While you could use the word "earned", I think a better one is "predicted", or even "earning", present-tense.

A subversion is nonetheless a part of the literary experience, and subject to the same rules. Part of those rules is foreshadowing. Chekov's Gun.

Chekov's Gun being actively set up and pointed out but not firing isn't subversion, it is poor writing. The reverse, firing a gun that had no precedent for existing, is also not subversion, just poor writing. One wastes the audience's time, the other wastes their suspension of disbelief.

But TVTropes aside, in a proper subversion you don't highlight and point out the gun on the mantle. In the original ur-example, for a subversion Gun it would be merely there as part of the scene-setting. The gun being shot in what was prior a mostly peaceful, or at the very least non-lethal, production (and thus subverting our expectations) isn't "earned", it was just stuck there by the props department an hour before curtain rise. But on a re-watch, everyone knows it was there from act-1, they note the character always sits closest to the mantle for access to it at any time, etc.

The subversion doesn't really become earned. It exists to give rewatching the media new meaning and new insight, new entertainment. If anything, its job is the earning component, not the earned one.

Fruit of Grisaia makes a good example: The common route prior to the per-character story split should be played twice: Once at first for obvious reasons, and again once every character's twists/subversions are revealed. Three character stories are exactly as they should be, standard foreshadowings and predictions. Two are hard subversions, and significantly change the atmosphere and context of many actions they take prior to the reveal. Their story still made sense prior, and if they played it straight, it would have been a fine story, but the subversion changes the tone of many early scenes, and gives new enjoyment to treading old ground.

Game Of Thrones provides an excellent anti-example: "Whamen stronk beat winter king hah no Snow prophecy 4 u" doesn't change the prior viewing experience. We don't see Arya in a new light in old episodes. We don't look at her actions, words, or development and go "ah, well that now feels new and different knowing the future". To the contrary, it actually DETRACTS from scenes earlier on, because time spent foreshadowing the "subverted" result feels like a complete waste, skippable. It makes the media LESS re-watchable.

While you could use the word "earned", I think a better one is "predicted".

A subversion is nonetheless a part of the literary experience, and subject to the same rules. Part of those rules is foreshadowing. Chekov's Gun.

Chekov's Gun being actively set up and pointed out but not firing isn't subversion, it is poor writing. The reverse, firing a gun that had no precedent for existing, is also not subversion, just poor writing. One wastes the audience's time, the other wastes their suspension of disbelief.

But TVTropes aside, in a proper subversion you don't highlight and point out the gun on the mantle. In the original ur-example, for a subversion Gun it would be merely there as part of the scene-setting. The gun being shot in what was prior a mostly peaceful, or at the very least non-lethal, production (and thus subverting our expectations) isn't "earned", it was just stuck there by the props department an hour before curtain rise. But on a re-watch, everyone knows it was there from act-1, they note the character always sits closest to the mantle for access to it at any time, etc.

The subversion doesn't really become earned. It exists to give rewatching the media new meaning and new insight, new entertainment. If anything, its job is the earning component, not the earned one.

Fruit of Grisaia makes a good example: The common route prior to the per-character story split should be played twice: Once at first for obvious reasons, and again once every character's twists/subversions are revealed. Three character stories are exactly as they should be, standard foreshadowings and predictions. Two are hard subversions, and significantly change the atmosphere and context of many actions they take prior to the reveal. Their story still made sense prior, and if they played it straight, it would have been a fine story, but the subversion changes the tone of many early scenes, and gives new enjoyment to treading old ground.

Game Of Thrones provides an excellent anti-example: "Whamen stronk beat winter king hah no Snow prophecy 4 u" doesn't change the prior viewing experience. We don't see Arya in a new light in old episodes. We don't look at her actions, words, or development and go "ah, well that now feels new and different knowing the future". To the contrary, it actually DETRACTS from scenes earlier on, because time spent foreshadowing the "subverted" result feels like a complete waste, skippable. It makes the media LESS re-watchable.

While you could use the word "earned", I think a better one is "predicted".

A subversion is nonetheless a part of the literary experience, and subject to the same rules. Part of those rules is foreshadowing. Chekov's Gun.

Chekov's Gun being actively set up and pointed out but not firing isn't subversion, it is poor writing. The reverse, firing a gun that had no precedent for existing, is also not subversion, just poor writing. One wastes the audience's time, the other wastes their suspension of disbelief.

But TVTropes aside, in a proper subversion you don't highlight and point out the gun on the mantle. In the original ur-example, for a subversion Gun it would be merely there as part of the scene-setting. The gun being shot in what was prior a mostly peaceful, or at the very least non-lethal, production (and thus subverting our expectations) isn't "earned", it was just stuck there by the props department an hour before curtain rise. But on a re-watch, everyone knows it was there from act-1, they note the character always sits closest to the mantle for access to it at any time, etc.

The subversion doesn't really become earned. It exists to give rewatching the media new meaning and new insight, new entertainment. If anything, its job is the earning component, not the earned one.

Fruit of Grisaia makes a good example: The common route prior to the per-character story split should be played twice: Once at first for obvious reasons, and again once every character's twists/subversions are revealed. Three character stories are exactly as they should be, standard foreshadowings and predictions. Two are hard subversions, and significantly change the atmosphere and context of many actions they take prior to the reveal. Their story still made sense prior, and if they played it straight, it would have been a fine story, but the subversion changes the tone of many early scenes, and gives new enjoyment to treading old ground.