent to the story. The goal for the author, in that case, is to write a story that is solid in and of itself, and crafted such that a majority of those they are writing for will get the ideas and the meaning they intend. But what is intended to be there, matter far less then what is really there, what 'is' not what was meant to be.
Granted In all the talks I've had on this topic, also made rather clear a good portion of my POV on these things is due to being a nuclear technician rather then anything having to do with art of literature, and just having an overall scientific, logical, rational preference.
4363115
I'm sorry, but that sounds akin to declaring that the only part of "food" that matters is nutritional content - that any consideration of ingredients, taste, presentation, or type of cooking has no part of the experience because it doesn't change the facts of what your bloodstream absorbs.
Like I said, literature is a whole lot more powerful than that. It can do many things. The text can gain power from everything that is not in it. In fact it must, because the world outside the text is where all its power comes from: without an outside world to relate to, and readers to read it, the text doesn't exist.
4363115
Well, one of the last things I did in 2016 was start arguing with a reader, and as any sensible author will tell you, nothing good can come of that. So I'm gonna say thanks for the discussion, and no personal animosity, and wish you a happy new year.
4363137 No, it's more like saying that where the chef went to school, what his preferred cooking style, his views on vegetarians etc... have no bearing on the food beyond what ends up on your plate. All you listed are parts of the food, just as what I am talking about are parts of the story. And yes, it does exist without a reader, granted that gets into the whole metaphysical "Does that exist which is not observed" deal, but discounting Quantum, yes the story exists no matter what, if I can point to the words on the page that make the story, it exists no matter if it is read or not. Which is where the disconnect comes in, since I can only hold that which I can objectively measure, observe, and prove to be real as being intrinsically 'existing' which in this case is the words on the page. All else, that does not actually exist as an innate part of the narrative, as it can not be objectively proven to be there.
My view is, more a difference instead of saying "The story means X" where as to me, the proper way to express it is "This story means X to me" seeing what is innate to the narrative, and what requires your own input and hence cannot be part of the facts.
And, really didn't see this as an 'argument' just a friendly, and rather fun, discussion, but have fun and happy new year.
4363229
I stand by my comparison. You say you're focusing on the "objective facts" of the text. But what you are doing is still reading and interpreting, and the result you get only exists in your interpretation, which is the only way a text ever lives - and as such it is no more solid than what every other reader is doing. But you have singled out a lone aspect of literature as the only part that counts, and have cut away the other 90% of what literature can do for you. Those other things still exist, they are no less valid, and I promise you that authors are well aware of them and consciously use them to add more dimensions to their texts. Literature is a lot more complex, and more powerful, than you're giving it credit for.
Happy new year.
4363280 Just to clarify, I am not saying none of that matters. I'm merely saying you need to keep in mind the difference between what is actually and objectively part of a story, the raw, objective facts of who said what, did what, what events happened, etc... the raw data, and what is merely your own view on what that data means. That what is innate to a story is merely those facts, the meaning of those facts is imparted on it by the reader. And adding in a liberal dose of "Death of the Author" in that nothing of the Author him or herself matters, only what is in the story. That everything derived from the story comes from those facts.
4363340
I understand what you're saying, and I'm saying that it doesn't work that way. Look, let me try to put it all in one place, rather than piecemeal...
First of all: What culture, what time and place a text was created in, and what people in that culture believed and worried about and might have been inspired to write about? Those are all objective facts of the text, as much as anything. If you want to understand a text, you can't ignore that. Tolkien without European and English history is not Tolkien.
Secondly, in the strictest sense words themselves are not raw objective data. Words are a lot more subjective than at first they appear. People can read the same words and disagree completely about what they describe. The same words can mean completely different things depending on who says them, and when, and where, and how and why. Language is fluid, and is always evolving. Even beyond their strict meaning, words have different connotations and associations that give them great flexibility, and their meanings change over time. Words are imperfect cultural constructs that struggle valiantly to convey meaning, but often fail.
So in order to understand the words more fully, you have to look at the world around the words.
Point three: Readers outrank the text. If a text isn't read, it's dead. What words it contains means nothing, if those words aren't read. What message it has to convey means nothing if it can't convey it. The only way to get at the contents of a text is by reading it. Reading and interpretation is the only way a literary text can exist as a literary text, rather than as a lump of physical matter with no literary content. So dismissing something as merely being the reader's view on a text is meaningless, because the reader's view is literally where 100% of the meaning of the text exists. Reading and interpretation is the only thing that makes literature work.
For all the importance you're giving to objective facts, the fact is that when you read a text you're doing exactly what every other reader is doing: you're seeing what the text says, and deciding what that means to you based on your knowledge, your values, and your understanding of the world. That is what interpretation is. So your reading is also an interpretation, not the objective truth of the text.
(And a good thing it is too, because the interpretation is a lot more interesting and has a lot more to teach us.)
Even on the most basic level of picking up a text and looking at the first page, your understanding of what it says comes entirely from your knowledge of the language it is written in. That's cultural knowledge that comes to you from outside the text rather than inside it, with all the cultural and social baggage that implies. And without that outside knowledge the text is literally meaningless.
To put it more succinctly: You are already using shifty subjective cultural knowledge to understand texts, not solid objective knowledge. It can't be avoided, even on the most fundamental level, and it only rises to become more complex from there. Understanding texts better requires you to acknowledge and follow along with that, rather than denying it.
I think that's everything... Well, no, actually I don't, but I think that's a good starting point. Either you find some of this interesting enough to consider other ways of looking at texts, or you don't, but I don't think I have more to say on this topic for now.
Have a nice day. Or, more likely, depending on where you are, a good night.
4364208 Well could go on, and give a response to most of that. it's not wholly wrong and has some good points. But not really right from how I look at things either. But, guessing it's getting a bit repetitive and should just let it rest.
Core issue is simply us having difference schools of thought when it comes to what matters about stories most. I agree they have a great deal of power, of weight, out main issue is in where that power comes from. The Reader, or the Text. And I really did enjoy the discussion overall. Though I was a bit... annoyed.. at claiming I'm missing out through my PoV when I most certainly am not (Seriously just look at the reviews/commentary I do... I analyze the BUCK out of these things.)
But rather then long walls o text, just put some links to better explain the issue. We are both just using different (and somewhat mutually exclusive) schools of analysis when it comes stories.
You appear to subscribe to something roughly comparable to Reader Response Criticism
While I hew closer to the New Criticism model.
Which is.. kind of either ironic or fitting, given Reader Response came about as a sort of backlash agsint the New Criticism model.
4364864
That's a shame, but I agree that this doesn't seem to be very useful to either of us.
While I'm sure you didn't intend it, I got a bit annoyed myself by your early posts. All that stuff you dismissed with scare quotes, saying it "had nothing to actually do with the narrative itself" are exactly those things I think add a great deal to my stories. Things I consider very deeply when I'm writing a story, and which takes a lot of work to get right. And I can promise you I'm not the only writer who does so.
Yes, we have different schools of interpretation. Mine says there are a lot of important things you're leaving out. Yours says a lot of what I do doesn't matter. It's probably unavoidable that the argument would be insulting to both sides. Maybe I shouldn't have answered in the first place, on the principle that arguing with a reader is never a good idea. But, that would be its own kind of insult too.
Well, I hope this hasn't ruined your day.
4364963
Not at all, I really enjoyed it. And it wasn't really 'arguing with a reader' as we weren't talking about one of your stories, so this wasn't an 'Author versus reader' type deal where you were trying to explain or defend some aspect of the work. More just two lovers of stories discussing how they prefer to look at them.
Now just wait till I finally get around to clearing stuff off my "read later list' and get to the ones of yours I've already got on it. So much feedback. :
Did Rarity die of "old age," or did she die relatively young?
5153363
She died young.
Sounds plausible. Rarity is essentially an elegant swashbuckler who lives a dangerous life, even though she lives it fashionably. This is even consistent with the implied timeline of the series finale, because when we see her she's probably only in her late 30s to mid-40s by human standards. She is after all, in something like her late teens to mid-twenties during the main run of the show.
Whether or not she and Spike became spouses or lovers at any point, Rarity's death would be a very sad thing for him, because she was probably his best friend. Aside from Twilight herself, who is more like an older sister.